IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) "^ 1.0 I.I m 1^ '.^ 11112 «« la IM 2,2 II 2.0 1.8 1.25 |"I4 11^ — 1.6 M 6" ► ■7] m dm ^y ^;. '/ /A Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY. 14580 (716) 672-4503 4yt:% ^^ >»'" CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICIVIH Coiiection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 1980 Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which mav significantly change the usual method of filminj, are checked below. I I Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur Covers damaged/ Co'jverture endommagee ers restored and/or lai verture restaur^e et/ou pellicul^e er title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes g^ographiques en couleur other than blue i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) )d/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Reli^ avec d'autres documents I I Covers damaged/ □ Covers restored and/or laminated/ Cou I I Cover title missing/ I I Coloured maps/ nColourea ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ I I Bound with other material/ D D D Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior marqin/ La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int^rieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutSes lors dune restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 film^es. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl^mentaires; L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a dt6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sent peut-Stre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la m6thode normale de filmage sont iiidiqu6s ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommag^es Pages restored and/oi Pages restaur^es et/ou pellicul^es I I Pages damaged/ I I Pages restored and/or laminated/ r~n Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ LlJ Pages d6color6es, tachet^es ou piquees I I Pages detached/ . 1 Pages detachees nShowthrough/ Tkansparence □ Quality of print varies/ Quality in6gale de I'impression □ Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel supplementaire □ Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible D Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 film^es d nouveau de facon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiqu^ ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 12X 16X 20X 26X SOX 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Izaak Walton Killam Memorial Library Dalhousie University L'exemplaire filmd fut reproduit grdce d la g6n6rosit6 de: Izaak Walton Killam Memorial Library Dalhousie University The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning op the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded fra>r. each microfiche shall contain the symbol — ♦- (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettetd de l'exemplaire filmd, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimde sont filmds en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont film6s en commenpant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole -^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to b'j entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent §tre filmds d des taux de reduction diff^rents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul cliche, il est filmd d partir de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, da gauche d droite, et de haut er bas, en prenant le nombre d'images n6cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. ; 1^ 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 ^^ij^SK^mmm'^f^ »•;,: I; ■ '-*•■- ,- -/-ti.-^ . <:^. r I ■ A SERMON Preached in Fort Massey Presbyterian Church, Halifax, N. S,., on Sabbath Evening, 25th Nov., 1883, BY THE Rev. ROBERT FERRIER BURNS, a d. TOGETHER WITH THE "C" CORRESPONDENCE. ( Published by request.) HALIFAX, N. S. : PRINTED BY \VILLIAM MACNAB, 12 I'RINCE STREET. 1884. ! ^^'^)^'''^)(^'<^(^^'*^)(^''^Q)^'''^)(^''^^ jMiliiij .^iiiDipwiwiwir t i ;i |}«4^tla ^mfm^n i^%mkt\. t A SERMON Preached in Fort Massey Presbyterian Church, Halifax, N. S., Sabbath Evening, 23th Nov., i88j, on BY THE Rev. ROBERT FERRIER BURNS, d. d. TOGETHER WITH ;i THE "C" CORRESPONDENCE. (Published by request. ) HALIFAX, N. S. : PRINTED BY WILLIAM MACNAB, 12 PRINCE STREET. 1884, PREFACE. On the loth November last, a "Mission" was inaiigu rated in several of the Episco|)alian Churches of Halifax, which lasted for ten days, and to which, by bills, circulars, tracts and advertisements, all were urgently invited. On Wednes- day evening, the 14th November, at the Cathedral Cluirch of St. Luke's, the chief of the Missioners came out with views on the subject of Confession and Ab- solution, which it was the immediate object of the accompanying discourse to combat. Referring to vhe subject, the Chronicle of Monday, the 26th November, says : — " In a numlier of the city churches, yesterday, considerable attention was paid by tlie occujiaiUs of tht: pulpits lu llic preachings of those cunducliiig the Church of England Mission, which closed here this week. In several, the discourses were chiefly devoted to the subject, and those who had announced such as their inten- tion, were listened to by large congregations. In St, Taul's Church in the morn- ing, the rector. Rev. Dr. Hill, spoke at considerable length, expressing the same opinions in opjJC'sition to the character of the Mission he has jireviously been un- derstood to entertain, and arguing more fuily in support of the stand he has taken. In the evening, Re; Mr. Sampson, of Trinity, went as fully into the suiiject, his views agreeing in the main with those pronounced by the Rector of St. I'aul's. His Lordship the Bishop, in his sermon in IJishop's Chapel, referred to the Mis- sion and the good he expected would be the outcome, but no allusion was made to the present controversy. At Fort Massey Presbyterian, Brunswick St. Methodist, Po})lar (jrove Presbyterian and the Universalist churches, their respective pastors all spoke of the Mission, Rev. Dr. Burns paying particular attention to it. At Ch.ilmevs' church, Rev. Prof. Forrest preached a sermon containing expressions of opinion somewhat similar to those pronounced by Rev. Dr. Burns and Rev. Mr. Simpson. It may serve to indicate the interest taken in the theological (juestions which are being discussed in the community, that at the delivery ol Dr. Burns' discourse. Fort Massey Presbyterian church was packed to the door.s. The body of the church, the gallery, the aisles, the vestibule, the stairs being crammed with a dense mass of people till at length the doors had to be closed and many had to go away without gaining admission." The sermon was written in the ordinary coui^se of pulpit preparation, and not with any view to publication. It is now published by special request. The "C" correspondence grew out of the report given of this sermon. The jireacher would not have noticed an anonymous correspondent, but for ther fact that his letters appeared simultaneously in the two morning and evening jour- nals of the city, and were generally considered to have emanated from the highest Roman Catholic ecclesiastical authority in the Maritime Provinces. The tirst Reply was in the form of an appendix to a lecture on Apostolic Succession, delivered in Fort Massey church on Monday evening, December 3. The second Reply was given as a distinct Lecture on Friday evening, 21st Deceml)cr. These, together with the letter. No. 3, of December 29, which closed the correspond- ence, appeared contemporaneously also in the same papers. Several other letters appeared anonymously, — six- from a single pen, — but they made no points of any consequence which are not fully met in the Sermon and m the Replies to "C." II'I I H I IW I IWI II . I IM1 SERMON. Matthew IX. 3.— "This man blasphemeth." This was spoken by the Scribes with reference to the action of Jesus, in the case of t'le palsied man who was let down through the roof on a mattress and laid at his feet. The cures of the Great Physician were not skin deep. He probed his patients with keen lancet. He went to the root of the matter. . Knowing the close con- nexion between sickness and sin, aware perhaps, too, that this suf- ferer's trouble was the result of liinful indulgence in some form, — Christ does for him exceedingly abundantly, above what he had asked or thought — He bestows the moral before the physical cure. " He said to the sick of the palsy, son, be of good cheer, thy sins be forgiven thee." The Scribes, th^ recognized writers and ex- pounders of the Levitical Law, who ranked among the sharpest critics of Christ, now appear for the first time, finding fault with him for presuming to grant absolution to this poor man. With all their errors, they were orthodox enough to know that the pardoning power was Divine, and that it was blasphemy for any mere man to assume it. Jesus stood no higher in their esteem. From their standpoint, therefore, the judgment pronounced by them, in my text, was natural and necessary. " They said within themselves" — whisper- ing it to one another in an undertone — '■This man blasphemeth.'' " The Evangelist, Mark, in his version of the scene, goes more into detail, giving us the substance of their whisperings. " There were certain of the Scribes, sitting there and reasoning -in their hearts — ' Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies ? Who can forgive sins but Ood only?'" Jesus endorses the correctness of their inference. He thoroughly coincides with the view that none can forgive sins but '^ ~ \ only, — and proceeds to perform the cure on the body, to show I t he had a right to heal the malady of the soul. The miracle so readily wrought in his own name, and without any reference to a higher power, was designed to prove that though found in fashion as a man, he thought it "no robbery," no usurpation of what did not rightfully belong to him, to be equal with God. It was the habit of Christ to appeal to His miracles in support of the Divinity of His Person and Mission. Thus in that remarkable scene in John x., when His enemies took up stones to stone Him lor asserting His true and proper Deity in these terms, — " I and my Father arc one," — terms so plain and positive as not to admit of c>ny other construction, — they came out with this vindication of their course, "For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy and because, that thou, being a man, makest thyself Ood." To prove that He was right, "though a man, in making himself God,'' Jesus re|)lies by a|)pcaling to His miracles as mirroring the glory, and needing, in order to their performance, the great power of God, " If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not, but if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the IVorks" &c. Hence His action in the present case. Christ deemed the spiritual cure which is \\Tought in the forgiveness of this man's sins far greater than the healing of his body. 15ut, in great condescension to their weakness and perversity, he would establish his right to do the fornier by doing the latter. He puts it to them, " whether is easier to say, thy sins be forgiven thee; or to sav, arise and walk— but that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins — (then saith He to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed and go unto thine house." B\- the immediate working of so great a wonder, through the out l)utting of His own inherent agency^ does He prove His supreme Divinity, and, consequently, that He and He only had the right on earth to exercise the prerogative of Jehovah, who hath said : " I, ei'en I am He that blotteth out thy fraiisi:;ressio}is for mine oivn sake." Anart, he would not remain within its pale one hour, and would spurn it frcjm him, Init he knew it was the teaching of the Church by its canons, and he came to declare the whole counsel of God." "Christ gave the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven to his Disciples. Through those ' keys' alone was there .access to God. " Men must use tiie things provided. Vou caji be forgiven by the power of tiie keys on earth. I believe tliat God has ^.ven me the right to absolve. I would say to every sinner that I have power to forgive sins, and if he earnestly seeks it, I will alisolve him. It makes me burn with indignation when I think that some of the ministers of the Church of England ignore the confession. God has com- mandetl me to absolve the sins of seekers. I have authority to forgive sins by the commission of n.y church, and by the authority of Him whose I am." I think I hear some of you by this time exclaiming, and with a reason the scribes had not, " this man blasphemeth." None of the ecclesiastical dignitaries present said aught against it, though a good many earnest jjcople came away with sorrowful hearts, feeling " we have heard strange things to-day." We felt sorry, too, for, as belonging to a sister Protestant church, • we have "part and lot in this matter," but we were not surprised. It is only what we expected, and what- we foreshadowed last Sabbath week, though the revelation came sooner than we anticipated. These s views are not new. They form part of the leaven of the Pharisees, 'and the "mystery of iniquity which did already work," even in primitive times, which have all along seduced not a few from the simplicity that is in Christ — which received a check and quietus at the glorious Reformation, but which in these last days have been reproduced in jthe well-known " Tracts for the Times," which gave its name to the Tractarian movement. Dr. Pusey, its best known exponent, from whom Cardinals Manning and Newman received their Romeward impulse, uses language not unlike that with which, of late, our ears have become familiar. In his sermon on the entire Absolution of the j Penitent, we find such sayings as these : "Consciences are burdened, — There is a provision on the part of Cod, in his church, to relieve i them ;" "Our J.ord hath left others with his authority to convey to < sinners, in His name, the forgiveness of their sins ;" " The possession j of the Key opens at once to us what, without it, would have been hidden from us." " Grievous sins after baptism, are remitted by Absolution. By Absolution pardon is given, life is renewed." ; "Confe.ision is of excellent use — the channel of Cod's grace to the soul ; it quenches the fires of Hell." — I'ref. in, p. p. i8, i6, 25-6, 39. In the Dix Catechism, too, which is said to be used in certain Episcopal Sabbath-schools of our city, we find the following :— " By whom is Cod pleased to forgive sins in the Church?" Ans. " By the Priests of the Church." " When did God give the Christian Priesthood authority to forgive sins in His Name?" Ans. "When Jesus breathed on His Disciples and said: ' Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained.'" " \Vhich is the greater presumption, to claim to absolve sinners in (lod's name, or to refuse to do so ?" Ans. " To refuse : for that would be to declare some of Christ's own words unnecessary and un- meanuig. " What is absolution ?" Ans. A means whereby the sins we com- mit after baptism are put away." — (P. p. 33 and 35.) Then at page 54 : " By whom must absolution be administered ?" Ans. By a Bishop or Priest." All this sounds not unlike what we read in the leading standards , of the Church of Rome. Thus, for example, in the catechism of the Council of Trent, (Page 271) we r-^ad of "Ciod in His admirable ' wisdom, giving to the Church the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and of our sins being forgiven (if you come to the triliunal of penance) : by .he Minister of religion, through the power of the keys." The Decree of the Council of Trent, (Session XIV) which, together with. the creed of Pius IV., forms Rome's principal confession of Faith, ^ runs thus : — " AVhosoever shall deny that Sacramental Confession was ; instituted by Divine command, or that it is necessary to salvation, or shall affirm that the practice of secretly confessing to the Priest alone, as it has been ever observed from the beginning by the Catholic ; Church, and is still observed, is foreign to the institution and com- mand of Christ, and is a human invention, lei him he accursed^ Leaving out the Anathema at the close, (the common ending of all the Tridentine Decrees) and you find very little difference between the Roman and the Anglo-Catholic utterances. These two agree in \ icir Homeward f late, our ears bsolution of the s are burdened, lurch, to relieve ty to convey to 'The possession ould have been are remitted by fe is renewed." id's grace to the 18, 16, 25-6, 39. used in certain lowing :~ rch?" Ans. "By thority to forgive n His Disciples ^^er sins ye remit e retain, they are :)solve sinners in refuse : for that ecessary and un- the sins we com- N.ns. By a Bishop eading standards catechism of the in His admirable ;dom of Heaven, )unal of penance) the keys." The ich, together with nfession of Faith, al Confession was ry to salvation, or the Priest alone, g by the Catholic ititution and com- [?e acrurifd.'" mon ending of all ifference between lese two agree in one. ]>e it rememi)ered too, that the form of Romish Absolution is not " May Ciod absolve thee !" or *' May Christ absolve thee !" but '■'■ I absohi-c thee." The penitent, kneeling, makes confession in detail, being subjected to diverse ([uestionings, terminating with this " For these .;nd all other my sins, which I cannot at the present call to my renii ui'irance, I am heartily sorry, purpose amendment for the future, and most humbly ask pardon of dod, and penance and absolution of you, my ghostly Father." 'I'hen the Priest replies: '■^ I absolve thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Clhost." Wherein is this so-called Priest of a professedly I'rotestant Episc^Dpal Church different, when he says, in words whose correctness he has virtually acknowledged : " I believe that Cod has given me the right to absolve. I would say to every sinner that I have power to forgive sins, and if he earnestly seeks it, I will absolve him. You can be forgiven by the power of the keys on earth." Have we any right to "bept h.im openly," "who is a Roman," and taunt him with blas])hemy, and not also say of this Anglo-Catholic, who has been pn\aching among us another Cospel than that ye have received, "This man blasphemeth." Let us now notice the passages from Scripture which are commonly adduced in support of this assumption. I. As so much has been made by our Oxford disciple and his Trent masters of the power of the Keys, we may take, first, the pas- sage wliere the 'Keys' are spoken of. You will find it in Mat. XVI, 19: "I will give unto thee tiie keys of the Kingdom of Heav;. m." To whom were these words addressed by our Saviour ? To Peter. There is no reference to any other — not a hint that the power thus vested in him was to reach any further. Peter had just given a strik- ing ttjstimony in his Master's favour ; that Master tells him that on the rock ofthat testimony, which is equivalent to Himself— "the tried stone, the precious cornerstone, the sure foundation," — He would build His Church the "House of Cod, which is the Church of the livmg Cod against which the gates of hell would never prevail." In recognition of his faithful witness-bearing, there was conferred on him the peculiar honour of throwing open this House to the world in its two great divisio)\s. As Columbus was privileged to throw open a new world, and appeared on the stage of civil history, metaphorically, with the keys of a continent hanging from his belt, so, in sacred history, is Peter presented with the keys of a grander kingdom in his hands. He used one key. on Pentecost in opening the door of tiie spiritual house for the admission of his own Jewish fellow-countrymen, and another key afterwards in the house of Cornelius to open "the door of faith unto the Centiles," removing the locks debarring their en- trance which Jewish rites and ceremonies had fastened. What " a power of the keys" when in a moment three thousand hearts were simultaneously opened, and thereafter 5,000, besides women and children, pressed into the kingdom ; and afterwards, too, when among 8 his own people, at the first Jerusalem Synod, Peter rose up and said unto them (Acts 15 / 7) : " Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago, God made choice among us, that the Gentiles, by my mouth should hear the word of the Gospel and believe." What an utter wresting of this Scripture, bearing on the Keys is the recent teaching which oracularly declares, " Through those Keys alone (as held by a so-called 'Priest') was there access to God. Suppose the rector of St. Luke's would hand the keys of the church to several young men and tell them they alone should admit persons into the church, and then some person, ignoring those who held the keys, would go to the rector and ask to be admitted, he would not allow such person to enter, but would refer hun to the holders of the keys, /jy rc'/iom alone entry should be obtained." This would seem (if lang- uage has any mea'-ing) to shut us all out who go not to these so-called Priests. It sounds very different from the words of the great High Priest ofour profession, Jesus Christ, when he says ; "I am the Door, by me if any man enter in he shall be saved." — "I am the way; no m.an cometh unto the Father but by me." It sounds very like the words in the great authoritative Catechism of Trent (pt. 2, c. 5 — ^57): " No one is admitted into Heaven, unless the doors be opened by the Priests, to whose care God hath committed the keys." There is not the shadow of a proof that this power of the Kej's which belonged to Peter, and which was manifestly not transferable or transmissible, had anything whatever to do with the forgiveness of sins. As a matter of fact we never read of his (Peter's) ever having claimed or exercised such a power. On the contrary, when on a memorable occasion he was urged to do so, he positively declined. When Simon Magus, the sorcerer, committed the great sin which has imprinted an indelible stir,ma on his name, a sin committed after his being baptized on orofession of his faith, he, dreading the conse- quence of his sin, earnestly besought Peter to pray for him. " Pray ye to the Lord for me," is his earnest cry. Peter will not act as father confessor or absolver — not even as intercessor. He throws the resjDonsibility on himself Every man must bear his own burden ; even he who is counted by his admirers chief of the apostles, first and foremost of priests, will assume no such responsibility. Realizing to the full "'who can forgive sins but God only" — He repudiates the very idea — he cannot confess or absolve him — the very thought was blasphemy. Yet not shutting the door of Hope, even in the face of such an one, Peter says " Pray God, if perhaps the thought of thy heart may be forgiven thee." If Peter could and would not act the part of confessor, in a case where his interposition might have been of service to the infant cause, who else can have the right ? The very thought of such foolishness is sin, and may fittingly lead us to say of anyone, however prominent in the church, harbouring such a thought and giving practical expression to it " this man blas- phemeth." I '! up and said V how that a Gentiles, by id believe." Keys is the ; Keys alone Suppose the :h to several sons into the Id the keys, lid not allow of the keys, eem (if lang- lese so-called It High Priest Door, by me ray ; no man ke the words c. 5-^57): e opened by , >? of the Keys : transferable "orgiveness of ) ever having L', when on a -ly declined, sin which has itted after his g the conse- iiim. " Pray ill not act as -le throws the own burden; apostles, first y. Realizing ^pvidiates the ,• thought was n the face of lought of thy d not act the night have vc the right? tingly lead us )ouring such IS man blas- 2. In Mat. 1 6, 19, Jesus goes on to say " WTiatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in Heaven." This is repealed in the 1 8th verse of the i8th chapter: — "Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in Heaven." On these two passages we would remark : — First, that the duty or privilege of binding or loosing [terms we shall afterwards explain], is not spoken of as belonging to ministers, misnamed priests, in particular. The first passage confines it exclu- sively to Peter, who is there specially addressed. That, at any rate can have no force now ; and if it did refer to the forgiving of sins- (which we are prepared to show it did not) it is somewhat strang( that we never read of Peter using this power, though he did othe; wonderful things, but, on the contrary, refusing when asked. The second passage extends the privilege further. It says, '■'■■ivhat soever lyi",''— doubtless the "Disciples" spoken of in the ist verse which docs not necessarily limit it to the twelve Apostles. We reac" in one place of seventy " disciples" being sent forth. In another o Christ being ;:een after his resurrection, of five hundred "disciples" a once. Verse 17, the one immediately prf-reding that we are consider ing, speaks of "///<; Church'^ as the ultimate point of appeal in the. ■ settlement of a case of discipline. "Tell it unto the Church.'''' Ane . what is the Church? The Disciples of verse i, the "little ones that f believe in me " of verse 6, " The whole body of the faithful." Ecdesia^ \ "The collective company of those called out from the world and scjiar- I ated unto the Gospel of God." These constitute the "Ye" addr;jssed i in the 1 8th verse, — The learners, the "litdeones" in age and attainment, ; " Babes in Christ " as well as the Apostles. Notice secondly, that in \ both passages it is not " whosoever " that is used, as if it referred to j persons, but " whatsoever,^'' showing that it refers to thitigs. IVIiatso- i(?7-'^;- ye shall bind, whatsoever ye shall loose. What things? Rites, Ceremonies, Institutions to be observed as authoritative in the Church. The truth taught them is, that such of the Jewish usages as they saw fit to retain, were to be fostered, while those rejected by them were to be forbidden. At the first Christian Synod whose minutes you will find recorded in the i5lh chapter of Acts, this power was exercised by the Apostles and others, and embodied in a deliverance }:)rohibiting circumcision and the eating of things offered unto idols, and things r^trangled, and blood. In other ])ortions of the Acts, and also the Epistles, we find allusions to this power. 3. But supposing, by a stretch of charity and criticism, we allow persons also to be included under the " whatsoever," it gives not the slightest encouragement, but the reverse, to the practice we are com- batting. This brings us to the real meaning of "binding" and *' loosing," according to the Hebrew Ritual, and as commonly under- Stood by the Jews in the time of our Saviour. These terras had an 10 allusion to the I^evitical usage with respect to leprosy. It is given in detail in Leviticus xiii. Authority was vested in the Priests to ex- amine those suspected of having this dreaded distemper. Signs are mentioned, on the discovery of which, in any one, the examining Priest was to pronounce him unclean. He did not make him unclean, but manifest that he was so. The victim was then "shut up" "hound," or " retained " in confinement within certain prescribed limits, that he might not come in contact with the congregation of Israel. If, after an interval elapsing, there seemed ground for thinking that the signs of the disease had pa.sed away, he had again to go and show himself to the Priest, who, if he found the generally understood marks of restored health, pronounced him clean. Half a dozen times in the first few verses of the chapter named (Lev. xiii) we find these expressions used. In the one case the Priest did not create the uncleanness ; it was in his system before the leper came to be examined. He simply announced what was previously there. Nor, in the other case, was he the author of the restored health, but simply its announcer. But, in the Septuagint or Greek version of the Old Testament, which was commonly in use during Christ's life on earth, and frecjuently quoted by him, what in the original Hebrew is '■'■pronounce unclean" is rendered by the Greek verb (meanei) literally, the Priest shall defile or unclean him, as if he really did it instead of declared what was in him before he came. So, when he comes back recovered, and he who was "bound" is ready to be "loosed," the lxx version translates what in the original is "pronounce clean" by Kathariei, he, that is, the Priest, shall clean him. In both instances the Priest is said to DO what he merely declared. He could neither impart the leprosy nor remove it. In applying all this to the spiritual leprosy — its curse and cure — Christ used the language commonly employed, knowing, as he did full well, the meaning that was ordinarily attached to it. 'Were this all that was meant by the Confession and Absolution advocated of late amongst us, no one could object to it. It is what every minister or private christian seeking to be faithful to precicus, never-dying souls would do. But an absolving power that is merely Declaratory, in the sense indicated, both Roman and Anglo-Catholic would indignandy reject. It is Vi Judicial absolution that is contended for, else, distinctively, it is nothing at all. The Council of Trent says: "Our sins are forgiven us by the absolution of the Priest. The voice of the Priest, who is legitimately constituted a minister for the remission of sins is to be heard as that ot Christ himself, who said o the lame man, 'Son, be of good cheer, thy sins are forgiven thee.' " Jnlike the authority given to the Priest, to declare the leper cleansed »irom his leprosy, the power with which the Priests of the New Law are invested is not simply to declare that sins arc forgiven, but as the ministers of God, really to absolve from sin, (Cone. Trid. Less, xiv ; Canon 9). I can put no other construction than this on the words f 11 agint It is given in Priests to ex- )er. Signs are the examining e him unclean, tup" "bound," >ed limits, that of Israel. If, inking that the go and show derstood marks chapter named case the Priest before the leper was previously of the restored or (ireek m use during 11, what in the i by the Greek unclean him, in him before id he who was anslates what in he, that is, the riest is said to t the leprosy nor jy — its curse and [, knowing, as he led to it. ^Vere ution advocated t is what every ul to preci(.'is, 'er that is merely \ Anglo -Catholic that is contended "ouncil of Trent f the Priest. The 1 minister for the limself, who said e forgiven thee.'" the leper cleansed of the New Law given, but as the , Trid. Less, xiv ; this on the words repeatedly used by the chief of the missioners that have recently visited us. • A frail, fallible mar. assumes the functions of the All Wise and All Holy ! Though he may be foolish and ignorant, and charge- able with sin — the confessor more than the confessed — yet is this, the greatest conceivable power, vested in him. The Council of Trent, witli whose general tone in this matter our visitors so closely coincide, goes the length of saying, " Whoever shall affirm that Priests living in mortal sin have not the power of binding and loosing, let him be ac- cursed." (Cone. Trid., Scss. xiv; Can. 9). They may not accept the entire Romish platform, but they repudiate the name of Protestant. \Miere, if not on the former, are we to place one who declares, un- challenged, "Those who belong to the Protestant communion, say, I will confess to God and receive forgiveness, forgetting that Christ gave his Apostles and their successors, the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven — throu^fh this means must Heaven ht reached." Must we not say here, as well as in the other instance, "This man blasphemeth." 3. The next passage quoted in support of this claim is in John XX; 22-3: "Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained." This is so like the passage already considered with refer- ■ ence to the "Keys," an^ "binding," and "loosing," that we may not dwell on it at length. Supposing this was addressed to the twelve Apostles, it would never prove that this power of remitting or pardon- ing sins and the reverse, belonged exclusively to them, or, if so, was transmitted by them to posterity. Where is it different save in the anathema appended from Canon IX., of the great R. C. Council : — " If any one saith that the Sacra- mental Absolution of the Priest is not a judicial act, but a bare miiiistry of pronouncing and declaring sins to be forgiven to him who coiVesses, let him be accursed." They had other extraordinary powers, such as speaking with tongues, he ;ling diseases, raising the dead and the like, which were not handed do",vn. ^Miat reason have we to believe that this power in particular was singled out for transmission, especially when nothing is said about it, and there is not a tittle of evidence that it ever was exercised in Apostolic times. ?.[oreover, these words touching "remitting" and "retaining" are imisedded in a passage whose surroundings go convincingly to show that they were not addressed any more than the text on "binding" and "loosing" to the Apostles exclusively. The Laity are associated with the Clergy in the privilege here conferred, who were present on the solemn occasion, in question. On whom did the Divine afflatus fall ? To whom was this power to "remit" and "retain" given? It requires no very close examination of the passage to find out that this breathing and blessing of her Divine I. ly a few facts liefore isions to scholarship against Confession. :(igc one of his first ised in the Church. ■>ss a truth, and they 1, et seq.), "As the this lie l)reathed on ost ; whose sins you ihall retain, they are n intended that they )ose that so great a they remit, or how te ? And how could ■ required of this we ful acted in Ephesus ; who believed came ndless supposition to he words themselves, e such an inlerpreta- hurch, and St. Taul s a ministry of recon- rd of reconciliation." vorld, and since their , and did not, person- ir mission, and, as a leir successors. Can 1 the continuation of power ? Surely not. that of their succcs- le word of reconcilia- jinted bishops in the wer, is clear from the grace of God, which t given us the spirit of learned from him ; he nd he tells him what ing to Titus (i, 5,) he dest set in order the ity, as I also appointed le same power of the vord of reconciliation" .d it not be<.r. so, the nt from Paul's. Paul could preach he had the power of binding and loosing ; Timothy must have been able to preach the same, ullicrwise the eternal message of Christ to man would be changed. No Christian can think this. Now, what was the belief of the early Church ? Surely the testimony of its .eminent divines is of more value ihr.n that of a person living centuries later. Iren;vus, who lived shortly after the Apostles, and who probably saw St. John, in his work " de Hanrsi" (Lib. i, cap. 9,) speaking of persons who had been mis- led by a magician, tells us that ihey often "were converted and confesscti their sins. And he sjieaks of another who, through the means of her brother, was converted, and who "spent much time in confessing her sins, lamenting anil be- wailing her faults," etc. (Lib. 3, cap. 4). He relates of a certain Cerdon, that he used to " cfime fretiucntly to the church making his confession." Tertullian, who wrote towards the end of the second century, in his book on Penance, says : " Some more mindful of shame than their salvation presumed to avoid or to put off from day to day the confessing of their faults ; like those who, having some secret disease, hide it from the knowledge of the physician," It is very evident that he here sjieaks of confessing secret sins, for he adds, ironically : "A great benefit \>> this shame, for if we conceal a thing from man, will it also be concealed from Cod?" Therefore, in the second century the confession of secret sins was held to be necessary. Origcn, who lived early in the third century, in Homily 2 in Leviticus, says : " There is a remission of sins, though hard and laborious, through penance, when the sinner washes his bed with tears # * * and when he does not blush to make known his sins to the Priest of the Lord, and to seek a cure * * * in which also is fulfilled what the Apostle says : *Is any one sick among you, let him jCall in the priest.' " This is very plain, and shows the belief and custom of his time. In the third Homily he teaches that if "we have secretly done anything wrong, by word alone or even by secret thoughts, it is necessary to make them all known," And in Homily 2 in I's. 37, he says that we must confess all to a learned doctor and follow his advice. If he judges that some things should be publicly made known, we ought to declare them i)ublicly. He thus clearly shows that auricular confession existed for all sins, even those of thought ; and some sins, if the confessor judged well, should be made public. St. Cyprian, who lived in the same century, in (Serm. 5 de Lapsis), relates that some who hail fallen, although they had not offered sacrifice to the false Gods, but •'because they had thought of it, sorrowfully and with simplicity of heart confess- ing to the priests of God, laid open their consciences * * * and sought a cure for their wounds." Addressing his people (Epistle xvi. lib. 3), he says: "When even in small sins * * » penance has to be done for a time, and confession to be made, and the life of him who does penance is to be inspected * * * how much more in grave crimes should everything be cautiously done according to the discipline of the Lord." Therefore a confession by which one's conscience can be known is a "discipline of the Lord." Wishing to be brief, we must omit much. St. Basil in the fourlh century in his short rules: "In the confession of our sins we should act precisely in the same manner as in making known the wi.. ds of our body. As therefore the wounds of the body are not foolishly made known to every one, but only to those who are thought capable of curing them, in the same way the confession of our sins should be only made to those who can cure them." And he explains who those are Wying : "Of a necessity sin must be made known to tho.se to whom has been given the dispensation of the mysteries of God " — that is, the priests. In the same century Gregory Nisenus in his sermon on the sinful woman, said : '* Show without fear to the jiriests the secrets of your soul which are hidden, as you would uncover hidden wounds to the physicians : he will have a care for your honor and for your cure." Did space permit we could quote similar passages from every Father of the Church in the four first ages — the age of purity about which Dissenters speak so much. They teach what the Catholic Church of to-day teaches, and thus prove 20 I : I iiiij that our doctrine is also "pure." Dr. Burns says private confession l)cgan with Leo the (ireat. This i'opu lived late in the lifth ceiUury. \Vc have onclusively shown that it existed from the bej^inninj;. Not lony a^o l'r()testant» maintained that auricular confes->ion liejjan in the luiddle ayes, under Innocent lU. They now admit that it can he traced back to Leo L Possibly, as Iit,du becomes more diffused, they will fnid that it j^oes back to (.'hrist. Dr. Burns is must unfortunate in asserting,' that St. Augustine and .St. John Chrysostom were with him. .Surely he never read tiiem. St. Augustine, in his magnificent sermon on renilenls (ilom. 41), where he is treating of Penance ilog- matirally, and conseijuently, uses precise language, in order to induce persons to repent whilst in health, says: " Kor if they delay to the end of their life, they know not whether they can receive penance and confess their sins to (iod and the priest." As this passage speaks so clearly of confession to the priest it is not neces- sary to quote any more from this great doctor. lie certainly iliffers from l>r. Purns. Perha|)s in the whole range (jf church literature lliere cannot be founii such exal- tation of the priestly character and the priestly power, as in .St. Chrysostom's magnificent oration on the jiriesthood. In book third he says: For to thosewho live on the earth there has been given to (lis|)ense the things which aic in heaven; to them has been given a power that (Jod did not give io the angels, or archangels for he did not say to them whatsoever ve shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven. Earthly princes have indeed the power of binding, IjuI only bodies; the power of the priest touches the soul itself and reaches to the heavens, no that whatsoever the priests shall do below C/od will ratify above, and the Lortl will confirm the sentence of his ministers, for lie has said: Whosesoever sins you shall retain, they are retained. What power, I ask, can be greater than this? The Father gave all power to His son. I see that same power given by the son to them. ^^ * * It was given to the Jewish priests to cleanse the leprosy of the body, or to speak more correctly, to testify that they had been made clean, * * * imt to our priests it has been given not merely to cleanse the leprosy of the body, nor merely to testify to the blotting out of the stains of the soul, but /o i>/o' tlicin out. The power, then, of the priesthood does not consist in merely declaring sins to be remitted, but in remitting them, h'rom Chrysostom it is a judicial power, higher than that of Kings, and of a necessity requires a knowledge of the conscience. We hope we shall never have Chrysostom cpioted against us again. His doctrine is the same as that preached in St. Mary's, init strangely unlike that of Fort Mas- sey church. Candid reader, who has anticputy on his side? We may adtl that the early heretics, such as Arians, Copts, Monophysites and others, who fell away from the (Church before St, Leo's time, all teach and prac- tice in the present day auricular confession. Where did they learn it? Not from the Roman Church alter their fall, certainly; therefore it was in the Church when they fell away. Of those who bear the Christian name, whether in the Fast or West, the Protestants alone deny auricular confession and absolution. Are they right and all others wrong ? Who would believe it ? Yours truly, C. REV. DR. BURNS' REPLY TO "C.'s" LETTER. No i. During my ministerial life I have declined noticing letters that have not the name of the writer. When your contention is on the public arena with " open face," you are placed at a manifest disadvantage wdien your opponent sladks into an ambush or fights behind a mask. It is beneath dignity to notice every anonymous scribbler, and, amid the pressure of other duties, a city minister has not the time, even if he had the taste, for bush and guerrilla warfare. Hut there are exceptions to every rule. The long letter which has appeared simultaneously, during the past week, jn two of our local journals, over the signature "C." bears such marks of respon- ssion began with have conclusively .taiit^ m.iintaincd jcciit lU. They ;lil becomes more no and St. Jdlni Augustine, in his I of I'cnance dog- induce jiersons to of their life, they IS to (lod and the est it is not neces- 'b from l)r. Hums, e found sucli exal- Sl. Chrysostom's For to lliose who oil are in lieaven; jcls, or archangt-is shall be bound in d also in heaven, lies; the power of lat wlialsoever the inhrni the sentence II retain, they are ; Father gave all [hem. *» ♦ * )ody, or to speak * * but to our : body, nor merely //lo/i out. y declaring sins to a juilicial power, ; of the conscience, lin. His doctrine that of Fort Mas Monopliysites and 1 teach and prac- \x\\ it ? Not from the Church when her in the F^ast or )lution. Arc they C. No I. have not the name I "open face," you ks into an amlnush onymous scribbler, le time, even if he xceptions to every ng the past week, 1 marks of respcm- 21 sibility and respectaliility as to deserve and demand notice. We like its calm and courteous tone, while diflcring entirely from its conclusions. We desiderate more of that style of writing on both sides in the present controversy, and if we can only avoid that " wrath of man which workelh not the righteousness of (lod," it will accomplish much good. Why should we luH all endeavour to cultivate the charity that "suHereth long and is kind" — that is not "easily provoked, and thinkoth no evil," and so earn the character indicated by the illustrious Dr. Chalmers in a letter upon a cognate theme, to a near and dear relation of my own ? " I rest assured that your whole performance is characterized i)y that spirit of the (josjiel which, if inhised (and why should it not?) into our every difference, would disarm con- troversy of its sting, and reduce it to a calm and profitable contest of the under- standing." It i^ noticeable at the outset in the communication of "C."that it leaves the open field t)f the Word, and plunges into the !)raky thicket of the Fathers. I respectfully decline being drawn into such a wilderness. 1 infinitely prefer the Gnuuifaliicrs and the Great Craudfathcrs. I entrench myself within the strong- hold of the Bible from which dislodgment on this (|i'estii.'n is impossible. Even the Donay version (A. I)., 1609), which "C." must accejit, gives me this counsel: " Shoulil not the jjcojjle seek of their Cod, for the living of the dead ? To the law rather a.ut to the testimony. And ij they speak not aceordin.^ to 1 ilis Wokd, they shall not have the mornini; I'K^it." (Isaias viii, 19-20). IJeltcr far, according to this, to have the "morning light" of the "true word"— "the light shining in a dark place" — than the "gloamin" or " the dim religious light" of the Fathers. Hence, in my discourse of an hour, fdling forty-three pages of foolscap, 1 devoted scarcely two minutes of time and barely a page of space to the Fathers, and for a very plain reason. They, though some of them noble men, are liable to err, and did (;rr, on many points, speaking "the words which man's wisdom teacheth," while the Scripture writers spake "wiiat the Holy (ihost teacheth," "spake as they were nKJved by the Holy Chost." Unlike the writings of the Fathers, even a child cam understand these, as the Roman Catholic version of the New Testa- ment (A. I)., 1592) says of Timothy (2 Tim., 3, 15-16): " Because from thy infancy thou hast known the Holy Scri|5tures which can instruct thee to salvation by the faitii which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture inspired of Cod," &c. It is singular that when you pass from this "All .Scripture," even to those fathers that bordered on the Apostolic age, and were brought up at the feet of the Apostles, you at once perceive the difference in spirit and style between the inspired and uninspired. In the writings of the AfOSTOi.u: Fathers there is much useful Reading. They had the best op]iort\mities of knowing the mind of Christ and the Apostles, three of them having been (it is said) pupils of Paid, viz., Ijarnahas, Clement Romanus and Hernias, and three of them disciples of Jcjhn, viz., Ignatius, Polycarp and I'apias. Ominously enough "C." makes not A soMTAKY QUOTATION, FROM one or iiiem. For a manifest reason. They do not favor his view of confession. Tliey are against it. Take Clement Romanus, fcjr example, whom Irenajus (quoted by "C") puts third from Peter at Rome (Haer iii, 3, 3), who acted as Chief Presl)yter of the Roman congregation, and whom Jerome (de Vir 111] identifies witli the "Clement also," mentioned by Paul in Phil, iv., 3. Clement's First Epistle to the Corintliians is jironounced by competent judges one of the most imjiortant documents of Christian antiquity extant. It was preserved with singular care in the Alexandrian Manuscript of the New Testament, known as Codex A., and donated in A. D., 1628 to Charles I. by Cyril, Patriarch of Constantinople, and is now deposited in the British Museum. This Disciple of Paul says, " Blessed are we, beloved, if we keep the Commandments of Ciod in the harmony of love, that so, thro' love, our sins may be forgiven us, for it is written, " Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man WHOSE SIN the Loid will not impute to him." "This blessedness cometh ujion those who have been chosen l)y C!od through Jesus Christ our Lord, to whom be glory for ever and ever, amen. Let us therefore implore forgiveness for all these trans- gressions, which, thro' any suggestion of the adversary, we have c jmm'tted. For ttf: tfiV'^H i':y''^i*^: 22 I il it is better that a man should acknowledge his transgressions than that he should harden his heart. The Lord ijesires nothing ok anyone except that Con- fession HE MADE to Him, for, says the elect David: "/ -ivill conjess unto the Lord," and '■'■Twovi jorgavesfnw. iniquity of my sin" — quoting two passages of Scripture in proof. Clement, whose writings were, in many places, read for edifi- cation at Divine Service in the Ancient Church, says not a word of any confession, save unto God, the only Sin-pardoner. Ex lino, duic omncs (from one learn all).. How full these Apostolic Fathers are of Scripture, in the appealing to which as the sole and supreme standard, the later ones sadly lacked! It is to these last "C." is so partial, and so prolific in quota- lions. The passages quoted from Lremx^us, Augustine, and partly from Chrysostom, refer to a kind of confessing of which we cordially approve. The more of this public confessing of sin — of the closet confessing to the "Father in secret," and of liurdened souls repairing to their pastors for advice and consolation, the better. Much of the confessing referred t, '■■ What have I to do ■HOUGH THEY COUI.D ne against confession in the Preface to the ivhich could affect the em to DEVIATE FROM (Curavimus removeri [ficere, aut a Catholica ^ d. 407 A. D.) have incijiles and practices, s of the Expurgatory , from his isl Homily not built on the man, deleted "There is no J made from different times, too. md that the passage countenance confes- mguage used by him )UK CONSCIENCE liE- of Physicians, and 'h not, but cures most in questionable taste: gustine and St. John And again at the be- laying pretensions to 1 as witnesses against r ; knowledge one of tressed by Scripture. were scriiHural, and :. The Fathers are heareth these ivords ly should "C." seek 3ible already <]uuted: 3 THE TESTIN'ONV." Considering the many infallible proofs given by me from Joshua, Ilczekiah, Ezra, David and Daniel in the Old Testament, and from Peter, Paul, John, and, best of all, from Jesus, in the New Testament, in favor of the Piotestant position, which "C." has never touched or con^.e within sight of; not to speak of the un- ambiguous testimony of the most reliable of those Fathers who lived in the very days of the Apostles, I may repeat his exultant question, " Candid reader, who has antiijuity on his side ?" As so small a portion of "C.'s" communication is devoted to the .Scripture ar- gument, it becomes us attentively to consider the passages that are quoted. 1. The first is St. John, 20.21, et seq. "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When lie had said this. He l^reathed on them and He said to them, receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they arc retained." This, "C." says "gave power to rer:iil sin." The argument is that this power was given to the Apostles, and transmiltetl through them to their successors. But (i.) as we have already shown by incontrovertible evidence, in the first part of this evening's lecture, devoted en- tirely to it, the Apostles had not, and could not, in the nature of things, have any successors. The missing links, loo, are so many as to spoil the chain. (2.) In point of fact, other powers vi;sted in the Apostles were not transmitted. Wlio of their so-called successors can raise the dead, or cure deadly diseases, as the origi- nal Apostles did ? No proof is furnished that the pari^ioning power was transmit- ted or ever exercised. (3-) We know that when Peter was besought to remit, he positively refused, saying : " Pray to God if perhajis this thought of tl'.y heart may be forgiven thee (Acts viii. 22). Nor do we ever read of Paul, or John, or James, or Jude, or any other, any more than Peter, ever confessing or absolving a single soul. (4.) This power here described was not limited to the Apostles, Ixit was given to th^ "Disciples" as well, and the mixed company gathered in the upjier room, corresponding, perhaj^s, with the 120 Disciples of Acts i. 15. Jesus stands in the midst, not of the "eleven" only, but "of those that were with them,"' (Luke XXIV. 33.) "all the rest" of verse 9. Breathing on them, He said: " Re- ceive YE," &c. On clergy and laity alike, thus; the same power was conferred. This conclusively shows that the power thus given was not judicial, but simply declaratory, not magisterial, but ministerial, like the priests in cases of leprosy, who six times over in Levit. xiii. are said simply to rRONOi'XCK unclean or clean. In like manner these N. T. passages intimate the terms and method of pardon, as we find " Peter and the Apostles " doing in Acts V. 31, where they say, "Him (Jesus) hath God exalted to give repentance and remission of sins." And Paul, in Acts XIII. 38: " Be it known, therefore, to you, thai rhrougli Him J orgiveness 0/ sins is preached to you." And in Acts xxvi. 18 : "That they may receive forgive- ness of sins and a lot among the saints, through faith that is in me." Along with this declaring there was vested in the Church and its representatives, the discipli- nary power, the prerogative, in cases of wrong doing, of putting away from among them, wicked persons, when they sinned, and receiving them back again to their former standing in the Church when they showed signs of sincere repentance. This, as we shall hereafter see, was a prominent part of the Key Power, or the "remitting" and "retaining" the " binding and loosing." All this is in ]iei- fect harmony with those passages of the Word that send us to the Divine Confes- sional, as where in " C.'s " own New Testament it is written : " The Blood of Iesus Christ His Son, cleanselh us from all sin." "If we confess oir sins, He is faithful and just to iorchve us our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity." I. of St. John, c. i., 7-9. 2. The second passage (|uotetl by "C." is Acts xix. 18, telling us " how the faithful acted at Ephesus when Paul was there. Many of those who believed came, confessing and declaring their deeds." " It is simply (says " C") a ground- less supposition to refer this passage to a general public ,. "C." next quotes 2 Cor., v. 18, that "Christ has given us the ministry oiand reconciliation," and verse 19th, " He has placed in us the word of reconciliation. "deal "What word of reconciliation (asks he) except the absolving from sin?" Yet, He strange to say, the judicial "absolving from sin" on the part of any man or bodynan. of men, is not even hinted at in the passage. What is the "mini, ry of reconcililf ti ation" spoken of in the 2nd part of verse 18? Simply the instrumentality divinelyiwa) appointed for spreading abroad the precious message contained in the first ])art, tii[ ah wit; "that all things are of (iod who hath reci/nciled us to Himself by Christ, anduib hath given unto His Cliurch this ministry." And what is the " Word n{ xitzQr\c\\\-\tVi ation' at the close of the 19th verse, but just the substance of the blessed message n I as given at the beginning, which is but the following up of what goes before, "for .hat (lod indeed was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing to men3as> their sins." What post, then, do the members of this 'ministry' or service hll?:o \ Not certainly that of "])riests," for they are ministers or servants; not^sovereignsPRi or judges, but simjily the "messengers of the churches," and delegates of Christ, Dp. " Ministers of His to do His pleasure." Hence, verse 20th goes on to say: Forkaw Christ, tlier-fore, we are ambassadors. Now, the ambassador of a sovereign doe,s)riv, not make peace, but announces it ; does not grant pardon, but* as a herald makes it)riv: known. He is the carrier of the amnesty, the communicator of the terms ofotl reconciliation. How utterly opposed, therefore, is this Pauline statement to thatmv: of "C." — "the power of the I'riesthood does not consist in merely declaring sinsegr. to be remitted, Init in remitting them. Since they were to remit or retain, it musterii. have been intended that ihey should act in a judicial capacity." This is the very s C( point to be proved, which our critic takes for granted, and which the very passage vas, quoted by him eftectually disproves. ibsc 4. I have hitherto quoted exclusively from the Roman Catholic translation o( "< the Holy Scriptures, published under the highest authority, as doubtless more iphy acceptable to "C." than our own, but in his last Scriptural c|uotation (Titus i. 5)eacl I must take issue with him, and decline receiving the Rheims rendering — rriesls\\&\. instead of Piesbylers. " For this cause I left thee in Crete, tliat thou shouldst set ssoc in orrler the things that were wanting, and shouldst ordain Pkiests in every city, *rOp as I also appointed thee." I know what is said about Priests being a corruption 'wfti of Presbyter, or Elder, and, if so understood, it is innocent enough. But the /W i general idea oi Priest involves the presentation of a sacrifice, which "all Scrijiture" cwjr forbids. -Without sacrifice (and, where is there another since our great High Priest he|l. said on the cross, "It is finished?") the Priest's "occupation is gone." Oui Htt authorized version, which reflects the scholarship of the past, the r ;vised version, 'Wfr on which has deen expended the most advanced scholarshiji of the present age, a||5 agree in inserting " Preshuteros" — not " Hiereus;" Eiders ox Presbyters, not ^ Priests, as the word used here. We are not aware of one solitary MAXi'.sCRri'T W out of the multitude collated and compared, which sanctions the Rheimish render- oucl ing. Even of Christ himself the Rheimish version ^ays, in Hebrews the viii., 4: 'Veti " If He were on earth //e -oould not be a Priest," mi., h less then his ministers, who of t cannot be priests in the ordinarily received sense, as distinguished from the spiritual ho priesthood of Believers, without impugning the perfection <^f "the High Priest of I 1 our Confession, Je:iis" (Heb. in, ii)an strangely taken from his own and transferred to the other citadel. ■s or Presbyters, not ^nd now, with the best of feeling I bid good bye to "C." adding that although solitary MAM'SCKirT Wive made an exception in his case in noticing an anonymous communication the Rheimish render- oij^hcd in, on the whole, a kindly tone and coming from an apparently authorita- Ilebrews the virr., 4: IVllsource, I shall not promise to continue the discussion on this unequal footing hen his ministers, who "oi'^the reason assigned at the outset), much less to notice those of inferior calibre shed from the spiritual 'ho have neither "C.'s" talent nor taste. "the High Priest of I have purjwsely avoided seeking to excite prejudice and passion by any refer- eteness of his finished OCt '<> the corruptions of the Confessional, its social and domestic influences, or L^leclarcs, "the same Ifl^lcing at any side issues, or collateral topics of discussion, out of which "points" 'ort Massey Church." lijih' have lieen made, that would have probably irritated rather than convinced, le so! began with Leo the 2 conclusively shown ay it with the utmost g private with pid)Iic iced in the Primitive 15-18), the mode of It iiiiiiii 1 ■ I $ 26 LETTER OF "C."— No. 2. ageil pen:) «*- — 3 A short time ago I had occasion to write you a letter on Confession nr gut Absolution. As I had merely to deal with doctrine, and as I made no aoi Q^cel sation against anyone, I did not see the necessity of signing my name, li; matter of this kind it is not so much who speaks, as v.'hat is aaid, that or- to concern us. Dr. Burns has dealt in a very courteous manner with the subject of v letter ; whilst I feel grateful for his complimentary remarks, I must dis.se; from some of his conclusions. There seems to l)e some misconception of the nature of the doctrine sacramental confession in the minds of many. I .shall endeavor to hriutl state the teaching of the K. C Church on that point, and then give t: reasons for that teaching. Tile R. C. Church teaches that there is no other name under heaven throu; which one can be saved than that of Jesus Christ. He atoned for our sin and redeemed us by His passion and death. He is our Redeemer, our Iliu Priest and our Victim. He is also our perpetual intercessor in heaven. Fro: Him is the power of the ministry, the grace of the sacraments, the sacertlot office and prerogatives. He redeemed us, but the fruits ot His redempti have to be applied to our souls; He jiurchased grace for us, but that gru has to come to us through certain channels, or by certain moans. All Chii tians admit the act of Redemption in the same way ; all, I think, admit tli; an a]i[ilication of the merits of Clirist to our souls is necessary. The treasu; is there, but it maj' be left unapplied, !^^an's free will remains, and that f)- will must co-operate with God's grace for the salvation of his soul. In ot!,. words, we must "work out our salvation with fear and trembling." Regtir ing the modes of apjilication of Christ's merits the difference begins. All, take it, admit t'lat through jn-ayer and good deeds giace may he obtained, , in other words, Christ's merits apitlied to the soul. The R. C. Church, whil- teaching this, teaches likewise, that tlie sacraments are the most jioweit' menns of grace ; that they are so many channels instituted bj' f)ur Savion: which, under outward and visible signs, confer the invisible grace of (i Thus, baptism, in whirh all Christians believe, is a sacrament. The pourii,. of water and the pronouncing of the words of the form of baptism are uu; ward and visible actions, but, through the will of Christ, whose ordinanc they are, grace is applied. The stain of original sin (for we are all lior: "children of wrath") is blotted out; the soul is regenerated and becomesi child of God, and an heir to His kingdom. No one pretends that water an the words of the form of baptism could, of themselves, produce such an effec; but they produce it because Christ willed that these visible actions should I ■ tlie means of conveying the grace of regeneration to souls. AVhy He did tin it is not our purpose to enquire ; that He did it all Christians agree. The Catholic Church teaches that besides baptism there are six other sacra- ments, each of which confers grace for some special purpose. We shall mil speak of one, viz., penance. After bajitism free will remains, and, con-e quently, man can fall into sin. By sin man, of his own free will, become' an enemy of God ; he deliberately turns away from God and cleaves to for- bidden things. If pardon be desired, the sinner must come back to Gix through the way our Saviourlias established. He must rei)ent of his sin an: submit to the f rdinance instituted by our Lord. Now, the Catholic Chuvol. distinguishes between light sins or venial faults and gross sins, which amoun: to a total turning away from God. These latter she calls mortal sins, becaiisi they make the soul die to the grace of God, and entail, unless truly rejientel of, eternal <]amnatiou. Venial fault;; can be remitted by prayer and gO"! deeds, etc., and this, I imagine, corresponds with what Fiotestants mean b; latte tbe recoi meaii fall, otbej conti ^thl lie sii direo But I we k sins toH law eithe Iti^ not law, demi wh rmiig my uame. l, liat is said, that o.; 'i tlie subject of li uarks, I must dissei e of the doctrine endeavor to brief then give ti t, and nder heaven th roil- atoned for our f^ln- redeemer, our Hi., '^or in Iieaven. Fro" nents.thesacerdot; ol Jlis redemi)ti US, but that ffru' '1 moans. AlJChiT 1 think, admit i h ^■''ary. The treas,, niaiiis, and that fi- Ills soul. Jn ot,V embJinrf." ji^^.^^.; 3nce begins. All ^lay be obtained,' i- C. Church, wliil. the most j.o-R-erf 'Sd by ourSaviiHr *ible grace of (i,., Jent. Thepourii. >r baptism are uu: ', whose ordiiianc '1' we are all bov ted and becomes "Is that water an luce such an eft'ee; ■ actions should I- ^^liy He did tin. Ills agree. ■e six other sacra- e- We shall ,,)i: laiiis. and, coii-e '■eo will, become- HI cleaves to for- ue back to Go 3"tof his sin an-- Catholic Churoi i-S which auioui;; I'tal sins, becaiiv ^s truly rej)en!t\ ^I'ayer and go .<: t^stants meni) b- a general absolution. But for grievous sins confession, or the sacrament of penance, is necessary, and it is necessary for i)recisely the same reason as baptism is necessary, viz., becBAise Christ has so willed it. For light sins ClOTifession is not necessary ; still, recourse may be had to it even for those. "' Btot for grievous sins confessitm is not a matter of choice ; it is an absolute n6ce,«sity whenever jjossible, just as much of a necessity as is bai)ti9m. The latter regenerates us ; the former restores us ; the latter remits original sin ; tbe former actual sins; the latter makes us an heir of heaven; the former reconciles the erring child to the outraged Father. Baptism is the one only means of regeneration; penance tlie only means of restoration after a grievous foil. But just as Baptism can be supplied by ardent desire when it cannot otherwise be obtained, so grievous sins may be panloned through perfect Cantrition, when it is impossible to confess tliem. Will God regenerate us tnthout baptism, by water and the Holy Ghost, when it con be had r" Will it Imi sufficient for the suul which despises the sacrament of baptism, to apply ^ectly t(« God for regeneration ? The whole Christian world answers no. But could not God do it? Not without breaking his own ordinance, which TRIte know he will not do. In the same way Goil will not pardon grievous flwis without confession, when it can be made. The sinner may go directly fti) Iliiu, but he will say: "Go, show thyself to the priest." He made the law I if confession, just as much as the law of baptism, and he will not break either of them. It is sad to hear men blaspheming what they do not know. I| is pitiful to hear them boasting of a liberty they do not possess. Man i.-^ net at liliertj', morally speaking, to choo.se his own religion. Christ maile his law, and through its observance alone, can we obtain the fruits of the re- cleiiiption. We are physically free to reject that law, and even to kick those who preach it; but the law remains all the same. Our puny rebellion, our stubborn pride, our passions, our prejudices, our indignation will not change by one jot or tittle God's eternal ordinance. The power which remits sins in confession is the same power that regene- ates in baptism, viz., the power of God In baptism \fater and v»-ords are ^e instruments of that jiower; in confession the instrument is the priest. Surely it is as easy for the priest to be the instrument of God's power av it is for water and the form of words. And this i;>OAver is not merely declaratory ; it )*i efficacious. It is as the power of the judge— real and effective, although delegated. But this power of absolution cannot be exercised with benefit to tbe penitent unless he has the proper dispositions in the tribunal of confession. He must tell his sins ; he must be sorry for them from some supernatural motive, and he must have a firm purpose of amendment. Then, and th»n only, can the words of absolution pronounced by the priest have; their effect. All this is laid down in our little Catechi-sms, and carefully taught to our little children. They are taught that it is "through the power of Gfod which Clirist left to the pa.s'tors of His Church"_that sins are forgiven. This is our belief: now for its reasons. The Old Testament is out of the auestion in this controversy. The sacraments were instituted l)y Christ ; bey did not exist in the old law. They were foreshadowed, indeed, but of course are not taught in tlie Books of the Old Testament. Tfie fountain source of many errors, indeed, of all religious error, is the blind persistence with which man, in spite of incontrovertible facts, will hug the delusion that the Bible alone is the sole rule of faith, and tb.iit each man is competent to interpret it. Now, our Saviour ne\ commanded His Apostles to write ; He never wrote Himself, He taught, uad He commanded the Apostles to teach. St. Paul tells us that "Faith is through hearing," not through leading. If the Bible were the sole rule of faith, then there could not possibly have been any true Christians before it was written. But, as a matter of fact, we know that thousands existed before a word of it was written ; and tens of thousands had lived and died before St. John wrote his Gospel. And he only wrote because urged by his disciples to confute the ,f 28 lour ImiKlred and tai'il.V. And, re< argument. ^'''' ^^'"^«t« word we are scarcWv^fi: *f '> controversy- . That confession of sins ,.... , ^ '"' ''"'^^ *'«^- «-"^' -^ letter, the vervllo^' " f ""-'^ppakin-, ...^^ ?."Jycome tlu^mLd>^nnllV"!?^^''^;'^'«oft))ec^;^eient w ITr^'^ '"^ J^'"'^=i«' ^■u.l and confessing their .in8 presence orfiftv'";th2f''f '^^*' i»"«"«mndraT, -;it^i.hi..,?r^ri';-S'!^'-"^tenttr. ^?" we h^^e^:'^,;^^' knowledge ci:; , l« '^ay here oKrv e' h : ' n ' '"'!'"«• '^^ S^' t.m as muou «= ;.. ..-^ '''■'f auricular cnnfe.s- clwing their deeds ti c 1 tl ing bo Chuicli Heriio reas. iiu tioii , of lidi Others efflciicj iou^, ii thin-5 holv (I St. Cli writini maniie ever tl Conti'a apostle with tl 0. 80). sity of many 1 ttrs or does ui directi ii, 34), the tra Dr. 1 who to St. Pet cannot tellti Si priests think 1 to praj ^hat S We-1 ^, we will come , 'w many coiild rom c'"" shall forgive icidedly refuse to ■^i'l'uf al)s,.l ■ 'ejects for IVIllo controversy serious "■y, IS not taught must romember Id were addvea-- '"" ill them. It tli.1t they v.'ould i'tber things are r the first day of '« living, leach, 'ved in a former "ises a judidai knowledge can f coming to St, ^iricular confes- ■church, in the Jfore tlie priest ise in their full essingandde- 'Very Saturday ore is attached a public penetentiary. Origen, as quoted in my last, other early writers, distinguish between that i)ublic discipline and pri- We do the same now. I think we can triumphantly say, •'Candid reader, who has antiquity on his side ? " In the Scriiiturev, then, we have the substance of the doctrine: the teach- ing iiody ex|>Iained it more fully, and apostolic practice came down in the Chui'cli, side by side witli the books of which it was the unerring expcnent. Henio the early writers always appealed to the apostolic tradition, and all reae.iiuil lie men must admit its force. Not to tire your readers witii quota- tion-, we will only cite a few. St. Basil (-Ith centurj ) : " Among the points of 1 elief and practice in the church, some were delivered in writing, while others were received in ajjostolic tradition * ♦ * but both have an equal efflciicy in the promotion of piety."— (^De Spirit, Sane. c. xxvii.j St. iipiphau- iou^, ii.'.sii's contemporary, writes: " We must look also to tradition, for all thing i cann it be leiirnevl from the Scriptures. For which reason the holy apostles left somethings in writing, and others not." (IJa^res 41.) St. Chrysostom: "Hence it is plain that all things were not delivered in writing, but many without writing, yet the latter are to be believed in like man'ier as the former." (Horn, in 2 Thess.) and St. Augustine wrote: "What- ever the whole Church observes, which was not decreed by council^, but alwiiys retained, is equally believed to be of apostolic origin." ^^L. 4, C. 24, Oontia Donat.) and long before any of these St. Ignatius, a disciple of the apo.-^ties, when iieing led to martyrdom, exhorted the Christians " to adhere with the utmost tirinuess to the tradition of the apostles." (Euseb. Ilist. L. 3, 0. 80). A few years later, St. Irentwus shows in a striking manner the neces- sity of this trailitioual teaching: " It is this ordinance of tradition which many nations of barbarians believing in Christ follow xoitliout the ur,"- of let- ters or ijik." (Adv. lI;Gre.«, L. 4). An ;ion.s, of rocoiioil. ipplication of hu ", lie g.ivo them ver, " even to tlic I corpomtion, e.-^- ■h a ]ife coeiiual t members ; new irvive. But the !i the Gospel t(j t lie fthvnys tlie luring llie life of lea, and in every ■Ill's medium of I'iththatcnrpor. il condemnation "iHiSh that it is :lescend to their Ve do not think < further j)roof. 'k ; we may re- J rejected' His iiisoan invinci- the apostolic 3 of sonls tliat sit of faith, its }e Church and ists want, and ''ority. It is f them in this, ins was trans- taught the rora the plain Mth. If the >wn powers, wer, and the early writers, shouhl speak ; hut we do ictice of the aking tiiem tile Christian If it he an led, and she ," became ii lortal souls, 'orst is that ries Christ's 'I'ious intel- le slaves of several so- J absolving Bd from the ity for hi^ the infalli- 31 In our last we quoted TertuUian from Africa towards the end of the second century; Irouanis from Lyons, who tlourinhetl shortly after the Apostles; and now, further back still, we will (juote Dionysius, the Arec- pagilo, who was converted bj' St. J'aui's sermon in the Areopiigus. In an epi~^tle to Demophilus, (No. VIII., Edit., Migne, 1867), he rebukes Demo- pniliis for his want of mercy : " You, as your letter shows, I know not why, di'iivn away as an impious sinntir one who came before a priest ; he. indeed, "WR> praying and confessing that he came for the wie(//cmfl of his vices; but yen, fearing nothing, insolently upbraided the good jn-iest, because he had pity en the penitent, and /lad justified the iiripious." We have here that tho ptHii' sinner came and confessed to the priest, was absolved by him ; Demo- Shiius rebuked the priest for being too easy, but Dionysius sternly reproaches leniophilus for his want of mercy. The doctrine of Dionysius is wonder- fully like ours, and it is very old indeed. Then we cited Origen from Alex- Anilria, in the third century ; Basil from Cappadocia, in the fourth century ; Chiysostom, from Constantinople, fifth century; Augustine, from Hippo, same century. Wo may add St. Andirose, from Milan, latter pait of fourth century. He says : " If you wish to be juslifled, confess your sins ; a sincere confession loosens the bond of iniquity." (Ij. d. de Penitentia, Cap. 61. And chapter 'J, he .^-ays: "Many whoprivately confessed did not wish to jierforin the public penance sometimes imposed ; many conscious of their sins, and fearing future punishment, seek absolution, and when they have received it, through shame are kept from a public supplication Will one blush to ask of God what he has asked of man? Are you asliameci to sup- plicate (iod who knows yoji, when you are not ashamed to cunfesn >/oiir sins fo a mun who does not knoio yov. ?" This is very clear, indeed ; private con- fession was common, butsume feared to perform a public penance. We could (juote many more ; but enough has lieen said to show that iu i^all times, and in all places, the Church believed in and practiced Sacramental Confession. Therefore, it is God's Ordinance ; and he who resisteth the onlinance, we are told, purchases to himself damnation. Dr. Burns admits that in the writers quoted we "have the germs of that very system which 'C defends." He might have said more truthfully, the . very system itself. However, his admission is much. Wo cherish strong hopes of yet seeing him with us, for he has the courage to face a dilHculty, ;'• and the honesty to admit evidence. He showed his scholarship over the ;;i average Protestant by freely admitting auricular confession to go ))ack to Leo 1., fifth century, and did not stop at Innocent III., thirteenth century; now hf^ sees the germs away back to TertuUian, second century. When he reads this he will, I know, see more than the "germs" in the writings of Dionysius, Paul's convert. But he says Augustine is with him. As the reference is not given for the passage cited, 1 fear he has taken it at second hand. If we had the context . we could easily show that Augustine did not mean to deny sacramental con- fession. We gave his testimony in express words regarding the necessity of ■ " confessing to God and the Priest." And (in h. 50 Horn. 12) he saj-s: " Our merciful God wills us to confess in this world, that we may not be confound- ed iu the other." And (in Ilom. 49) he lets us know what sort of confession he means: "Let no one say I do penance to God in private. Is it then in vain that Christ has said, ' Whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven?' Is it in vain that the keys have t-^en given to the Church ?" Accord- ing to Dr. Burns they have been given in vain, but St. Augustine believes with the Catholic Church that they have not. Leo I. did not introduce auricular confession. He could not do so ; no man could do so. Would the whole Church, East and West, have accepted it from him ? Would Constantinople, always jealous of Rome, have received it ? Certainly not. Only God could induce men to submit to it. Leo, in his epistle mentioned by Dr. Burns, decrees the mitigation of public pen- 82 rvnces. ami asserto that althnngh public confession \vn«» pi'ncticed by ninny in the (lays nf early lorvnr, .y "C." within its original limits, but that he has travelled so discursively into the "regions beyond." It would have been better, in order to the distinct eluciy our Saviour. They are entirely in harmony with our view of con- fession, and ojjposed to his. It is the case of the cleansed leper. Now, acconl- ing to the law of lojuosy, as presented in detail Levit. Xlii, what was the priest to do? Not to give the disease or to take it away. The viciiu> was to come with it and hack again when it was removed, that the priest miglit discover and declare the signs of its presence in the one case, and iiV disappearance in the other. His ofiice was purely ministerial, not magisterial; hi:; were wont to pro- nouiiii' lepers clean or unclean, so they were to pronouncr the forgiveness or non- forgiveness of God in the matter of sin, not to jiass the sentence as though it were by their own " power or authority," they did it. " Who can forgive sin' , but (ion ONLY." .Man may declare it, but cannot no it. This we have seen over and over again to be the unmistakable teaching of Christ and His Apostles. Yet "C." repeats and repeats his former statement, "This power is not merely declaratory, it is efficacious, it is as the power of the Judge, real and effective, though delegated." In view of the " line upon line" which we gave in our lecture on this subject in our last reply \o "C," and now, in this, have we not reason for returning to him his own retort: " Now, in sober truth, can any one who feels a responsibility for his utterances assert the above?" When asserting the efficacious nature of priestly absolution, "C." endeavors to push a parallel between it and tlie ordinance of baptism. lie elaborates this at considerable length, but the gist of his argument is in the sentence, "Confession is just as much of a necassity as J3aptism — the latter regenerates us. 'he former restores us." " Baptism is the one only means of regeneration. I'L..ance, the one only means of restoration after a grievous fall." In a matter so momentous we need something more than mere dogmatic assertion, '■'■ Nay^ rather to the Law and to the Testivwny'" (Isaias viii, 20) as our old cpiotation has it. If, through baptism " the stain of original sin is blotted out, the soul is regenerated, if, indeed, baptism is the "one only means of regeneration," how comes it : 1. That Christ never presents water baptism as the great regenerating force. 2. That not one instance can be given of Christ having ever baptized. 3. That St. Paul says: (i Cor. I. 14-17) "I give Gotl thanks //m» I haptkcd none of you but Crispus and Gaius, &c., for Christ sent me NOr to haitize but to preach the Gospel," If baptism l)e the "o;/(? only means of regeneration," wcuhi one so bent on saving souls as Paul have spoken thus or acted thus? 4. That it is said of Simon Magus (Acts vm. 13) "Then Simon himself believed also, and being hai'Tized, he stuck close to Philip." There are many thoughts suggested by this scene, but these two lie on the surface: (a) That .Simon was baptized on the profession, not on the possession of faith in the Lord Jesus. (b) That baptism did not regenerate hint, for after receiving it from Philip, Peter says to him: "Thou hast no part nor lot in this matter, for thy heart is not right in the sight of God," (v. 21), lf> •cipier • Tf/ZO J fails, "Ijaptii^ 5- will d " to the 'thus, much Anglo fin ad( alread Acts X . "ihcir ( ■other t ,:times \ 'passagi 'public *''in till iing " at Ihe W.. but "n Ttitatcs, -'■ftrately '•fconfess 'Remain with it •corpora "With ad tnust \k •ay to Hippo txcom Counci receive Caith despat tate (J .egati belonj^ •eighty- •tlaim Stantin roil. that preuHi quotin or desi fidenti in elati "C. •reived (the H 'thus se the Ki -Pontifd 35 IS lor may go '('" knows (|iintiil liy ii'w of con- lu, accoid- , tlie priest come will) and declare )ther. His )l judicial, llie patient icr instance, ice unclean" Latliariei, though the 1 sentence; ree centuries "(io show Article of the he minister's mit or retain i^uat;;e of the wont to /"'C- mess or non- lough it were iin' , but CiOi) )vcr and over Yet "C." y declaratory, ,h delegated." ihis subject in urning to him ponsibility foi ' endeavors to )orales this at 'Confession is ormcr restores , the one only itous wc need he Law and to rough baptism idced, baptism rating force. jtized. *hat I baftkcd iiAr'iizE but to ration," wcvild imself believed many thoughts POSSESSION ol m I'hilip, Peter ;art is not right If biiptisin tind confession depend for their eflficacy on the nidntal state of the rc» •cipient or penitent, then who can judge of that but He who says: "/(?/// the Lord . '.vho scatili the luuirt and prove the reins," (Jeremius xvii. lo). Herein even I'eter fails, wh'i endorses the baptism of one "whose heart was not ri{;hl with (iod," a 1)aplism too, which works no change on that heart. '^ 5. On the other hand, the DYINC rillKK was never Imptised at all, but who will deny that //(■ was regenerated to whom his expiring; Lord M.\id: "Amen I say to thee, lliis ilay shalt thou be with me in I'aradise." (Luke XXIII). While ar},Miing 'thus, 1 believe in liajUism, both adult and infant, though not attarhinj; to it (inas- nuich as the Word of (lod dovs not) the saving power whicli Roman Catholics and Anglo-( 'atholics claim for it. I am soinewliat surprised that the only other passage ^in addition lo " Show thyself to the I'riest," am' whosesoever sins ye forgive," /, .111 •>/i,.^/ii .• n !>" •ftrately into the confessionals usually to be foun: the Roman only, especially when we find two of its visible heads giving forth sue opposite testimonies on this vital point, v/hich mirrors a corresponding contrarity, as we shall afterwards find, on a host of others. The fact is, it never has been shown, nor can he, that the peculiar powers of tht Apostles were transmitted or exercised, and as for the continued presence of Jesu; the promiie, "Be/io/d, / am wit h you all days, even to the consummation of tk world" (Mat. xxviii. 20), belongs not to any one in particular. It takes in th; "disciples," the whole household of faith. If any special honor be shown to th; "Twelve Apostles of the Lamb," no priority is given to one over the rest, for thei Master had just said to them in the previous chapter (xix. 28), "You also shall si ui3on. twelve seats." But, in point of fact, the same promise of His constat presence is given to the humblest members of His mysticr.l Body, as He says 1: Mat. xviii, 20, " FoR wiiKRE there are two or three gathered tooetiif. IN MY name, then am I in the midst of them.'''' In v. 19, two members of th Church, agreeing together in prayer, are promised an answer, and the verse befor; that (the i8th), couched in the same general terms, is the oft-quoted, "Amen, say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth shall be bound also," etc. Migh I not here, as in several other places, with a sense of its appropriateness, introduc "C's" own statement: "If we do not believe Christ's word, we are scarcely fit sul jecls for serious argument." Still, "C's" confidence that he has a. Scriptural found: tion in this matter to stand on is far from thorough. In one place he says: "1: KXI'KESS WORDS the Gospels testify to the power of remitting sins conferred on th Aposiles," while, four short sentjences afterwards, he says: " That confession of sir such as I havetiescrihed as necessary, is not taught in such express words is ouir true." The reason assigned by him for the lack of this "express" Scriptural et: dence is somewhat novel in its character. "We must remember (he says) that t! sermons of the Apostles which are related are few, and were addressed to unbeliei ers." Not so. Before Pentecost 120 gathered in the upper room. We then read 3,000 and 5,000. At the period of Stephen's martyrdom (A. D. 37) we rea "The Word of the Lord increased, and the numlier of the disciples was multplu in Jerusale>n exceedingly; a great multitude also of the priests obeyed the faith. Acts • . There must, therefore, have been multitudes of helievers in the audiences oft: Ajiostles, who had been regularly enrolled l)y Baptism as members of the Churcr and yet, with reference to those Apostolic addresses, "C." has the candor ■ acknowledge ^^ there is nothing about confession in them." We go further ths " C," when we say that the "unbelievers," before being baptised, were ordeif Ijy I'eter to confess in the sense in which we understand confession — /'. e., ope and j)ublic — "before all" — as distinguished from the priest's ear. Thus, on u' day of Pentecost (Acts ii, 38,) and in Solomon's porch the day after, to the crov that collected in connection with the healing of the lame man : " Be peniter. therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be hlotted OUT," (Acts 11 19. ) Then, in Acts iv, 4, we are informed, " Many of them who had heard the •* : believed, and the number of the men was made five thousand." On their confess! and profession then and there, they received the true absolution, not from Pete Viiit from Him of whom Peter afterwards says, at the first Jerusalem Council, (I owning all monopoly of the Spirit's infiuence that filled the humblest disci])le etjiiV: with himself): "GoD, 'iAo knowcth the hearts, gave testimony, giving on: them the Holy Ghost as wei.i, as to us, and put no difference i' tween us avd them."" (Acts xv, 8-9.) Why then should any now make such "difterence," when Peter hiniself repudiates it, going the length afterwards saying : "The Ancients that are among you I beseech who am also an Ancicn; (more properly ' Elder' or Presbyter, for the Greek word is Preslmteros). (I IV V. I.) ^^ "C." goes on to say : " It was in their instructions tc the new converts afi: baptism that they would speak of confession, but we have none of these." S: you so? Then what are the Apostolic Epistles— Paul's 13 (leaving out Hebrew ohn's ; ames a of but Tfhere ii ject of a ConvertJ heresies the belie COnsequi Disloc ■do not 1 feeling r as I ha' true," it retreat ii as be fori closest tc Tertullia of the fif that theii private c tor a mor of our fai panied w testimon) Ambrose With n of Paul i Demophj evils of tl instance ; that some been al) knowledf and good with a pr of his friend of bftCtiuse We wou " impiou while er( Dionysiu of makin Father Charch. and twic no histoi 1. Tl from the I too, arc sions to views bri Neo-Plal 2. if Spoken Apostolil D., 533 37 iks, cannot be ving forth sue: ling contrarity. powers of th; esence of Jesus in mat ion of tl. It takes in th: )e shown to tl>, e rest, for thei ou also shall si )f His constar. as He says i: EI) TOG ET I if; members of th the verse befon 3tcd, "Amen, "etc. Migh eness, introduce I scarcely fit sut criptural found: ce he says: "I: conferred on th confession of sir WORDS ISQUn s" Scriptural ec (he says) that th issed to unbeiiei We then read D. 37) we tea lies was multplv. ibeyed the faitli 2 audiences of th :rs of the Church las the candor e go further ths: ised, were ortleu ssion — i. e., ope: ar. Thus, on ;': ifter, to the crov 1 : " Be penitei OUT," (Acts li lad heard the w >: ")n their confess! n, not from Ve 1 also an Ancien: esbnteros). (I Te' new converts aft: le of these." •'^^ ving out Hehre\> Tlihn's 3 (leaving out his Gospel and Apocalypse), Peter's 2, ami the one each of J«mes and Jude ? What are these, forming the larger portion of the N. T. ; made up of but just what "C." aptly calls "their instructions to the new converts" — yet Tfhere in all these twenty epistles is there ONE single " instruction" on the sub- ject of auricular confession ? With their known anxiety for the good of their "new converts," and that they might be kept from what one of them calls "damnable heresies," that were even then beginning to crop out as tares in the field, and with tl^ belief that "C." expresses that neglect of confession exposes to such fearful consequences, how can he account for such singular silence? Dislodged thus from the open field of the Word (though claiming that "if we do not believe Christ's Word, we are not fit subjects tor serious argument"), still feeling not sure of his ground, for, as he frankly owns ■*' that confession of sins such as I have described as necessary, is not taught in such express words, is quite true," it is just what we might expect that this faithful champion of his faith would retreat into the thicket of the Fathers. While keeping at as convenient a distance as before from Christ and His Apostles, as well as from the fathers that lived closest to them, "C." rings the changes anew on Ireni^us of the second century, Tertullian and Origen of the third, Basil of the fourth, Chrysostom and Augustine of the fifth. We are not careful to answer him in this maiter, for even supjjosing that their testimonies referred, not, as we contend, to ]niblic as distinguished from private confession, still these were but uninspired men, whose statements cannot for a moment be placed on the same lofty level with those of the Divine founder of our faith and his immediate followers, or those earliest of the Fathers who com- panied with them. Two additional fathers are introduced by "C," to whose testimony he evidently attaches much weight, viz., Dionysius, the Areopagite, and Ambrose. W ith reference to the former, he informs us that he was converted by the sermon of Paul in the Areofiagus. The quotation from Dionysius' so called epistle to Demophylus, is unfortunate in this respect, that it strikingly represents one of the evils of the confessional in granting absolution too easily to notorious offenders — instance recently, it is reported, Carey, Br^^dy, O'Donnel, etc. It is not denied that some of the worst criminals that have gone into eternity from the scaffold have been absolved beforehand. The effect of this as a sedative to the conscience, the knowledge that, on such easy terms, it can be got, cannot be helpful to morality and good order. Demophylus, according to the showing of "C," had found fault with a priest for absolving "an impious sinner" who came to him ^^for the medicine cf his viies." In this we conceive Demophylus was, as his name indicates, "a true friend of tli . people." Yet Dionysius rates him severely in the extract given because he said anything to "the good priest" who had '■'■justified the iinpioiis.^\ We would have "pity on the penitent" as much as any, but infected characters, "impious sinners," as Dionysius calls this one, should remain at quarantine a good while ere a clean bill of health be given them. "C." adds, "the doctrine of Dionysius is wonderfully like ours." I am sorry for it. The principle and practice of making absolution easy with "impious sinners," or to use the expression of this Father "justifying the impious," is injurious in its influence on society, and the Church. .SjK'aking of the writing of Dionysius, he calls it " very old indeed," and twice over styles him " Paul's Convert." But this is all pure conjecture with no historical foundation to rest on. ft The internal evidence is against it. (a) The highflown style is so different froth the beautiful simplicity of the .\postolic age. (l>) Peculiar theological terms, too, are employed which were not known till the fourth centurv. (e) The allu- sions to persons and events of later date, (d) The mystical anrl philosophical views brought out in certain of his works bear the stamp of the later outcome of Neo-Plaionism thr/i was associated with Proclus, who died A. D., 485. 2. This harmonizes with the time when the works of Dionysius were first «poken of. The stubborn fact cannot be got over that the works of this so-called Apostolic Father were never heard of till the conference of Constantinople, A. D., 533- '■vv"?i 38 3- Though a bold attempt was made by Abbot Ililduin aivd others during; the dark ages to identify Dionysius with St. Dennis of the third century, the patron saint of France, it also had to yield to the light of more accurate research. Although certain Jesuit writers such as Halloix, Delrio, Natalis-Alexander, &C.,. clung to the first or third century theory, the more reliable and authoritative R. C. theologians, such as Sirmond Launoi, Morinus, Dallaens, Le-Nouary, &c., have candidly yielded the earlier and accepted the later Chronology. The author- ities are too numerous to mention, but can be given in detail if necessary. S/. Ainhrose'K the only other new Father namel and quoted from by "C." (born at Treves, 340, died at Milan 397.) We are surprised at Ambrose being quoteerefore interpret his views A>n Confession in "C.'s" extract in the light of his recognized opinions on othtr questions. The second par. of the- passage <|uoted makes it harmless as an argun.ent for auricular confession — " Are you ashamed to supplicate God, who knows )ou, when ytni are nol ashamed TO- CONKF.ss YOUR SINS TO A MAN WHO DOES NOT KNOW YOU ?" The italics are "C.'s, not mine. Right glad are we that he has emphasized that clause. It goes to the- " root of the matter." Again and again, in his previous, as in his present, 00m- niunication, has "C." made the validity of the absolution depend on the " moral dispositions" of the penitent. In No. i he said -. " flow should they remit, and how should they retain, unles.s they knew the person's internal state?" Does not C's very (|uotation from Ambrose show the impossibility of any mere man knowing another's internal state? This were to exercise the prerogative of the great Heart Searcher, or of Him who knew all men, and needed not that any should give testimony of man. for He knew what was in man (John ii. 24, 25). It would be a legitimate inference, from the language of St. Ambrose, to say that we might well bo ashamed 'Vf confess our sins to a man who docs not know tis^"" It is just at this very point that we can "make a score again (louse "C.'s" expression) in the matter of Simon Magus, where he thought he caught us napping. •' He (l)r B.) thinks (says "C") St, Peter would have absolved him if he could."' Well, certainly, from all that we are told of the holy St. Peter, we could not think him less merciful than Dionysius, the Areo])agite, and yet we find (hat unique character sharply chiding one who favored this very course of keepin ,; al)solutioii from an " impious sinn'^r," who came for the "medicine of his vices." The ' anient course of Dionysius "in justifying the impious" is "wonderfully like ours" (says "C"). Tht stern course of Peter in refusing to remit the sin of Sin>on, "that imijious sinner" (a course the opposite of the Areopagites)— this is also "wonder- fully like ours." ^' He acted (say "C") just as our priests would act to day." Are both right ? This suggests another point. What is tlie reason assigned by "C." for Peter's delay in granting absolution ? We have said that ahsolution cannot be given unless the penitent has the profer disposition. But how can Peter know this man's internal state ? To know whether he ha,.s the proper disposition is to know the heart. NN'e have already seen that iu giving Simon baptism on profession of his 39 I laitli, Peter and Philip, though uiicler the guidance of the Holy Spirit in a fuller meo:- sure than most now, judged of this deceiver more favorably than he deserved. The after discovery of "his heart not being right vsith God" was not the result of his seeing into his heart — that is hid from mortal eyes. "The heart is perverse above all things and UNSEARCHAKLE, who can 'know it?" Jeremias 17, 9. But "out of the alnmdance of his heart" the sorcerer's mouth hath spoken perverse things. What he said and did showed what he was. As Peter mistook in judging of his I'ROKESSION, he might, too, in the matter of his confession. To say, then, that "a person's internal state," or whether he has "the proper disposition" must be known (as "C." has repeatedly brought out), ere absolution can be given, is equivalent to an indefinite postponement of it and an acknowledgment of its impos- sibility. As the Psalmist puts it (Psalms cxxxviii, 6), '' Such knowledge is be- come wonderful to me : IT is liic.il and i cannot reach to it," "C." devotes another considerable paragraph \.o Atigustiite, of whom he is so fond, that we mtist pause again in front of that venerable name. "He says Augustine is with him. As the reference is not given for the passage cited, I fear it has been taken at (jeconil hand," writes "C." On my part, " jjeradventure, it was an oversight." I pretty generally give the references, but they ofcupy space, lie might have spared the "secondhand" hit, especially when in an earlier portion of his letter he is in the same condemnation with one nf IiIh most iniportant (iiiutiiti.ns on a branch of the subject to be afterwards notic- ed, when he writes : " We must all sny with the grieat Augustine, ' I would not helieTe the Scriptures unless the Catholic Church in-oposed them to me." I eudor.-e lul the passages on confession given by him from Augustine. They are quite in accordance with 1 iir views. I wonder if he accords as thoroughly with Augustine's views on pur(/a/ori/ as when he writes : " We read of heaven and hell, but the third place we are utterly ignorant of ; yea, we find it not in scripture." (Tertium |)eiiitu8 ignornmus. etc. Sec, 14, de verb Domet Hypeo, I., 5, contra Pelag:) We wonder if he agrees with Augustine's testi- mony iigaiiist the multitude of ceremonies in August Opera inn II., Ad luquisitiones Jarnarii seu Epist. 14, Paris, 1()79, or tiiat noble burst of his on the mai'ks of the true Church, when, combating the Donatists, he says : "Let them .^how me their church, nut in the Councils of their Bishops, not in the writings of disjjuters, not in the mihaci.ks and pbodigiks of which they boast, but, let them show it to me in the ordinances of the Imc, m the predictions of the proj>hets, in the sunt/s of the Psrdnis, in the predchim/ of the EvcoKjelists and in the Cttnonicnl ftnthonties of the iincred hooks." This i'h ot^R foundation to which we inviolably attach ourselves, kkposinCt only itpov this Scripure tvhich is come from the Prophets a'- d A jiostUs.'" Was I not right in saying that in the main, at least, "Augustine is with us"— in holding by the true confess- ion as well as '■"succession," in testifying against error and for the truth, and itt believing that Christ's true Catholic Church is built, not on any mere man, however eminent, but "is built upon the fou)idfition of the Apostles and Puophets, Jksits Chiiist HiMSKi-F being' the chief corner stone."— (Eph. ir. 20). "C." repeats his former boast in these terms: "I think we can triumphantly say: Candid reader, who has antiquity on his side?" But "in this same Confident boasting," which it is unnecessary to repeat refuting, "C" would do well to listen to his favorite, "the great St. Augustine," who meets the plea t)f "anti(iuity" thus: "This is a part of the devil's craft and subtlety, who, as he invented these false worships, aud sprinkled some juggling tricks to draw men into tliem, so he took such t course that, in process of time, the fallacy was commendeil. and the filthy invention was excused, by being derived from anti(|uity. Whereas the reason of truth is not from custom (which is from anti(piity) but from God, who is ])roved to lie God, not by b)ng -Mntimiance (or aMti(piIty), but by eternity.— Quaest et Vet et Novo Testament 'J, (Juseest CXIV. ".C." chides me for .-peaking 'so flippantly" of the Fathers. Show me where 40 and I shnll at once make "the amende." Is it "flippancy" to say, as I did, "Tliey, though some of them noblk men, ave liahle to en. and did errP" Is not this substantially "CV own opinion, as he writes: "When we quote the early writers, or fathers of the Church, wk do not olaim infallibility FOR THKMi^" Quite so. That is just what we think. The fathers are not infallible. In other words, they are "liable to err," and their writings, like all mere huu'an productions, are, a.-> 1 afterwards indicate, ' .shifting sand" as compared with the solid rock of the Infallible Word, anyone disbelieving which is deemed by our friend himself as not a "tit subject for serious argu- ment." "(;." finds "aid and comfort in the" thought that I acknowledge the "germs" of tiie Romish system, as being in the Fathers, and cheerily and charitably gives expression to tiie hope, on this nccount, of winning me over. Not 80 fast, my good friend. 1 not nierelj' firmly believe that certain of the Fathers have in their writings "the germs" whose "full corn in the ear" is that "system which "C." holds," but I believe, with the holy apostles, that these "germs" were beginning to show themselves in their (lay, for, sayJi St. P;ul, "The mystery of inicpiity aluk.ady woukkth. only that he who now holdeth do hold until he be taken out of the way, iind then that wicked one .shall be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with thesDirit of His mouth and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming," itc. (2 Thess. ii., 7-12) At this point 'C's" faith in the Word as the sufficient and sole standnrd seems to tail, and he begins to write of it somewhat after the fashion he in- correctly charges me with in my treatment of the Fathers. He, by a stroke of his pen, rules the larger jjortiou out altogether (the O. T ). and as for the New Testament, it must come only on a level with the Fathers and the Church asitsmind isexpresjed in the Decreesof Councils an 1 the Bulls, and especially the "living voice" of the Ptipe. This, of course rcr.ioves at once the common platform on which we were beginning pleasantly to meet and move, and makes one feel like turning on "C." the sharp edge of his own wenpon— that "if we do not believe Christ's Wokd wk are not fit subjects for serious AEGUMKNT." Yet, let us not part so abruptly, but reastm together a little longer. "77ntes "C." How so? Is not the Old TesUment the favorite armory from which you get the weapons you adroitly use in defence of the priesthood and many of your rites and ceremonies? Why, beciause it suits your purpose, discard it— so (I was almost going to say "t1ip|)antly") here? The precious experiences I gave of Old Testament worthies ffoing to God direct and pouring the full tide of their pent-up emotions, not into t!ie ear of a man of like passions with themselves, but into the wide, warm heart of Him wlio alone has power on earth to forgive sin, are entirely in ]>oint. Thef J. din, who:?e origin is so misrepresented, Christ says: indicating His special iutereit in the 0. T., " If you did believe Mose-t. you would perhaps believe me also, for IIk wrote of Mr ; but if you dt) not believe Hia Writ- ings, how will you believe My Wohds ?" Then He gives us His own search- warrant, without the least hint of aught else being needed. "Search the Scriptures (or wriiiiKjs) etc., the same are they t/utf trstifi/ of inc." (.iohn v., 39, 4(i, 47.) Divert evidently thought that "the living voice" of Lazarus, coming straight from Abrnham's bosom, would have more weight with his five brethren than what " C." calls the "dead Letter of the Word." Father Abraham, frem bis answer, was evidently of a different opinion, and thought the Scriptures sutHcient, though there was then only half of the Blessed Book to instruct them. " Abraham said to him, they have Moses and the Pro])het3, let them hear thou," and again, " If they hear not Moses and the Pro])hets, neither will they believe if one rise again from the dead." (Lnkoxvi. 2!), 31). I would be satisfied to rest the argument for the sutR(dency of Scri[)ture as the sole rule of Faitli at this point -and yet "the half of it has not been told you." Does it seem the least likely that our Saviour would favor that trmhtton of which "C." speaks in such glowing terms, when his chief complaint against the laiests of old was that they taught for doctrines, the commandments of men, autl hid the candle of the Lord beneath the " hushel " of tradition. " Leaving the commandment of God, (He says,^ ye hold the tradition of men" " and He .said to them, Well do you make void the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition, making void the word of God by your own tradition^ whicli you have given forth." (Mark vii. 7, 9, 14). Most evi- dently St. Peter also felt that tradition would make us the dupes of "cun- ningly deviled fables," and therefore he is bent on making provision through the committing of the truths he taught to writing, against our being led astray. " I will do my endeavor also, that after my decease also, you may often have whereby you may keeji a memory of these things." How is their memory to be refreshel ? Through the Word of God, u{ which he goes on to speak. " We have the mork fir.m prophetical word whereunto ye do well to attend," more reliable than the bright transfiguration light of which he speaks, or the voice from the cloud. The light of tradition is a delusive •will-o'-the-wisp;" the light of rea,son is a glimmering taper; the lights of conscience and of passion are but " sparks of our own kindling." "The light of pliilosopliy is as the Aurora Borealis, but this word which came not at any timt^ h\ the trill of man, iov the hob/ men of God spake, inspired hy the Ilolif Ghost'^ (2 Pet. i; ]o-21. 2 Tim., iii, 16). This is the light shining in a dark place till the day dawns. I have already ciuoted Augustine in favor of inspired Scripture as the sole tule of faith, and could multiply proofs without number from all the most reliable Fathers, confirmatory of the views of Christ, and John, and Peter, rtud Paul already presented, but your time will not allow. Take one or two. Thus Irenteus, to whom "C." is so partial. "We following only one true Lord, and having His discourses as the rui.k of truth." Ircn. adv. Haer. iv. '.'9— and Te/'^MZ/MH, frequently quoted by our friend, ,-ays: "As for Ilermo- mes. let his shop produce the Written Word. If he be unable to produce ■he Written Word in sulistantiation of his tenets, Ipt him fear the woe ap- pointed for those who add to it or i)Ktr.\ct from it." Tertul. adv. Hermog. .sec. 12, and Atkannsius — the author of the well-known creed—" the holy and divinely inspired Scriptures are sufficient of themselves for the declaration of the truth. (Athan. oratio contra CJent). Cyprian, too, M'ho is in great favor 48 with " C," very jn'operly asks, with reference to the tratlition exti^Uorl by him : *' Whence it tliat. pretended fradi'tion ? God testifies tlmt these things are tu Ite done which iire written." Cyp. E))is. 4, xxiv., and Vi/ril (also (iiioted I)y "C") " Nor even a tittle ou^vht to be delivered without the nathoriti/ of the Holij Scriptnre/i.'' (C'yr. Ileiron C'ntech iv., page .'iO). But a truce to tliese (iuo'tations, wiiich iui;j;lit be multiiilied indetiniteiy. " C." dwells ou the Church as " the iiifiillihle puide to truth— unless this he adoiitterl, the Scrip- tures fail to the tjround. That body is the livin II. ('. Church vestinfjf it in Popes ; the Galilean or French, in Councils, while England and America were wont tn no fnr a blending of the two. Our unknown friend brings the living voice of the infallible Church into contrast with the " Dead Letter of Scripture " to show the superiority of the former. But is there as much life in the declarations of the father?, the decrees of councils, and the l)ulls of Pi)pes, as in the " Word of God that Livjrm and reniniueth forever," that " Word of the Lord which tn ([uote St.. Auyustine, In his second treatise on the Ist I'ip. of St. .lolm. speaking on that passage in Mat, ll> on which llomanists base the j^retension of Peter's primacy and infalli- bility, Augustine says: " What do the words mean, I will build my Church on this rock? Answer, on this faith, on that which he .said, thou art the Christ the Si>n of the living God." So far from believing that the Church was built on Peter, or that any plea of iufallibility Cv>uld be urged in behalf of him, and his successors, this illustrious prelate, to whose opinion "C." attaches so much weight, says in his 124th treatise on St. John, "On this rock which thou hast confessed I will build my Church, since Christ ions the roi'k." Then, again, in his 13th sermon, "Thou art Peter, ami on this rock (petra) which thou hast confesseil, on this rock whrch thou hast known, saying, 'Thou art the Christ the S.)n of the living God,' I will build my Chuiich ABOYK MYSKLF. who am the Son of the living God. I will build it on MK, and NOT MK ON THEK." This was the view of all Christendom, as well in Augustine's day. It is a striking faot that none of the apostles (.ludas always excepted) proved so thoroughly fallilde as Peter, and what do the admirers of celibacy think of this ? We have nt) record of any of them being married save liimself. How often he crossed his Master, and fifteen years after the Ascen^ioii (A.D. 58) we find St Paul saying of him, though " full of the Holy Ghost," showing how little he believed in his infallibility. "When Ceplms was come to Antioch I withstood him to the face, because he was to he blamed, and to his dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented, so that Barnabas ALSO WAS LED bi/ them into that dissimulation." Gal. ii., 11, 13. (Roman- ist version, from which all my (juotations are given.) This ought effectually to dispose of the plea of infallibility for Peter or any of his "so-callealed that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks e.v cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Chri.stians, by virtue of his suiweme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith and morals, to be held i)y the universal Church, by the divine a,ssist;ince promised to him in l)Ie.ssed Peter (Lk. xxii., 32) is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer %villed that, hit church should he endowed for defining doctrine regvrd- ing faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the R )man Pontiff are ibuefobmable op the.mselves and not from the consent of the Church.*' Then, in the true Tridentine style, it winds up: " Bat if any one (which may mm 45 God avt'rt) presumo to contradict this our definition, let liim h>' Aimtlioma." We and all true Prote.^tants prosurae to cuntradif^t it, and therefort! cnme under the curse. How can wo help ontradicting it. when it ffoes in the fai'e of Scripture and history, of all science and sen^c. The whole Vatican decree which ''C." contends for is hiwod on the continuity of the succession from Peter downwards, and of each link in the chain liein^ intact and unsullied. As Towards the integrity of the ciiain, it is enough to say that no one is sure as t) I'eter liiinseli or the first after Peter, and as to the third and fourth there was among the enrly fathers the utmost diversity. The chain has, in fact, nothing to hang on. Then as to the quality of the links. We have already found council contradicting council. The seventh general Council, known as the second Nicene, convened l)j' tiie infamous Empress Irene in 787, established image worship. This was endorsed hy another general Council at Constantinople, hut as soon as it was known in the West, in sj)itH of tlio efforts of the Roman See, which went in the same direction, we find an important Council of three hundred l)i.shoii3 meeting under Charlemagne, and condemning the worsiiip of images. At Constance nnd nt Basle two different Councils, found "Cs" living voice, or infaliihle authority, not in Popes hut in councils, while two opposition councils held at Ferrara, and the Lateran, find it not in council.s, hut in Popes. Now which are we to believe? It is curious to find " C." contending for the * living voice" and then wiien proof is wanted on any point he leaves the " living present" and falls back on the fiend past. When it comes to a ques- tion between this one book which God has writtan as the Romanists himself acknowledges, and the many hooks unobtainable most, if not all of them, to v.diieh he would invite us, we can be at no loss which to choose— as the more excellent way. To follow " C's " advice is to enter on a track in which the wisest will be sure to wander, and which the wealthiest alone can attempt. To follow along the highway the greiit God has *'ca.-t up and laid down for us," is to go on a track in regarelt, which I leave "C." ti. answer, which Pope are we to believe, to which " living voice '' are We t > listen i On vital point.s one say.* one thing, another the very o|)posite. Both, on my friend's [irinci- ples, are invested with infallible authority, but whicii shiuiM we follow ? Sometimes a Pope will contradict himself. Thus Pius IX., who presided at llie Council whicii i)roclainied Pa|)id Infallibility, and had many excellent qualities, commenced his olHoial career as S )vereign Pontiff, a great political reformer and advocate of Italian unity. Yet, latterly, how kiMuly he opposed the cau.«e of his early advo(!acy I Did the '• living voice " of that weak but worthy man speak infallibly in 1848 or 1870. Which ? At the Vatican Council the case of Ilonorius was dwelt on by the powerful minority. The hiajority could not resist the wisdom and the spirit that spoke, Acts vi, 13. The principle was brought out with tr.msparent clearness by several of tiio minority who comi>osed the best talent of the Council, ''Si falsas in uno, falsus in omnibus." (If false in o:ie, false in all). But they carried it their own way. As has been well said, ".\ dogma triumphed over history. If f icts are against opinion (It was said by the Infallibilists) all the worse for the fuels'' I am sorry to find such an intelligent authority as "C." classing himself with the uiajority. the Vatican Council of 1870 made the Pope the Infallilile Head. If it be true why was it ni)t proclaimed sooner? If it be true in one case it must be in all. It shows their deep sense of the difficulties encompassing the (luestion -that, when the vote was taken in secret session (Juiv 13, 187U1, of (!()1 members present, 450 bishops voted in the affirmative (placet), 88 in the negative (non- idacet), 62 voted with a qualification, and over 80, though in Rome at the rime, did not vote at all. That evening, the minority, comprising some of the most able and accomplished prelates, sent a deputation to the Pope, be- seeching him on their knees to modify the decree. On the 17tli duly, 56 bishoi>s opposed to the dogma, sent a written protest to the Pope. On the eve- ning of that day thesL", with 60 besides, left Rome, and this ga>o an easy vic- torj' to the majority. I have heard it repeatedly stated tliat the late much respected and lamented Archbishop Connolly was oppuseil to Papal Infal- libility at the Council, though ultimately falling in. On .Inly 18 it pas.sed. In the cour.^eof the debates Bishop Strossmeyer, of Bosnia, delivered a meiuora- able aildress, almost every sentence of which I can cordially eador.se He co-operated with Archbishop Kendrick, of St. Louis, Ilef'ele, of Rottonburg, and others of the opposition. All this goes to show how uncertain is this "living voice" on which "C," lays so much stress. I am sorry that "C." has touched on the fruits of the confesi^ional. I cannot enter on that field with- out bringing out fi^.^ts and statistics from which I would rather abstain. With all that he has said of the character of the Roman Catholic population of Halifax I perfectly agree. His eulogy on the excellent ladies also is doubt- less riclily deserved, but that is no fair test. But I must have done. I can- hot notice any other anonymous writers. Anything of c >n equence in their productions has been fully ii.et in these replies to "C." Nor can 1 engage to ccmtinue the controver.sy on the present indefinite footing. I am not ex- jiected t) know with whom I am contending, and the disadvantage is maui- lest tlio nioro when Iwo or tliree iiinskt>(I oonibntnnts aro at nie simiilta/ie« (•usly. Ih tlieir pofitioii ?o iintoiinliU' imd cmpfrillcd as to lU'cd so iniiiiy to defend it?' 1 repol as utterly IInj^l^it and uiitiuo tlie oluir^'o of mio (lint I " provuked this ('otitruversy. ' (^Miitu tlie reverse. Hiiw did it Ije^dii i" Tlie Mis«ioner.-' liy their iittcnuieos and lly-slieets, etc., cliallenp'd (l]ll)()^iti^n. In com UK n >vit!i .-everal of my dretliren, I met tliem in a frank, njieu way, hav- ing no ilesiio or design of liringinj; Roman Catholics int > the contest. " C." (if liis own tree will, championed (heir .side. Nor do I or any one else, I if'up'* \»o.se, whii.'if opinion i.s worth having, regret it. I could not' (in (he circum- etancef-),l'Ut respond, recalling the Syrian'^ order ("J (;iiion. .wiii, .10).' " Fight ye no( witli small or great, hut with ilii'. KiNd o.vly." IJut why M' himself says in v. 19. He expressly declares the written Word to be surer. 2. The O.T. is the "voice of God." 3. That voice pealing from the skies was liable to be mistaken, and in point of fact, was misunderstood. John xii., 28,30, when it spake from heaven, and some of the peo]>Ie said "it thundered.'" and others that "an angel spake to him," and still further, on occasion of Paul's conversion (Acts ix). 2. He also says: "Tlie British Constitution and ;i large part of Briti>'i Law are purely traditional, inasmuch as they originate in no written docu- ment." The reference is unfortunate for his purpose, for, aside from the want of point and propriety in the parallel, does he not know when common Law clashes witn Statute or written Law, which generally prevails ? 3. He further says: "Dr. B.'s argument is crumbled into dust by the words of St. Paul, ' I praise ye brethren that ye keep the traditions as I de- livered them to you.' ' Hold the traditions which ye have been taujfht, whether by word or by our Epistle.' " In rejjly niitice : (n) The primitive meaning of tradition. The original word '■' par adorn'' means simply what is delivered by word of mouth. The " traditions which they had been taught" were neither more nor less than the instructions he had ytw« fi/'sowf7%— as Paul says to Timothy : " Hold the form of sound words, which thou Afl«< Aearr? o/" me." If is a mere verbal (piibble, like the ilouble meanings attached to confession and confirmation, to say that a tra- dition of this kind— truth, comiug fresh from the lips of the Iwhi Apostles, 51 and Hut passing: tlirough any second hand, is the same with the traditions whicli Anglo and Roman Catholics contend for, floating along on the tide of accident, through a long line of successive generations. (b) The early Fathers counted the traditions of the Apostles riud their wri - ings the pame. Thus, Athana-^ius: "The traditions of the Apostles teach us," St. Peter saying: " Christ, therefore, having suffered for us in the flesh," and Paul writing: "Looking for that blessed hope." (Apostolon paradosi^ didas- kei, &c.) Kp : d .\delph, cited bj' Goode, vol. i, p. 67. Almost uniformly, these Fathers si)eak of the " Evangelical Tradition," (Kvangeilike Paradosis) as e(iuivalent to holy Scripture, which At'ianasius describes as •' ordinarily superseding enquiry." Cyprian (a great favorite with Romanists) asks; " Where is that tradition P For God testifies that those things are to be done which arc loritten." (Eplst. 74, ad Pomp). Jerome, the author of the Vul- gate, translating a passage from Polycrates, calls fJie Gospel the Evangelica Tr.aditio, " the Evangelical Tradition." (Routh Religi Sacr, vol. i, 371.) 4. ITe actually (juote.*, "Ye are nur epistle written in our hearts," to show that something more than the written epistle is needed I ii. His whole argument (\i he can he said to argue who simply asserts) proceeds, like "C.V in No. 2, on the idea that the Rule of Faith is subordin- ate to the Church, which has the exclusive right t.) define and interjn-et it. It has iieen said: "That we nwe the Scriptures to the Church." What Church? the Cluirch Universal or the Roman P If the former, then what exclusive part or lot in the matter can belong to the latter? We have al- reaiiy seen the early Apostolic Church to be at direct antipodes to the later Roman: the African cluirch (Augustine's) protesting against any appeals to the Roman : the Eastern church waging an nuplicable war against the Roman : we may say the same, yet more strongly, of the Waldensian church ami of the Primitive Apostolic churches in the British Isles,— none of them were indebted for the " lively oracles" to Rome. The canon of Scripture was fixed long before the setting up of the Papacy. All these divisions and an- tagonisms show that the Church of Rome was not the Church Catholic (or universal), and the very expression —Roman Catholic— which involves a "particular general" is a contradiction in terms. The determining th canonical books was the work of the early churches, prior to the Roman assumption, therefore. Rome, no more tban Jerusalem or Ephesus, Ar.tiocli or Alexandria, Constantinople or Carthage, has the right to put forch the exclusive claim of having collated, conserved or communicated the sacred books. But, even supposing she could show that she alone was the custodian and transmitter of these (which .she cannot), still that would not establish her right to be their special interpreter, unless it can be shown that the mere keeper of hooka and documents is necessarily the best expounder of them, or that we have no right to read our letters till the letter-carrier explains them ! This substitute for "C." closes with what he terms, "a specimen of the reasoning of common sense." It is this: " Protestantism is founded on the doctrine that Scripture is the sole rule of faith ; but this doctrine is not found p i jp H HW5ai(M» wa 52 in Scripture. Therefore, Protestantism is unscriptural and self contradictory." Could any disciple of Aristotle tell us what sort of syllogism that ifsP 6. In our letter to "C." No. 2, we have fully shown that Scripture is the sole rule of faith, establishing it on Scriptural and Patristic grounds. To the proofs therein adduced from the later may be added some of the earlier and more reliable Fathers. Thus Ignatius (A, D. 101) brings every mattur of doubtful disputation to the test, "h it lorUten ?" Polycarp, (108) writing to the Philippians, refers to Paul's Epislle as a saft; and sufficient guide, and commends them as ''well exercised in the Holy .Scriptures." Justin Martyr (140) says: "Those who have left us a relation of all things that concern our Saviour, Jesus Christ, have thus taught us, that the knowledge ot all things might he conveyed to us by their being committed to writing" Irenseus, (167) (a favorite sometimes with "C." and his coadjutors) makes this very clear declaration, "J?// no others have we come to the knowledge of the Plan of our Salvation, but those through whom the Gospel came to us in the Scriptures, to be the founda noN and PILLAR of our faith" The refer- ences can be given if required, of those, and extracts of a kindred import from over thirty of the best of the Futliors down to the close of the sixth century. " Since the Doctors (said Luther) all labor to prove what they wrote, by the Holy Scriptures, it follows that Scripture must be clearer and more con- clusive tlian their writings. NYho would think of proving what is in itself obscure by the help of something cliscurer still ? " "Most wimdrous Book ! bright carol of the T..