required, you might reasonably suppose that He would demand a reparation as public and as open as the crime,-a humiliation as complete as was the pride in which you sinned. To consider as a hardship, the manifestation of humility to one person deputed and chosen to receive it—to one bound by every possible law not to reveal, or in any way betray aught that has passed between you—to one who feels it his duty to receive you with compassion, with sympathy, and affection, and to direct, counsel, and assist you,-to consider this any thing but the most merciful mitigation of what is due from you, is an idea that fills the mind with pain and regret.*

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

Ap. Mōhler, ubi sup.

3. But finally, such an institution is exactly consistent with the entire system of religion established through the new law. For we find, as I have taken some pains to show you, that our Saviour established a kingdom, or species of dominion, in His Church, consisting of an organized body, intended to minister to the wants of the faithful, with authority coming directly from Him, with a rule and command on the one side, and the obligation of learning and obeying on the other. Now, this system of authoritative government, which I also showed you pervaded even the minor departments of the Church, as established by Christ, seems to require for its completeness and perfection, that there should be also tribunals within it; to take cognizance of transgressions committed against its laws, that is to say, the laws of God, to administer which it was appointed. We should naturally expect, for the complete organization of such a Church, an appointment of authority within it for the punishment of offences against its fundamental laws and moral precepts; so as to be charged, not only to teach, but likewise to enforce the practice of what is taught. Such an order, therefore, is consistent in every way, with the attributes of such a religious constitution.

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

The words of my text are the primary and principal foundation on which we rest. I need hardly observe, that as, in the old law, a confession or manifestation of sins was appointed among the means of obtaining forgiveness, so there are allusions, in the new, to a similar practice, sufficient to continue its recollection with the early Christians, and make them conclude that Providence had not completely broken up the system It had till then pursued. They were told to confess their sins to one another.* It is very true that this text

*James v. 16.

is vague,—it does not say, Confess your sins to the priest, nor to any private individual; although the mention of the priests of the Church, in the preceding verses, might naturally suggest the idea of their being a special party to the act. Further, the words, "Confess your sins one to another," seem to command more than a general declaration of guilt, or the saying what even the most hardened sinner, when all around him are joining in it, will not refuse to repeat, “I have sinned before God." They seem to imply a more peculiar communication between one member of the Church and another. At any rate, they serve to prove, that the manifestation of sin is not of modern date; and to refute the objection that there is nothing in the New Testament to show this natural, obvious, method of obtaining relief, to exist in the law of Christ.

But in the text, which I have prefixed to this discourse, have we not something far more specific? Christ was not addressing his flock in general, but was giving a special charge to the Apostles; in other words, to the pastors of the Church; because I have before shown you, that when a command was given to the Apostles, not of especial privilege, such as that of working miracles, but one connected with the welfare and salvation of the flock, it became a perpetual institution to be continued in the Church. What does he tell them?" Whose sins ye shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins ye shall retain, they are retained." Here is a power, in the first place, truly to forgive sins. For this expression, "to forgive sins," in the New Testament, always signifies truly and really to clear the sinner of guilt against God. forgiven her," says our Saviour of Magdalen. mean? Surely that she was purged, cleansed who heard the words so understood them. "Who is this that forgiveth sins also?" They considered the privilege which our Saviour here claimed as superior to the power which He really possessed, though this embraced the working of miracles. Such an idea could only have been *Luke vii. 49.

Many sins are

What does this from sin. Those

For they said

entertained of the right actually to remit or pardon an offence against God. That it was so, and moreover that they attributed a correct meaning to His words, appears not only from the parable of a debtor, which he applied to her case, but by the words which He actually addressed to her. For first He said; "thy sins are forgiven thee;" and then, "go in peace,"—words of comfortable assurance, which must have led her to believe that she was fully pardoned. Again: Our Lord speaks to the paralytic as follows: "Be of good heart, son, thy sins are forgiven thee."* Those who

heard Him in this case went farther than in the other, and "said within themselves, He blasphemeth:"--they considered it an assumption of a privilege belonging to God alone; they understood His words in their primary, obvious meaning, of remitting sins committed against the Almighty; and our Saviour confirms them in this interpretation, by the words that follow: "Which is easier to say, thy sins are forgiven thee, or to say, arise and walk? but that you may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins," &c. To "forgive sins," therefore, signifies in the Gospel to pardon, to absolve, or to cleanse the soul from sin. But all this reasoning is superfluous, if we treat with those who adhere to the Anglican Church. For, their service for the visitation of the sick, directs the clergyman to say, in the very words which we use: "By his (Christ's) authority, I absolve thee from all thy sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen." The Apostles, then, and their successors, received this authority; consequently, to them was given a power to absolve, or to cleanse the soul from its sins. There is another power also given; that of retaining sins. What is the meaning of this? Clearly the power of refusing to forgive them. Now all this clearly implies,-for the promise is annexed, that what sins Christ's lawful ministers retained on earth, are retained in Heaven-that there is no other means of obtaining forgiveness, save through them. For the forgiveness of Heaven is made to depend upon that which they give on earth; and *Mat. ix. 2.

those are not to be pardoned there, whose sins they retain. Now, were a judge sent forth with this assurance that whomever he should acquit, that person should go free; but that any one, to whom he should refuse pardon, should be considered as not forgiven; would not this imply that no forgiveness was to be obtained except through him? And would not the commission otherwise be a nullity, an insult, and a mockery? For, would it not be an insult and a mockery of his authority, if another commission, totally unconnected with his tribunal, was at the very same time issued with equal power to pardon or punish delinquents, if there were other means of forgiveness, over which his award had no control? Not merely, therefore, a power to forgive sins is given in our commission, but such a power as excludes every other instrument or means of forgiveness in the new law. In fact, when Christ appoints any institution, for objects solely dependent on His will, that very fact excludes all other ordinary means. When He instituted baptism as a means of washing away original sin, that very institution excluded any other way of obtaining that benefit. In still stronger manner, then, does the commission here given constitute the exclusive means of forgiveness, in the ordinary course of God's dealings; for not only does it leave this to be deduced by inference, but, as we have seen, it positively so enacts, by limiting forgiveness in Heaven to the concession of it here below, by those to whom it is intrusted.

But what must be the character of that power? Can you suppose that a judge would be sent out, with a commission, to go through the country, so that all whom he sentenced should be punished accordingly, and those whom he acquitted should be pardoned; and understand that this discretionary power lodged in his hands, could be properly discharged by his going into the prisons, and saying to one man you are acquitted," to another, "you must be punished," to a third, “you I pronounce guilty," and to a fourth, "you I declare innocent;" without investigation into their respective cases, without having the slightest ground for passing sentence of absolution

66