is a sorrow of mind, and a detestation of sin, joined to a resolution to sin no more. To obtain that pardon of sin this sorrow was at all times necessary; and now, to him that has forfeited his baptismal innocence, it prepares the way for forgiveness, if it be joined to reliance on the divine mercy, and a desire of complying with the other conditions of this sacrament. Wherefore, the holy synod declares, that this contrition contains not a dereliction of sin only, and the beginning of a new life, but likewise a detestation of that which is past, according to that which was said," &c.

Thus, therefore, you see what is expected of every penitent before absolution can be of any value, and before confession can be considered worth any thing to his salvation.

The

Now, then, we come to the second part of this sacrament. Catholic Church teaches, that the sinner, being thus sorry for having offended God, and sorry upon the motives which I have given—that is, not on account of a fear of evil coming upon himself, but on account of the goodness, the kindness, and the mercy of God, which has been injured, must next perform an outward act, which should seem of itself the natural and spontaneous consequence of this feeling. Catholic divines have again and again defined the quality of sorrow for sin, when they say, it must be supernatural—that the motives must be exclusively drawn from the attributes of God; that it must not be from the consequences of sin brought here below, but must be with reference to our relation to God, and our eternal welfare: that it must be supremethat is to say, that we must detest, and abbor, and hate sin beyond every other evil upon earth: and, in the third place, that it must be universal —that is, to say, that not one single transgression, not one single fault must be excepted from this deep and solemn sorrow for having offended God. This diposition will naturally make the soul ready to give any compensation which may be required for the offence that it has committed against God. Not only so, but I must say, it is the very nature of love itself to make that manifestation-love which, as I said before, was the last step in the work of conversion. We find in the case of the Magdalen, she could not rest satisfied merely in being sorry in consequence of having offended God-she could not rest satisfied with merely regretting the evil she had done, and retiring from it, and by a new life, thus showing to the world her sorrow; but she must brave confusion, insult, and every other humiliation, she must break through the crowd of attendants, penetrating into the house of the very pub. lican, the proudest, the most self-conceited of men, she must break in upon the solemn banquet, she must cast herself at the feet of her phyician, she must weep bitter tears, she must lavish upon the Lord ber God all her most precious things. And thus it was, that she herself felt that if she really did love God, and if she really was sorry for having

offended him, she should make some reparation to his outraged majesty. Thus, therefore, it is the natural tendency of love to make some outward manifestation, to testify in some way or other the act of repentance; and to ask, as it were, in humiliation from others that forgiveness which the soul feels that it requires. Thus, therefore, again we have another and most consistent step in this institution, linking it necessarily with all that has gone before, though, of course, no ways forming the ground upon which the Catholic Church believes and teaches it. She, therefore, maintains that the sinner is bound to manifest his offences to the pastors of the church, or to the person deputed by the church for that purpose, to lay open all the secret offences; and in consequence of an authority vested by our blessed Saviour in him, to receive, through his hands, a sentence on earth, which is ratified in heaven-that God has forgiven the sin.

The primary object of this institution, like every other, is the salvation of the soul, and as there may be cases where, by the too speedy receiving full forgiveness, the impression may not have been produced upon the soul which is necessary to an amendment of life, so it may happen that the dispositions, as it were, with which such an institution is approached, are not sufficiently perfect, that the sorrow manifested is not sufficiently supreme; and it may likewise happen that, from falling again and again into sin after forgiveness has been once imparted, it does not appear that there is a steady resolution, which is the greatest proof of a sincere sorrow, it may be prudent to delay, to deny that forgiveness; and, therefore, it is that we believe that that also is provided for by Christ, and that there is a power also of withholding forgiveness until a more seasonable time.

Now, before entering into the grounds of this doctrine, allow me to examine how far it is that sort of institution which we should expect our Saviour to have made. I showed you before, that consistently with the plan followed by our Redeemer in the establishment of his religion, that, according to the method of acting which he has uniformly shown, we were to expect same outward institution, whereby the forgiveness of sin was to be communicated in the church; whereby the blood of Christ was to be applied to the soul for the cleansing of sin; but I did not there enter into the peculiar nature of the institution. Allow me, therefore, to premise a few remarks upon the aptness of such an instition to the ends for which we believe it was appointed.

In the first place, then, it seems an institution most conformable to the wants of human nature, whether we consider it in its natural constitution, or with reference to its present state.

As to the first, it seems almost natural for the mind to seek relief from guilt by the manifestation of it. We are not surprised when we hear of culprits, who have been guilty of some great crime, and have

escaped the vengeance of the law, leading restless and unhappy lives until they have of their own accord, confessed the guilt and met the punishment which the law awards. We are not astonished, when we hear that those who have been condemned to death, have been most anxious to call some person to whom they might manifest their guilt, and when we hear that they have declared again and again that they could not die happy unless they manifested their transgression. Thus, therefore, human nature finds this the most natural and obvious relief. There is in the poor sympathies which can be obtained by such confession some balm applied to the inward sufferings of the soul; there is a feeling that it is the only method of making a compensation to that society; to that political body against which they have transgressed. Nay, I will say, that you go much farther in this feeling-that the culprit, who at once acknowledges his guilt with humility, gains your compassion; you cannot, in your mind, consider him that black and bardened villain, which you before were inclined to consider him. There is an idea immediately that the man is truly sorry for what he has done; and that, consequently, his guilt, though the crime itself may have been equal, is not so great as that of him who boldly denies it. I am sure, had not our blessed Saviour's answer been made to the penitent thief, or had it not been recorded, we should in our minds have distinguished between the two malefactors--between him who humbly confessed that he died according to his deserts, and that one who persisted in his hardened effrontery to the end. If, therefore, God should choose to establish any outward means, whereby the conscience was to be eased from sin, we could hardly conceive any one more consistent with the natural wants of humanity and with its obvious feelings, than that of the manifestation of the sin.

It is, however, congenial to our nature, not merely in its general constitution, but still, further, in its present fallen state. For what, my brethren is sin? It is a rising up of the pride of man against the majesty of God. The sinner, fully aware of the consequences of his iniquity, instructed well of the end to which sin must lead him, seems to stand up before God's judgment seat, and, looking his future judge in the face, to insult him by the commission of that on which he knows he looks, and which he knows he will one day fully avenge. Now what would be the natural corrective of this? The humiliation before others of that proud spirit, which has thus raised itself before God, by the kneeling at the feet of man, and asking forgiveness, and owning oneself guilty, in consequence of having thus outraged the justice and majesty of God upon his eternal throne. That is the very corrective of the principle of all evil within us, and in the same manner as the third portion of penance, of which I shall treat on another occasion—that is, the satisfaction-tends to correct that concupiscence and those lusts,

which are incentives to other sins, so does this part seem most directly and most completely opposed to that pride which is generally its principle.

There are some beautiful reflections in Pascal on this subject. He remarks, "It is a thing which fills me with astonishment, how men can treat the confession of sin to one individual, under such circumstances as the Catholic church prescribes it, as a hardship, or any thing but the most lenient mitigation that possibly can be of what ought naturally to be exacted." He says, "You have sinned in the face of all mankind, you have outraged God in the face of all mankind, by your offences, and you should naturally expect that the compensation to his justice, which he would demand, would be as public, as certain, as complete a humiliation in the presence of man, as was the nature of the crime by which you have outraged God. To consider it as an hardship that, instead of this you should be bound to manifest in humility your offences to one person deputed, as it were, and chosen out to receive it-to one who is bound by every possible law not to reveal or manifest, in the most indirect way, any thing that has transpired between you; and to one who feels it his duty to receive you with kindness, with sympathy, and with affection, to direct you, to assist you, to counsel you to consider this any thing but the most complete, lenient and merciful mitigation of what is due to you is an idea which fills me with horror."

But, my brethren, not only is such an institution conformable to the vants of man; but it is precisely in accordance with the methods always pursued by God for the forgiveness of sin. We find, in the old law, that there were institutions for the forgiveness of sin, and that those institutions were so appointed as to make the manifestation of the transgression necessary, and preliminary to their application. God divided the sacrifices into different classes. There were those which were for absolute sin, there were those which were only for ignorant and almost involuntary, or at least unwilling transgression against the law of God. In the fifth chapter of Leviticus, we have it expressly said, if any man shall have transgressed in such a way, he shall confess -that is, he shall manifest the sin, and then shall the sacrifice be appointed; so that it appears from the very nature of the institution, and from the express enactments of God in the old law, that the manifestation of sin to the priest of his temple was a condition, a preliminary of their forgiveness-of course, so far as a sacrifice could be considered a means of forgiveness-that is to say, as the means of exciting faith in that great sacrifice through which alone forgiveness of sin was to be obtained. As I have again and again pointed out to you, the analogies between the system established by God in the old law, and by our blessed Saviour in the new, it cannot be necessary for me to dwell upon this circumstance, farther than to observe how, in the first

place, we should naturally expect that, if there was a provision made for the outward manifestation of sin, and it was made as a preliminary step for the authoritative outward forgiveness of it, we should expect, at least, a continuance of it in some form in the new law, and, particu. larly that we should expect it in greater perfection-that there should not be a falling off, but an advancing in the new.

But, finally, this is exactly consistent and analogous to all the systems established in the new law. For there we find, as I have taken some pains to show you, that our Saviour established a species of constitution in his church, that it consists of an organized body to minister to the wants of the faithful, with authority coming directly from him; there is a real command on the one side, and an obligation to obey and to learn 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 completion and perfection that there should be also a tribunal within it, to take cognizance of those transgressions which are against its laws, that is, against the laws of God, the administrator of which it is appointed. We should naturally expect for the complete organization of such a church, that there would be also a power of calling under its tribunal those offences which have been committed against its fundamental laws; that is, against the precepts of morality—that, as it is constituted by Christ to teach with his authority, and preserve his truth, so also it should be appointed to judge the transgressions committed against his law, and to administer the necessary relief. Thus, therefore, it is consistent in every way, with all that can be supposed to have any relation and any bearing upon such an institution.

Now, therefore, after all these remarks which, I trust, will have prepared the way, I proceed to the grounds on which this institution, this practice, this belief, that there is a power of forgiving sins in the church, which would necessarily require the manifestation even of hidden sins, is truly established by Christ.

The words of the text, my brethren, are the primary and principal foundation upon which we rest. I need hardly observe, that in the same way as we have seen that in the old law, confession or manifestation of sin, was appointed as a means of obtaining forgiveness of sin, that so we have expressions in the new quite sufficient to recal to the early Christians the former institution, and to make them suppose that Providence had not completely broken up the system that was anciently pursued. They are told to confess their sins to one another. Now, it is very true, that that text is exceedingly vague; that it does not say, that they are to be confessed to the priest, that they are to be confessed to a private individual. It may only signify, that a general confession of sin is to be made in the church, and yet I think, the very expression,