Page images
PDF
EPUB

a principle, it is said, of self-sufficiency and of pride introduced. I ask, is there not as much done by man in any other system as here? Who is it that lays hold of the merits of his Saviour, and, by applying them to himself, obtains justification? Is it not the sinner? And is not this a sublimer act, a much more difficult work for him who is immersed in sin, and one which surpasses a greater strength, and power, and energy, than in that doctrine which supposes that God alone can forgive sins, and yet believes that he demands from us acts of humiliation and of painful exercise to appease, in some degree, his offended majesty? Is it not giving much more to man, enabled, doubtless, by grace, (and we shall see just now that the Catholic demands grace as the necessary and only instrument for the work of satisfaction), but is it not allowing much more to man to suppose that, when plunged in the midst of his offences, he has power, by a single effort of his will, to appropriate to himself all the merits of Christ, and so completely to clothe his own soul therewith, as that he shall stand pure and holy in his sight, than to suppose that sin being alone forgiven by God, in consequence of a long and painful course of suffering, the Almighty does allow those labours, which are undertaken to satisfy his offended dignity, to have some weight in his sight? The one, if I may so say, is giving to man the greatest, the essential, the vital, act of justification; the other, only exacts from him its painful consequences, with the consoling condition, that God will accept them.

But proceeding a little closer still into the examination: What is the Catholic doctrine regarding satisfaction? I have told you how, in the first place, sin is forgiven by a Sacrament, instituted by Christ for that purpose, in which the power of pronouncing judicially a sentence of remission was communicated to the pastors of the church, and I examined and analyzed the acts which were required for this purpose. Now the whole of the process which I showed you, the Catholic requires for the forgiveness of sin-the whole power of the forgiveness is invested exclusively and entirely in God-inasmuch as the minister no more acts in his own name, than he does in the sacrament of baptism, whereby it is believed that sin is forgiven. He is simply the instrument of God, appointed by him to take cognizance of the case, and to pronounce thereupon, with the assurance, that the ratification of his sentence is the necessary and infallible consequence. We believe, therefore, that sin is forgiven, and can be forgiven, by God alone. We believe, moreover, that in the justification of the sinner, it is only God who can have the slightest part; that it is only through his grace and instrument, and through the intervention of Christ as the means or purchase, that justification can be obtained in the soul of any one. No effort on our parts, no fasting, no prayer, no alms-deeds, no work that we can conceive to be done by any man, however protracted, and how

ever expensive or severe, can, according to the Catholic doctrine, have the most decimal weight, in purchasing or obtaining redemption or forgiveness of sin, or in averting that eternal punishment which is allotted to it. This, therefore, constitutes the essence of forgiveness, or of justification; and in all this we believe, that man can have no part, and that the outward act, the exercise, is only as the deputed vicegerent of God.

We come, therefore, to another portion. We believe, that besides this forgiveness of sin, that besides the eternal debt of punishment, which God, in his justice, hath awarded to transgression against his law, he has been pleased to reserve a certain degree of inferior lesser punishment, proportioned to the guilt which has been incurred; and it is in this part alone that the Catholic believes, that satisfaction can be made to God. What the grounds of this belief are I will give just now; at present I simply wish to lay down the doctrine clearly and intelligibly. It is only with regard to some degree of temporal punishment which God has appointed, that we believe the Catholic or the Christian can satisfy the justice of God. But is this satisfaction which he can make any thing of his own? Certainly not; it is not of the slightest value, except inasmuch as it is united with the merits of Christ's passion, and receives its efficacy and power from divine promises, which have been attached to such works, in consideration of the eternal and complete redemption which has been wrought by our blessed Saviour,

Such then, my brethren, is the entire doctrine of satisfaction, and herein consists alone that self-sufficiency, that power of self-justification, which has been so often considered as quite sufficient to account for Catholics reconciling themselves to the painful works which their religion requires for the remission of their sins.

The whole of this question necessarily rests upon this consideration: Is it the appointment of God, that when he has forgiven sins or justified the sinner, so that he is once more placed in a state of grace and favour before him, to reserve still the allotment of some degree of punishment for his transgressions? I say, undoubtedly that it is; and I would appeal, in the first instance, to the feelings of every individual. I do not believe that there is any one, however he may think that he is in a state of favour before God, however he may flatter himself that his sins have been taken away, who yet, if calamity should come upon him, will not almost naturally consider it a proper acceptance of it before God, if he receive it as a punishment for his sins. Our common feelings prompt us to consider those domestic or other afflictions which visit us, as sent by God, because we have transgressed against him, although at the moment when the infliction comes, we are not conscious of being guilty of any thing displeasing to him. This is a natural

feeling, a feeling which is to be found pervading every religion; and the more natural to the Christian, because it is impossible for him to be familiar with the word of God, without the impression being made upon him, that God does visit temporally the sins of men upon their heads, although they may have done what is necessary to remove them from his sight. Assuredly, in the consideration of those trials which befal the just, we are always prone, not merely to consider that they are for their greater purification, or to make them more single-hearted and more detached from the world; but we always have the idea, that God is thereby visiting some lurking affection to that which is not lawful; that he is seeking thereby to cleanse and purge them from those offences which, being of smaller consequence, may escape their attention. It is impossible not to connect, more or less, the idea of suffering inflicted with that of sin committed. It is to be discovered, I say, through the whole of the Christian religion, because the very first principles, whether found in the old or the new law, of moral conduct, are based upon the necessity of performing works painful and disagreeable, or of enduring sufferings which are sent us by divine providence, as inflictions justly deserved. We find constantly, in the old law, expressions of repentance and sorrow, and acts, indicative of those feelings, performed after the sin has been forgiven. We find, that even such a method of proceeding is pointed out by God himself; for instance, when he forgives the sin of his servant David, through his prophet Nathan, he does not tell him merely, "The Lord has taken away your sin, arise, and afflict yourself no more; you have no more cause for sorrow, you are fully justified before God;" but he tells him to atone for the consequences of those sins, because he had made his name to be blasphemed among the nations, and therefore the child that was born of his iniquity should be taken from him. We find, in like manner, that he was punished after the commission of another great sin, that of numbering the people of Israel. Wherefore was this, if in the justification of the sinner God did not still reserve to himself the infliction of some punishment, of some correction, and propitiatory chastisement, upon his most chosen, faithful servants, when he had received them into grace? We find him following the same conduct with regard to Moses and Aaron, who, having but slightly transgressed, were still severely punished, after God had given manifest evidence, that even that trifling sin was forgiven them; because, although he continued his kindness and his particular favour in their regard, yet did he condemn them both to be deprived of a sight of the promised land, in consequence of their slight infidelity towards his promise. We find Job, in the same manner, telling us how, because he had transgressed in his words, or somewhat sinned in his speech, how therefore he humbled himself, how he shed his tears through the night; and how, in fact, he had humbled

himself, and done penance, by outward humiliation before God. We find, in like manner, that when the men of Nineveh had imminent destruction threatened them by the prophet, the most natural and obvious way in which they think of propitiating the divine Majesty, is by publicly proclaiming a general fast, and all of them, from the king upon the throne to the very animals, were obliged to join in their penance, fasting for three days, and the Ninevites saying, "Who knows but that the anger of God may be averted, and we shall be spared."

But, my brethren, some may perhaps say, that all this belongs to the older dispensation, before the law of grace and of complete freedom had come in. But, in the first place, allow me to observe, it is the true system founded by God, and belongs essentially to the natural manifestation of his attributes. It is, in fact, instituted in the old law-it begins from the very first institution in Paradise, when our first parents had their sin forgiven them, and yet had the most bitter consequences entailed upon them and their posterity, on account of their transgression of God's command. We never find it expressly said, through the old law, “This is the institution of my covenant, that whoever sins and obtains forgiveness, shall nevertheless be punished for it." But we find it belonging essentially to the order of his justice, and endured by those of old, not so much in consequence of any positive institution, as the consequence of its being the obvious and natural proceeding which was to be expected from God. Now these things belong not to the outward or to the legal institution, but have been chosen by God as a manifestation of his righteousness or his attributes: and we have every right to consider, that there is a continuation of the system through the new law precisely as there was of old. Even had not God himself said in the new law, the sinner must repent, and that he must abandon sin in order to obtain forgiveness, we should never have supposed, that because it is commanded in the old law, therefore it was not to continue in the new, and simply for the reason I have stated, that it does not belong to the legal institution, but belongs essentially to the order of God's providence; so in like manner, if we find from the beginning God so forgives sin, as yet in accordance with our ordinary feelings, to reserve the infliction of some smaller punishment for it, we have every reason, unless there is something positively to the contrary, to consider it as continued in the new law.

But is it not really and truly continued there? Consider the economy of the two testaments, and compare them together: will you discover one single word which says, that such outward practices of penance as are used as forms to expiate sins before God were from henceforth to be abolished? St. Paul tells us again and again, that we are justified at free cost through Christ alone. But were not they of old also justified by free cost? Was there any forgiveness of sin except through the

merits of Christ's passion? Therefore the circumstance of the remission of sins, or of justification, being due to the all-sufficiency of Christ's passion, not having excluded from temporal punishment before, unless we have an express declaration, that the difference of our coming after instead of before, that redemption has abolished some of the conditions of its application, we cannot reason from this circumstance, that we are justified through Christ to the abolition of such conditions.

They of old were justified as we are, through the blood of Christ. There was more difficulty in the mode of its application, if you please, it was not so easily made the object of faith, nor applied by the same sort of sacramental institution as now; but still the merit came from the same source, the work was derived precisely from the same power, and if, therefore, you see that the freeness of the justification of those of old, through Christ's merits, was not sufficient to exclude these works of satisfaction, neither can the same reason be a motive for excluding them at present.

But compare, as I said, the economy of the two testaments; see if our Saviour does not show, that precisely the same system was to be followed in this regard. Do you ever hear him say, that fasting from henceforth was not to be followed by his church? On the contrary, does he not make this remarkable observation on this head, that so far from fasting, which had been considered till then a work of expiation, and was considered so by those whom he addressed; so far from saying that this fasting was to cease the moment that he died for sinners, and the full value of his blood had been shed for them, he expressly says, that it is then to commence in the church, that is, when the bridegroom is taken the children of the bridegroom shall fast, when their master is gone, then the disciples shall commence those works of penance which they did not practise during his life-time. So far, therefore, from its abolition, it was considered an expiatory work, and our Saviour expressly says, that it is to be practised and followed. Do you ever find him reprobating the conduct of those who sought expiation of their sins in sackcloth and ashes in the old covenant, or saying, that it was merely a shadow of that which was to come, and that it was not to be followed in future? On the contrary, does he not say, that "the men of Nineveh shall rise in the judgment with this generation and shall condemn it, because they did penance at the preaching of Jonas ?" Does he not then bring this as an example, which those whom he addresses ought to follow? Is there anything here to show, that the system in the Old Testament was not to apply to the New? What shall we say, when we find St. Paul telling us, that he rejoices to make up that which is wanting to him, of the sufferings of Christ in his flesh for his church; the church of Christ, which is his body? What are we to understand by these words? Were Christ's sufferings wanting in his flesh? Had

« PreviousContinue »