this sacrament, comparing the institution believed by us to have been left by our Saviour, and preserved in the Church of God, with the method supposed by other religions to have been instituted, and to be in operation there, for the attainment of the same objects.

I have again and again inculcated, that in the works of God, or in all those institutions left by him to mankind, there must be always found a certain consistency or harmony of parts,— so that whatever has been demonstrated regarding one portion of the system which he left on earth, must be allowed to be of considerable weight towards influencing our belief, at least as to the probability of other similar institutions having been provided. For example, with regard to the present case, all are agreed, that among the most important objects of our Saviour's coming among mankind,-I may say, indeed, the most important of all, was that of rescuing fallen man from sin. We must, consequently, suppose that he did not leave his work imperfect; and, while we all concur in common belief, that the work of redemption was quite perfect and complete, so far as the giving a full equivalent to the divine justice, we all must likewise agree, that a means was provided by him whereby this full and general redemption was, in some way or other, to be applied to each individual case. No one can, for a moment, suppose, that because Christ died for our sins, we are rescued from all co-operation on our parts; that, without a single act, I do not say external, but at least of our minds, we shall have the full benefit of that redemption; that nothing was demanded from us, whereby that general redemption, which would have cancelled the sins of ten thousand worlds, was to be accepted by God, in our particular case. Consequently, so far we all admit that redemption was perfected by Christ's death; and so, likewise, must all agree that some instrument or other, whether of outward act or inward movement, was necessary for the purpose of making that redemption applicable to ourselves.

But if we look into the institutions of Christ, we shall see,

that, in every other case, at least, he was pleased to make use of external agency. Is not the blood of Christ applied to the sanctification of man in the waters of regeneration? Is not baptism a sacrament instituted by our Lord for the purpose of cleansing the soul from original sin? Is not the sin there forgiven, through the only forgiving power, that is, through the cancelling blood of our Redeemer ?—and yet, is not this applied by means of the outward act and ministration of man?

Was not the redemption of Christ complete in itself, so far as it was intended also for our greater sanctification? Were not his sufferings in themselves all-abundant, as directed to the end of uniting us in love and affection with him, by making us feel what he suffered for our sakes?-and do not all agree, even those who differ from us in the real and essential character of the sacrament of the Eucharist-do they not all agree, that it is instituted for the purpose of applying to ourselves those feelings at least which he intended to excite by his sufferings and death? And is not this again a visible institution? Is it not applied through the agency of man, and is it not done by outward acts and rites, both on the part of the minister, and of him who receives it?

Did not our Saviour come on earth to teach all mankind? Did he not establish a code of doctrines and morals, a system of laws for our edification both in faith and conduct? And has he not left an outward instrument of this in his written word? And has he not appointed ministers, and constituted a hierarchy, to whom was committed the care of his flock, with power and authority to instruct? And here again, is not one of the most signal and important benefits which our Saviour intended to communicate to man, communicated through outward means, by an institution founded by himself for that purpose?

Now, if the great end for which he came on earth was the abolition of sin; and that not merely considered as the cancelling of a general debt, but as a specific means by which each individual should have the benefit of his redemption, if we

see, at the same time, that, in every other part of the system, the benefit conferred on mankind was attached to the outward observance of some given forms, committed to a ministry destined for that purpose, can we conceive the system so broken and imperfect, that in this important case, in this momentous matter, no visible or outward means should have been instituted for its accomplishment? On the contrary, if, in the less important case--viewed with reference to the character of the guilt of original sin, in which we have no personal participation, he was not contented that the child or adult should conceive his belief, by any inward act of himself or another, but exacted that he should appear as an offender, and as one seeking forgiveness and sanctification, that he should be examined and give promise of his fidelity, in the face of the Church, and make confession of his faith before mankind; can we believe that, in the more important case, where the great end for which he came on earth is to be fulfilled, in the wiping away the deeper and more enormous offences, actually committed by us, whereby we more especially outrage the majesty and glory of God, he should have left no road, no outward visible means, for the attaining of this mercy, and that he should not, as in the other, by outward manifestations of sorrow, require some compensation in the sight of man. Now, on these grounds, while even approaching the subject from a distance, I am sure no one can consider it inconsistent with all that we know of the dealings of God with us, with the natural line of providen-tial conduct towards fallen man, in the establishment of Christianity, to suppose that Christ left in his Church an express institution for the cancelling of sins, through the application of his all-redeeming and all-sufficient blood.

We now come to examine what is the Catholic doctrine regarding the existence of such an institution. The Catholic Church teaches, that Christ did establish on earth a means whereby forgiveness should be imparted to wretched sinners--whereby, on the performance of certain acts, all who have offended God may obtain authoritative forgiveness. It is ge

nerally said, I mean by those who preach and write against our doctrines, that the institution maintained by the Catholic Church to have been established by Christ, is confession. This,' at the outset, is an error,-the Catholic Church believes that the institution left by our Saviour was the Sacrament of Penance, consisting of three parts, whereof confession is only one, and that one not the most essential. Here, therefore, is manifestly a mis-statement or misrepresentation, however unintentional, of our belief. For I will proceed to show you, that the Catholic Church teaches and urges the necessity of every thing that any other Church requires; and that even in more complete perfection than any other system of religion. We believe, therefore, that the Sacrament of Penance is composed of three parts, contrition, or sorrow-confession, or its outward manifestation-and satisfaction, which is in some respects also a guarantee of perseverance in that which we promise.

With regard to the first, the Catholic Church teaches that sorrow or contrition, which involves all that any other religion means by repentance, of which it is only a part, has always been. necessary on earth to obtain the forgiveness of God. It maintains, that without that sorrow, no forgiveness can possibly be obtained in the new law; that without a deep and earnest grief, and a determination not to sin again, no absolution of the priest has the slightest worth or avail in the sight of God; that, on the contrary, any one who asks or obtains absolution, without that sorrow, instead of thereby obtaining forgiveness of his sins, commits an enormous sacrilege, and adds to the weight of his guilt, and goes away from the feet of his confessor, still more heavily laden than when he approached him. Such is the Catholic doctrine with respect to this portion of the Sacrament.

But what is the contrition or sorrow which the Catholic Church requires? I believe, if any one would take the trouble to analyse the doctrine of any reformed Church, on the exact meaning of the word repentance, distinguishing its different steps from the very act of forgiveness, that is, examining

closely the means by which we arrive at that last act, which purges us from sin, he will find it exceedingly difficult to resolve it into any tangible system, or any forms of apprehension which will bear a strict examination. In the Articles, for instance, of the Church of England, every thing is laid down in the vaguest manner. We have it simply said, that “ we are accounted righteous before God, only for the merits of Christ, by faith, and not for our own works; wherefore that we are justified by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort," and we are referred to the homily on justification for farther explanation.* Again, we are told that there is a place of forgiveness to such as truly repent. If any one will read over that homily, he will find it repeated, again and again, that men are to be justified by faith alone without works. We find, indeed, that love is spoken of as an ingredient in this faith. But we are never told how the sinner is conducted to it. We are never informed how his return, like that of the prodigal son, is to be accomplished, when he becomes sensible of his guilt; in what way he is to be gradually conducted to that faith which justifies the sinner. We are not even told in what that faith consists. Are we simply to be satisfied with the firm persuasion or conviction, that the merits of Christ are sufficient to purge us from all sin? Or, are we to believe that his blood has been applied to us all, and that we are forgiven? Or is there a more individual application to each one, whenever sin is regretted? What are its criterions, its tests, whereby the true may be discerned from the imaginary or false? What is its process?-is it one of simple conviction? What is to authorize you to feel that conviction? What are the previous steps which make you worthy of it, which can

make you suppose that have obtained it? On all this we

you

are left completely in the dark. Each one gives us the opinions or devices of his own mind; and hence we find as many different ideas, when we come to investigate the subject, as there are persons who have written on it.