66 grievous, no crime, however enormous, or however frequently repeated, which penance does not remit," p. 243. Without the intervention of penance we cannot obtain, or even hope for pardon,” p. 244. "The penitent must also submit himself to the judgment of the priest, who is the vicegerent of God, to enable him to award a punishment proportioned to his guilt," p. 245. From the form of absolution it will appear that the power claimed by the priest is as stated above. The form is as follows: Ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis, in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti: I absolve thee from thy sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son. and of the Holy Ghost. But the essential part of the form is, te absolvo, I absolve thee. The forms, Absolvat te Christus, May Christ absolve thee, or, Absolvat te Deus, May God absolve thee, are allowed to be invalid by most Roman Catholic divines, because the priest does not pray for pardon, but, on the contrary, bestows pardon authoritatively and officially. In confirmation of the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, as teaching that the priest has the power of remitting and retaining sins, we will quote the opinions of some of their acknowledged sound divines. From Dens we make the following quotation: "What is the sense of the sacramental form, Ego te absolvo, &c.? Ans. The sense is this: I judicially bestow on thee the grace of the remission of all thy sins, or grace of itself remissive of all thy sins, as far as is in the power of my ministry. This sense of the form cannot be admitted, I declare thee absolved, because it is condemned by the Council of Trent, sess. 14, can. 9."* Bishop Hay declares as follows: "Jesus Christ gave to the pastors of his church the power of forgiving and retaining sins, and passed his sacred word that when they forgive a penitent's sins, by pronouncing the sentence of absolution upon him, they are actually forgiven, that is, are washed away from his soul by the grace of God then poured down into it." Bishop Milner says: "This church has uniformly taught that confession and the priest's absolution, where they can be had, are required of the penitent sinner, as well as contrition and a proper purpose of amendment." 2. We will now examine the passages of Scripture which are usually quoted to establish this doctrine. For this purpose Matthew xviii, 18 is adduced: "Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." The words bind and loose are employed in the sense of obliging and dissolving, according to the customary phraseology of the Jews, when they would refer to an thing that was lawful or unlawful to be done. These phrases of bir ing and loosing occur nowhere in the New Testament except in M thew, who is said to have written originally in Hebrew, which acco for the use of these Hebraisms, and gives them peculiar force. passage gave the apostles authority to declare what was obligat dispensed with in the Jewish law; and thus, by the authority Holy Spirit, of declaring what was to be retained or omitte Christian church. The following text is also brought forward for the purpos + End of Controversy, letter blishing priestly absolution: "Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained,” John xx, 23. From this passage we gather that the apostles received from our Lord the doctrine of reconciliation and condemnation. They who believed on the Son of God, according to their preaching, had their sins remitted; and they who would not believe were declared to lie under condemnation. This is in accordance with Christ's commission, "He that believeth shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned." And the ministers of Christ in every age have this authority of proclaiming, according to the Scripture, the terms of reconciliation and of condemnation. That this is the Scriptural view of this subject will appear if we consider that this is the way in which the apostles and first ministers of Christ actually exercised this commission; that, according to Scripture, no human being is qualified to exercise the power claimed by the Church of Rome; that God only can forgive sins; that the primitive church, in its purest and best days, never referred the power of remit、 ting or retaining sins, except declaratively or ministerially, to any except God alone. 3. That no such power as the Romish priests claim was ever invested in the apostles of Christ, or in the first ministers of Christianity, by the above cited commission, we have this indubitable proof: that they never pretended to exercise such power, but always ascribed the forgiveness of sins to God alone. After the resurrection our Lord commanded his apostles to declare, "that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations," Luke xxiv, 27. On the day of pentecost Peter preached, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins," Acts ii, 38. And in his preaching on the occasion of the restoration of the blind man to sight, he instructs them in the same manner as before: "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts iii, 19. In the opening, therefore, of the Christian dispensation, we find nothing like priestly absolution. When Peter opened the door of faith to the Gentiles he declares: "To him gave all the prophets witness, that through his name, whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins," Acts x, 43. To the same purpose is every other place where the forgiveness of sins is mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles. We will present only one text more, where Paul is represented to be sent to the Gentiles: "To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me," Acts xxvi, 18. In the apostolical epistles there is certainly no countenance given to the modern doctrine of priestly absolution. The accounts too which we have in the Old Testament respecting the pardon of sin ascribe it to God alone, without any such ministry of man as that which is employed in the absolution of the Church of Rome. The passages of Scripture which declare this are too numerous to quote, and for the most part too plain to be misunderstood. From all this the conclusion is inevitable, that no such power as that embraced in priestly absolution has any countenance from Scrip ture. For since God only, under the dispensations which preceded Christianity, forgave sins, without any such ministry as that claimed by Roman Catholics in their sacrament of penance; and since neither the apostles of Christ nor his first ministers have left us any examples for the practice, or any rules for the management of priestly absolution, we must infer that no such power is bestowed on the gospel ministry. 4. No human being is or can be qualified for such an act as priestly absolution claims to be. If we consider the work of pardon, and the proper character of man, we may safely infer that no human being is capable of transacting it. The work or act of forgiveness is so solemn, the parties concerned being an offended God and offending man, such an undertaking as pardon is utterly beyond what can be done by man. If we consider the ignorance of man, he is utterly unqualified for this work; for he must know the hearts and thoughts of his fellow-creatures before he can pronounce absolution in their case. This he never can know. Besides, every man needs the pardon of his own sins. He is therefore utterly at a loss to undertake such an act as that of absolving a sinner. This reasoning will come with more force, when we consider that the Church of Rome calls the absolution of the priest a judicial act, and not a ministerial or declarative one. The priest is judge, although he is unqualified to judge, both from ignorance, and from his being a party concerned. But the Church of Rome is not at all scrupulous about even the moral character of the absolver. It is true, they generally recommend their clergy to be pious; but then this is not insisted on as an indispensable part of the clerical character. The priest may be guilty of mortal sin, and still be a dispenser of pardons to his fellows. The Council of Trent declares in one of her canons, quoted already, that "if any one says that priests under mortal sin have no power to bind or loose; let him be accursed." Thus, however wicked a priest maybe, his pardons, pronounced officially, are as valid as those of the most holy man in the world. How great encouragement this gives to the commission of sin, both among the clergy and laity, must be obvious to every person of common understanding. 5. Furthermore, none can forgive sins but God alone, Mark ii, 7; Luke v, 21. This was the doctrine of the Jews, which our Lord confirms when he declares that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins. He did not contradict their doctrine, but establish it; but he proved his divinity in forgiving sins. That God alone can and does forgive sins, we have the most ample proofs from Scripture. The following passages will show that this is a prerogative that belongs to God alone, and which can never be exercised by any human being:Exod. xxxiv, 7; Psa. cxxx, 4; Dan. ix, 9; Eph. iv, 32; Col. iii, 13; 1 John i, 9. 6. The primitive church of Christ never believed that such power as is claimed by Roman Catholic priests was ever given by Christ to his ministers. They looked to God alone for this, as they thought him alone qualified to bestow it. 7. In the exercise of priestly absolution, there is no proper distinction made between the righteous and the wicked. The main ground on which auricular confession is maintained is, that the priest, having heard the particulars respecting the penitent's sins, he may be able to judge whether the person is to be bound or loosed. But the business is so transacted, that every man commonly goes away with his absolution, and all sorts of people receive usually the same sort of judgment. "If thou separate the precious from the vile, thou shalt be as my mouth, saith the Lord," Jer. xv, 19. Whose mouth are they who make it their ordinary practice to pronounce the same sentence of absolution on the precious and the vile? It is true there are penances sometimes enjoined; but these are of such a character, and so little distinction is made between the good and bad, that the good and bad fare nearly alike. 8. The Scripture way of obtaining pardon or justification is very different from the popish mode of absolution. 66 The Scripture plan is, to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, in order to obtain pardon and peace. God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life," John iii, 16. "What shall I do to be saved?" said the jailer; to whom the apostle answered, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved," Acts xvi, 31. The truth concerning Christ, when believed, establishes its residence in the heart, and becomes the means of regeneration. He sees sin in such a light as he never did before; he therefore humbles himself before God in deep and unfeigned repentance. His repentance is not the effect of abstinence or bodily mortification, but the effect of the operation of the Holy Spirit, by means of the word of truth. Such a one is enabled to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ with a heart unto righteousness, and, in believing, he is justified freely. For him to think of another than God who could pardon, would be the same as to think of another God. This was the feeling of the prophet Micah on this subject: "Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, delighting in mercy?" chap. vii, 28. The manner in which the Church of Rome affects to impart the same benefits of pardon and peace is very different from the Scripture mode. She professes to impart pardon by means of her sacraments of baptism and penance; the former of which is confessedly founded on divine institution, and the other is of mere human invention. Baptism, though of divine origin, is much perverted in the Church of Rome. It was meant as a representation of the work of the Holy Spirit in renewing and sanctifying the soul; but they ascribe to baptism itself the power of regeneration. They admit the doctrine of original sin; but then they assert that baptism takes it all away, and procures pardon for all sins committed before its reception. Independently of its opposition to the divinely appointed way of giving peace to the conscience, their method contains in itself that which must ever render it insecure. The whole virtue of every sacrament depends on the good intention of the priest. No man can be secure that the priest had such intention when he baptized him; and therefore, upon their own principles, they can never be secured that they are regenerated. It cannot be shown that the external rite of baptism makes a man more holy than he was before. If the thing signified accompany the sign, a holy character is undoubtedly imparted : but the experience of many centuries has proved that this is not always the case; for we find that persons who have been baptized are, on growing up, as unholy as those who have not. This, however, is a matter which does not give the Church of Rome any concern, for she has in reserve the sacrament of penance, by which she can take away all the sins which a man has committed after baptism. Persons may live in the practice of every sin; yet, by confessing to a priest as often as they please, they can get all their sins forgiven; and it is required that they do this once a year at least ; and once a year they receive absolution, which absolution by a priest is understood to be as effectual, and it satisfies the sinner as completely, as if he were favoured with a voice from heaven, assuring him that he was absolved in the court above. CHAPTER IX. CONFESSION. 1. Doctrine of Protestants concerning confession: 2. Auricular confession of the Church of Rome. Council of Lateran quoted. Council of Trent cited. Roman Catechism. The confiteor cited: 3. Their proofs for it considered. James v, 16. Confession of the Jews to John the Baptist. Whose sins ye remit." They say that it is necessary in order to ascertain the disposition of the sinner. It is without Scripture authority: 4. Scripture is against it: 5. Their argument from antiquity. The confession in use different from that of the Church of Rome. First, Private confession was not in use till nine hundred years after Christ; Secondly, It was only advisable, not necessary; Thirdly, The fathers taught contrary thereto: 6. It perplexes the consciences of the pious: 7. The secrecy of confession. The Roman Catechism cited. Dens quoted: 8. It gives men license to commit sin. It is put as a substitute for reformation. Specimens of questions asked: 9. It corrupts the clergy. Bull against solicitants quoted: 10. Their arguments in favour of it considered. 1. THE Scripture declares, that "whosoever confesseth and forsaketh his sins shall find mercy," Prov. xxviii, 13. Now, all the sins that can be confessed fall under these three heads, viz. :-Those whereby God is offended, and he only; or those whereby some parti cular man is offended, as well as God; or such whereby scandal is given to the public society of Christians where we live, though no particular man be injured. As to sins whereby God is offended, we think it proper and agreeable to God's word that men should confess, even privately, to pious men, and more especially to a pious minister. Such a confession is commendable to a sinner who needs direction to overcome some particular sin; or when he is so overwhelmed with the burden of his sins, as to need some well-informed Christian to explain to him the terms of the gospel. In regard to sins of the second class, viz., whereby we have injured particular persons, we are certainly bound not only to confess them to God, but to the offended person also, and, as far as in our power, make restitution to him. This we are bound to by the natural laws of justice and equity, and by the law of the gospel. Matt. v, 23, 24. In which case we see, it is not sufficient, when we have offended any one, to ask forgiveness of God alone, but we are also to make reconciliation with our brother; otherwise we are incapable of offering up our prayers to the Almighty. In reference to those sins which injure the public society of Chris |