What more powerful means can be found to destroy all reverence for the word of God than to accustom ourselves to weigh, in our own false balances, the hypotheses of science against the words of Scripture, and at every turn of the beam to pronounce the sacred penman unreasonable and absurd? Who is to put limits to these hypotheses on their application, if all are allowed the right to interpret for themselves? There should be some means to arrest the evil, and in these remarks it has been our object to direct attention to what seems to us the most simple and the most effectual for the purpose. In this application of the rule of St. Augustine, taken in its plain and obvious sense, as sanctioned by the most illustrious doctors of the church for so many centuries, we have a touchstone to distinguish, in all these questions, truth and its counterfeit presentment.

Our former remarks upon this subject having been noticed in sundry friendly criticisms, we have here endeavored to reply to all the objections that have come to our knowledge, without particularizing the sources whence they emanated. Our wish having been to overturn the reasoning of our opponents, if possible, without disturbing their individual equilibrium. There is, however, one objection to which we have not adverted, and which, implying the grave charge of dishonest argumentation, should not be passed over in silence. It has been said we have not done justice to science in our former article, inasmuch as we did not represent our geological opponent sufficiently orthodox in his views, and that we made him appear as one "more determined to hold to the truth' of his science in defiance of revelation, than to reconcile the speculations of geology with the written word." As we profess to draw from nature, we have merely to copy the original as accurately as possibly, and this we claim to have done, indeed the very objection made is but a compliment to our skill and fidelity. That the picture is not prettier, surely

should not be imputed to us as a fault. We admit, and, at the same time, regret that geologists are seldom orthodox; nor do we see any remedy, except to hand them over to our theological friends to be converted to the one true faith, and then, with the help of St. Augustine, we do not doubt they may easily be reclaimed from their errors. But so long as they have not faith, they lack the indispensable preparative for human knowledge, and we can do nothing with them. For the benefit of those who could find neither facts nor arguments in our former article, we have taken the trouble here to reduce our reasoning, at times, to the syllogistic form, that they may have something tangible to demolish. Every thing herein offered as fact, we will endeavor to establish by unequivocal proof, if this should be necessary, and every thing offered as argument we will endeavor to substantiate, if attacked in the proper spirit; or, failing in either, we are satisfied to abide the result. The views we have expressed have been adopted only on conviction of their truth, we are ready to abandon them when convicted of error. The same assumptions heretofore made will again be found in this article, and lest any of our critics should be startled out of their propriety by the accidental discovery, we will here explicitly acknowledge them.

We assume that the rule of St. Augustine for the interpretation of Scripture must be understood in its plain and obvious sense, and must be obeyed. It must be obeyed in its obvious sense, in some modified sense, or else wholly rejected. No Catholic theologian dare reject it, as there is not the slightest authority that we can find for taking it in a modified sense except what is furnished by the bad example of some few who neglect it without adverting to it.

We assume that we know the ordinary meaning of all ordinary English words, and, therefore, can determine the proper literal meaning of the first chapter of Genesis, or at least so much of it as to

show most unequivocally that if taken thus literally it is totally irreconcilable with all approved modern systems of geology.

We assume what geologists themselves admit, that their science contradicts the proper literal Mosaic account of the formation of the world, and of the deluge. By geologists we mean practical men, those who have studied geology in the field, and not merely in the closet.

A word of apology, and we have done.

The occasional repetitions in the preceding pages we regret, but could not well avoid. We have been obliged to follow wheresoever led by the arguments we have been attacking, and if at times we have retraced again and again the same path, it has been because our opponents have exhibited those staunch disputative powers commemorated by the poet :

"Even though vanquished they could argue still."

A.

Power of the priest to forgive sins. Banner of the Cross Philadelphia, February 21, 1846.

IS an unfortunate circumstance for the adversaries of the Catholic church, that they can scarcely assail any one article of our faith without finding themselves leagued in a common cause with infidelity. This is the case particularly when any question is raised about the sacrament of penance, and the power granted by Christ to his ministers on earth to forgive and retain sins. Whilst the infidels of France are publishing the most infamous productions on this subject, American as well as European Protestants run to their aid, unintentionally we hope, and endeavor to prove that the priest possesses no such power. This is the import of a certain extract from the Church Magazine, London, 1839, inserted in the columns, and highly praised by the editor of the Banner of the Cross. On what real ground, and with what prudence, justice, and truth. this praise has been so liberally bestowed, will be seen in the course of our remarks. But before entering upon the subject, we must thank our neighbor for the opportunity he has afforded us of setting him right on this important topic.

To confine ourselves to the present question concerning the absolving power of priests; if the author of the Church Magazine, and the editor of the Banner of the Cross, had contented themselves with asserting that the ministers of the Episcopalian or any other Protestant denomination have no warrant or authority whatever to forgive and to retain sins, far from complaining of the position assumed, we would readily concur in maintaining it.

For the possession of such an authority requires, in the first place, a valid ordination, and, secondly, a divine commission received from Christ through the apostles and their successors, both of which are wanting among Protestants. But when it is question of those to whom it was said in the persons of the first disciples: "Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them ;"* and "Behold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world;"+ in other words, when it is question of Catholic bishops and priests, the case is altogether different, and for this reason we shall express ourselves freely on the proposition put forth by the Banner of the Cross.

The author enters immediately upon the subject by quoting the following Scriptural passages:

"Scriptures.-God who forgiveth all thine iniquities. Ps. ciii, 3. If thou, Lord, shouldst mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand? But there is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared. Ps. cxxx, 3, 4. To the Lord our God belong mercies and forgivenesses, though we have rebelled against him. Daniel ix, 9. Who can forgive sins but God alone? Mark ii, 7. Him (Jesus) hath God exalted with his right hand, to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. Acts v, 31. In whom (Christ) we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace. Ephes. i, 7. In whom (Christ) we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins. Col. i, 14. The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. 1 John i, 7. I, even I am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins. Isai. xliii, 25. Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity? Micah vii, 18.". Church Magazine.

66

Thus we are given to understand (not by the Holy Scripture, but by the London Church Magazine) that there is and can be no forgiving power among men, as such a power essentially resides in God alone. Before we come to a direct and positive refutation of this extraordinary reasoning, we should like to know what answer our Anglican divine would give to a similar argument, if urged against baptism, the efficacy and necessity of which we suppose him to admit. Put the case that he is assailed in this way: the remission of sins in baptism essentially belongs to God alone, for the Scripture says: He it is (Christ) that baptizeth with the Holy Ghost."+ "He saved us by the laver of regeneration, and renovation of the Holy Ghost."+ "Christ loved the church, and delivered himself up for it, that he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life." Therefore, as the adversary of baptism would conclude, no human being has any right or power to baptize. There is hardly a doubt but our Episcopalian opponent would givethe following answer: It is true, God alone, by his supreme power and the operation of his grace, forgives sins in baptism. Yet he would have men to be his ministers in the conferring of this great sacrament of regeneration, and to concur, as active instruments, in the production of its inward effects, by baptizing in his name.

Now this is exactly the answer which the Catholic would urge for the sacrament of penance and the power of priests in reference to sins committed after baptism, as may be easily inferred from the formula of absolution which is every where used by Catholic bishops and priests in these words: "Our Lord Jesus Christ absolve thee, and I, by his authority, absolve thee, in the first place, from every bond

*Should our supposition, however charitable, be groundless, and consequently leave no room for retort, we beg to remark that all our subsequent arguments are entirely independent of it, and, without it, preserve all their strength, as every attentive reader will easily perceive. † John i, 33. Tit. iii, 5. § Eph. 25, 26.

of excommunication or interdict, as far as I have power and thou hast need in the next place, I absolve thee from thy sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen." This short formula evidently shows that the Catholic church intends to exercise no other power than that granted by Christ, and in no other way than in the name and by the authority of God clearly expressed no less than three times, and hence the difficulty raised by the author of the Church Magazine is already reduced to nothing for want of solid ground and proper application.

sins.

The writer, moreover, by adducing among other passages the 7th verse of the 2d chapter of St. Mark, betrays and defeats his own cause. In fact, this verse is not properly a Scriptural text, but a sentence uttered by certain scribes, and related by the evangelist. It does not contain the words of Christ, but those of his enemies, to whom he administered a well merited rebuke, and whom he refuted by a splendid miracle, showing that he had, even as the Son of man, power on earth to forgive "Some of the scribes were sitting there, and thinking in their hearts: Who can forgive sins but God only? And Jesus presently, knowing in his spirit that they so thought within themselves, saith to them: Why think you these things in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the sick of the palsy: Thy sins are forgiven thee, or to say: Arise, take up thy bed and walk? But that you may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) I say to thee: Arise, take up thy bed, and go thy way into thy house. And immediately he arose, and, taking up his bed, went his way in the sight of all."* This fact presented, not in a mutilated state, but fully as it is related in the Gospel, instead of serving as a proof, leads to a perfect refutation of our opponent's doctrine.

* Mark ii, 6-12.