the Homily of Justification. Albeit that Good Works, which are the fruits of Faith, and follow after Justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God's Judgment; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith; insomuch that by them a lively Faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit. Works done before the grace of Christ, and the Inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ, neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the School-authors say) deserve grace of congruity: yea rather, for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but that they have the nature of sin."

Here we have the key to the interpretation of the language of St. James, respecting the justification of Abraham, upon which the Roman Catholic Church so confidently relies for the support of her particular views. St. Paul says of Abraham that he was justified by faith, St. James, that he was justified by works. Now it is to be noted that these apostles refer to different periods in the life of the Patriarch; St. Paul, to the period when God promised that Isaac should be born; and St. James to the period when Abraham obeyed God as to the offering up of Isaac. Surely the Patriarch was justified when he believed God's promise concerning the birth of a son, for it is said that the faith was imputed to him unto justification. James speaking of a period forty-one years afterwards, when Abraham obeyed the voice of God, says that he was justified by works. How? Why he

proved that his faith was not dead; he was justified in the sight of men by his works; he demonstrated to all the world that he had faith, for he brought forth its fruits. Here then we have a spiritual justification by God through faith only, and a declarative justification by ourselves through works; I mean, that we declare ourselves truly justified by God, when we bring forth the fruits of faith.

Protestants do not deny, that there is needed, in every sinner, a preparation of heart before he can savingly believe. No sinner, for example, will even seek, much less obtain justification, unless he is convinced by the Holy Spirit of God of the evil of sin; unless the conviction is so deep as to lead to contrition and sorrow of spirit, so deep as to lead him to confess his transgressions unto the Lord.

We now wish to show another difference between Protestants and their Roman Catholic neighbours. With us THE PENITENT CONFESSES HIS SINS TO GOD, and asks for pardon through Christ. With them THE PENITENT CONFESSES TO THE PRIEST, and asks absolution from the Church.

There are few tenets of the Church of Rome against which Protestants feel so strong an objection as that of auricular confession, i. e., the confession of sin in the ear of the Priest of the Church. We read in the Bible of confession of sin, but it is in the following language, "I have acknowledged my sin TO THEE, and my injustice have I not concealed." I read in 1 John i. 9, "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins;" but there is not one word here of

confession to the priest. In the Epistle of James, chapter v, verse 16, I find the following passage:-"Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much." "Confess

your sins to one another. That is," says the Catholic annotator, "to the priest of the church, whom (verse 14,) he had ordered to be called for, and brought to the sick; moreover, to confess to persons who had no power to forgive sins, would be useless. Hence the precept here means, that we must confess to men whom God hath appointed, and who, by their ordination and jurisdiction, have received the power of remitting sins in his name." Notwithstanding this note, Cardinal Cajetan, as we find in Catharinus lib. v, p. 444, would not allow "any one place of Scripture to prove auricular confession." Maldonat an old canonist of the Church says, "that all the interpreters of the decrees held that there was no divine precept for confession to a priest;" and Gregory de Valentia, writing on this very subject acknowledged that some good Catholics did "not believe in its necessity."

Protestants must have the letter of the word of God, enjoining upon them the absolute necessity of confessing to a priest, before they will be content to pour into the ear of any mortal, of any one indeed but God their Heavenly Father, all the secret thoughts and workings of their hearts; they must have higher authority than the twelfth century, before they can allow their wives and their daughters to be put upon the rack, which Dr. Chaloner has constructed in his "Garden of the Soul,"

and which I would read to you this evening did not decency forbid. If every ancient father of the Church prescribed auricular confession, and the word of God remained as it does in even the Douay Bible, Protestants would reject the dogma as unscriptural, as unsafe, as contributing to immorality of life, both in ministers and in people. But the ancient fathers are against the Church of Rome here, and I bid every Roman Catholic to mark this. "What have I to do with men," inquires St. Augustine, "that they should hear my confession, as though they could heal my disease." "I do not force you” says Chrysostom, "to disclose your sins to men; review and lay open your conscience before God. Show your wounds to the Lord, the best of physicians, and seek medicine from him."

Here then is another novelty which the Church of Rome has introduced into her creed and practice, for as we have already shown, auricúlar confession is supported neither by the letter of Scripture, nor by the voice of antiquity.

While on this subject, having referred to the immoral effects of the confessional, I must quote the following from Dens:—

"What is the seal of sacramental confession? It is the obligation or debt of concealing those things which are known from sacramental confession.

"Can a case be stated in which it is lawful to break the sacramental seal? It cannot be stated, though the life or safety of a man or even the ruin of the state should depend upon it; nor can the supreme Pontiff dispense with it; so that on that account this secret of

the seal is more binding than the obligation of an oath, or vow, or a natural secret; and that by the positive will of God.

"What therefore ought a confessor to answer being interrogated concerning truth, which he has known through sacramental confession alone? He ought to answer that he does not know it; and if necessary confirm the same by an oath.

"It is objected that it is in no case lawful to tell a falsehood, but the confessor would tell a falsehood, because he knows the truth. Answer. I deny the minor i. e., that the confessor would lie, because such confessor is interrogated as a man and replies as a man; but now he does not know that truth as a man though he knows it as God; and that sense is naturally inherent in the reply for when he is interrogated or replies out of confession he is considered as a man."

Such are the enormities which we have been compelled to lay before you, and to which this doctrine unquestionably leads.

And now, fellow-sinners, suffer me to recall your thoughts to a consideration, for a few minutes only, of the grace and the glory of that doctrine which is revealed to us in the text, the doctrine of justification by faith only. I call you fellow-sinners, for I feel that I myself am a guilty sinner before God, and that you, my brethren in the flesh are guilty too. But oh! the wondrous grace, the boundless wisdom, the almighty power of God have discovered, devised, and executed a scheme of righteous mercy for the removal, the present removal, of your guilt and of my guilt, of all the guilt of our every soul.