suading himself into the belief that he ought to persecute Christ, then he knew that his deceitful belief was a deception, and so did not sin ignorantly in unbelief. But if he was really deceived, and was in fact doing wickedly when he thought he was acting righteously, as you admit, then your doctrine concerning the nature of sin is totally subverted.

ART. VI.-ON REPENTANCE AND PENANCE.

REPENTANCE, in its application to man, may be defined to be a right state of mind in reference to sin, with the fruits, or consequences. It implies a change of that mind, as having been in a wrong state, and then the results both of continued sorrow for sin, and a disposition to good works-constituting what is otherwise called reformation. So the Scriptures teach, as we believe, in regard to this important subject. They enjoin it upon "all men every where to repent"--because all men are sinners; and they as uniformly insist, that repentance is nothing, except as it "brings forth good fruits."

a

There is used, moreover, it is believed, an unusual precision of words whenever this important duty is inculcated. "It has been observed by some, and I think with great reason," says Dr. Campbell, "that the former [of the two words μετανοεω, and μεταμελομαι,] denotes properly change to the better, the latter, barely a change, whether it be to the better or to the worse. That the former works a change of mind that is durable and productive of consequences, while the latter expresses only a present uneasy feeling of regret, or sorrow for what is done, without regard either to duration or to effects; in fine, that the first may be properly translated into English, Ireform the second, I repent, in the familiar acceptation of the word."--(Preliminary Dissertations on the four Gospels, vol. i. p. 322.) "Where this change of mind is inculcated as a duty, or the necessity of it mentioned as a doctrine, the terms are invariably μeravos, and savola."-(p. 327.) And he adduces the following

passages in proof of his position: Matt. iii. 24; Mark vi. 12; Acts ii. 38-viii. 22, and xvii. 30.

This view of the subject we adopt. We inculcate repentance (the μravoia) on all unconverted men, because they are sinners, and because it is written, "ye must be born. again ;" and if we inculcate its exercises on all who profess to be Christians also, not only as being due to sin on its own account, but because repentance is in its nature continuous while sin continues, and because we reject as spurious all pretensions to this exercise, which are not connected with reformation. We suppose the beginning of repentance to imply a change of heart, but we do not undertake to determine the time of that beginning; we suppose it to be necessary throughout life, as sin continues through life; we insist upon it in all men, because all men are sinners, though not on all alike as to its not yet being commenced; we do not admit that it is safe to repent at certain seasons only, since all sins need to be forgiven, and the intervals of our repenting might, on such a scheme, destroy the soul.

Such are the Scriptural representations, and such are our views of the doctrine of repentance: and it were easy to show here that it is the view agreed in, substantially, by the creeds and formulas of all Protestant denominations of Christians.

What then is the relation of ROMANISM to this important doctrine? What does that system teach, and what are its general influences, in relation to this great and indispensable requirement?

We shall attempt to answer this question-we shall show the teachings and tendencies of Romanism, in reference to repentance, and on the same plan which has been adopted in reference to its views of justification. Indeed, the present is but an extension of the same discussion. The burden we then laid upon Romanism, was, that it fatally deludes its adherents, with regard to the Scriptural method of justification. This will still farther appear, if we succeed in the present discussion, with regard to the doctrine of repentance. And this we may say again, is, in our view, the true method-one true method it certainly is-of showing the errors of the Roman system. We care not now what may or may not be true of the character of its priesthood; we care not to inquire to its history or its exclusive preten

sions; we care not, at present, for its assumptions of infallibility, or the purity of its political professions; we care not to settle whether this is the beast of prophecy, destined to " go into perdition." The question with us is, whether they mislead their subjects in an essential point of doctrine, whether their own acknowledged dogmas, and habitual instructions, are such as to lead men away from true repentance, and the only way of a sinner's returning to God? This we shall attempt to prove.

(1.) We charge first then, that the very language of their Scriptures is erroneous on this subject, and particularly in their translation of the important word Merαvoεw

The vulgate, their standard version of the Scriptures, renders it, by the phrase agere penitentiam, (to do penance,) and in this form is it uniformly quoted by the Council of Trent. Thus, Ezekiel xviii. 30: is "convertimini et agite penitentiam." Luke xii. 5: "Nisi penitentiam egeritis, omnes similiter peribitis ;" and Acts ií. 38: "penitentiam agite and baptizetur unusquisque vestrum.". (Decrees of the Council of Trent-Sess. xiv. depenitentia.)

Their English version, particularly the Douay, is strictly conformed to this standard. We read, therefore, "Be converted and do penance for all your iniquities." "Except ye do penance, ye shall all likewise perish :" and "do penance and be baptized every one of you."-(See Douay Bible for the passages cited above.)

Now, what we ask, must be the practical impression on the mind of a poor Catholic, who hears the Scriptures quoted (when they are quoted at all) in a version like this? What must be his apprehension of the doctrine of repentance? He is told to do penance, and he is told it in connection with a multitude of observances, many of which require self-torture, and are called by the name of penance.

We know that much of this practical impression must depend on the explanations of the meaning of the requirement. But that these are not such as to mend the matter, will sufficiently appear, when we come to another part of our subject. At present, it is sufficient to have shown, that the very language used is erroneous. The Scriptures, as rendered by them, mislead. The Holy Ghost said Meravosire and to do penance, is neither a true or safe translation. (2.) But secondly, the DOGMAS of the Roman churchVOL. V.

55

their infallible and unchangeable canons-make the same erroneous impression.

These dogmas relate, indeed, only to the duties of repentance after baptism, and it is remarkable that this great doctrine of the New Testament, and a duty which is said expressly to be commanded to "all men"-is not taught by the Romish Canons at all, except in relation to those who are lapsed after baptism! Their belief is, that "baptism confers grace," and their instructions are concerning those who have lapsed afterwards. How shall these be restored? -how saved? This is to be by repentance. But what is repentance? Here they teach, that repentance [penance,] is a sacrament, and it consists of three parts, viz. contrition, confession, and satisfaction. This confession must be to a priest, invariably, and the satisfaction may be made by fasts, alms, penances, and other meritorious works.

This is the theory: now for our authorities, says the Council of Trent, (1st Canon of the xiv. Session,)" whosoever shall affirm that penance, (our repentance,) as used in the Catholic church, is not truly and properly a sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, for the benefit of the faithful, to reconcile them to God, as often as they fall into sin after baptism-let him be accursed." Again, (Canon iv.) "whosoever shall deny, that in order to a full and perfect forgiveness of sins, three acts are required of the penitent, constituting, as it were, the matter of the sacrament of penance, viz. contrition, confession, and satisfaction-let him be accursed."

Again, it is said, with regard to the efficacy of this sacrament, "the sins which are destroyed by penance, may be called with propriety, the matter of penance."-(Catholic Catechism, p. 258.) "There is no sin, however grievous, no crime however enormous, or however frequently committed, which penance does not remit."-(Idem, p. 260.) "Avail yourself, therefore," (says the Apostolic vicar of London, in his instructions for the jubilee of 1825,) "avail yourselves, therefore, of every means of discharging your debt to divine justice."

But the council go on to explain. "Contrition (or attrition, as it is elsewhere called,) is the sorrow and detestation which the mind feels for past sins, with a purpose of sinning no more." To this, as it here stands, we have no objec

tions. But again, "our Lord Jesus Christ, when he ascended from earth to heaven, left his priests in his place, as presidents and judges, to whom all mortal offences, into which the faithful might fall, should be submitted, that they might pronounce sentence and remission, or retention of sins, by the power of the keys."-(Session xiv., Chap. 5.) And, "the council farther teaches, that even those priests, who live in mortal sin, exercise the function of forgiving sins, by the power of the Holy Ghost, conferred on them in ordination !”—“it is not to be considered as a mere ministry, whether to publish the Gospel, or to declare the remission of sins; but as of the nature of a judicial act, in which sentence is pronounced by him as a judge; and therefore, the penitent, ought not to flatter himself on account of his faith, so as that though he should have no contrition, and though the priest should not intend to act seriously, and really to absolve him, he, (the penitent,) should suppose that he is, nevertheless, truly absolved before God, on account of his faith only. For faith, without penance, cannot procure the remission of sins."--(Chap. vi.)

Having cited these authorities, we must make several remarks here, before proceeding to the other parts of this complex theory.

And first, we admit freely, that if the Catholic definition of repentance, (penance, in their version of it,) had stood by itself, and not subject to interpretation, and other influences of the system, it would not have been particularly objectionable. We believe, that repentance implies contrition, confession, and, properly understood, satisfaction. We admit, moreover, that the accompanying instructions do often inculcate the necessity of sincerity in the penitent; but they evidently give a meaning to confession and satisfaction, which we can by no means admit, and they fail to make that distinction between evangelical and legal sorrow for sin, which the Scriptures clearly inculcate.

And we must take occasion to say here, that never in all our former observation, have we been so forcibly impressed with the exceeding deceitfulness of this "mystery of iniquity," as now, in studying its views of these leading doctrines. They will give you a definition; which is in itself, unexceptionable. And one might be ready to say, what more can be asked? Do they not teach the true doctrine after all? But look again, and you are sure to see