mind you that the word penance has, in our nomenclature, three distinct significations, easily discernible from each other by the context or mode of its use. First; "the virtue of sufficient repentance. Thus, a person is said to be filled with the spirit of penance. Next; "the sacrament by which the sins committed after baptism are remitted through the merits of Christ." Thus, a person is said to have recourse to the remedy or sacrament of penance. Lastly; "works of satisfaction." Thus, a person is said to have done or performed penance. If your correspondent had the slightest notion of our doctrine, he must have been familiar with this distinction. I must presume that he was.

In the beginning of paragraph 41, he informs us that "contrition, confession, and satisfastion, are equally parts of the sacrament of the penance, and together make the matter of it." Now, the manner in which the crotchets exhibit this passage would lead one to suppose it was a quotation from a decree of the council, when, in truth, it is not, and the very word equally, upon which he subsequently rests chiefly for his conclusion, is not either in the explanatory chapter, or in the decretal canon; and although the three acts are usually required, they are by no means equally essential; because contrition, or the spirit of penance, that is true repentance, is always actually necessary, and so essential, that nothing else can supply its want; actual confession is sometimes impossible, the sincere intention and disposition of satisfaction is always sufficient, and penance scarcely ever is actually performed before or at the administration of the sacrament. Thus, the words which he quotes are not those of the council; and they imply what the council did not require. Again, the words "the thing signified by it," which he gives as a quotation, are not in the chapter, nor in the decree: the words of the council are the following:

Sane vero res, et effectus hujus sacramenti, quantum ad ejus vim et efficaciam pertinet, reconciliatio est cum Deo, and so forth.

"But truly the thing, and the effect of this sacrament, so far as relates to its force and efficacy, is reconciliation to God," and so forth.

The res, "thing," is not "the thing signified," but the "thing obtained." Our notions of the nature of a sacrament are very different from those of several of your divines, and their expressions do not convey our doctrines.

"The express language of the second decree of the thirteenth session of the Council of Trent, is precisely of this tenor. It exhibits confession and satisfaction as inseparably allied, in order to that end or effect of penance," and so forth. I am convinced that your correspondent would never expose himself as he does, had he read the decrees

which he affects to quote. Now, neither the second chapter nor the second decree nor the second canon, has one syllable upon the subject, much less of the tenor of the subject here quoted. I have looked into Father Paul, which he stated to be his authority, and I cannot find anything even in that author to justify his expressions.

So far from the council exhibiting confession and satisfaction as inseparably allied, to the effect of penance which is reconciliation to God, it distinctly states in chapter iv. of this session.

Docet praeterea, etsi contritionem hanc aliquando charitatem perfectam esse contingat, hominemque Deo reconciliare, priusquam hoc sacramentum actu suscipiatur; ipsam nihilominus reconciliationem ipsi contritioni, sine sacramenti voto, quod in illa includitur, non esse adscribendam.

"It teaches moreover, that although this contrition might sometimes be perfect charity, and might reconcile a man to God before this sacrament be actually received, nevertheless, the reconciliation itself is not to be ascribed to the contrition itself, without the desire of the sacrament which is included therein."'

Thus, so far from being inseparably allied thereto, they are actually separated therefrom, except so far as relates to their desire; and the reconciliation takes place sometimes long before they actually exist. Your correspondent is certainly, no theologian. He handles implements to which he is unused. Even in Father Paul, he might have seen the above statement given almost in the very words of the council.

The council in chapter xiv. of the sixth session declared, as by reference to it you will perceive, that temporal punishment is not always remitted, as happens in baptism, and sometimes upon repentance for the sins after baptism; that is, when the sorrow is such, as is here described, contrition produced by perfect charity or the pure love of God; for in those two cases the temporal punishment is altogether remitted by God, together with the guilt and the eternal punishment, at the moment that through the merits of Christ he takes away the guilt. Thus it is not true that confession and satisfaction are inseparably allied, in order to reconciliation with God.

He next makes a Latin quotation from "the same decree" (2d of session xiii) not one word of which is found in the chapter or the decree answering to that reference, nor is such passage found in any place that I know of. Had he inserted one word which he appears to me studiously to have omitted, I would acknowledge that the doctrine was exhibited with substantial correctness; but the introduction of that word would have prevented the conclusion which he aims at drawing. However, he found the same omission in Father Paul, that most accurate historian! As the passage is short, I might as well exhibit this as a specimen of

various readings, and an instance of what a change the omission of one or two words will make.

Father Paul. "Of satisfaction the synod doth declare, That the sin being remitted, the punishment is not pardoned, it not being convenient that he should be so easily received into grace who hath sinned before baptism and after, and be left without a bridle which may draw him from other sins," and so forth.

Protestant Catholic. "The synod doth finally declare concerning satisfaction, that sin being pardoned by God, the punishment is not altogether remitted, it not being consistent with divine justice, that they who sin after baptism, should so easily and so soon be received to grace, as those who through ignorance sinned before baptism.'' This is the writer who informs us "In stating the language of the decrees of the Council of Trent, Father Paul's history of that council, it is proper to mention, is our authority." The words printed in italics in the extract, I have translated from his own Latin quotation. Between those two passages, there is a very serious difference. Father Paul says absolutely, and unrestrictedly, that sin being remitted, the punishment is not pardoned, whereas your correspondent gives us a very different proposition, the punishment is not altogether remitted. I shall now make a few extracts of the phrases used by the council, but I cannot discover any passage which leads me to find what part the above were intended to represent, unless it be the following.

"Demum quoad satisfactionem, quae ex omnibus paenitentiae partibus, quemadmodum a patribus nostris Christiano populo fuit perpetuo tempore commendata, ita una maxime nostra aetate, summo pietatis praetextu, impugnatur ab iis, qui speciem pietatis habent, virtutem autem ejus abnegarunt: sancta Synodus declarat falsum omnio esse, et verbo Dei alienum, culpam a Domino nunquam remitti, quin universa etiam pœna condonetur: perspicua enim et illustria in sacris litteris exempla reperiuntur, quibus praeter divinam traditionem hic error quam manifestissime revincitur. Sane et divinae justitiae ratio exigere videtur, ut aliter ab eo in gratiam recipiantur, qui ante baptismum per ignorantiam deliquerint; aliter vero, qui semel a peccati et daemonis servitude liberati, et accepto Spiritus Sancti dono scienter" templum Dei violare, et " Spiritum Sanctum contristare non formidaverint. Et divinam elementiam decet, ne ita nobis absque ulla satisfactione peccata dimittantur, ut, occasione accepta, peccata leviora putantes, velut injurii, et12 contumeliosi Spiritui Sancto, in graviora labamur thesaurisantes nobis iram in die irae. Proculdubio enim magnopere a peccato revocant, et quasi fraeno quodam coercent hae satisfactiorae paenae, cautioresque et vigilantiores in futurum paenitentes efficiunt; medentur quoque peccatorum reliquis; et vitiosos habitus, male vivendo comparatos, contrariis virtutum actionibus tollunt," and so forth.-Sessio xiv. cap. viii.

71

"At length as regards satisfaction, which of all the parts of penance as delivered at all times to the Christian people by our fathers, is alone chiefly assailed in our age

"Gen. iii. 16, 17, 18, 19; Numb. xii. 10; xx. 12; 2 Samuel or Kings, xii. 13, 14. TO I Cor. iii. 17.

"Eph. iv. 30.

12 Heb. x. 29. 13 Rom. ii. 5.

under the greatest pretext of piety, by those who have the appearance of piety, and have rejected its virtue; the holy Synod declares, that it is altogether false and foreign to the word of God, that guilt is never remitted by the Lord, unless he also bestows full pardon from every kind of punishment; for there are very clear and illustrious examples found in the sacred Scriptures by which, as well as by divine tradition, this error is most plainly refuted. And truly, the reason of divine justice appears to require, that they who through ignorance sinned before baptism should be received in one manner into grace; but in another manner, they who being once freed from sin, and delivered from the slavery of the devil, and having received the gift of the Holy Ghost, have not dreaded knowingly to violate the temple of God, and to make sad the Holy Ghost. And it is becoming the divine clemency; lest sins should be so forgiven to us without any satisfaction, so that, taking occasion thereof, thinking sins less grievous, as if with injury and contempt of the Holy Ghost, we should fall into more heavy ones, treasuring up for ourselves wrath against the day of wrath. For without doubt those satisfactory works of penance do greatly recall from sin and restrain as with a bridle; and do make penitents more cautious and vigilant in future; they do also remedy the remains of sins; and take away by the performance of the acts of contrary virtues, the habits of vice contracted by living badly," and so forth.

The person who has had the patience to compare the Latin given in the essay and its translation with that of the council and its translation, as given here, cannot but observe how grossly defective and how palpably wrong was Father Paul; and though better than this same accurate and honest Father Paul, how defective was your correspondent. Neither of them represents the meaning of the council. I have marked in roman letters the parts of the original which correspond to the garbled extract given by "Protestant Catholic." I shall now lay before you, the exact difference between the several doctrines.

Doctrine of the Council.-When God remits the guilt of sin to the repentant sinner, he always remits the eternal penalty of hell, but does not always remit altogether the temporal punishment due to the offence. Stated by "Protestant Catholic."-When God remits the guilt of sin, he does not remit the punishment, altogether.

Stated by Father Paul.-When God remits the guilt of sin, the punishment is not remitted.

In the view of the council, the sinner, having contracted the guilt of mortal sin, is liable to punishment in hell for eternity, and also to temporal punishment even in this life. Upon repentance, the mercy of God removes, through the merits of Christ, always the guilt of sin, and always the liability to punishment in hell, and sometimes, but not always, the liability to temporal punishment. The council used the two words non semper, "not always," of which Protestant Catholic suppresses the semper, "always:" and it also used the two words poenam universam, "entire punishment," meaning temporal and eternal, which

words your correspondent gives, but insists that in all cases the temporal punishment remains due, by suppressing the word semper; and Father Paul, by omitting semper and universam, is still worse. This is abominable dishonesty, yet effected merely by suppressing two words. Gentlemen, it is such conduct as this, so palpably exhibited as we unfortunately find it generally to be, which caused the Reverend Doctor Whitaker, Protestant Vicar of Blackburn, in England, in his Vindication of Mary (vol. iii., p. 2,) to write: "Forgery-I blush for the honour of Protestantism while I write it seems to have been peculiar to the reformed. . . I look in vain for one of those accursed outrages of imposition amongst the disciples of Popery."

In this same forty-first paragraph, your correspondent again untruly asserts: “the temporal penalty inflicted by the church as the satisfaction, which is an essential part of the sacrament of penance, remains to be undergone."

Now, it is a proposition which is fully and plainly taught by the council: That the sinner who, having received from God the divine gift of perfect charity, and dying in this disposition of true and perfect contrition, should have desired the sacrament of penance, without having been able to obtain it, and without having been able to any satisfactory work of penance, will, through the merits of Jesus Christ, be reconciled to God, and will enter the kingdom of heaven without suffering any pain of purgatory, and thus, even though he had not received absolution, he would be saved, both from hell and from purgatory. Such is the doctrine of the Council of Trent, in the sixth and fourteenth sessions. As my object is not to enter into a theological defence of our doctrines, but to exhibit the misrepresentations of "Protestant Catholic," I merely refer him to the places where the doctrine is found. So far from its being true that the sinner must suffer in both worlds, this man would not suffer in either, which contradicts his assertions.

In this same paragraph he states that his conclusion will hold good that the temporal punishment must be indispensably undergone by every sinner, unless an indulgence be interposed. Here are two egregious blunders; because, in the first place, where the temporal as well as the eternal punishment is remitted, as in the case of the contrition above described by the council, the remission is not by the interposition of an indulgence; and secondly, the penance imposed in the sacrament of penance is not remitted nor diminished by the interposition of an indulgIt is very troublesome to have to do with a man who is ignorant of his subject.

ence.

Equally untrue is his assertion in the same paragraph, that we