The intention of Kant in this work was to refute the philosophy of Locke, which taught that knowledge was referable alone to sensation; and likewise that of Hume, which showed that we never can have metaphysical grounds for believing in either the subject or object, in an quter world or a perceiving mind, or, in other words, that metaphysical philosophy cannot supply us with any certainty that there is either mind or matter. It is now generally admitted that Kant failed to refute either the one or the other, but only placed the philosophy of Hume upon a more scientific basis. It is true that Kant established that the ideas of subject and object were universal and necessary, but not that they were real, for he makes this most important admission, that none of the ideas we have are absolutely true, but only subjectively so. This is very nearly Hume's position; for although Hume called the belief in cause and effect merely the result of habit, and Kant shewed it to be a law of the mind, yet both agree in denying to the mind the power of knowing objective truth.

J. D. Morell says, when writing of Kant's philosophy :

"The outward world, according to our philosopher, stands to us in the same relation as the little objects within a kaleidoscope do to the eye; as we turn the instrument round they assume all kinds of shapes and positions, which positions, however, do not depend upon the objects that are in them, but upon the condition of the glasses by which they are reflected. Now, the human understanding (says Kant) is such an instrument; the eye that gazes through it is sensation, and the world of phenomena consists of objects; the fact that they exist comes from themselves, but all the different aspects they assume to the eye are produced by our own subjective faculties or laws of thought. That something, called an object, really exists is a truth, but the form in which it exists comes entirely from ourselves; hence, to assume that anything exists in itself answering to our idea of it, or according to our conception of it, is upon the principles of Kantian philosophy an absurdity, for we can know nothing but as we perceive it, and our perceptions being merely subjective states, we can never prove anything being in itself as it appears to us; hence, if any one was to reason about the nature of the external world, Kant would say, Why waste your time about that which you can never know but by subjective representation? Should any one assert the existence of an immaterial part in man, or propound theories respecting the nature of the soul, of the origin of the world, the existence, nature, and attributes of God, the same withering, repulsive answer would be given,-Why reason about that which is beyond all reason? He would say, our notions of a soul, of the universe of God, are but subjective ideas,-they are but representations and personifications of your own mental process."

(To be continued.)

448

SATISFACTION.

It is very much to be regretted that the foolish vanity which prompted the Bishop of Rome to strive for precedency and jurisdiction over neighbouring dieceses in the early times of the Christian religion, has turned almost everything bordering on the ecclesiastical history of that age into tradition; so much so that the protests of those churches which resisted his pretensions ended in setting up some apostle as the veritable founder of their own particular churches, thereby strengthening their protest against any claim, pecuniary or otherwise, of him whose bold usurpation had so early as the eighth century become intolerable. From the success which the Roman bishop at last obtained over the neighbouring churches, there can be little doubt that the doctrines and practices of the early Christians were altered by the former, so that hardly anything of them is now known; but the little that is known from the churches denominated schismatical, is enough to show that the doctrines of Rome in the days of Paul differ very widely from what they are now.

As the first disciples who founded churches thought more of preaching the Gospel than writing the history of its propagation, the precise time of their preaching, or whether certain churches were founded by disciples sent from Rome or from the East, no one can positively say; but thus much we know, that Pope Pius II. owns, in his Apology for the Roman Church, written in the year 1457,* that before the Council of Nice, A. D. 325, small regard was had to its bishop. That the melancholy doctrine of Satisfaction, which originated in the idea that the justice of God required nothing less than the ignominious death of his Son, to satisfy His anger against the fallen sons of Adam, had no place in the doctrines or teaching of the early Christians, is easily deduced from the opposition offered from time to time by other churches to the numerous innovations of the Roman church. There is nothing in the writings of Paul, or in the Acts of the Apostles, to insinuate even the idea of satisfaction being required of God, or being acceptable to Him; neither is there anything in the early history of the Christians, although almost tradition, that could warrant such a belief. The early general Councils, even to that of Sardica, where was first granted to the Bishop of Rome the privilege of examining afresh all causes that had been determined in the provincial synods, are all silent on the

* Before he was pope.—ED.

doctrine of Satisfaction. The faith of the churches of Italy in the fifth century lays it down that the afflictions which happen to the faithful are either to correct their defects, or to try their faith, or to prepare them for glory—not a word concerning the use the Roman church puts them to, viz., the expiation of sin, and for a satisfaction so called. Indeed, from what can be known from churchmen for several centuries after the establishment of Christianity in the West, nothing appears to be even hinted of either merit or satisfaction; from which it may with some foundation be suspected that the doctrines of Merit and Satisfaction had their rise from a design of accommodating the notions of the Jews and heathens. As a proof of this, the following, taken from an introduction to the office of the Mass, may be cited :

"From the beginning of the world the servants of God were always accustomed to offer sacrifice to Him, by way of acknowledging his sovereignty and paying their homage to Him; and in all religions, true and false, this worship of sacrifice was always looked upon as a most solemn act of religion due to the Deity that they worshipped."

From this it appears very evident from what source the offering of a sacrifice among Christians took its rise; and from the long period it has been practised, it cannot be wondered at that the idea of satisfaction being acceptable to the Father should haunt the minds of many even to the present day. From an introduction to another office we have the following, which forms the groundwork of the received opinion that the Son offered to the Father a full, perfect, and sufficient satisfaction and oblation for the sins of the whole world :

"Jesus Christ died upon the cross for our sins, and offered to his Eternal Father a full and superabundant satisfaction for them. When the Almighty Father, in consideration of his Son's bitter death, forgives our sins, and the eternal punishment due to them, in the holy sacrament of penance, the order of his justice requires that some temporal punishment should be undergone; which temporal punishment may, however, be redeemed by penitential works, such as alms-deeds, fasting, &c. Hence, before the penitent sinner is absolved from all his sins, some penance or penitential works are imposed upon him, the performance of which is called Satisfaction.

Here is satisfaction on all sides, from the Lord of Glory to the Father, and from the creature to both, and all to appease the Father, of which nothing of a more heathenish nature could be thought of.

It is not in the order of things that a doctrine so delusive as that of Satisfaction could remain harmless to the mass of those on whom it has been gradually foisted. The remission of the temporal punishment due to actual sin by satisfactory works, and the eternal punishment

forgiven, produced, as a natural consequence, the doctrine of Indulgence, whereby those who had no relish for doing penance might be excused the trouble, on certain terms to be agreed on, and which, it is needless to say, led to the greatest abuses. The church had at an early age divided sins into two sorts. There were sins of which whosoever were found guilty were excommunicated for ever; these were idolatry, murder, adultery. The others did not exclude the persons guilty from for ever being reconciled to the church, but only laid a necessity upon them of doing some public penance at the church gate, which at first was done with less severity, but afterwards was made subject to more strict and severe rules, and continued for some years together, the church requiring these precautions the better to be assured of the sincerity of their conversion.

The intercession of martyrs and confessors, or the apparent danger of death wherein the penitents were fallen, obliged the church to remit somewhat of the severity of those rules, which was called Indulgence. In process of time, the ministers of the keys twisted the forgiveness of the temporal punishment due to sin, after absolving the eternal punishment, into a kind of sliding-scale, whereby they doled out so many years to one, and so many days to another, of exemption from penance, either public or private, on certain terms of adhesion to specified rules for expiation by way of satisfaction, called Plenary and Partial Indulgences, the abuse of which in the 16th century had been the cause of splitting the then Christian church in two. But out of all this evil has come good. The Word of God was appealed to after the church had led men to carry burdens grievous to be borne. Who that knows anything of the ways of the Lord, can be surprised at seeing the weightier matters of law and the regenerate life smothered under such burdens, and the mission of the Lord on earth entirely misunderstood?

From the time that Leo X. put the traditions on an equal footing with the Word of God, things went on from bad to worse. And it was not to be expected that the Protestants of the 16th century, after so long a night of misrule and dogmatic teaching, could see the truth, and especially that great truth of God-Christ reconciling the world unto Himself; He who never commanded any person to make satisfaction further than to "sin no more,' or "this do, and thou shalt live." It is a remarkable fact, and not perhaps so fully noticed as it should be, that the advocates of Satisfaction never bring forth a line from the New Testament in favour or defence of the doctrine. The books of the Old Testament are those that give any colouring to the practice: such as

the Ninevites in sackcloth; David punished by the death of his child, and his subsequent repentance in sackcloth; the son of Ahab suffering for the sins of his father;-these, and such circumstances, that have no affinity to the Gospel of love and mercy, are raked up to eke out the simple teaching of Christianity, as if it were too plain and homely as it came from the mouth of our Lord and of His apostles. Who that knows from the light of truth what the Lord expects from His servants, can fail to see the absurdity of converting a nation by works done by way of satisfaction? The promise of the Lord that whosoever doeth the will of His Father, He will shew him of the doctrine, whether it be of God, ought surely to be enough to open the eyes of those who pin their faith to such teaching as that of a satisfaction being made for their shortcomings. The doctors of the law taught for doctrines the commandments of men; and so will it ever be with those who strive not to operate with the Spirit of the Lord.

The conclusion to be drawn from all this is, that those favoured ones to whom the Lord has granted light, should make every exertion possible for the enlightenment of those who are sitting in darkness and in the shadow of death, that the Lord might guide their feet into the way of peace. J. B. C.