and unintelligible blot, which the Reformers would never have tolerated, much less have themselves composed and inserted. For the absolution, as it stands in the Prayer Book to-day, is precisely the same as the absolution in the Second Book of Edward VI. There is not the slightest alteration of any kind whatever, save the substitution of the pronoun "who" for the more archaic “which." The Prayer Book of 1552 composed under the supervision of the most Protestant minds of the Reformation, and by the careful anti-Romish zeal of scripturally enlightened men, contained precisely the same formula for absolution, under almost the same conditions. It must not be supposed, therefore, that this is the production of the semi-Reform days of 1549, or an addition of any later era of sacerdotal reaction. It is not. It is the deliberate judgment of the fully enlightened Reformers, expressed in their carefully finished work of 1552. It was inserted, or rather retained, at a time when everything that savoured of Romishness was ruthlessly removed, and when the times so far from necessitating compromise were most favourable to root and branch dealing with the elements of Popery. The very fact that this form (as has been pointed out by Fausset in his work on the Prayer Book) was sanctioned by the sense of the continental Reformers and was retained in the Protestant confessions of Augsburg, Bohemia, and Saxony, and was, moreover, approved by John Calvin, simply proves that the form not only may have given to it, but should have given to it, an evangelical and non-Roman interpretation.

But the objection will, perhaps, be offered: The Roman form may be defended by precisely the same argument. In it the words "Dominus noster Jesus Christus te absolvat " stand before the judicial sentence of the priest, "Et ego auctoritate ipsius te absolvo." If, then, in the Anglican, so in the Roman form of absolution, it is not the priest, but

the Lord that absolves. Not so. Though at first sight the words seem precisely similar, there are two points of difference which are worthy of emphasis. In the first place, there is a distinction made in the Anglican form between the forgiveness of the Lord and the absolution of the priest. The Lord Jesus Christ forgives; the priest exercises the ministerial function of absolution-the declaration, by an appointed authority, of the relaxation of God's penalty. In the Roman form it is, Christ absolves thee . . and I absolve thee." In the next place, the conditional repentance and belief in Christ is put prominently into position in the Anglican form. In the Roman form, it is entirely omitted. Only those who repent and believe in Him can be entitled to receive from His ministers the comfortable assurance of the forgiveness of their sins.

But there is another consideration that demonstrates strongly the fundamental difference between the two forms, and extracts from this resolution the sting of Popery. I do not say this consideration alters in any way the expressions of the form, or palliates the obnoxiousness of the absolution considered in itself. But it does establish the fact that there is such a difference between this absolution and the priestly absolution of the Roman Church, as to relieve the Prayer Book from the charge of Popery pure and simple. The consideration is this.

In the Church of Rome, confession and absolution are indispensable, and a positive necessity. It is the highest function of the priest to receive the one and impart the other. It is absolutely necessary, not only for ultimate salvation, but also for the reception of the eucharist, that the priest should pronounce this absolution, and that each member of the Church should duly receive it. It is the corner stone of the whole sacerdotal structure. Remove it, and the structure falls to the ground. If there is no confession, there is

no absolution; if there is no absolution, there is no real acceptance and forgiveness. It is the necessity of the Roman act of absolution, therefore, which constitutes its evil.

Now, this fact is the strongest apology for the form of absolution in the Visitation of the Sick in the Church of England Prayer Book that can be offered. While the Roman form is uniformly employed and absolutely necessary, the Prayer Book form is never necessarily employed, and by millions is never used at all.* It occurs in an occasional service, but is never necessarily enjoined. With Rome, it is indispensable, and of the highest importance. Rome enjoins its use for every member of the Church before every Communion. The Church of England never absolutely enjoins it, and only permits it in the rarest of extreme instances. That the Church of England, therefore, attaches no such importance to priestly absolution, and denies in toto the Roman doctrine, is proved by the fact that this form of absolution is fettered with such limitations as to bring it practically into disuse.

(1) It occurs only in the service for the Visitation of the Sick.

(2) It not only occurs in this service alone, but this service, as has been pointed out, is the only service in the Prayer Book which need not be employed by the minister, unless he so please. The other services are imposed. This is optional. According to Canon 67, the minister, when he visits the sick, "shall instruct and comfort them according to the rules of the Communion, if he be no preacher; or, if he be a preacher, as he shall think most needful and convenient."

* It is safe to say that there are to-day in the Church of England thousands of clergy who have not only never used it, but have never in all their lives heard it used by any clergyman of he Church of England; and myriads upon myriads of the laity who have not only never heard it used, but have never even heard of any one who did.

And inasmuch as the Canons of 1603-1604 were passed by both Houses of Convocation, and received the assent of the Sovereign, as head of the Church, though never passed by Parliament, their authority is sufficient to justify the clergyman in making use in this service of any other form at his discretion. As a matter of fact the service is cumbrous, complicated and unfitted for modern uses, and has fallen into almost total disuse.

(3) It is only for the sick, and as the whole service goes to show, only the really seriously sick.

(4) It is only to be used in case the sick one feels his conscience troubled with any weighty matter. If he does not feel this-if his conscience is not troubled-if the matter be not weighty-then he is not to be moved to make a special confession.

(5) The absolution is only to be pronounced if-if-he humbly and heartily desire it. This limitation effectually demolishes the Popish character of the absolution, for absolution is an indispensable necessity, or it is nothing. It is impossible to conceive of Rome permitting her priests to limit their absolution to such as humbly desire it, or emasculating it of its authority by such man-devised "ifs!" By teaching here that this absolution is not indispensable, that it is not a necessity for every sinning son of the Church, the Church of England destroys its Romish character, and reduces it to an inoffensive formula. As has been well said, "The actual practice of the Church is utterly inconsistent with the notion that this absolution is a Divine sentence. If it were a Divine sentence, the Church would not have limited its use as above, nor allowed its total disuse, but would have taken care that every minister employed and every member received it." In fact, when one takes into consideration the whole circumstances of this absolution— the chamber of sickness, the approach of death, the solemnity

of the surroundings, the unburdening of the conscience, the earnest desire for the assuring voice of God's minister; when one considers, moreover, that it occurs in a service but rarely employed, and indeed not necessarily even at any time; above all, when one considers that its use is entirely left, not merely to the option of the minister, but to the desire of the sick person, and that it is followed by as fervent and evangelical a prayer for pardon as is to be found within the compass of the Prayer Book—a prayer, moreover, that is utterly inconsistent with the supposition of the authoritative conveyal of priestly absolution-the most prejudiced mind must see how small a ground it affords for the accusation of undisguised Popery, and for the justification of the practices of the Romanizing school in the Church. Even though its presence may be regretted by many, candour must acknowledge that, as far as its practical effects are concerned, the defect is insignificant. I do not say that it is not a defect. In my opinion it is, because it offers to the Romanizing school a lever for the introduction of false teaching, by considering the sentence apart from its context, and without reference to the views of the compilers and the body of the Prayer Book, taken as a whole. To a school of men who are "haunted by no intellectual perplexities," it is a matter of no consequence that there is absolutely no justification whatever for the employment of this formula in any other place, or under any circumstances other than those particularly specified in the foregoing rubrics; that to use it, for instance, in any other place than the house of the sick, or to any other person than one very sick, with a troubled conscience, at his humble and hearty desire, is to act lawlessly as a minister of the Church of England. So far, indeed, is it a defect; but in so far as honesty and obedience to truth and law remains in the Church, it is a defect which has, in the good providence of