to have written in the Oxford and Cambridge Review. We still adhere to that opinion, though the doctrine of that Review and of these discourses is so identical that we now see it possible for the article to have emanated from the pen of the Oxford Professor himself. The argument in each case is equally unfounded and unfair. In each we have a plausible appearance, covering a most dangerous assumption.

Dr. Pusey's first proof in support of the assertion that the doctrine of the Church of England is a sacred authoritative remission of sin on auricular confession is, that "our Church intended to encourage this mode of relief by the rubrical direction in the Communion office." "So many as intend to be partakers of the holy communion shall signify their names to the curate, at least some time the day before." This is a very characteristic argument of the school. The true reason of that instruction immediately follows: "that if any one be an open and notorious evil liver, &c., the curate shall call and advertise him, that he presume not to come, &c., till he hath openly declared himself to be truly penitent, &c., that the congregation may thereby be satisfied, which before were offended." But the Doctor passes by this lengthy explanation of the reason for the required notice, and assumes gratuitously that the true object intended was private confession and absolution! Had there been a real hiatus here, he might cleverly enough have filled it with the peculiarities of his system. These are the sort of gaps for which they are always looking; but it is going a little too fast to eject for that purpose the reason stated; which is, the satisfaction of the congregation for open sin by an open and manifest repentance. The whole aspect of this preliminary rubric implies very evidently that no such system of confession and absolution existed or was to be encouraged.

The second argument is, that "the Church says, " Repent; pour out thy griefs before God in presence of his priest, and Christ will absolve thee and wash thy soul in his own blood." But to this we answer simply by the enquiry, Where? Neither in the Scripture nor in the English Liturgy do we find any such statement; and Dr. Pusey must rely strangely on the inaccuracy of men's minds, or be strangely puzzled in his own, to think that such a statement could pass uncorrected.

Another argument is drawn also from the exhortation in our Communion office, which says, " And because it is requisite that no man should come, &c., but with a full trust in God's mercy, and with a quiet conscience: therefore, if there be any of you who by this means cannot quiet his own conscience herein, but requireth further comfort or counsel," &c. Nothing can be more plain and

simple than this. The whole address recognizes the full right of the individual to approach the holy table "with a full trust in God's mercy;" but if he cannot by this means,-by a full exercise of this trust, quiet his own conscience, let him seek the advice, the comfort and counsel of his pastor, that " by the ministry of the word,"-not by a special power from the authoritative absolution of the soul,-but by the close individual application of the preaching of the word, he may receive the benefit of the Gospel absolution, the sense of the remission of sin,-the inward witness to it through faith in the merits of the Redeemer.

par

Dr. Mant, whose interpretation of such a passage would go as far towards the views of Dr. Pusey as a sincere churchman could go, says on it: "It is only a declaration of the minister's judgment, a fallible one indeed, but the proper and appointed one,that if the person's case be truly and rightly represented, he is doned and absolved by our heavenly Father, who alone can forgive sins. And such credit only is due to this declaration, as in other affairs we allow to authorized professors and practitioners of skill and probity." How widely different is this from Dr. Pusey's assertion" So soon as the priest has in his name pronounced this forgiveness on earth, the sins of the true penitent are forgiven in heaven." Yes, it is the avowed belief of this party, that though the eye of the Omniscient wholly discerns His own effective work of gracious penitence and faith in the heart, the pardoning mercy lingers till the priest has originated and announced it on earth. The act of the minister is recorded by them, not as a declaration of the efficient application of pardoning mercy to every one who believeth, but " a distinct gift of remission exercised by the priest according to his judgment, and only subsequently ratified in heaven by the Almighty." The whole tenor of the documents and the theology of the Church of England, is directly opposed to any such notion. Dr. Pusey, sensible of the meagre proof of the acknowledgment of such a power, alludes to it in the text of his discourse, as existing in what he calls " other offices;" and by a foot-note states them to be "the breviary and missal." What authority can these formularies have to an English churchman? and with what consistency can a professor of a protestant university refer to them as authority at all? His letter to the Bishop of Oxford not very long ago was, by its very title, to show that the course of his party was not to favour popery." Now his open and undisguised course is to advocate the very substance of "Roman doctrine," and to confirm it by reference to Romish formularies. Was he insincere then or not? If not, and he has since then declined to "the favor of popery,"-what was all his

argument worth? Has not his own practice refuted it? Is he not left almost in solitary inconsistency within our communion, almost the last among the heads of the party who has not joined that community, whose views he holds and advocates, but which he then professed to oppose?

Another argument, that the Romish sacrament of Penance, including confession and absolution, is sanctioned by the Church of England, is drawn from the Service for the Visitation of the Sick. The case stands thus: the sick members of the congregation in our Church are entitled to the privilege of a small believing company assembling in the sick room with the curate, with whom the Lord's Supper may be celebrated; and the sick person desirous to receive the communion is altogether entitled to admission to the table, independant of any necessary act of confession on his part, or of absolution by the curate. There is not a word of instruction on the subject as applicable to the generality of cases; nay, further," the curate shall instruct him that if he do truly repent him of his sins and stedfastly believe," &c., independently of any confession or absolution, " he doth eat and drink the body and blood of our Saviour Christ profitably to his soul's health, although he do not receive the sacrament with his mouth." So truly does our Church consider that the peace of the soul flows out of its own penitent and believing state, and not out of any act of remission or absolution by the priest.

But the Church also contemplates another case. It is that of a sick and dying man, who may, under those solemn circumstances, "feel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter," and appear unwilling and unable to leave this world with the oppressive burden on his mind. In that case the priest is authorized" to move him to make a special confession of such sins." This course has evidently two objects,-the relief of the penitent's own mind, and the furthering of the interests of justice and equity; but this instance of occasional confession of a burdening sin, or of some fearful secret, differs toto cælo from the doctrine of confession which is advocated by Dr. Pusey and the Romanists. Dr. Mant states very plainly the wide difference between the two churches on this point, both as to the confession sought for, and the absolution pronounced. As to the confession, he says, "Our Church herein acts very differently from the Church of Rome, for that Church hath adjudged it "necessary by the divine law to confess all and single mortal sins which any one does remember and can recollect." Our Church only orders persons to be moved to it,-that Church requires it as necessary for the forgiveness of sins. Our Church mentions special confession with relation only to such sins as disquiet the per

son's mind, that Church absolutely demands it upon account of all sins whatsoever. Our Church does this only with a view of instructing and comforting the sick person,-but the Church of Rome anathematizes all them who say so ;- "If any one shall

say

that confession is only profitable for the instruction and consolation of the penitent, let him be accursed." Then, on the subject of the absolution, Dr. Mant says: "Our Church does not look on the absolution of the priest to be absolutely necessary for the forgiveness of sins, as the Church of Rome does; which as being part of their sacrament of penance they hold necessary for the faithful as often as they fall into sin after baptism. Our Church here by the former part of the form of absolution, which is precatory, declares that the priest does not act judicially and authoritatively; but the Romish Church is of an opinion directly opposite to this, and has declared our sense of giving absolution heretical:-" If any one shall say that the sacramental absolution of the priest is not a judicial act, but barely a ministerial one, in declaring that the sins of the person who confesses are pardoned, let him be accursed." Now this notion does betoken a great degree of arrogance in the maintainers of it, to think that God Almighty should divest himself of his inherent right of forgiveness of sins, which the scripture says belongs to him alone, and confer it upon one of his creatures." And how fully Dr. Pusey identifies himself with the Roman doctrine on this point when he affirms, "that our Lord has left a living provision in his Church, whereby all penitents, however fallen, should be restored,”—that confession is "the only remedy for sore existing evil,"-" that it is matter of discipline open to the Church to enforce public penance as in the ancient Church, or private confession as now in the Roman Church,"that it is the channel of God's grace to the soul,"-" the means of restoration which God has provided for the penitents." And again," grievous sins after baptism are remitted by absolution; and the judgment" (not a ministerial and declarative act, but according to the Trentine doctrine, a judgment) "if the penitent be sincere, is an earnest of the judgment of Christ, and is confirmed by him." "God doth intrust man with his divine authority." And of this "pardon after penitence, as absolute as in baptism itself," this "commission to set free from sins," he says, "the greatness of the power entrusted to man might well exceed our belief, and make us tremble to execute it, and almost doubt, as men have doubted, whether they had it." And again, "absolution as a second power of remission, lodged with the Church, restores the returning penitent to the state of grace from which he had fallen, cleansing anew the white robes which he had defiled, remitting the

guilt, and opening the avenue to the full inflow of grace which sin had cloked."

There is something very melancholy in the position of Dr. Pusey, thus most unequivocally identifying himself with Roman doctrine, and thus trying by a most miserable system of subterfuge to make the Church of England utter and justify views which she has so decidedly rejected. We can conceive of a man's being misled by Roman views, and of his openly avowing them, as Dr. Pusey does; but when beyond this, we see an attempt made on such scanty grounds to fasten those views on the Reformed Church, which as matter of history, and known and extensive controversy for three hundred years she has condemned; and that attempt having evidently as its object, the puzzling and entangling of youths at the university, who are coming under conviction of sin; we confess we hesitate to use the language which would properly characterize such a procedure. Look at the amount of his argument. The English Church, fearing that some men of notorious lives might improperly approach the table, requires a notice from those who purpose to communicate. Dr. Pusey for a purpose assumes that they are intended to be called to confession, and that this is an arrangement directly made with a view to their restoration through priestly absolution,—the assumption being perfectly gratuitous in the face of the avowed reason for the notice given in the next rubric. Again, the Church finds some persons of doubtful mind and scanty views of the fulness of divine mercy, so that they cannot come to the Lord's Supper with a quiet conscience: she advises such to seek pastoral advice and instruction. She finds some dying men burdened with some heavy sin, and she advises them to tell it. This is all that he can gather in favour of his system from the liturgy, -scanty enough, it will be allowed.

But then comes the great leap of the argument. "She did not restrict it to the cases in which she recommended it." (Let it be remembered that the Church of England and Dr. Pusey have two totally different things in view-he, auricular confession, the Church, only a close and friendly communication with a minister.) "She did not therefore discourage it when she ceased to urge it. We must believe, therefore, that she who encouraged (?) it in those cases would have recommended it in any other." And thus by this sad sophistry he conceives that the whole Roman scheme of auricular confession is fairly landed in the Church, which has ever been directly opposed to it. Because she permits something assumed to be analogous, therefore she did not discourage the Romish confession-therefore she encouraged it--and therefore it is Church of England doctrine and practice. In not one of these