Church of England, howsoever it holdeth not Confession and Absolution Sacramental, (that is, made unto and received from a priest), to be absolutely necessary, as that without it there can be no remission of sins; yet by this place it is manifest what she teacheth concerning the virtue and force of this sacred action. The confession is commanded to be 'special' the Absolution is the same as that of the Ancient Church, and the present Church of Rome useth: what would they have more? Maldonate, their greatest Divine that I meet with, (de Pœnit. p. 19.) saith thus: 'Ego autem sic respondendum puto non esse necesse, ut semper peccata remittantur per sacramentum pœnitentiæ, sed ut ipsum sacramentum naturâ suâ possit peccata remittere, si inveniat peccata et non inveniat contrarium impedimentum,' and so much we acknowledge. Our, 'if he feels his conscience troubled,' is no more than 'si inveniat peccata;' for if he be not troubled with sin, what needs either confession or absolution? Venial sins, that separate not from the grace of God, need not so much to trouble a man's conscience. If he have committed any mortal sin, then we require confession of it to a priest, who may give him, upon his true contrition and repentance, the benefit of absolution, which takes effect according to his disposition that is absolved; and therefore the Church of Rome adds to the form Common Prayer Book in Bishop Cosin's Library, printed in the year 1619, and taken from "Tracts of the Anglican Fathers."

of absolution, 'Quantum in me est, et de jure possum, Ego te absolvo;' not absolutely, lest the doctrine should get head, that some of their ignorant people believe, that, be the party confessed never so void of contrition, the very act of absolution forgives him his sins. The truth is, that in the priest's absolution there is the true power and virtue of forgiveness, which will most certainly take effect, nisi ponitur obex, as in Baptism."

I do not see how I could, even consistently with the teaching of our Church, have denied Absolution to be in some degree a Sacrament, as assuredly it is a means or sign of grace given, although our Lord has been pleased to distinguish those two greater Sacraments, by appointing Himself the visible matter which should be used in them. But I took pains to express myself as the Church of England does, and with express reference to her teaching. When, in a work which I was editing, the Holy Eucharist and Absolution were classed as "Sacraments" together, I omitted the mention of Absolution, in part for the express reason that, "to rank Absolution (although a Divine ordinance and means of grace, and so, in the larger sense of the word, a Sacrament) at once with the Holy Eucharist, would have seemed contrary to our Church's teaching, and the exceeding greatness of the Holy Eucharist."

2

1 This is a mistake; the limitation does not relate to contri

tion (which is presupposed), but to "reserved cases.”

2

Surin, Foundation of the Spiritual life, p. 228, note c.

66

6

But it was, in accordance, I thought, with the teaching of the Church of England, that in editing the "Spiritual Combat," I retained the words, “the most holy sacrament of Absolution" (p. 13); "the sacrament of Penitence" (p. 135) with the following note (p. 13):-" As Marriage is so called in the Homilies, which also say that Absolution hath the promise of forgiveness of sins; yet by the express word of the New Testament, it hath not this promise. annexed and tied to the visible sign, which is imposition of hands.' They speak of 'other sacraments,' although not so great as Baptism and the Lord's Supper, which directly unite us with Christ."

I did not, then, exclude the title of Sacrament, when it occurred in the book which I was editing, lest I should seem to deny what our Church must believe, that it is an appointed means of grace, and what it in some sense calls it. I retained it, and explained its use in accordance with the teaching of the Church. When preaching myself before the University, I did not use it, regarding it as best not to draw off the attention from the substance, by the use of a word which is not essential, and which required explanation. On the same ground, I did not, as I have already said, use the term "auricular confession." "Auricular confession" cannot, in itself, mean any thing but private confession, or, what the "Service for the Visitation of the

3 See also Postscript to the letter to Mr. Richards, p. 294—

4

Sick" calls "a special confession of his sins." Still it is technical language not familiar in our Church. It has also been used especially of, and almost appropriated to, the compulsory confession of the Church of Rome. One of the homilies speaks of their (the Roman Catholic) "auricular confession;" and it and it appears, from the context, that it means that "compulsory confession" which, it says, "is against the true Christian liberty, that any man should be bound to the numbering of his sins." And, after it, Hooker, -who himself (it is known), used, to the great comfort of his soul, private confession with Saravia— speaks against "auricular confession" as not being contained in St. Cyprian; assuredly meaning, not what the Church of England allowed, and he himself used, but the necessity of confession as a condition of pardon and salvation. "The 5 Minister's power to absolve is publicly taught and professed; the Church not denied to have authority either of abridging or enlarging the use and exercise of that power; upon the people no such necessity imposed of opening their transgressions unto men, as if remission of sins otherwise were impossible; neither any such opinion had of the thing itself, as though it were either unlawful or unprofitable, save only for these inconveniences, which the world hath by experience observed in it heretofore."

On the subject of confession, Mr. Palmer speaks

distinctly: The practice of private confession to priests, and absolution she never abolished. It is said, that the form of administering the Eucharist, drawn up by eighteen Bishops and other clergy in 1547, left private confession entirely to the option of individuals; but strictly speaking, this license related not so much to the practice of confession in general, as to the particular custom of confessing before receiving the Eucharist. That the Church did not mean to abolish confession and absolution (which she even regards as a sort of sacrament o) in general, appears from the Office of the Eucharist, and for the Visitation of the Sick, then drawn up, and from the powers conferred on priests in the Ordination Services. The Homilies, drawn up in 1562, only declared this confession and absolution not essential generally to the pardon of sin'; but this does not militate against its desirableness and benefit, which the Church never denied'. We only disused

6

Church of Christ, P. íi. c. 7. t. i. p. 518.

' Burnet, Vol. ii. p. 120, 123.

Ibid. p. 119.

"Absolution is no such sacrament as Baptism and the Communion are, . . . but in a general acceptation, the name of a sacrament may be attributed to any thing, whereby an holy thing is signified," &c.-Sermon on Common Prayer and Sacraments, Part I.

1 Sermon of Repentance, Part II.

2 Ibid. See Exhortation in the Communion Office, and the Visitation of the Sick. The national Synod of Ireland, A. D. 1634 in their 64th Canon, charged all Ministers not to reveal offences entrusted to them in private confession, under pain of