The pivot, in fact, upon which the Romish doctrine turns is, that, without sacerdotal absolution, there is little or no hope for the remission of sins. That such could not be the opinion of our Reformers, is evident from their general neglect of direct absolution. In the daily service a public confession prescribed to the congregation is followed by a declaration that Christian ministers are empowered and enjoined to pronounce an assurance of pardon in cases where true repentance exists. The absolution, however, is represented as God's work, and, in consequence, a prayer is offered up to him for his grace upon the congregation, in order that they may be placed in a condition to receive this mercy. In the Communion service a general confession is succeeded by a precatory form, in which the Divine pardon is merely implored for the assembled communicants. In the order for the visitation of the sick, the minister, after instructing and admonishing him whom he is attending, and diligently examining his faith, is directed to pray for the acceptance of his contrition, and the consequent pardon of his sins. It is, indeed, true that before this prayer, stands a piece allied to the Romish form of absolution. But it is certain, that this, modified as it is, was intended only for occasional use, at the minister's discretion. If a penitent feel his conscience oppressed by any sin of importance, the

trary would make all sores seem incurable, unless the priests have a hand in them." Hooker, B. VI. 82.

clergyman is to say, "Reveal your grief to me." If after such confession, an individual, educated amidst Romish prejudices, should earnestly desire the customary absolution of that Church, his spiritual adviser is authorised in allowing him some such satisfaction, in case he should see him discovering the marks of true contrition. The indi

cative absolution, therefore, is never to be used by a clergyman of the English Church, unless he should meet with an individual labouring under the pangs of concealed iniquity, unless such person should anxiously require the use of this form, and unless it should be manifest that he is in a state to warrant its used. It is obvious that these three particulars would not concur in all cases even in King Edward's days, when the whole nation was bred up in an anxiety for sacerdotal absolution. Among a people nurtured in scriptural principles, the three requisites which authorise the use of this absolution are most unlikely to concur unless very rarely; and it may be safely presumed, that fifty cases do not occur in all England during the whole year which would warrant a clergyman in pronouncing this form. It was retained, in fact, by our Reformers, not because they held the Romish doctrines respecting the reconciling of penitents, but because their labours

"Here shall the sick person be moved to make a special confession of his sins, if he feel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter. After which confession, the priest shall absolve him, if he humbly and heartily desire it." Rubric in the office for the visitation of the sick.

Whatever satisfaction might be felt by pious minds acquainted with God's recorded word on

tion of exposing all his moral wounds to the prying eyes of another man, perhaps very little worthy of his confidence, unless he considered that man's intervention necessary to procure the pardon of his iniquities? The martyr Tyndale entertained an opinion respecting sacerdotal absolution similar to that of Archbishop Cranmer, as appears from the following passage in his Obedience of a Christian Man :—“ St. Hierom saith, as the priest of the old law made the lepers clean or unclean, so bindeth and unbindeth the priest of the new law. The priest there made no man a leper, neither cleansed any man ; but God: and the priests only judged by Moses's law who was clean and who was unclean, when they were brought unto him. So have we the law of God to judge what is sin and what is not, and who is bound and who is not. Moreover, if any man have sinned, yet if he repent and believe the promise, we are sure by God's word, that he is loosed and forgiven in Christ. Other auctority then this wise to preach have the priests not. Christ's Apostles themselves had no other, as appeareth thorow all the New Testament. Therefore, it is manifest that they have not." From the saving clause inserted in the absolution allowed to sick penitents, it is evident, that our Reformers held opinions upon this subject in unison with those of Tyndale. Bishop Jewell defines the power of the keys to be nothing more than the knowledge of Scripture, and the privilege of awarding ecclesiastical censures. “Claves autem quibus aut claudere regnum coelorum, aut aperire possint, ut Chrysostomus ait, dicimus esse scientiam Scripturarum: ut Tertullianus, esse interpretationem legis: ut Eusebius, esse verbum Dei." (Apolog. Eccl. Angl. Oxon. 1639, p. 52.) Clergymen, then, are said to hold the keys of God's kingdom, because in them is vested of right the power to exclude from the public means of grace notorious offenders, and to re-admit such, upon sufficient satisfaction, into the bosom of the Church: also because it is their duty to study with diligence, and with daily prayers for God's blessing, the terms upon which sinful man may be reconciled to his Maker. It is by faithfully communicating

the appearance of the new Communion-office, it was soon alloyed by a sense of mortification. That appetency, which is the incurable disease of sordid and vulgar minds, eagerly marked out, as lawful plunder, costly articles hitherto used in religious worship, but now thought likely to be no longer needed for such a purpose. Accordingly, bells, chalices, silver crosses, and other objects of a similar description, began rapidly to disappear from the repositories to which they had been consigned. In order to stop this disgraceful rapacity, a letter was sent on the last

this divine knowledge to their congregations, that the ministers of Christ's Church unlock the gates that open into the heavenly city; not by raking amidst men's deeds, words, and thoughts of shame, in order to make them believe, that certain words spoken by a priest, certain austerities, or stupidities accomplished by themselves, and certain privileges to be obtained from an Italian bishop, will infallibly wash away the stain of iniquity. Before this subject is dismissed, it may be desirable to cite one authority more, that of the learned and excellent Hooker. He says, "As for the ministerial sentence of private absolution, it can be no more than a declaration of what God hath done: it hath but the force of the Prophet Nathan's absolution, God hath taken away thy sin." (Eccl. Pol. B. VI. 99.) See also Latimer's Sermons, II. 228.

For the length of this digression concerning confession and absolution, some apology is due to the reader. It is, however, hoped that this matter may not be without its use. The subject itself is important, from its prominence in the Romish system, and it is useful to know the sentiments of our reformed Church upon it, because she has been represented as holding, in this respect, principles in unison with those which she found established in England. A representation more utterly groundless was never made.

day of April, from the Protector and the Council, to the Archbishop of Canterbury, commanding him to apprise all persons entrusted with the care and control of churches, that any embezzlements or unauthorised alienations of the property provided for divine service, would be visited by the King's highest displeasure. Another gross indecency called, about this time, for the interference of the government. Romish places of worship are usually left open, for the purpose of allowing men to offer up their prayers within a few paces of the pix, which, as ever containing consecrated wafers, is thought to enclose an incarnation of the Deity. In a coarse and unruly age, it may readily be supposed, that even before the sanctity of these diminutive cakes was ordinarily called in question, the open churches would occasionally become the scenes of wanton folly or brutal outrage. But when an opinion was generally spread abroad, that the high and mighty God" dwelt not in the temples made with hands "," and that the Holy One who was to see no corruption could not reside in a petty preparation of baked meal which would be mouldy in a month; those who, from levity, or ill-regulated zeal, were prone to unseemly acts, hastened to insult the places for which reverence had been claimed upon grounds so palpably untenable. In London, especially, which, from its size, contained a numerous unruly

'Strype, Mem. Cranm. 252.

b Ibid. ii. 27.

Acts vii. 48.