his secret and irresponsible judgments were henceforth to be received by all his flock without exception as THE VOICE OF GOD!

Such being the time, the occasion, and the motives for the adoption of this modern form of absolution, I can not but lament that our noble Reformers of England suffered it to remain in any part of their established offices, notwithstanding they only allowed it to be used at the earnest desire of individuals whose minds might be depressed by the weight of some special sin. In all things else they determined to be guided by the pure doctrines of the Scriptures and the practice of the primitive Church. Why, it may be asked, did they deviate from their rule in this particular? To this question a two-fold answer may be given.

In the first place, they may have been influenced by a benevolent disposition to favor the feelings and habits of a large proportion of the nation, in whose judgment the principles of the Reformation had not yet become fully established, and who, therefore, whenever their minds became alarmed and dejected, might naturally long after their accustomed course, and derive a certain comfort from hearing the old and familiar words of positive personal absolution. To accommodate the prejudices of these weak brethren, therefore, the Reformers may have thought it best to allow this indulgence to the few who might specially ask for it. They may have believed that such a course was justified by the policy of the apostles, who, according to the opinion of some of the ancient fathers, permitted the continuance of the ceremonial law aft er it had ceased to be absolutely binding, for the sake of their Israelitish brethren. And yet it seems manifest that the cases were by no means analogous; for

the ceremonial law had been appointed for the Jewish people by express divine authority, and had never been formally repealed. Whereas the Confessional, with its new assumption of private priestly prerogative, was without a vestige of apostolic or primitive sanction, and was rather to be regarded as a system of delusion, perilous to the conscience of the pastor, and dangerous to the souls of his flock. But the Reformers had been long accustomed to this mode of administering absolution. They doubtless anticipated the result, that, by making its use to depend entirely on the voluntary request of the laity, it would soon die away. And meanwhile, in order to facilitate the conversion of Romanists, and prevent their thinking that they would lose any real privilege in coming to a pure Church, they determined to tolerate it in this optional shape, which still continues.

The second answer to the question, however, may be more satisfactory, namely, that the use of private confession and absolution, in certain cases, was allowed, not to accommodate the habits of Romanists, but in order to agree as far as possible with the system of the German Reformers, Luther and Melancthon; for they had retained a far closer resemblance to the Roman discipline in this matter. They called absolution a sacrament, and required auricular confession and priestly absolution of every one, as a regular preparative for the Eucharist; although they abolished the rule which authorized the priest to act as an inquisitor, and severely denounced the whole Romish doctrine concerning works of penance or satisfaction.

But it may, perhaps, be more acceptable to the reader if I state these points of distinction in their own words. Thus, then, we read in the Catechism

composed by Melancthon for the youth of the Lutheran Churches, viz.:

"What is a Sacrament?

"It is properly a ceremony instituted in the Gospel, to which is added a Gospel promise.

"How many are they?

"Three are rightly enumerated: Baptism, ABSOLUTION, and the Lord's Supper."-(App., Note 243.)

Here, therefore, we find that the German Reformers included absolution among the sacraments, in which neither Calvin nor Zuingle, nor yet our Mother Church of England, agreed with them. And in this I have already shown that our system is justified by the ancients, and that the modern doctrine had no existence in Christendom before the thirteenth century.

The celebrated Confession of Augsburg presents the Lutheran sentiment on the subject in the following terms:

"OF CONFESSION.

For

"Confession in the Churches is not abolished with us. it is not our custom that the body of the Lord should be administered, except to those who have previously been examined and absolved. . . . The power of the keys is honored and commemorated, how much consolation it affords to alarmed consciences, and how God requires faith, in order that we may believe in that absolution as in a voice sounding from heaven, and that this faith may attain to Christ, and receive the remission of sins."-(App., Note 244.)

"But our ministers teach concerning confession, that the enumeration of offenses is not necessary, nor are consciences to be burdened with the care of numbering all sins, because the reciting of all our transgressions is impossible, as the Psalmist testifies. Who understandeth his offenses? So likewise Jeremiah, The heart of man is depraved and inscrutable. Because if no sins could be remitted unless they have been rehearsed, the consciences of men could never rest, since there are very many sins which they neither discern nor are able to remember. The ancient writers also bear witness that this enumeration is not necessary. For in the Decretals, Chrysostom is

quoted, who speaks thus: I do not say to thee that thou shouldst betray thyself in public, nor accuse thyself before others; but I wish thee to obey the prophet, saying, Reveal thy way before God. Therefore confess thy sins to God, the true Judge, with prayer. Declare thy sins not with the tongue, but with the memory of thy conscience,' &c. And the gloss concerning penitence acknowledges that confession is of human law. Nevertheless, confession is retained among as, as well on account of the exceeding great benefit of absolution as for other advantages to the conscience."-(App., Note 245.)

In the larger form of the same Declaration of Faith, presented by the Protestant princes before the Diet of Worms, their doctrine is thus expressed, viz.:

"Our ministers teach that private absolution is to be retained in the Churches, and they exalt its dignity and the power of the keys with true and most ample praises, inasmuch as this power of the keys administers the Gospel not only generically to all, but privately to each singly."—(App., Note 246.)

The parts of penitence are stated by Melancthon in his Catechism, to be "two, namely, Contrition and Faith."-(App., Note 247.) And he rejects the Roman doctrine of Satisfaction altogether, as follows:

"The custom of satisfactions is to be condemned, and the doctrine of satisfactions is to be rejected; for we must, above all things, take care that the doctrine of free acceptance and of faith be not overthrown. Let this truth shine forth in the Churches, that the remission of guilt and eternal punishment is granted freely for the sake of Christ; that Christ is the satisfaction and the sacrifice for our sins; that no works of ours can be a satisfaction for our sins."—(App., Note 248.)

And in the famous Apology for the Augsburg Confession, we have the following burst of indignant feeling, after an examination of the attempt made by the Romish theologians to prove their doctrine from the Scriptures, viz. :

May God confound those impious sophists, so wickedly distorting the Word of God to support their most empty dreams! What good man can help being moved at such indignity? Christ saith, Repent. The apostles preach repentance. Therefore

eternal punishments are compensated by our satisfactions! Therefore the keys have authority to remit part of the pains of purgatory! Therefore satisfactions redeem the pains of purgatory! Who has taught these asses such logic as this?". (App., Note 249.)

These extracts may suffice to show that the Lutheran Churches held fast the sacramental theory, and the practice of making auricular confession and private absolution the regular preparative for the administration of the Eucharist, although they reprobated the other parts of the Roman system. And hence it has been supposed, with much reason, that notwithstanding our English Reformers had all the authority of Scripture and the primitive Church in their favor, proving that absolution, per se, was not a sacrament, and that auricular confession, being a mere modern innovation, ought not to be enjoined on any man, yet they thought it best to leave a portion of the former discipline discretionary, in order to accommodate their Lutheran friends; so that any of them who might desire to avail himself of the priestly power of private absolution, either before the communion, or at the approach of death, should be indulged, on special request, with its administration.

Now either of these motives may have been the true one; and both may have operated in the same direction, since it is obvious that there was no incompatibility between them. But however this may have been, it is none the less manifest that there is no warrant for the practice, either in the Word of God or in the early Fathers and Councils. And, therefore, while we ought to make the largest allowance for the peculiar difficulties of our admirable Reformers, and frankly acknowledge that in their circumstances the argument of expediency was plausible, yet it is hardly to be doubted that they carried the policy of accom