79 ART. V.-1. Auricular Confession : not the Rule of the Church of England. A Letter to the Lord Bishop of Exeter in respect to the Recent Enquiry at the Royal Hotel, Plymouth. By PRESBYTER ANGLICANUS. London: Hatchard. 1852. 8vo. 2. Auricular Confession, and Special Judicial Absolution, Examined by the Canon of Holy Scripture, and by the Ordinances of the Reformed Church of these Realms. An Essay. By WILLIAM PEACE, Esq., a Lay Member of the said Church. Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged. London: Painter. 1852. 8vo. 3. Auricular Confession, and Priestly Absolution: A Lecture delivered in the Town Hall, Dorchester. By the Rev. W. C. MAGEE. London: Hatchard and Son. 1852. 12mo. 4. Auricular Confession: a Sermon preached in the Cathethedral of St. Peter, Exeter, on Sunday, Nov. 24th, 1852. By the Very Rev. THOMAS HILL LOWE, M.A., Dean of Exeter. London: Rivingtons. Exeter: Holden. 1852. 8vo. 5. The Ordinance of Confession. M.A., Prebendary of Lichfield. 1851. 8vo. By WILLIAM GRESLEY, WE class these publications together, on account of their relation to a subject, which has recently attracted much public attention, in consequence of the extraordinary proceedings at Plymouth against a clergyman of the United Church of England and Ireland, who was charged with the practice of auricular confession of sins among the members of his flock. Those proceedings, reported at length in various newspapers, have called forth the indignant remonstrance addressed to the Bishop of Exeter, by "Presbyter Anglicanus." From a comparison and examination of those proceedings, the author has proved two points-viz., first, that "the enquiry was conducted with none of the solemnities befitting such an occasion: the two parties concerned-the accuser and the accused-did not consent to the exceptional course pursued by his lordship; and there was not the safeguard of perfect publicity." And, secondly, that his "lordship mistook, and therefore misrepresented, the doctrine of the Church of England, as stated in her authorised formularies, and contended for by the chief of her champions." The second of these positions is ably argued at considerable length, and the author has corroborated his arguments and statements by quotations at length from those formularies, and from the writings of Hooker. The Bishop of Exeter's quotations from the "judicious Hooker" are subjected to a most sifting examination; and the result is, the establishment of the author's second position, that the bishop has mistaken, and therefore has misrepresented, the doctrine of our Church. Mr. Peace's Essay on "Auricular Confession" is the work of a reflecting and intelligent layman, who has brought that mode of confession to the unerring standard of holy Scripture, and to the ordinances of our Church; and the result is, a conclusive and satisfactory demonstration that auricular confession is altogether a Popish practice. Those who have not time to peruse larger treatises will find Mr. Peace's volume a convenient, cheap, and most useful manual on this important topic. Mr. Magee's "Lecture on Auricular Confession" is a wellwritten popular discourse, in which he has defined and contrasted the Romish and the Scriptural doctrines of absolution and confession, and a thorough contrast they are. He has conclusively proved, both from Scripture and from ecclesiastical history, that the Romish doctrine is as false as it is modern. He has also pointed out the dreadful consequences which must always follow from it, and has most successfully vindicated our Church from the charge of teaching or sanctioning it. The Dean of Exeter's sermon is singularly well-timed, and deserves extensive circulation, especially in the diocese of Exeter, for which it is eminently adapted. We do not wonder that the dean was requested to publish his "Sermon." It is, indeed, a cheap, concise, plain, well-reasoned, and wellwritten discourse, in which he has most clearly proved that there is no ground in Scripture for the doctrine and practice of auricular confession; that it leads in practice to the grossest abuses; and that it is not sanctioned by our Reformed Church. Mr. Gresley's treatise on "The Ordinance of Confession," demands a more extended notice. In truth, it might have been more correctly entitled "An Attempt to Revive in the Church of England the Popish Ordinance of Auricular Confession;" or the duty and practice of the habitual confession of sins to a clergyman, after his examination of the state of a penitent's conscience. Mr. Gresley asserts that "confession" is "enjoined and sanctioned by the English Church;" and, in pp. 9-11, he lays much stress on the fact, that it was distinctly recognised in the first Prayer Book of King Edward VI., which was published in 1549. But how stands the REAL fact? "In 1548, it was declared that auricular confession should be left indifferent—that is, that those who were accustomed to the old Romish superstition might, if they preferred doing so, continue to practise it; but that it should not be required of those who, adopting the enlightened views of the Reformers, were not inclined to make secret confession. At the same time the people were recommended to exercise Christian forbearance towards each other, as well towards those who practised the old superstition, as toward those who adopted the new persuasion." (Peace's "Auricular Confession," p. 44.) * "It will be borne in mind that many of the people, who had been accustomed to the discipline and teaching of the Church of Rome, were in the practice of making special confession and of receiving priestly absolution, and that some might still retain an attachment to that teaching and to that discipline: therefore, however much those doctrines and that teaching might be repudiated, the Reformers desired that the feelings of those who still adhered to them should not merely be respected, but should be gratified." (Ibid. pp. 45-46.) In pp. 16-23, Mr. Gresley argues at some length that confession is enjoined by our Church, "in order to enable persons to come to the holy communion with a quiet conscience." But what is the language of the second exhortation in the "Order of the Administration of the Lord's Supper, or Holy Communion ?- "And because it is requisite that no man should come to the holy communion, 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 and counsel, let him come to me or some other discreet and learned minister of God's word, and open his grief; that by the ministry of God's holy word he may receive the benefit of absolution, together with ghostly counsel and advice, to the quieting of his conscience, and avoiding of all scruple and doubtfulness." Such are the words of the venerable compilers of our Liturgy, some of whom were martyrs and others were confessors for "the faith once" for "all delivered to the saints (Jude 3), during the sanguinary reign of Mary. Most clearly do these words prove nothing in favour of auricular confession; the reference here made to confession is most clearly exceptional. "It is made," as Presbyter Anglicanus most truly states: VOL. XXXIII.-G "Only in consideration of the communicant not doing what the Church expects him to do-namely, quiet his own conscience herein.' And in that case the only absolution he is warranted to expect is that which he is to receive by the ministry of God's holy word '-namely, the declaration by the minister of God's forgiveness to all who truly repent and truly believe. It is not directed that confession of individual sin, or acts of sin, be made to the minister. That would be a snare to both penitent and priest. But it is meant that the minister may give comfort to the penitent, together with ghostly counsel, by assuring him of God's absolution. The absolution is declaratory and ministerial-not personal, on the part of the priest. Yet I deny not the minister's 's power to absolve at all. Such a denial would be a Novatian heresy. But I say that it does not follow, from this permission of the Church in the communion service, that individual sin is to be exposed to a priest, or that he can do more than pronounce God's absolution. It is quite sufficient that a communicant should declare being burdened by unforgiven sin. A judicious minister would thereupon indicate the mode by which alone that sin could be forgiven. An injudicious priest would assume the prerogative of Rome's confessional and arrogate the power of Rome's priests. A judicious priest would take to himself little, if aught, more than the power of impos ing or remitting the Church's censures. An injudicious priest would presume to wield the awful and incommunicable attributes of Deity. The judicious priest would repel from the holy communion or otherwise, as the case might require, excommunicate the impenitent offender. The injudicious priest would essay, upon his own judgment, to trammel the soul and determine the damnation of the sinner. The one acts in absolution only by the ministry of God's holy word,' the other beside and beyond it. In this lies the distinction in the two lines pursued by two ministers in one and the same case." ("Letter to the Bishop of Exeter,” p. 16). Mr. Gresley also asserts that "confession" is "enjoined to the sick;" and, in pp. 24-34, he lays great stress upon the following passage in the rubric of "the Order for the Visitation of the Sick:" "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), after this sort." (Then follows the form of absolution). On this rubric it has been well remarked by our learned Ritualist, Dr. Nicholls, in his Commentary on the Book of Common Prayer (Second edition, London, 1712), that "Our Church here having understood that the consciences of most men are very tender under the fear of approaching death; that reflections upon their former sins do then most sensibly affect them; and that withal many scruples do arise in their minds, either concerning some acts of injustice, which they may in the course of their lives have committed, and may be at a loss how to find out proper methods of restitution; or concerning some sins of a more heinous nature, which they are not certain that they have pursued the most proper methods of repenting of:—I say, our Church upon these considerations has ordered that the sick person, when he has been visited by the minister, may be moved to make confession of such sins as he finds do trouble his conscience; to the end that, by the spiritual advice and comfort which he may receive from him, his mind may be eased. "Now it is to be observed, that our Church herein acts very differently from the Church of Rome: for that Church has' [on pain of anathema] adjudged it necessarium jure divino confiteri omnia et singula peccata mortalia, quorum memoria cum debitâ et diligenti premeditatione habeatur :--necessary by the divine law to confess all and single [singular] mortal sins, which any one does remember or can recollect by due and diligent premeditation.' (Conc. Trid. [Sess. xiv.] Can. 7.) Our Church only orders persons to be moved to it that require it as necessary for the forgiveness of sins. Our Church motions special confession, with relation only to such sins as disquiet the person's mind: that Church absolutely demands it upon account of all sins whatsoever. Our Church does this only with the view of instructing and comforting the sick person: but the Church of Rome anathematizes all who say so. 'Si quis dixerit, confessionem tantùm esse utilem ad erudiendum et consolandum pœnitentem, anathema sit. If any one shall say, that confession is only profitable for the instruction and consolation of the penitent, let him be accursed.' (Conc. Trid. Ibid.) But as the auricular confession of the Papists, which they hold necessary for all penitents, and have enjoined to be performed by a particular enumeration of all sins which can be remembered, is a doctrine which was never known in the world, till the very late ages of it; so the special confessing of some very affecting sins which disquiet the mind, to be made to the minister as a spiritual physician or counsellor, (as our Church enjoins), was practised by the purest ages of Christianity." (Nicholls, on the Order for the Visitation of the Sick, note h.) ...... ...... 6 The passage, cited in page 82, from "the Order for the Visitation of the Sick," is also quoted by "Presbyter Anglicanus," who thus comments upon it: "From this rubric it does not follow that the weighty matter,' is to be disclosed to the Priest, nor that the Priest's absolution is indispensable to the forgiveness of the sick man's sins, even should he confess them to the Priest. For the absolution is to be given only if the sick person humbly and heartily desire it. He may confess, as far as the Church's law or permission is concerned, to God only in secret: and receive God's forgiveness. He may confess also, if he will, outwardly and aloud, and receive God's forgiveness. In each case, without the interposition of a Priest. Yet if in his great distress he requires some outward manifestation of God's will, the Priest ministerially may assure him of God's absolution. |