AURICULAR CONFESSION AND PRIESTLY

ABSOLUTION.

THE subject of the present lecture is Auricular Confession and Priestly Absolution; correlative dogmas which are no longer distinctive of the Latin or Greek churches, but are now received and defended as having a due historic and doctrinal footing in the Church of England, as settled at the Reformation. It is noteworthy that the Ritualists no longer speak of these dogmas with bated breath, or defend them with a pleading and apologetic tone. The things which have generally been accounted obnoxious and alien to Protestant faith and feeling, are not only not done in secret, but are proclaimed on the house-top. Dr. Pusey, who may be said to supply the new school with its theology, whether he approves of its florid symbolism or not, has been an open assertor of the duty and privilege of auricular confession for many years. His famous sermon on the "Entire Absolution of the Penitent" placed his opinions in the clearest light. Had he been a Romanist his expres

sions could not have been more emphatic. Nor have his convictions changed with his years, for in his letter to the Times, of November the 29th, 1866, he acknowledges that he has been in the practice of receiving confession for twenty-eight years; that he has observed its growth during that time; that those who confess learned their duty from the Prayer-book; and that the same views which he holds were held and taught by the most eminent, learned, and godly sons of the Church at and after the time of the Reformation. He concludes this letter, which has been prolific of replies and defences, with the following remarkable words, "So long as those words of our Lord, Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven,' are repeated to us when we are ordained, so long will there be confession in the Church of England. Their removal would break the Church of England in pieces, but it would not diminish confession; the same persons would confess, only they would confess elsewhere. Meanwhile your readers will judge which is the most faithful to the Church of England, we, priests or laity who take solemn words of hers in their literal meaning, or they who agitate to have them removed."

Dr. Pusey, however, it must be acknowledged, does not ground his faith in the practice of confession and absolution solely on the words of the Prayerbook. He appeals to Scripture. "If any one," he says, "wishes to know what is our belief in regard to the power left by our Lord Jesus Christ to his church to absolve all sinners who truly repent and

believe in Him, we do receive those words in their plain, literal sense. We believe that our Lord, when He said to his apostles, after his resurrection, 'Whose sins ye do remit they are remitted unto them,' meant to convey a permanent power to them and their successors, in the same way as when He said, 'Go and baptize all nations', He gave to them and to those after them the power to baptize in the name of the Holy Trinity. As baptism was not limited to the apostles, so neither was absolution."

Now there are few men more remarkable than Dr. Pusey, for the manner in which he can construct a stupendous argumentative edifice on the most limited and insecure foundation, and with the most doubtful materials. Sometimes his premises have no discernible relation to each other; sometimes he concludes more from them than they contain; sometimes he shrinks from enouncing the conclusion in all its length and breadth; sometimes he will assume the major proposition when it is that which requires proof; sometimes the minor when it is that which requires proof; sometimes both, when both require proof. And his favourite manœuvre never fails him, of summoning at will a host of patristic authorities, by whom individual judgment is to be overwhelmed and smothered. And these are cited frequently without any regard to the contradictory evidence which they themselves supply, or to the rhetorical manner in which it was their habit to write. Let us look at the evidence which Dr. Pusey and his party are in the habit of citing from Scripture in support

of their extraordinary pretensions. If that evidence be clear and sufficient, we must accept it and abide by it, whatever difficulties it may involve, either of a theoretic or practical character. Whatever seeming strength there might be in à priori considerations against the ample prerogative claimed by Ritualists of forgiving sins, not in a ministerial, but in a judicial manner, we must not urge them in the face of inspired declarations. Indeed, we need not shrink from admitting that it is easy enough to conceive of such high power being vested in men, as should enable them to read the heart, and pronounce with infallible certainty on its state in the sight of God. We can imagine that an order of spiritual officers might have been divinely appointed for this purpose; an order, whose ability to discern spirits, should be miraculous, and wholly independent of their moral character, and whose sentence, "thy sins are forgiven thee," or,

thy sins are not forgiven thee," would express most accurately the fact as recorded in heaven itself, so that the penitent, or impenitent, might safely account the voice of the priest as the echo of the voice of God. Instead, therefore, of coming to the examination of the Scripture teaching on the matter, with any strong prepossession against the doctrine of the Ritualists, we are in the most favourable attitude possible for surrendering ourselves to the dogmas of auricular confession, and priestly absolution, if they can be shown to rest on the words of Christ, or of his apostles. In examining these words, it will be necessary to consider what they meant in their relation to

the persons to whom they were originally addressed, and then how far, having such a meaning, they can be usurped by persons to whom they were not addressed, and with respect to whom, so far as we can read, they were never meant to be employed. These two points are obviously distinct from each other, for it must not be assumed, without proof, that language which was addressed to apostles, may be claimed by others as conveying the same high prerogative to them.

I.

There are two passages which refer to "the keys,” and to these we shall give our first attention.

"Thou

When Peter made the famous confession, art the Christ, the son of the living God," Jesus answered and said, "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.' And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. xvi. 17-19).

:

A corresponding passage occurs in the eighteenth chapter of Matthew, and the eighteenth verse: "Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

ye