Priestly Absolution.

13

are severely castigated for their "practice of deferring confirmation until boys and girls have arrived at fourteen, fifteen, or even sixteen years of age." "There is a species of coldblooded cruelty in this practice, which can only be accounted for on the supposition that men now do not believe in the Holy Ghost, nor in the promises of Christ; or perhaps we shall speak more correctly if we say, that an intellectual process is substituted for the divine gifts of grace, and it is held that a child is unable to be confirmed by the Holy Ghost until, intellectually, it can confirm itself. In other words, that a sacrament is not, as the church defines it, a means of grace, but is an intellectual process; that the grace of this sacrament does not flow from Christ, but is a mental process evolved from the soul of the recipient of the outward sign-an idea of religion which naturally results in pure Deism" (pp. 53, 54).

The efficacy of Priestly Absolution is asserted in these terms: -"The power which our Lord manifested before the unbelieving Pharisees by working a miracle, he conferred on the priesthood of the church; or rather to speak more correctly, he now exercises through the priesthood." The priests "carry pardon to the penitent" (p. 58). After a gross misrepresentation of the "Protestant direction 'Go direct to Christ,'" we are told explicitly "how the penitent is to go to Christ. He is to go. to God's priest and to confess his sins to him. The priest has a commission from Christ to pronounce his pardon; and that pardon so pronounced, will convey not only peace to the soul, but also forgiveness of sins" (p. 60).

The section on "The Sacrament of Unction," is remarkable as an instance of the special pleading which characterises all these productions. It commences thus:-" "It is not uncommon for superficial theologians to say that the words 'corrupt following of the apostles' (Art. xxv.), refers specially to the Sacrament. . . . But it is evident that the words apply to all the five, and not to this rite only; and since the other four are in use, [!] we must interpret this phrase to refer rather to the ceremonies attendant on these sacraments, than to the sacraments themselves" (p. 66). On the hardihood of this assertion we make no comment. Having, however, thus disposed of the declaration of the article that Extreme Unction is a corrupt following of the apostles, the next thing is to deal with the fact that the Prayer Book of 1552, and "all subsequent books," have omitted every kind of "form for anointing." But this presents no difficulty. For "Does omission imply prohibition?" To this we answer, Certainly not.'" "What the Prayer Book prohibits is, not the using of extra offices, where none such are provided, but the using of a different office from that provided. We have no right to alter one of the exist

ing offices, or to substitute another in its place; but we have a right to use an old office, when the present book does not provide a new one" (p. 67). Besides, the thirtieth canon of 1603, and Jewel's Apology, may both be quoted in defence of it. [The fact being just the contrary.] And indeed (the twenty-fifth article notwithstanding), "Unction is a Sacrament of the Church, and has been so considered from the earliest times, both in the east and west" (p. 71). And, "more than this, no branch of the Catholic Church can abolish a sacrament, any more than it can abolish an article of the Creed" (Ib.).

"The Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is the Crown of all." "It effects that union of man with God, through the Incarnate Son, which alone completes the redemption wrought and accomplished" (p. 74). "Such as are chosen are 'added to the Church' by Holy Baptism. They are sanctified through the other Sacraments. . . But this Sacrament incorporates Christ with man, imparts his flesh and blood into man's flesh and blood, so that he 'tabernacles among us,' and lodges in our individual persons" (p. 76). "As the Word became flesh by conception in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, so these elements become the body and blood of Christ by consecration" (Ib.). "Not the grace of Christ only, but Christ himself is given in the Sacrament." "This Sacrament confers grace, because it contains Christ, who is the fount and source of all grace. Christ's passion is the meritorious cause of salvation; the Holy Eucharist is the instrumental cause, whereby the recipient partakes of the benefits of that passion" (p. 78). "That body given for man on the cross, is given to man in the Holy Eucharist. He who offered his blood for sins, now offers it to man for life" (p. 86).

Nothing but a great and growing sense of the importance of the subject would have induced us to try so severely the patience of our readers with this enunciation of "The Sacramental System" in the very words chosen by its advocates themselves. We shall not be guilty of the impertinence of supposing that what we have transcribed can need any formal refutation here, yet it will be not irrelevant to make a few general remarks.

1. And the first thing that strikes us in reading these productions is their disingenuousness, not to say dishonesty. Here we have a laboured attempt to prove, for the edification of "loyal members of the Church of England," the absolute necessity and apostolic validity of "the seven Sacraments." And this too, in the face of an authoritative document which teaches every child in her communion to answer the question, "How many Sacraments hath Christ ordained in his Church ?"

* Italics author's.

Dishonesty of the "Tracts."

15

"Two ONLY." And the very men who make this attempt, have subscribed (ex animo!) that declaration of the twentyfifth article, which fully contradicts their fundamental assertion!* Such conduct needs no comment.

The thirtieth Canon of 1603 quotes Jewel's Apology as confessing that the Church of England "doth with reverence retain those ceremonies which do neither endanger the Church of God, nor offend the minds of sober men; and only dissented from them in those particular points wherein they were fallen, both from themselves in their ancient integrity, and from the apostolical churches, which were their first founders." Will it be believed that this very passage is quoted in the tract before us (p. 70), as if it favoured that "Sacrament of Unction" which the Church of England has deliberately rejected and condemned?

Extreme Unction is, however, not the only thing rejected by the Church of England since 1549. Prayers for the dead were discarded at the same time. Both are found in the first prayerbook of Edward VI.; both are omitted in all subsequent books. But with this difference: that while the form for anointing was simply omitted, prayers for the dead were expressly excluded. Not only was the entire passage containing the words, "We commend unto thy mercy, O Lord, all other Thy servants which are departed hence from us, with the sign of faith, and now do rest in the sleep of peace" (in consequence of the reasons urged by Bucert and Calvint), omitted; but to the exhortation, "Let us pray for the whole state of Christ's church," there was added that clause of limitation which expressly restricts the prayer to Christ's "church militant here in earth." And yet our Essayist does not scruple to assert, that "in the offering of the great sacrifice in the Holy Eucharist, the names of the Faithful Departed are mentioned together with those of the Faithful who are yet in the flesh, and are alike prayed for before the throne of God!" (p. 77.)

One instance more-the most dangerous and most dishonest of all-and we quit this part of the subject. Dr Manning's charge against the church which he has deserted is, that "it formally imposes upon its people a disbelief in transubstantiation, and the sacrifice of the altar." We admit the charge: we glory in it. "The point of transubstantiation" (says Bishop Hall) " is justly ranked among our highest differences." But what says Dr

"Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction,-are not to be counted for Sacraments of the gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the apostles," &c., &c. Epistola ad Bucerum.

† Script. Anglican, p. 467, 468.

Pusey? "I am persuaded that, on this point, the two churches might be reconciled by explanations of the terms used."* And yet he is not ignorant what the terms used really are. He is well aware that in the Church of Rome, it is both commonly said and firmly believed, that in the "sacrifice of the mass" the priest does offer Christ for the quick and dead, to have remission of pain or guilt. And he is equally well aware that the Church of England, in her Thirty-first Article, has stigmatized that sacrifice, and those masses as "blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits." To put an end to this antagonism, and bring about the projected reconciliation, nothing more is needed than the adoption on our part of the doctrines and phraseology of Rome. Accordingly, to accustom the people to the familiar use of this phraseology, is now the constant aim of Dr Pusey's school. The "Tracts for the Day" are full of it. The "Supper," the "Minister," the "Table," have all disappeared; and in their stead we are furnished with "" a Sacrifice" ("The Dreadful Sacrifice"), a "Priest," and an "Altar." Instead of a Communion, ordained for the "continual remembrance" of the Great Sacrifice offered "once for all," we have its continual repetition; and the solemn warning of the Reformers, to" take heed lest of the memory we make a sacrifice," is trampled under foot. "The Great Victim" is " offered" by human hands; and this mock-sacrifice "is available for present, absent, living, dead; yea, even for them that are yet unborn. In other words, . . . . for the threefold divisions of the Church, militant, expectant, and triumphant-the faithful on earth, the saints departed, and the dead in general." +

But who does not know how widely different from these vociferations uttered in her name is the language of the Church of England herself! The very word "altar" is not to be found in her formularies. And this important fact is the result, not of accidental omission, but of intentional exclusion. In the First Prayer-Book of Edward VI. (1549), “altar" was employed with the most perfect consistency; for then the "mass," though in a modified form, was still in existence. But when, chiefly through the Latin Treatise of Johannes Scotus, and the Saxon homily of Elfric of Malmesbury, against the materialistic heresy of the monk of Corby, Cranmer, not less than Ridley, had become convinced of the truth; the "mass" was quickly abolished, and the Second Prayer-Book (1552) was the immediate result of this abolition. In every instance in which "altar" had been employed in the first Book, "table" was substituted in the second. Often simply "table," sometimes the "holy

* "Eirenicon," p. 28.

"The Ritual Reason Why:" pp. 115, 135 Commonly but erroneously attributed to Bertram.

"Stet pro ratione voluntas."

17

table," five or six times "the Lord's Table," but never, in any single instance, is it again called "altar."

The word "priest," too, although found in the Prayer-Book, is never once used in the sense in which these tract-writers use it. The "priest" of the Prayer-Book is simply "presbyter" or "elder."* In the Rubrics, "priest" is simply synonymous with "minister." And the dishonest use of this term by the ritualists, in a sacerdotal sense, is by the Church's authoritative formularies most positively disavowed. In describing the priest of Rome, the Church of England calls him (on account of his sacrificial pretensions), "sacerdos," ("sacerdotem offerre Christum"), Art. XXXI.; but, disclaiming all such pretensions for her own "priests," as well as for those of the Catholic Church, properly so called, she designates them in the very next Article, and again in the Thirty-Sixth, as simply "presbyters." Not less conclusive, though not more authoritative than this, is the language of the Homily on the Lord's Supper: "Herein thou needest no other man's help . . . no sacrificing priest, no mass."

se

Our space will not allow us to enter upon the argument from Scripture. We can therefore do no more than advert to the well-known fact, that while, in the New Testament, those parated to the work of the ministry" are sometimes designated by titles denoting their dignity (e. g. " ambassadors," "heralds"), and more frequently by names expressive of their duty (“shepherds," "watchmen," "stewards," "servants," "nurses," "fishers," "labourers"), there is one term which, whatever be the theme-their dignity, responsibility, or duty-is carefully and significantly avoided. They are never once called "priests." The word ('Isgeùs) uniformly applied to an Old Testament priest, is never, in a single instance, applied to a New Testament minister. Nor even in the early church was it ever so applied by the fathers of the first three centuries.

2. The logic of these "Essays" is peculiar. The same sentence which informs us that in a sacrament, the "two parts are inseparably united," tells us also what happens “when either part is absent." So that, after all, the parts are not "inseparable." With similar forgetfulness it is admitted (on p. 26), that the church is a "human power," although (on p. 22) it is so truly divine that persons "become children of God through being new-born of Holy Church." (1) That " generally" means "universally," is assumed as matter of course. It is asked (p. 16), "Why were Sacraments ordained, if they do

*Even Dr Hook admits this. "Church Dictionary," s. v.

† See Mr Bardsley's "Rubrics," pp. 50-53.

VOL. XVII.-NO. LXIII.

B