of sins" according to his own private judgment; but he asserts, that if we would consistently maintain any principle of authority, either the words "or some other" must be interpreted in accordance with restrictions existing at the time when they were first ordered to be read to the people, or it must be shown that such restrictions have been formally repealed; and this he denies that Dr. Pusey has shown.

This is literally true, and Mr. Maskell makes the most of it; but he takes no notice of the fact that Dr. Pusey has shown that the change of discipline with regard to confession was made on a principle, which necessarily carried with it the repeal of the said restrictions, viz. the principle of "departing from" other Churches, and so from her own previous practice, "in those particular points wherein they were fallen both from themselves in their ancient integrity, and from the Apostolic Churches which were their first founders." Dr. Pusey has shown, that in those ages when people were not compelled to confess at all, they were advised to choose their own confessor, with regard only to his ability to judge rightly of their state before GOD, and that nothing was said of jurisdiction in this matter until after the practice of confessing at least once a year had been declared to be necessary. Surely, if men are not automata but reasonable beings, the intention of the Church of England must have been so obvious that there was no need specially to repeal restrictions which plainly belonged to a state of things which was done away. We have no fear that any large number of persons will think that the Church of England must altogether abandon her claim to teach with authority, even if there be no more exact answer forthcoming than that which we have suggested, to the trifling informality which Mr. Maskell has detected in Dr. Pusey's argument. And, did we think it desirable to recriminate, we could easily raise far weightier objections against that system, which Mr. Maskell now thinks can, as a whole, be defended and maintained upon one consistent principle. We will only ask, whether this one consistent principle is the principle of historical tradition, or the principle of developement? for the two are evidently incompatible, and a system, which does not authoritatively reject one or the other of them, is at sea as to the very foundation of the faith. We are surprised at Mr. Maskell's hardihood, although neophytes are proverbially incautious. But we must not detain our readers any longer from Dr. Pusey's letter, from which we proceed to make some extracts. He says-t

"The theory of jurisdiction recently put out by Mr. Allies, as he has too narrowly stated it, would in many cases affect the benefits of absolution, which by virtue of the exhortation of the Church of England they have sought and received, and in it have found grace and peace. One at least, has on that ground left the Church of England.

To you, as well as to myself, many whose consciences were oppressed have come, at the invitation of our common Mother, who, consulting for the infirmity of her children, did not place them, in this respect, simply under their Parish Priest, but directed him to invite them to 'come to him or to some other,' to whom they could with full confidence unburden their souls. They came to us in simple trust in the loving invitation of the Church; and we, in the same entire confidence that the Church, by bidding then come, did not empower only, but laid a necessity upon us to receive them, did so receive and minister to them, as the Church directed. You too can bear witness with me, that if there is one part of our Ministry which God has blessed; if there be one part of our office, as to the fruits of which we look with hopefulness and joy to the day of judgment, it is to the visible cleansing of souls, the deepened penitence, the repentance unto salvation not to be repented of,' the hope in CHRIST, the freshness of grace, the joy of forgiven souls, the evident growth in holiness; the angel-joy over each sinner that repenteth,' which this ministry has disclosed to us. We have often in the subsequent growth in grace and 'transformation' of the soul, by the renewing of the mind,' not been able to re-call to ourselves the former self which we knew of, when first a person sought to hear, through our ministry, his SAVIOUR's voice, Thy sins be forgiven thee: go in peace.'

་

་

In these a pastor dare delight

A lamb-like, CHRIST-like throng;

for His likeness has anew by Himself been traced upon them.

For these souls we should especially be anxious, that no breath of unreal doubt or misgiving should cloud the brightness of their hopes; no untrue questioning pierce their souls. We have seen the reality of the work of the Divine Grace in their souls. We have seen it too uniformly, too vividly, too variedly, too abounding in manifold fruits, as GOD divideth to every man severally as He will,' to have a shadow of doubt about it. To us all questioning seems like calling in question the work of GOD the HOLY GHOST which our own eyes have seen.' .. When we see spiritual cures, the spiritual sight restored, the taste in heavenly things given back, the senses deadened to the things of sense, the conscience once dulled now tender; the proud heart like a little child; the hardened heart flow in tears of penitence; the soul more alive to its remaining infirmities, than it once was to whole heaps of deep deadly sin; or that great triumph of Divine Power, where one becomes eminent for the grace most opposed to his deepest besetting fault, we must adore the miracles of Divine Grace. Satan does not cast out Satan. It was His Name, through faith in His Name which gave them their spiritual life, and power, and victory in Him. But to many of these, the very humility which God has given them may hide His own work in them. With quickened sight they see defects to which they once were blind. Longing to be wholly pure and wholly GoD's, they feel keenly every thing which seems in any degree to separate them from Him. They feel the remaining sinfulness of their corrupt nature, and the penalty even of forgiven sin, and the evil, though unharboured, thoughts which issue from it, more than they once did actual grievous sin. They cannot have the cumulative evidence

which we have of the benefit of Absolution.' They have felt in their own case the power of GoD unto salvation.' Yet it would seem presumptuous to rest on their own experience, as to the gift of GOD. But we have seen that ministry effectual, not in the one or the other case, but wherever it has been sought with a faithful and true heart.' "These souls then we must guard with care. For the slightest misgiving will pierce tender souls in proportion to their tenderness. The inquiry involves necessarily a good deal of reference to a system which is distinct from our own as being compulsory. For the objections raised by Mr. Allies are drawn entirely from writers who lived after the Council of Lateran had enjoined Confession to every one's own Priest once in the year,' and they must be removed out of the same sources."

...

With the greatest deference to Dr. Pusey we must here ask, why so? It seems to us that they are to be removed by showing that the Church of England deliberately reverted to the practice of the Church before the council of Lateran. This Dr. Pusey has shown in the latter part of his book, and he has done good service by showing also to what extent even later practice fails to support Mr. Allies's objections. We only mean that he has not made it so plain as he might, wherein the strength of his position lies, viz. to use his own words, in the "consideration of that period, upon which the Church of England rests her practice, the centuries antecedent to the council of Lateran," .."the consideration of the primitive practice and its bearings upon the present question." This is alone sufficient to determine the question, for although the principle of continuity in the Church obliges us to assume that where the Church of England made no new enactments, she supposed her existing practice to be in accordance with Holy Scripture and primitive antiquity, yet where she has altered her doctrine in so main a point as ceasing to hold confession and absolution necessary to the forgiveness of deadly sin after baptism, on the ground that the primitive ages did not so hold; she must by all reasonable men be understood to revert to the practice of those ages as to such subordinate points of discipline as flowed from the more recent doctrine which she rejected. To return to Dr. Pusey: speaking of Mr. Allies, he says-*

"We both believe in common that the power to absolve from sin in CHRIST's name is given to all priests through their ordination. We believe that this power is committed to them by CHRIST Himself through the imposition of the bishop's hands, with the words, Receive the HOLY GHOST for the office and work of a priest in the Church of GOD, now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands. Whose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained.' We, both of us, believe that the power of excommunicating or absolving from excommunication is reserved for the highest order only. We both believe that on full confession of all the sins which burthen the conscience, with true repentance, the priest may, by CHRIST's authority committed unto him, absolve the penitent

* Page 7.

ven.

from all his sins, in the Name of the FATHER, and of the Son, and of the HOLY GHOST; and that what he looses on earth in loosed in heaThe question raised relates to a further point. It is whether, without any further commission, the priest may in any case (besides the point of death) exercise the power thus lodged in him, and by his office inherent in him; or whether the power lies as it were dormant in him, and may not be put forth without some further direct commission from the bishop; and whether if exercised without such further authorization it is valid.

"It is true the exercise of the power given to the priests by ordinanation, may be suspended, or even taken away. Jurisdiction... may be looked upon as the concession of a power, or as its restriction within certain limits. By consecration, GoD confers upon a Bishop authority to ordain, confirm, and exercise all other Episcopal acts. By ordination He confers on the priest power to consecrate the Holy Eucharist, to absolve and bless in His Name. But GoD is a God of order, and so, for the order and well being of the whole Church, each office is exercised with certain limitations, within certain bounds. Patriarchs, Metropolitans, Archbishops, Bishops, Presbyters-all alike have their limits, in that their authority is restricted, so that it should not interfere with others who have the same office. This principle, that none should interfere with another's office is laid down in the earliest canons of the Church. It was one and the same principle in all that none should remove the ancient land-mark which thy fathers have set,' nor thrust his sickle into another's harvest."

He then cites Can. Apost. 34. Conc. Antioch, Can. 13 and 22, Nice, 1 Constantinople, and Ephesus, &c., and adds:-*

་

"Thus from the highest to the lowest, from the Patriarch to the Deacon, for ordaining, judging, excommunicating, absolving, admitting to hear mass, there is one principle throughout, that in the army of the Church, each should march on his ways, and no one break his ranks; neither shall one thrust another.'t To this belongs the case of the late Bishop Coleridge, which Mr. Allies brings forward to illustrate the nature of jurisdiction. He says, A Bishop who had resigned a colonial see, was lately resident in a country parish, yet though superior in power of order to the parish priest, he could perform no one act in that parish involving jurisdiction, save by the permission of the parish priest.' This is strictly on the principle of non-interference. . . . This does not belong to acts involving jurisdiction only, but to all acts which have been assigned to another, because they have been so assigned. He could not, without irregularity, baptize (except in peril of death) nor confirm, nor ordain, nor preach, in the diocese or parish of another, except by his permission, because another has been appointed to perform these offices. All these would come under the rule of not 'thrusting his sickle into another's harvest.' On the other hand, if an act has not been specially assigned to the parish priest, but he is required by the law of the Church to admit others to the performance of Royal Supr. page 54.

* Page 14.

Joel ii. 7, 8.

that act; then he has not exclusive jurisdiction in this act, and those others have all the jurisdiction necessary for that act from the law of the Church." And again, "The Church has power to regulate and limit the functions of her ministers, or again to remove these limitations. Thus, strictly as the rule that one Bishop should not enter upon the diocese of another was enforced in the African Church, the case was excepted, if a Bishop should not be diligent in converting the heathen within it. The Church in this case interfered, that the power given for the saving of souls should not be retained to their loss. But if the Church makes any regulations, then she may either make void, ipso facto, what is done contrary to them; or she may annul it afterwards, so that it should remain valid until or unless she annuls it. Again, she may, if she see good, change those regulations, so as to make them more or less stringent. It is acknowledged on all hands, that considerable changes have been made in the penitential discipline. While public penitence was enforced, one who had publicly offended could not be admitted to communion, without undergoing that course of penitence. What was condemned as irregular then is the received practice in the Roman Communion now. The Church may adapt herself to the necessities of the times, within certain limits, and bend to what her children will endure, lest by a severity healthful in itself, yet unsuited to their weakness, she risk their salvation, leaving them to plunge into a heathen life or into schism.

"The letter sent to me puts apparently but one question, Has the Church of England left the power of the keys unrestrained in the hands of her presbyters, so that they may use it freely for all who come to unburthen their griefs to them? A second, perhaps, lies involved in it, anyhow in Mr. Allies's pamphlet. Has the Church of England the right to leave the power of absolving freely in the hands of her presbyters, without restricting them?

To both these questions I can, without hesitation, answer 'Yes.' And so I will dispense with a third statement, that even if such exercise of her office had been irregular, it would not follow that the acts would be invalid, unless subsequently invalidated by authority: they would stand unless rescinded. To take them in order, after mentioning the Constitution of Archbishop Reynolds, (Archbishop 1313-1327),† he says, 'We have not overlooked the sentence in the exhortation appointed in the Common Prayer Book, before Communion: Let him come to me or to some other discreet and learned minister of God's Word, and open his grief, &c. &c. But, after the best consideration in our power, we have come to the conclusion that so far from weakening the difficulties which we have suggested, it strengthens their force. The words, some other, &c.' would, of course, be intended to be understood only in the sense of the common practice and discipline of that time, 1548, in this matter and we believe there is not any doubt whatever what that practice and discipline were, so that the 'some other, &c.' would of necessity be a priest, who had been appointed by the Bishop for that diocese or district.'

* Page 15.

+ Lyndwode de pæn. et rem. Lib. 5. tit. 16. c. Sacerdos.