Shelf PRINCETON, N. J. ***** BX 5935 Badger , 1866. An c* v am .B13 George Edmund, inatir\n nf thp 179i Digitized. by the Internet Archive in 2009 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library http://www.archive.org/details/examinationofdocOObadg AN EXAMINATION THE DOCTRINE DECLARED AND THE POWERS CLAIMED HtjQljt IFUturenb IBtaljop 3x>ts, A PASTORAL LETTER TO THE CLERGY AND LAITY OF HIS DIOCESE. BY A LAY MEMBER Oh THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN NORTH CAROLINA, " We ought to give more credit to one private Layman than to the whole Council and to the Pope, if he bring better authority and more rea- son."— Panormitanus, quoted with approbation by Jewell. 33&flaUeIp!)ia: H HOOKER, S W. CORNER OF EIGHTH AND CHESTNUT STtf. 1849. Entered according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1849, by Herman Hooker, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. " It is evident that God hath not excluded the lay people that believeth in him, from the understanding of his holy secrets." Jewell. Ignorance is " not " the mother of true devotion. " The Judges or Doctors of the Church, as being men, are often deceived."— St. Augustine, quoted by Jewell.* AN EXAMINATION OF BISHOP IVES' PASTORAL LETTER. The Right Rev. L. Silliman Ives, Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in North Carolina, has just issued* to the Clergy and Laity of his diocese, a Pastoral Letter, which seems destined to fill, amongst Protestant Episcopal Pastorals, a place of singular pre-eminence, though by no means of enviable distinc- tion. It is, indeed, a very remarkable production, containing much to sadden the heart of every true son of the church, and not a little to stir up a feeling within the diocese of just indignation. It demands a full and thorough examination, and should receive from some member of the church in North Carolina a particular and effectual exposure. If the Protestant Episcopal Church be, as its ene- mies have often said, but a disguised form of Roman- ism — if our Bishop be alone responsible for the doc- * The pastoral, though dated 8th August, did not reach Ra- leigh till Sept. 29th. 1* U AN EXAMINATION OF trine, discipline, and worship of his diocese, and there- fore should have sole authority over what he is alone responsible for; if he have, as a consequence of this authority and responsibility, a right to require from his diocese implicit submission to any doctrine he may think proper to teach ; a right to introduce amongst us ceremonies and practices not only unknown here, not only unknown throughout the church in the United States, but " wholly unauthorized by the customs of the church as established by the English reformation ;" if the clergy and laity assembled in diocesan conven- tion have nothing to do with the doctrines thus taught, and the practices thus introduced, — can institute no in- quiry, and express no opinion respecting them; if he may set forth at one time teachings different from and opposed to the teachings set forth by him at another, and the members of the church must follow all his fluctuations of doctrine even as the obedient vane fol- lows the shiftings of the wind ; if, in one word, our Bishop be within his diocese a spiritual lord and mas- ter over God's heritage, and have papal supremacy over us, then it is high time that our actual state and condition should be known ; and if these things be not so, then is it high time that the church at large should be disabused, and we vindicated from the suspicion of admitting such exorbitant claims, and bowing down in such degrading submission. I propose, then, to examine a most important doc- trinal position assumed by the Bishop, to consider the claim put forth by him to supreme authority in his di- BISHOP IVES PASTORAL LETTER. 7 ocese, and to ascertain, by a somewhat particular in- vestigation, whether his doctrine, or his claim of au- thority can be supported by the teaching or practice of the reformed church of England, or of the Protes- tant Episcopal church in the United States. I shall, also, notice other matters in the pastoral, so far as justice to the late Salisbury convention, and to the di- ocese, may seem to require. In order accurately to understand the Bishop's doc- trinal position, we must go back to a former pastoral letter, entitled " The Priestly Office," and addressed to "the clergy," as the present is to "the clergy and laity" of the diocese. In that pastoral, page 12, he says, "But sins may be committed after baptism — committed against the vows of the holy covenant made to God as represented by his ministers. Hence, they were entrusted with power to remit, upon true repentance, such sins, and restore the offenders to the forfeited blessings of their baptismal state." Again, (at page 16,) it is " as true now, as ever, that man sinning mortally, or so as to hazard his spiritual life after baptism, stands in need of absolution from that priesthood to whom Christ said, ' Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them.' And if these blessings could not be reached in the days of the apostles except through the priesthood, how can they now?" And again, (at page 24,) " For then, and not till then, will they (the people) discover the depth of their guilt as unfaithful members of Christ's body — discover how helpless and O AN EXAMINATION OP hopeless is their condition as neglecters of the grace of baptism, and violators of baptismal vows, without the extraordinary mercy which God has provided for them through e the ministry of reconciliation,' — perceive the dreadful hazard of that presumption which leads such neglecters and violators to trust for pardon to a vague and general repentance, a repentance not accepted BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF CHRIST, who ALONE have charge of the discipline of his church, or the POWER TO REMIT OR RETAIN SINS." In the present pastoral, (page 25,) the Bishop, re- ferring to the former, thus states its teaching, " This is the doctrine, — the necessity of priestly absolution, where it may be had, to cancel or remit all sin after baptism which destroys the life of God in the soul, and separates it from the grace of the covenant, — which, (it is said,) has called up around your Bishop so many pale faces and fainting hearts. But it is the one on which he stands without fear, and will stand, by the help of God," &c. Again, at page 51, he says, "Ab- solution not only confers grace, but exacts conditions, and implies more or less priestly judgment. The con- ditions are comprised in one single term, repentance: one part of w T hich, however, as we have seen, is con- fession. To ensure the effect of absolution, this con- fession must embrace, (1.) Sin that separates the soul from Christ." Again, "Our confession must have in it, (2.) both the number and right conception of our sins, in order to bring the soul into a state of re- mission" On the next page, speaking of baptized BISHOP IVES' PASTORAL LETTER. 9 persons who have grown up unmindful of their vows, &c., he says, "Would they be able, under such cir- cumstances, to take their weight, one by one — ex- amine the catalogue of their sins severally. But, this must be done." And again, at page 49, "Be- sides, the form in the English book in the ' order for the visitation of the sick,' shows conclusively what the mind of our branch of the church is on the effect of priestly absolution. The form is as follows: 'Our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath left power to his church to absolve all sinners who truly repent and believe in Him, of His great mercy forgive thee thine offences ; and by His authority, committed to me, I absolve thee from all thy sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' " Now T what can show more strongly than this that the church believes, and hence that we, as her faith- ful children, believe that the priests when they pro- nounce these words over the truly penitent, do convey, really and directly, God's pardon to their consciences for all their sins and offences committed against Him?" Now, putting these passages together, it evidently appears that, according to the Bishop's views, in or- der to the remission of certain sins committed after baptism, priestly absolution, if it may be had, is ne- cessary, and these sins are described by him, at one time, as sins "committed against the vows ofthebap- tismal covenant ;" again, as those " which hazard the spiritual life;" again, as those which "destroy the life of God in the soul, and separate it from the grace of 10 AN EXAMINATION OF the covenant," and, finally, as mortal sins, "sinning mortally," being his exact phrase. Again, it is evi- dent that, according to his views, in order to ensure the effect of priestly absolution, a particular confession must be made of all such sins. In the next place, it seems clear that the Bishop refers to some other abso- lution than that pronounced in the public service of the church, and to some other confession than the public general one there made, or the private particu- lar confession to God alone, recommended and enjoined by the church; for, although he says, (page 51,) " 'While, therefore, private confession is not regarded by our branch of the one Catholic church,' as gene- rally necessary to salvation, and, hence, as in the pri- mitive church, is left to the voluntary action of indi- viduals under contrition moving them thereto; yet as priestly absolution from all deadly sin,* after baptism, is regarded necessary, it becomes a question for each one to determine how far the effects of such absolu- tion may or may not depend upon this kind of confes- * It may be proper to say that deadly or mortal sins, according to Romish writers, are these seven — pride, covetousness, lust, anger, gluttony, envy, sloth. (See Ursuline Manual, p. 52.) From a consideration of this list, it may appear that "sinning mortally" after baptism is by no means a rare occurrence, and some notion may be formed how often, how very often, baptized persons stand in need of priestly absolution as contradistin- guished from the forgiveness which, for venial sins, may be had upon prayer to God without recourse to a priest, unless, in- deed, these venial sins are not to be forgiven, but reserved for cleansing in the fire of purgatory ! ! 11 sion. What the church has not enjoined as necessary, may become so, however, by the moral state of indi- viduals. What is not imposed as a condition, may be, in certain cases, required as a means." Yet he says, on the same page, "Absolution not only confers grace, but exacts conditions, and implies, more or less, priestly judgment. The conditions are com- prised in the single term — repentance; one part of which, however, as we have seen, is — confession. To ensure the effect of absolution, this confession must embrace sin that separates the soul from communion with Christ. St. Chrysostom, as quoted with appro- bation by Hooker, says, ' To call ourselves sinners availeth nothing, except as we lay our faults in the balance and take the weight of them one by one. (2.) Again, our confession must have in it both the number and right conception of our sins, in order to bring the soul into a state of remission. 5 And after- wards, (52,) " Further absolution looks to the cure of sin as well as its remission" Again, he (Hook- er,) says, " The knowledge how to handle our sins is no vulgar and common art, and the reason he gives is, that we are prone to be partial and over-tender with ourselves, and, besides, that we often fall into * timorous scrupulosities, and so into extreme discom- forts of mind;' hence, that earnest men in the primi- tive church thought it "the safest way to disclose their secret faults, and crave imposition of penance from them whom our Lord Jesus ChiHst hath left in his church to be spiritual and ghostly physicians. 12 AN EXAMINATION OF the guides and pastors of redeemed souls, whose of- fice doth not only consist in general persuasions unto amendment of life, but also in the private particular cure of diseased souls ! But how can this benefit be secured in the present state of confession? How can the physician prescribe in wisdom and honesty without knowing the disease?'" Now if this priestly absolution implies "priestly judgment," it cannot be the public absolution of the church which is meant, for that is directed to be given upon a public confession in prescribed terms, and no- thing is left to the judgment of the priest, and hence a private absolution must be intended. And if a confes- sion of " all sins that separate the soul from commu- nion with Christ," "laying our faults in the balance, and taking the weight of them one by one," and "■ having in it both the number and right conception of sins," be necessary to ensure the benefit of such absolution ; if the priest is to exercise his judgment upon this re- pentance, and if this judgment cannot be exercised "in the present state of confession ;" if men's "secret faults" must be disclosed to the priest in order that he may exercise his functions " in the private particu- lar cure of diseased souls;" if he cannot "in honesty prescribe, as a spiritual physician, without knowing the disease, and if the disease consists of " all mortal sins;" if it is "presumption for neglecters of the grace of baptism, and violators of baptismal vows to trust for pardon to a repentance not accepted by the repre- sentatives of Christ;" and if the repentance to be ac- BISHOP IVES PASTORAL LETTER. lo cepted includes as one part of it a particular confession of all mortal sins; doth it not evidently follow that, according to the Bishop's teaching, private absolution by a priest, to be given upon a particular confession, made to him of all mortal sins is necessary to the re- mission thereof? Now, according to this doctrine, what has become of the thousands of Christians of our communion who have been committed to the grave, as we humbly thought, in the hope of a joyful resurrection ? How many of them were baptized in infancy, and for a long time were "violators of their baptismal vows," or had fallen into mortal sins after baptism, and, upon being awakened to a sense of their sinfulness, had trusted to a " repentance not accepted " by a priest for par- don? Or rather, of all those, what one had submitted his repentance to a priest, or sought his aid in the "private, particular cure of his diseased soul," — what one of them had disclosed all fiis secret faults to his spiritual physician, in order that by priestly judgment his repentance might be accepted, and priestly abso- lution be obtained ? Had one, of them all, done this? Is it, then, "presumption" to hope that their sins were remitted, and must we conclude that their souls are lost? But it may still be said upon certain pas- sages in the Bishop's present pastoral, one of which I have quoted, that the Bishop does not intend to assert as doctrine what so evidently follows from the passages I have quoted — that although he seems so to teach — although his positions necessarily lead, by just reason- 2 14 AN EXAMINATION OF ing, to such a conclusion — yet that he did not mean it. I admit that the several parts of the Bishop's teaching do not stand well together — that his doc- trine, though spread over many pages, is no where fully and precisely stated. But beyond the possibility of doubt, denial or mistake, he has taught and intended to teach this — that priestly absolution, when it may be had, is necessary to the remission of mortal sin — that to the effect of such absolution, a particular con- fession of all mortal sins, one by one numbering and weighing them, is a necessary condition — and that the church advises and recommends in some cases such confession of all mortal sins to be made unto a priest, either as a necessary means to bring the soul into "a state of remission," or" else as a useful and valuable aid to such result. Either, then, the Bishop's doctrine is,— 1. That private particular confession of mortal sins to a priest, with priestiy absolution thereupon, where it may be had, is necessary to the remission of such sins. Or else — 2. That priestly absolution, where it may be had, is necessary — that as the condition on which such ab- solution may have effect, a particular confession of all mortal sins is necessary, and that, either as a neces- sary means, or a useful and valuable aid, such confes- sion of all mortal sins ought, in so?ne cases, to be made to a priest. Now I shall undertake to show that the Bishop's doctrine, taken either way, is not the doctrine of the 15 Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, or of the Reformed Church of England. Although I shall address the proof directly and chiefly to the first statement of the Bishop's doctrine — the necessity of priestly absolution upon a particular private confession to the priest, in order to obtain remission of sins, which I take to be, and think I have shown is, the doctrine he teaches; yet, I hope to show clearly, also, that the other statement of it is equally without sup- port — that neither church any where directs or re- commends, on any occasion, a particular confession to be made of all mortal sins to a priest, either as a necessary means, or a useful and valuable assistance to obtaining remission, or for any other purpose, and that neither church holds that priestly absolution is ever necessary to the remission of sins. I. The Bishop's doctrine is not the doctrine of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States. If it be her doctrine, it must be found in her Prayer Book, or Articles, or in some book or books referred to by her as containing a statement of her doctrine. But it is not found in either. She no where commands, or requires, or directs, confession of sins to be made to a priest. She calls upon her children in her morning and evening prayers, and at the communion, to confess, but it is to confess unto God, and she provides forms of confession, which, so far from being made to the priest, or to God " through the priest," are made by the priest and people together, as sinners all needing and suing for forgive- 16 AN EXAMINATION OF ness to God ; the people no more confessing to God through him than he through them. This confession is conceived in the most general terms, without any specification of any particular sin whatever, and yet evidently designed to include "mortal sins," for it con- cludes with the acknowledgment that " there is no health in us ;" and she, then, by the same confession, instructs and leads us at once to approach God with supplication for pardon. And yet the church, in the preceding Exhortation, teaches that this public occasion is not one on which there is less necessity for confessing our sins, than on all or some other occasions, but that this is the very occasion on which confession is demanded above others. For in that exhortation, after declaring that "we ought, at all times, humbly to acknowledge our sins before God," she adds, "yet ought we chiefly so to do when we assemble and meet together ".for the pur- poses for which we are then assembled. And upon this general confession unto God, the church authorizes and directs to be used the only forms of absolution which her services any where contain or recognise. If, then, in the judgment of the church, on that occa- sion which chiefly, and by way of pre-eminence re- quires us to confess our sins " with an humble, lowly, penitent and obedient heart, to the end that we may obtain forgiveness of the same," a general confession to Almighty God with, and not to or through, the priest, is all which she requires ; if, upon such confession, she authorizes her absolution to be declared, that thereby BISHOP IVES' PASTORAL LETTER. 17 we may obtain, or be assured that we obtain, or have obtained, the end of that confession, to wit, forgive- ness of our sins, it follows that we cannot, upon any occasion of confession less than this chief one, be re- quired by her to make a particular confession to the priest or indirectly to God through him, as neces- sary to the remission of our sins. For the end of con- fession, as she teaches, is to obtain forgiveness; this end may be obtained upon a general confession or it may not. If it may not, then the whole confession and absolution are an impious mockery of God, and a cruel delusion of her children ; if it may, then the end of confession being obtainable, and by the truly peni- tent and believing obtained, on this chief occasion of confession, it is absurd to suppose a particular confes- sion to a priest necessary, on any other occasion, to obtain such remission. In the Catechism, the question is asked, " What is required of those who come to the Lord's Supper?" And the answer is, "That they examine themselves whether they repent them truly of their former sins," &c, — not that they submit their repentance to the examination of a priest. This is the authoritative teaching by the church of what is required from communicants, as to the examination to be made whether they truly repent of their sins. Here, if the church deemed confession to a priest necessary, she would have laid it down as "doctrine;" but she lays down no such thing. She says nothing about a priest, or a confession to a priest, because she thought neither necessary ; she says nothing about classes of 9# 18 AN EXAMINATION OF sins; for, in regard to this matter, what she thought of one class, she thought of all . She required examina- tion of himself to be made by the communicant, as to all his sins ; because she deemed this all that the necessity of the case required. In her first exhorta- tion in the communion office, she repeats the same doctrine, saying, "Search and examine your own consciences," &c, and then informs us how this should be done — " The way and means thereto is, first, to examine your lives and conversations by the rule of God's commandments, and whereinsoever you shall perceive yourselves to have offended, either by will, word or deed, there to bewail your own sinfulness, and to confess yourselves to Almighty God, with full purpose of amendment" &c; here, again, not one word is said as to the necessity of priestly intervention, — the exercise of "priestly judgment" to pass upon our repentance ; we are to conduct the examination by the "rule of God's commandments," and whereinso- ever we shall discover that we have offended by will, word or deed, are to confess ourselves directly to God, and not to a priest, or through a priest. These are the directions given by the church for carrying into practice the "doctrine" laid down in the Catechism. These explain by the action required, what was the doctrine taught — these are the church's own commen- tary on her own doctrine, and here, as in the Cate- chism, she is utterly silent as to any priestly offices whatever. In the conclusion of this exhortation occurs the only BISHOP IVES* PASTORAL LETTER. 1\) reference to the interposition of a "minister" in this preparation. It is in these words: "And because it is requisite that no man should come to the holy com- munion, 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 con- science herein, but requireth further comfort or coun- sel ; let him come to me, or to some other minister of God's word, and open his grief; that he may receive such godly counsel and advice, as may tend to the quieting of his conscience, and the removing of all scruple and doubtfulness." Now, the first observation which occurs on this most wise and suitable counsel is, that it contains no recommendation or advice that a particular "confes- sion of all mortal sins, one by one," should be made to the minister, and implies no such recommendation. It supposes a person, after using the means before pointed out by the church, to be "unable to quiet his own conscience," and therefore requiring "further comfort or counsel," and such an one is invited to come to a minister and "open his grief," not to make " a confession of all," nor so far as appears, of any "of his mortal sins," but to open his grief— to ex- plain the particular difficulty or difficulties which pre- vent him from obtaining a quiet conscience. Now this difficulty may or may not arise from a mortal sin ; but whatever it may be, this only is to be opened to the minister, for the end of coming to him at all is to obtain a quiet conscience by his assistance; if it can 20 AN EXAMINATION OF be obtained without such assistance, the church does not recommend the communicant to come at all; and, as — in the case supposed by the church, his "grief" being comforted, and his "scruples" removed by the assistance of the minister, all is done which the church designed — further confession would plainly be beside the purpose in view, and is, therefore, not implied, as it is not expressed by her language. The next observation to be made upon this con- cluding part of the exhortation is, that the church neither speaks of, nor alludes to "absolution" to be obtained from the minister. " Godly counsel and ad- vice," and not absolution, is what she requires the troubled sinner to ask, and the minister to give. She neither directs, recommends, nor allows the minis- ter to give "absolution." The Bishop, in his present pastoral, at page 49, has this passage: — "Besides, the form in the English book in 'the order for the visitation of the sick,' shows conclusively what the mind of our hranch of the church is on the effect of priestly absolution." Now, without stopping to inquire whether that form in the English office shows the mind of the English church to accord with the Bishop's as to the effect of priestly absolution, it is plain it cannot show at all the mind of "our branch of the church," — the Protestant Episcopal church in the United States. For what sort of an argument is this? There is a passage in the English book which proves the mind of the American church when it is not in the American book — or rather BISHOP IVES' PASTORAL LETTER. 21 a passage was in the American book, and the Ameri- can church struck it out, and yet the American church is shown thereby to have the same mind as if she had kept it in. How vainly, then, did our church revise the English liturgy — whether on that revision she de- liberately struck out or retained any thing, is a matter of no importance, for, according to the Bishop, what- ever is left in the English book, though put out of ours, remains always the conclusive exposition of the opinions of those who reject, as well as those who re- tain it. Why, is it not plain (if this be so,) that we are not an independent national church at all — that we have no power over doctrine or discipline, but, whether we will or not, must ever have, (virtually and in ef- fect,) the English church to be, in both, our ruler and guide. Let us try this reasoning of the Bishop by two other cases. The rubric, before the apostles' creed, in our prayer book, declares that any church may omit the words "he descended into hell." Will the Bishop cite the English book, which has no such rubric, to show "conclusively the mind of our branch of the church " that these words may not be omitted, but must be said? Again, the English prayer book con- tains a creed called "the Creed of Saint Athanasius," which, by a rubric, is directed to be said on Christmas and certain other days, both creed and rubric have been, by our church, stricken out; now, will the Bishop cite that rubric from the English book to show the "mind of our branch of the church," that a clergyman 22 AN EXAMINATION OF must or may read that creed on Christmas next in a church in North Carolina? Our church may agree with the English as to the effect of priestly absolution, but it is certain that agreement cannot be shown by what is contained in their Prayer Book, and designedly struck out of ours. The office for the Visitation of the Sick set forth by our church, contains no direction or recommendation of any kind for confession of sins to the priest, or for absolution by him, and the only office in which such confession is directed at all, is that for the Visitation of Prisoners. In this office, for a prisoner under sentence of death, is a rubric which directs that the minister shall "examine whether he repent him truly of his sins, exhorting him to a 'particular confession of the sin for which he is condemned" And, "after his confession," is to disclose to him " the pardoning mercy of God in the form which is used in the communion office." On this several remarks naturally present themselves. First, that the church by exhorting to a particular confession of one sin only, excludes the idea of recommending a particular confession of all sins, or all mortal sins. Second, that when the church directs the minister to "examine" whether a person " repents him truly of his sins," she means not thereby a confession to be made of those sins to the minister, for this examination she directs in the above quoted rubric, and therein exhorts the prisoner to a particular confession of one sin, which would be absurd if the examination implied a confession of all his sins. Third, 23 that the church speaks not of "absolution to be pro- nounced," but "the pardoning mercy of God to be declared " in a certain form, which after asserting that God has promised to forgive all true penitents, con- cludes with a prayer that he may have mercy upon and pardon the person or persons to whom the decla- ration is made. Now, to me, it is evident that the church does not design this as an absolution ; because the words used do not, of themselves, impart " an ab- solution," and the sense in which the church uses them must be determined by something else than the form itself, — because the church does not here style the form "an absolution," or "a declaration of absolu- tion;" because the church had at her revision of the English prayer book carefully stricken out of the ex- hortation in the communion office, and in the visitation office of the sick, all reference to absolution, and she cannot, therefore, be supposed, from an equivocal act, to intend to insert here what she then struck out ; be- cause as the prayer book stood until within a few years, the word in the rubric was "minister" and not "priest," the latter word having been recently intro- duced, without, so far as I am able to find, any law- ful authority of the church; — and because, finally, of the opinion of Bishop White as to the meaning and effect of this very form. His words are, (I quote from the notes of Bishop Brownell's prayer book,) "the correct doctrine, as apparent to me, is, that the truth of the form applies at any time, and by whom- soever said, the proper conditions being found: and 24 AN EXAMINATION OF that the only difference between its being declared by a proper minister, or by another person, is, that the former is acting under commission ; a circumstance most likely to wing what he says with comfort" If, in this view, I am correct, there is no place or passage in the prayer book which teaches private ab- solution to be necessary, or recommends such absolu- tion as advisable, or declares or implies it to be al- lowable — and so the Bishop's position has no support from the prayer book. If, on the contrary, I am in- correct in this view, the consequence is fatal to the Bishop's position as being held by our branch of the church. For then the church, in the office for the vi- sitation of prisoners, intends "a priestly absolution" to be pronounced to a condemned malefactor of all his sins, whilst yet he is supposed by her to have made a particular confession of one only. The Bishop's doc- trine is, that to the effect of priestly absolution, a particular confession of all mortal sins is necessary — which doctrine the church holds not, if in this form she intends a priestly absolution — for the words of the form are "pardon and deliver you from all your sins," and yet the church exhorts only to the confession of one, so that, upon the supposition of a priestly abso- lution being here intended, the church holds that mor- tal sin may be remitted by a priestly absolution without a confession thereof, and the only exception here made is of mortal sin, for which judgment of death has been given, and, therefore, he who hath not received such judgment of death, according to the church, need not 25 confess to the priest any mortal sin. Therefore it follows that he who confesses his sins to God only, (not being under judgment of death,) may have par- don thereof through an absolution in a certain form pronounced by a priest, — and by necessary consequence, this same form being pronounced by a priest in the public service, upon a confession there made to God only, may convey like pardon, unless it shall be held that the virtue of a form used by a priest is less in a church than in a prison, but this no Christian will dare to maintain. The Bishop seems to be rather at a loss to produce any evidence from our own Liturgy and Articles to support his doctrine, and, therefore, generally refers to what is in the English book, and is not in ours ; on this mode of proof I have already remarked. But he alleges certain passages from the works of the late Bishop Ravenscroft, whom he well calls "lamented," and "noble prelate;" for a noble prelate he was, and lamented he is, and always will be by all who knew him. But do the passages cited from Bishop Ravens- croft teach the doctrine advanced by Bishop Ives? Most certainly not. Bishop Ives admits that his pre- decessor in those passages " did not make priestly ab- solution the immediate subject of either of the dis- courses" from which the quotations are taken. And where is the evidence that he alluded therein to that subject? There is none. He asserts, indeed, that one end of the gospel ministry (as Bishop Ives quotes him) is "the communication of the gospel to mankind / 26 AN EXAMINATION OF in order to recover them from the ruin and misery of sin," &c.; but does it therefore follow that confession must or may be made to a priest? He asserts that another purpose of that ministry is to " transact the conditions of that recovery, by receiving the sub- mission of penitent sinners, and administering to such the divinely appointed pledges of pardon? and adop- tion into the family of God." What then? must confession be made of all mortal sins to a priest? Are confession and priestly absolution the divinely ap- pointed pledges of pardon and adoption ? Does not every body know that, according to the church, this pardon and adoption are sealed to us in baptism? Bishop Ravenscroft asserts that the ministry are " to watch over the household of faith, and to exercise the discipline of Christ;" but is it a fair conclusion from this to say priestly absolution is necessary to the re- mission of sin? True, Bishop Ravenscroft claims for the ministry the power of " the keys;" but what fol- lows? that private confession to a priest and absolu- tion thereupon is necessary to the remission of sins ? Does claiming the jioiver of the keys determine the sense in which this power is to be understood ? What is the power of the keys? Hear what Jewell teaches in his "Apology," that noble confession of the doctrine of the Reformed Church of England. (Jewell's Works, Ox. ed., 1848. Vol. VIIL, p. 289.) "And touch- ing the keys, wherewith they may either shut or open the kingdom of Heaven, we, with Chrysostom say, they be the knowledge of the Scriptures; with Ter- BISHOP IVES' PASTORAL LETTER. 27 Italian we say, they be 'the interpretation of the •law;' and with Eusebius we call them 'the word of God.' Moreover that Christ's diseiples did receive this authority, not that they should hear the private confessions of the people and listen to their whis- perings, as the common massing priests do every where now-a-days ; and do it so as though in that one point lay all the virtue and use of the keys ; but to the end they should go — they should teach — they should publish abroad the gospel, and be unto the be- lieving a sweet savour of life unto life, and unto the unbelieving and unfaithful a savour of death unto death; and that the minds of godly persons being brought low by the remorse of their former life and errors, after they once began to look up unto the light of the gospel, and believe in Christ, might be opened with the word of God., even as a door is opened with a key: — contrariwise, that the wicked and w T ilful folk, and such as would not believe, nor return unto the right way, should be left still as fast locked and shut up, and as Saint Paul saith, 'wax worse and worse.' This take we to be the meaning of the keys; and that, after this sort? men's consciences be either opened or shut." Again, in his defence "of the Apology" against the papist, Harding, he says, (Works, Vol. VIIL, p. 504,) "We confound not these keys. We say that the power as well c.f loosing as also of bind- ing, standeth in God's word, and the exercise, or execution, of the same either in preaching or else in sentence of correction or ecclesiastical discipline." 28 AN EXAMINATION OF Now here we find the power of the keys claimed by Jewell in the name of the Reformed Church of Eng- land ; but no mention made of private confession and absolution as belonging thereto, but a denial thereof. Will the Bishop conclude from thence, that Jewell believed that priestly absolution, founded on private confession, is necessary to the remission of mortal sin ? Will he so conclude? then let Jewell himself answer. Vol. VIII., p. 516. "We make no confusion of the keys. Our doctrine is plain ; that there be two keys in the church of God ; the one of instruction, the other of correction. W T hereof the one worketh in- wardly, the other outwardly ; the one before God, the other before the congregation, and yet either of these standeth wholly in the word of God." Now here is no mistake, can be none, and it is evident that Jewell knew no such third key, which worketh in private confession and priestly absolution. Neither did Bishop Ravenscroft know any such, else he would have declared it to his people. If he had thought that priestly absolution was necessary to the remission of sins, or that a particular confession of all mortal sin to the priest was either necessary or advisable, he would have proclaimed it to his congregation in ser- mons — to his convention in Charges; on all he would have urged it with the truthful simplicity and earnest diligence which marked his whole ministerial life. It would not have been left to conjecture, but set forth plainly, for he was not a man who dealt in ambiguous phraseology; it would have been set forth always and BISHOP IVES' PASTORAL LETTER. 29 every where, for he taught every where, and always the same doctrine. But he never alluded in public service, or Charge, or in private instruction to his clergy or his laity, so far as is known, to any suc'i doctrine. Nay more, after all hope of recovery was gone, he himself, for many weeks, awaited the coming of death ; he w T as visited by the lay members of his church, male and female, by h'.s clergy, and by his friends generally — he spoke to them (oh, how he spoke !) on the awful subjects of death and judgment, of sin, and repentance, and forgiveness. But spoke not at all of the necessity or propriety of having a priest "to accept our repentance" — to have us num- ber and see us w r eigh our sins — to give us his priestly absolution. Then, if never before, he would have done this, had he believed the doctrine of Bishop Ives. Then, if never before, he would have warned his hearers against the "presumption" of trusting for par- don of mortal sin "to a repentance not accepted by" a priest, and a confession made to Almighty God alone. The Bishop, on page 53, has this passage: "Bishop Ravenscroft, in discussing the relative duties of pastor and people, enjoins upon the latter, "that they make their pastor" I use his words, " acquainted with their spiritual condition, and bitterly laments that in our system there is such a want of inclination and opportunity for this." Bishop Ives gives no refe- rence to the place in which the quoted words are found, but I find in a charge of Bishop Ravenscroft, (see Works, vol. 1, p. 461,) the passage from which 30 AN EXAMINATION OF the extract is taken. It is in these words: "A third obligation, growing out of the pastoral relation, is, that the members of the church attend regularly on his ministrations; that they make him acquainted with their spiritual condition, and consult freely with him thereupon ; that they hear with reverence, and judge with candour, his expositions of Christian doctrine, and his admonitions and exhortations to holiness of life; and that they practise diligently the duties and obligations of Christian profession." But now, does this passage show that the writer was speaking of, or referred to, or wished to encourage, under any cir- cumstances, a particular confession of all mortal sins "one by one," by tale and weight, to a priest — or that he desired priestly absolution to be given by the pastor upon "being made acquainted with the spiritual condition" of any member of his congregation? But the Bishop invokes the aid of the Rev. Mr. Curtis, whose removal to South Carolina the whole church of this diocese has great cause to lament. Cer- tain passages are cited by the Bishop from an able sermon of Mr. Curtis upon the power of the keys* But do they afford the least support to the doctrine that priestly absolution, upon private confession to a priest, is necessary to the remission of all mortal sins — or that the particular confession of all such sins to a priest is either necessary or advisable ? Most certainly not. Did Mr. Curtis in that discourse intend to teach any such doctrine? Certainly he did not, if he himself may be allowed to determine his BISHOP IVES PASTORAL LETTER. 31 own meaning. For in his sermon, (page 13,) he quotes from Bingham, with commendation, as ex- pressing his own views, the following passage— "The acts of the ministry, whereby the benefit of absolution is ordinarily dispensed unto men, are these four: — 1. The power of administering the two sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper to all such as are qualified to receive them ; which is, therefore, called sacramental absolution. 2. The power of declaring or publishing the terms or conditions upon which the gospel promises pardon and remission of sins ; which is called the declaratory absolution of the word and doctrine. 3. The power of interceding with God for pardon of sins through the merits of Christ ; which is the abso- lution of prayer, or precatory absolution. 4. The power of executing church discipline and censures upon delinquents ; which consists in excluding flagitious and scandalous sinners from the communion of the church, and receiving penitents again when they have given just evidence of a sincere repentance. This is called judicial absolution. In these four acts, regularly exercised, consists the ministerial power of retaining or remitting sins." Now, does this teach or imply that without priestly absolution, when it may be had, mortal sins cannot be remitted? Does this teach or imply that all mortal sins must, under some circumstances, be particularly confessed to a priest in order to obtain the virtue or effect of such priestly absolution? 32 AN EXAMINATION OF In the sacrament of the Lord's supper, absolution, according to Mr. Curtis, is obtained, but without any such private confession and priestly absolution. So also the declaratory and precatory absolutions of the daily service are given upon a general confession to God only. Under which, then, of these four acts, in which, according to Mr. Curtis, " consists the minis- terial power of retaining or remitting sins," will the Bishop include his private priestly absolution upon a private confession of mortal sins ? Will he include it under the last ? That refers to scandalous sinners ex- pelled from the church, and upon just evidence of re- pentance received again. The Bishop, on the con- trary, includes in his proposition all baptized persons, though in full external communion, who have com- mitted mortal sins. Mr. Curtis refers to open and no- torious sins which have made the sinner " scandalous," which have given public offence. The Bishop, on the contrary, demands confession of " secret faults," of those things "done in secret," of which St. Paul says "it is a shame to speak," thoughts of evil things indulged for a time, and then expelled by a returning sense of duty, intents of sins never carried into action, which died before they reached performance, the em- bryo conceptions of iniquity, the thousand inward ills which sin inflicts upon us, and w T hich in our better moments we abhor and renounce, all these the Bishop desires should be drawn out from the dark oblivion to which the repentant and horror-stricken sinner had sought to consign them— these must be bid to live 33 again, and be again thought over by the shuddering mind — be laid before a priest — be examined with searching eye — be exactly numbered, and curiously weighed ! ! This is the kind of confession which the Bishop's doctrine requires to be introduced — a confession which Mr. Curtis would, no doubt, shrink from making, and promptly decline to receive. How admirably calculated is this re-enacting of se- cret faults, this putting into words the sins of thought, to restore purity to the penitent, and preserve it in the confessor ! Truly, to such an end it is not more conducive, than are, to the promotion of enlightened and devout affections, some of the improvements in the form and magnificence of church buildings, and in the postures at public worship which the Bishop has seen, or desires to see accomplished ; (p. 55, 58,) for example, the direction of kneeling, on which he lays great stress. At page 55, speaking of the time " when custom was in keeping with doctrine," he says, " Then it was manifest that the minister offered prayer to God, and not to the people, by kneeling towards the place where the incarnate God had taken up His spe- cial abode." Now there is no man in this diocese, if there be any such in the world, who ever supposed for a moment that a prayer to Almighty God was addressed to the congregation, or that the minister, kneel in what di- rection he might, was asking pardon and blessing for the people from the people. But if any be so stupid 34 AN EXAMINATION OF as to make this mistake, no direction of the minister's kneeling will help him, since none of us, until we saw the Pastoral, had heard that there was any place in our churches "in which the incarnate God had taken up his special abode," and none of us know now where that place is. The Bishop seems to admit that, in appearance, the church is against him, because she requires repentance only from those who come to the Communion. But he says, (31,) "The error here lies, I think, in under- standing repentance in a restricted popular sense, and not in the sense of the church," and he endeavours to show that under the term " repentance," the church includes contrition, confession, and satisfaction. Now, if by confession here the Bishop means con- fession unto Almighty God, it will not serve his pur- pose; for his doctrine requires a particular confession of mortal sins unto a priest in all cases, or at least in some cases, and this the church did not mean, as may be conclusively shown. In baptism, the Bishop admits we receive full re- mission of all sins; for baptism, the church in her cate- chism demands repentance, but the Bishop himself admits that repentance, as a qualification for baptism, does not include a particular confession to a priest: but that we may, and do receive full remission in that sacrament without such confession. But the, church requires "repentance" in those w 7 ho are baptized, and the Bishop admits that confession to a priest is not required of them; and, therefore, the Bishop him- 35 self being judge, the church does not include, under the term repentance, confession to a priest. Now, surely, it is just reasoning to say, that the church having required, in her Catechism, repentance from those who came to be baptized, and afterwards, in the same Catechism, having required repentance from those who came to the Lord's Supper, must be understood to re- quire, in the second instance, just what she required in the first, unless the church, in the Catechism or else- where, has otherwise determined. For it is a sound rule of interpretation that, in any exact treatise, the same term twice occurring, without any note or mark of difference, must be understood, in both places, in the same sense. But the church is the best expositor of her own meaning, and she has herself conclusively determined it to be different from that which the Bishop would attribute to her. In the exhortation before quoted she shows, in di- recting her children how they shall prepare for the Communion, what she meant by her doctrinal teaching in the Catechism, as to the qualifications for that sa- crament. She directs us, first, to examine our lives and conversations by the rule of God's commandments, and whereinsoever we shall perceive ourselves to have offended, either by will, word or deed, there to bewail our own sinfulness, and to confess ourselves to Al- mighty God, with full purpose of amendment of life; she then directs restitution and satisfaction, &c, to our neighbours whom we may have wronged, and for- 36 AN EXAMINATION OF giveness of those who may have wronged us. He, then, according to the church, who has discovered his offences against God's commandments, and humbled himself, and confessed them before God with a full purpose of amendment, has truly repented within the church's meaning; unless we suppose, which cannot be, that in directing how we are to prepare for a worthy participation in the Communion, she has failed to require repentance at all. Hence, when she in the exhortation at the Communion says, "ye who truly repent," all must understand her to mean "in the manner mentioned in the exhortation read to you, when the minister gave notice of this Communion." The Bishop seems to think himself fortified in his opinions, because " the church admits no one to the blessed sacrament without confession and absolution." The church, indeed, exhorts to private ^//-examina- tion, and particular confession to God, and appoints a general confession to be said openly by priest and people, and a public declaration of absolution to the penitent and believing. But surely this gives no coun- tenance to the opinion, that private particular con- fession to a priest, an acceptance of the penitent's re- pentance and private absolution, involving the exer- cise of priestly judgment, are necessary, under any circumstances, to the remission of mortal sin. Now, is it not evident that the Bishop's doctrine is not only without countenance, from our branch of the church, but is in opposition to all which the church has taught ? lie declares a necessity for priestly ab- 37 solution to the remission of mortal sin, where it might be had; she teaches no such doctrine — she contradicts that doctrine ; for she directs her clergy to visit the sick, and to join with them in prayer for the forgive- ness of their sins, without hearing any confession, or giving any absolution ; which prayer is impious or vain, if the Bishop's doctrine be held by the church, since this is plainly a case in which priestly absolution may be had. He teaches that private confession ought, in all cases, to be made to a priest, of all mortal sins, one by one, that the sinner's repentance may be judged of and accepted by the priest, and the necessary absolu- tion be had; or if not in all cases, yet in some. The church holds no such doctrine. If she does, why was it not before now found out by some, at least, of our clergy? Did Hobart, the learned, the pious, high church Bishop, know it as her doctrine? Oh, no; for he says, "the churchman justly deems auricu- lar confession and private absolution an encroachment on the rights of conscience, an invasion of the pre- rogative of the Searcher of hearts, and, with some ex- ceptions, hostile to domestic and social happiness, and licentious and corrupting in its tendency ." — Charge to Clergy, 1819. Did the venerable Bishop White, coeval with the first existence of "our branch of the church," and who sunk to rest after spending half a century in the episcopal office? Did he recognise the doctrine of Bishop Ives as the doctrine of "our branch of the 4 38 AN EXAMINATION OF church?" — far, very far, from it. For, speaking of that very form of absolution which yet remains in the English office, and which has been shut out of ours — that very form which Bishop Ives approves, and I suppose uses, and which he quotes as conclusive proof of the sense of our church — speaking of this very form, he says, " The other form used in the office for ' the visi- tation of the sick,' and properly discharged from ours, is in a tone not warranted by ancient usage." Did Bishop Ives himself know his own doctrine as the doctrine of the church, until he had been more than ten years Bishop of the diocese? Did he ever preach it? Did he ever embody it in a Charge? Did he ever plainly declare, or even hint it, for ten years after he took charge of the diocese ? Now, if his were a doc- trine of the church, if private particular confession of mortal sins were necessary or profitable — if priestly absolution were necessary to the remission of sins — if private absolution were deemed necessary or proper, where was this doctrine hid, that White and Hobart passed their whole lives without rinding it? — that Bishop Ives for more than ten years of his episcopate found it not? Many volumes have been published of Sermons, Charges, and Pastorals, by our Bishops, and sermons by eminent clergymen of our church, contain- ing discussions upon repentance, and forgiveness, and many other topics ; and yet this doctrine, so impor- tant, if true, and so easily to be known, if taught by the church, has never, by design or accident, directly or incidentally, been declared. BISHOP IVES' PASTORAL LETTER. 39 How happened it that this doctrine should he re- served for its formal public promulgation to the Pas- torals and Sermons of Bishop Ives in the years 1848 and 1849, if it were all along a doctrine of the church ? Were all the Bishops and clergy of "our branch of the church," (himself included,) heretofore ignorant and knew it not, or unfaithful and declared it not? How is it, that a doctrine of the church of such high importance should have been so lost in forgetfulness, that now its announcement should fall amongst us with the shock of a meteoric mass? — should startle us like the sudden appearance of an unknown comet, which had escaped the observation of centuries, and the foresight of the astronomer? — should make us to shudder with fearful recollections of her that sitteth on the seven hills in her day of power? Has Bishop Ives been favoured with a special reve- lation, a vision of angels to open to him the mind of the church? Truly this doctrine, announced by a pro- testant bishop in the middle of the nineteenth century, seems like a mid-summer night's dream — like the madness of deep musing over medieval theology, and scholastic refinement, and superstition. Has it been reserved to Bishop Ives to discover the great secret of Protestant Episcopal theology, which had e>caj ed the researches of all other of her bishops and clergy? Has he seen a star in the East, at Oxford or at Rome, and has he gone there to worship*? Is he bent on reform- ing the Reformation? Would he lead us to bow down in adoration at that See which, according to the mar- 40 AN EXAMINATION OF tyr Ridley, "is the seat of Satan, and the bishop of the same, who maintaineth the abominations thereof, is Antichrist himself indeed?" II. But secondly, the Bishop's doctrine is not the doctrine of the Reformed church of England. The proof of this has been necessarily, in some measure, anticipated, because the church of England, and "our branch of the church," do, in most things, agree — in all which are truly essential to the integrity of the faith and the necessary discipline of the church — and hence, in vindicating the church of the United States, we have, more or less, necessarily vindicated the church of England from the suspicion of holding the Bishop's doctrine. To complete the proof of our pre- sent position will, therefore, be the less difficult, from what has been already said. The two churches agree in the following particu- lars. Neither any where enjoins or recommends au- ricular confession, that is, the confession to a priest of all mortal sins, one by one, numbering and weighing them — neither declares the necessity, or recommends the propriety of asking a priest to judge of and ac- cept our repentance for such sins, but both agree in exhorting those who cannot by their own private self- examination quiet their consciences, to open their grief to a minister of the church. The English church does not, as Bishop Ives supposes, (see page 49 of his Pas- toral,) direct "that all sick persons visited are to be moved to a special confession of their sins," for her words in the rubric, in the Visitation Office, are these: 41 " Then shall the sick person be moved to make a spe- cial confession of his sins if he feel his conscience troubled with any iveighty matter" Therefore all sick persons are not to be moved to make a special confession of their sins, but only such as feel their con- sciences troubled with any weighty matter, and, therefore, also the sins to be confessed are only those included in the weighty matter which troubles the conscience; which amounts only to what is directed in the Communion Office, for those whose consciences can- not, by their own efforts, be quieted. The object in both cases is the same, to produce quiet of conscience ; and this is to be done in both by the same means, to wit, opening the grief, or the particular sins which produce the disquiet. Hence, it is evident that in this respect both churches agree; that nothing need be confessed — that the penitent is to be moved to confess nothing but that which produces the difficulty, which disquiets or troubles the conscience; this may be, and probably most usually is, though by no means necessarily, some mortal sin or sins. But this sin, if mortal, is not to be confessed because it is mortal, but because of its remaining a burden upon the mind, and disabling the sinner from quieting his own con- science in respect thereto, through the general direc- tions of the church or the minister. Now, if either of the churches had intended a confession in all cases, she would have said so — if of all mortal sins, in any case, she would have said so, and hence, as neither has said it, neither meant it. 4* 42 AN EXAMINATION OF That this view of the meaning of the English church is correct, may be otherwise proved. What thought Bishop Latimer, "old Hugh Latimer," as he called himself, that noble martyr of the English church? Hear him in his sermon on the healing of the leper — "Here our papists make ado with their auricular con- fession, trying to prove the same by this place. For they say Christ sent this man unto the priest to fetch there his absolution ; and, therefore, we must go also unto the priest, and, after confession, receive of him absolution of all our sins. But yet we must take heed, say they, that we forget nothing; for all those sins which are forgotten, may not be forgiven. And so they bind the consciences of men, persuading them that when their sins were all numbered and confessed, it was well. And hereby they took clean away the passion of Christ. For they made this numbering of sins to be a merit; and so they came at all the secrets that were in men's hearts; so that no emperor or king could say or do or think any thing in his heart but they knew it ; and so applied all the purposes and intents of princes to their own advantage ; and this was the fruit of their auricular confes- sion. But to speak of right and true confession, T would to God it were kept in England, for it is a good thing. And those who find themselves grieved in conscience might go to a learned man and there ob- tain of him comfort from the word of God, and so come to a quiet conscience; which is better and more to be regarded than all the riches of the world. And surely it grieves me that such confessions are not kept in England." Hear him again in his sixth sermon on the Lord's prayer: "Oh! this is a godly prayer which we ought at all times to say, for we sin daily ; therefore we have need to say daily, 'Forgive us our trespasses;' and as David saith, 'Lord, enter not into judgment with thy servant;' for we are not able to abide his judgment. If it were not for this pardon, which we have in our Saviour Jesus Christ, we should all perish eternally. For when this word 'forgive,' was spoken with a good fciith and with a. penitent heart, there never wets a man but he washeard. If Judas, that traitor,had said it with a good faith, it should have saved him ; but he forgot that point ; he was taught it indeed, our Saviour himself taught him to pray so, but he forgot it again. Peter remembered that point: he cried, 'Lord, forgive me,' and so he obtained his pardon, and so shall we do : for we are ever in that case that we have need to say, 'Lord, forgive us;' for we ever do amiss." Hear Jewell speaking in his "Apology," the voice of the Anglican church. "Christ's disciples did re- ceive their authority, not that they should hear the private confessions of the people, and listen to their whisperings" &c. Hear him again in his " Defence." " Private con- fession to be made unto the minister, is neither com- manded by Christ nor necessary to salvation." And, therefore, Chrysostom saith, " I will thee not to be- wray thyself openly, nor to accuse thyself before others; 44 AN EXAMINATION OF but I counsel thee to obey the prophet, saying, 'Open thy way unto the Lord. 7 n Hear also the Church of England and of the United States speaking in the second book of Homilies, which by the thirty-fifth Article of Religion is declared " to contain a godly and true doctrine, and necessary for these times." In the " Second part of the sermon of Repentance," it is said: " These are also the words of John the Evangelist, ' If we confess our sins, God is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to make us clean from all our wickedness ;' which ought to be understood of the confession that is made unto God. For without this confession, sin is not forgiven. This is then the chiefest and most principal confession that in the scriptures and word of God we are bidden to make, and without the which we shall never obtain pardon and forgiveness of our sins. Indeed, besides this there is another kind of confession, which is need- ful and necessary, and of the same doth St. James speak after this manner, saying, ' Acknowledge your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be saved;' as if he should say, open that which grieveth yon, that a remedy may be found; and this is commanded both for him that complaineth and for him that heareth, that the one should show his grief to the other. The true meaning of it is, that the faithful ought to acknowledge their offences, whereby some hatred, rancour, grudge, or malice, having risen or grown among them one to another, that a brotherly reconciliation may be had, without the which, nothing that we can do can be acceptable unto God." BISHOP IVES' PASTORAL LETTER. 45 " It may also be thus taken, that we ought to con- fess our iveakness and infirmities one to another, to the end that, knowing each other's frailness, we may the more earnestly pray together unto Almighty God, our Heavenly Father, that he will vouchsafe to pardon us our infirmities, for his Son Jesus Christ's sake, and not to impute them unto us when he shall render to every man according to his works; and whereas the adversaries go about to arrest this plan, for to maintain their auricular confession withal, they are greatly deceived themselves, and do shamefully deceive others : for if this text ought to be understood of auricular confession, then the priests are as much bound to confess themselves unto the lay people, as the lay people are bound to confess themselves to them; and if to pray is to absolve, then the laity by this plan hath as great authority to absolve the priests, as the priests have to absolve the laity." The un- derstanding of it then is as in these words: "Confess your sins one to another " — a persuasion to humility, whereby he willeth us to confess ourselves generally unto our neighbours, that we are sinners, according to this saying: " If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." And where that they do allege this saying of our Saviour Jesus Christ unto the leper, to prove auricular confession to stand on God's word, " Go thy way, and show thyself unto the priests," do they not see that the leper was cleansed from his leprosy before he was by Christ sent unto the priest for to show himself unto him? By the same 46 AN EXAMINATION OF reason we must be cleansed from our spiritual leprosy, I mean our sins must be forgiven us, before that we come to confession. What need we then to tell forth, our sins into the ear of the priest, sith they be al- ready taken aivay ? Therefore, holy Ambrose, in his second sermon upon the hundred and nineteenth Psalm, doth say full well, "Go show thyself unto the priest." Who is the true priest, but he which is the " priest for ever, after the order of Melchise- deck?" Whereby this holy father doth under- stand, that, both the priesthood and the law being changed, we ought to acknowledge none other priest for deliverance from our sins, but our Saviour Jesus Christ, who, being Sovereign Bishop, doth, with the sacrifice of his body and blood, offered once for ever upon the altar of the cross, most effec- tually cleanse the spiritual leprosy, and wash away the sins of all those that with true confession of the same do flee unto him. It is most evident and plain that this auricular confession hath not his warrant of God's word, else it had not been lawful for Nectarius, bishop of Constantinople, upon a just occasion, to have put it down. For when any thing ordained of God is by the lewdness of men abused, the abuse ought to be taken away, and the thing itself suffered to remain. Moreover, these are St. iVugustine's words: " What have I to do with men, that they should hear my con- fession, as though they were able to heal my diseases? A curious sort of men to know another man's life, and slothful to correct and amend their own. Why do 47 they seek to hear of me what / am, which will not hear of thee what they are? and how can they tell, when they hear by me of myself, whether I tell the truth or not ; sith no mortal man knoweth what is in man, but the spirit of man which is in him?" Augus- tine would not have written thus, if auricular con- fession had been used in his time. Being, there- fore, not led with the conscience thereof, let us with fear and trembling, and with a true contrite heart, use that kind of confession that God doth command in his ivord; and then, doubtless, as he is faithful and righteous, he will forgive us our sins, and make us clean from all wickedness. I do not say, but that, if any do find themselves troubled in conscience, they may repair to their learned curate or pastor, or to some other godly learned man, and show the trou- ble and doubt of their conscience to them, that they may receive at their hand the comfortable salve of God's word; but it is against the true Christian liberty that any man should be bound to the numbering of his si?is, as it hath been used heretofore in the time of blindness and ignorance." Let us hear Hooker, " judicious" Hooker, from whom the Bishop makes large quotations, but does not quote what Hooker says of the doctrine and practice of the Church of England. Is he a supporter of the doctrine of the necessity of priestly absolution to the remission of sin, and of confession to a priest as the condition on which depends the effect of such abso- lution, or of the necessity or propriety of confessing all 48 AN EXAMINATION OF mortal sins to the priest? By no means, if we will allow Hooker to know his own meaning. In the 6th book of his Ecclesiastical Polity, (page 24, Pref. Ed. 1793,) after stating the popish doctrine, that there is no promise of forgiveness made in the scripture upon confession to God without the priest, and that every promise is upon that condition, although not expressed, he says: "Is it not strange that the scripture, speak- ing so much of repentance and of the several duties which appertain thereunto, should ever mean, and no ivhere mention, that one condition, without which all the rest is of none effect? or will they say, because our Saviour hath said to his ministers, ' Whose sins ye re- tain,' &c, and because they can remit no more than what the offenders have confessed, that, therefore, by the virtue of his promise, it standeth with the right- eousness of God to take aw T ay no man's sins until by auricular confession they be opened unto the priest? They are men that would seem to honour antiquity, and none more disposed to depend upon the reverend judgment thereof. I dare boldly affirm, that for many hundred years after Christ, the fathers held no such opinion — they did not gather by our Saviour's word, any such necessity of seeking the pries Vs absolu- tion from sin by secret and (as they now term it,) sacramental confession. Public confession they thought necessary by toay of discipline, not private confession, as in the nature of a sacrament, neces- sary." Then after having considered at large the state of this matter in primitive times, the popish doctrines and 49 those of the Bohemians, Lutherans, &c, respecting it, he proceeds (page 47,) to give the opinions, as he un- derstands them, of the English Church. " It standeth with us in the Church of England, as touching public confession thus: first, seeing day by day we, in our church, begin our public prayers to Almighty God with public acknowledgment of our sins, in which confession, every man prostrate as it were before his glorious majesty, crieth against himself, and the minis- ter with one sentence pronounceth universally all clear whose acknowledgment so made hath proceeded from a true penitent mind ; what reason is there every man should not, under the general terms of confession, re- present to himself his own particulars whatsoever, and adjoining thereunto that affection which a contrite spi- rit worketh, embrace, to as full effect, the words of divine grace, as if the same were severally and particu- larly uttered with addition of prayers, imposition of hands, or all the ceremonies and solemnities that might be used for the strengthening of men's affiance in God's peculiar mercy towards them? Such complements [ceremonies,] are helps to support our weakness, and not causes that serve to procure or produce his gifts, as David speaketh. The difference of general and particular forms of confession and absolution is not so material that any man's safety or ghostly good should depend upon it." "And tor private confession and absolution it stand- eth thus with its: The minister's power to absolve is publicly taught and professed ; the church not denied 5 50 AN EXAMINATION OP to have authority either of abridging or enlarging the use and exercise of that power ; upon the people no such necessity imposed of opening their transgres- sions unto men, as if remission of sins otherwise were impossible ; neither any such opinion had of the thing itself, as though it were either unlawful or unprofitable, save only for those inconveniences which the world hath by experience observed in it heretofore. And in regard thereof, the Church of England hath hitherto thought it the safer way to refer men's hid- den crimes unto God and themselves only ; howbeit, not without special caution for the admonition of such as come to the Holy Sacrament, and for the comfort of such as are ready to depart the world." And after discussing the exhortation in the Communion Office, and the Visitation of the Sick, he concludes the whole mat- ter as follows : " In some, when the offence doth stand only between God and man's conscience, the coun- sel is good which St. Chrysostom giveth, ' I w T ish thee not to bewray thyself publicly, nor to accuse thyself before others. I wish thee to obey the Prophet, who saith, 'Disclose thy way unto the Lord, confess thy sins before him; tell thy sins to him, that he may blot them out.' If thou be abashed to tell unto any other wherein thou hast offended, rehearse them every day between thee and thy soul. I w T ish thee not to confess them to thy fellow-servant, who may up- braid thee with them ; tell them to God, who will cure them; there is no need for thee, in the presence of witnesses, to acknowledge them ; let God alone see PASTORAL LETTER. 51 thee at thy confession. I pray and beseech you that you would, more often than you do, confess to God eternal, and reckoning up your trespasses, desire his pardon. I carry you not into a theatre or open court of many of your fellow-servants, I seek not to detect vour crimes before men ; disclose your conscience be- fore God, unfold yourselves to him; lay forth your wounds before him, the best physician that is, and de- sire of him salve for them. If hereupon it follow, as it did with David,