sentence of private absolution, it can be no more than a declaration of what God hath done . . . . The priest doth never in absolution, no, not so much as by way of service and ministry, really either forgive the act, or remove the punishment of sin; but if the party penitent come contrite, he hath by their own grant, absolution before absolution." The writer of the Letter concludes that there will be objection made to this sixth book being certainly a genuine part of the great work of Richard Hooker: I do not intend to dispute it controversially, but I have no hesitation in saying, that, as we now possess it, I for one do doubt about it. This very extract itself is not quite like the first and the fifth books of the Ecclesiastical Polity. If the words "not so much as by way of service and ministry" are really to be understood in their theological sense, they are not according to the usual well weighed language, nor in the spirit, of the author so long called amongst us "judicious." They prove too much. But if they are to be taken in a looser sense, (of which we have no example in the preceding books,) then there is not in the extract anything which militates against the doctrine of absolution advocated by many of the schoolmen, against whom this part of the so-called seventh book was written. And here let me observe that whatever part, under the mysterious plan of God's dealings with mankind in and by His Church, the ministers of that Church fulfil and complete in the administration of the sacrament of absolution, it is the same and no more than they fulfil in the administra

tion of the sacrament of holy baptism. In the one case, as it is said that they forgive all sins committed before baptism; so, exactly, and in no other way whilst in the same way, it is said that in absolution they forgive all sins after baptism. The ministers of the Most High God are the ministers of His sacraments: in which sacraments "God ordinarily worketh, and whereby He participateth unto us His special gifts and graces in this life."

But, as I have repeated very often, the question is not what any one divine, however great, may have declared to be his individual opinion, but what the judgement is of the Church of England. To her authority alone will I defer; and by her voice alone this doctrine of absolution, and every other doctrine, is to be decided.

Ecce dabit voci fuae, vocem virtutis. Date gloriam Deo fuper Jfrael: magnificentia ejus, et virtus ejus in nubibus.

Mirabilis Deus in fanctis fuis; Deus Jfrael: ipfe dabit virtutem et fortitudinem plebi fuae, benedictus Deus.

Appendix.

Extract from a Sermon on "The Outward Means of Grace," preached at the Visitation of the Lord Bishop of Exeter, at Totnes, Aug. 11th, 1848.

N the Book of Common-prayer, we find three forms, called, of absolution. The first is at the beginning of morning and evening prayer: and, as you are well aware, was added with the sentences to the second Book of King Edward in 1552. There is propriety in such a commencement. The sentences, the exhortation, the unanimous voice of confession by those who may happen to have already assembled, the declaration of God's infinite mercy,—all is appropriate and good: more than appropriate, I do not esteem it: nor do I see any ground for concluding that there is any thing in it sacramental. The confession is a prayer: the absolution is declaratory; telling of the power which God has given to His ministers, the freeness of pardon to the true penitent, and the necessity of calling upon Him. I am unable also to perceive any force in the use of the term "pronounce," and in the words "the priest alone.” In practice it is true that deacons officiating omit this declaration; and rightly so: the question whether they ought not also, as rightly, to omit other parts of the offices where "the priest" is especially mentioned, immediately occurs: as they do not so strictly interpret the rubric in one place, why should they in another? I am very far from asserting that it is the function of a deacon to "pronounce" this absolution, but I do mean that we cannot argue for any sacerdotal character to be especially attributed to it, solely on account of common practice, and the wording of the rubric.

We come now to the absolution which is in the Liturgy.

This certainly has an effect: and in order to learn what effect, we must remember that for a thousand years in our Church the Service of the holy communion has never been celebrated without this or a similar form of confession and absolution, immediately preceding consecration and reception. Continued therefore as it has thus been, through all the various revisions of our Service-books, we must regard it as meaning now what it always meant, and still working the same effects. We have no right to put upon it any new interpretation: if it was not in old time merely declaratory, so, neither, is it not now: if it was not then an exercise in its full extent of the priestly power of absolution, reaching over all sins, great or small, venial or mortal, so is it not now. And this ancient form of absolution, at such a time, was never held by the church of England to fall within either the one of these classes, or the other: the first would sink it too low, the last exalt it far too high. Its intention was this. You know that before the year 1549 the constant rule for many centuries had been, that no one, having sin upon his conscience, should receive the holy communion, except he had first orally confessed, and obtained absolution. This duty however, it could not but often be, must have preceded, by a longer or shorter time, actual communion. Yet so great a service was not to be approached, except in as pure and purified a state as might be. And all men owned that even for a few hours it was hardly possible to be without sin. Without mortal, wilful sin, by God's grace and earnest faith, it might be: but still there would be perhaps an inadvertance, perhaps a careless thought, perhaps a hasty word, which still would be sin, though checked. It was to meet these cases, venial sins, that this form was always part of the office of the Eucharist: and it was intended to convey remission of those sins, and of those sins only.

Such is still the force and value of this form. Whether, in accordance with the permission now granted by the church of England, (and of which I have already spoken,) we have, in secret, relying on our own judgment, carefully searched our consciences, and spread out our grievous sins in all their naked