though he did not especially direct his attention to the illustration of our ritual and other offices, yet incidentally in his valuable book of Christian antiquities introduced much which is mixed up with the subject, and wrote upon this particular question of absolution some sermons and short treatises.18 To these last, therefore, we must I think pay also some attention.

His first sermon on absolution commences with a statement with which all must agree, that the sentence of men, as priests, in any act whatsoever is not unerring and infallible, except in so far as they observe the rules prescribed by their sovereign Lord. And then he distinguishes into four classes, the same exactly as those of Shepherd just mentioned (and who simply copied them from Bingham) the several methods by which the ministers of Christ exercise the power which they possess of retaining or remitting sins. Into three of these, those which relate to the administration of sacraments, to intercessions, and to public discipline, we need not enquire. I would only remark that it is very doubtful, as it seems to me, whether either Bingham or his imitator Mr. Shepherd could have sustained, upon their own theory, their distinctions of sacramental and precatory absolution: I mean, as distinctions, with especial reference to an actual exercise of the power of forgiving sins which our Blessed Saviour bestowed upon the priests of His Church. This, however, does not concern us:

18 Works. Vol. 8. p. 363

for it is certain that those distinctions cannot hold with what I believe to be the true and catholic doctrine.

Bingham refers the three absolutions in our Prayerbook to the one head "declaratory:" "which consists in publishing the terms and conditions upon which the Gospel promises pardon and remission of sins. This is either general or particular." As to the general; "the design of it is to excite and encourage all sinners to repent and turn to God in hopes of mercy, and to give consolation and comfort to all such, as do actually and sincerely turn to Him." As to the particular: "In that case the minister is authorized, not only to give those who labour under disquiet of mind ghostly counsel and advice, but also the benefit of absolution; that is, if, upon a just examination of their case, he judges them to be real penitents before God, then he may not only declare to them the general promises of pardon, but assure them in particular, that as far as he can judge of their case by the visible tokens and indications of their repentance, he esteems them absolved before God, and accordingly declares and pronounces to them their absolution."

This appears to be the result of Bingham's arguments in his sermons and letters on absolution: a result which reduces, as I have said, the three forms to one class, emptying all equally of any spiritual effect, except simply that of comfort and consolation. Towards the end of his second letter he speaks again of particular absolution of the sick, but as he is there

representing statements which no one admits, such as that "a priest may open and shut heaven at his pleasure," it is not worth while to refer to them. It is sufficient to say, that he does not enlarge the limits of his previous explanation,

CHAPTER III.

E must now pause.

And first let us see

to what extent we have obtained a resolution of our doubts as to the meaning and object of our Church, in the use of

her three forms of absolution.

Whatever the effect of absolution may be, whether much or little, whether great or small, bishop Cosin refers it (unless I have mistaken his meaning) to the prayers of the whole congregation of the faithful which succeed and he makes the three forms, as forms, to be declarative. This is one interpretation.-Bishop Sparrow in his Rationale assures us also that the three forms are to be understood as equal and the same in their intention, but authoritative by virtue of Christ's commission, and effectual to the remission of sins, by the infinite mercy of God, Who pardons the truly repentant. Whether this be indeed the correct way in which we ought to understand the bishop the reader must decide: it is not the way in which his Sermon explains the church of England doctrine of absolution. Let it, however, stand for a second interpretation. -Dr. Comber says that the first is declara

tory, the second petitionary, the third judiciary. This is a third interpretation.-Dr. Nicholls makes the first form to be effective of pardon and an actual conveyance of remission of sins to the truly penitent; the second to be half declaratory, and half precatory; and the third not necessary, and not so judicial and decisive as to divest the Almighty God of His own inherent right of forgiveness of sins. This is a fourth interpretation.-Wheatly asserts the first two forms to be effective of pardon, conveying remission of sins and that the third, being intended for another purpose, releases the penitent offender from ecclesiastical censures, and remits the penalties to which he is exposed according to the laws of public discipline. This is a fifth interpretation. Mr. Warner declares that none of the forms are really an exercise of the power of absolution, that is, that by none of them remission of sins is actually given and conveyed in the sight of God. Nor do I see how, in reality, this view differs from that of Bingham and Shepherd. This is a sixth interpretation.

It would be an invidious thing, and I feel sure quite uncalled for, to attempt to point out, much more to pretend to insist upon, the very remarkable fact which is here disclosed. In the Book of Common Prayer and administration of the sacraments and other rites, according to the Use of the Church of England, there are three forms of absolution; ordered and adapted for certain separate and different occasions. Eight or nine writers, each of authority when