which were interwoven with his strongest phrases, he openly declared that "private confession is not regarded by his branch of the one Catholic Church as generally necessary to salvation."* This weakness and hesitancy can scarcely merit sympathy. The imperfection of his mental vision is the only excuse which charity can suggest for a course of conduct utterly inconsistent with the general character of the effort to reestablish the practice. If he were convinced that confession is a necessary condition for the exercise of the power of forgiveness, he should have stated it broadly and openly; if he judged it to be a mere disciplinary observance, a medicinal appliance to diseased souls, he might have recommended it; but he should scarcely have disturbed the tranquillity of his diocesans by insisting on its adoption. It is an undeniable fact that the English Book of Common Prayer contains an exhortation to the communicants to confess any weighty matter which may disturb the tranquillity of their conscience, with a view to obtain absolution as well as comfort. Dr. Hopkins is of opinion that this rubric was inserted "to favor the feelings and habits of a large proportion of the nation, in whose judgment the principles of the Reformation had not yet become fully established"; or rather, "to agree as far as possible with the system of the German Reformers, Luther and Melancthon, who called absolution a sacrament, and required auricular confession and priestly absolution of every one, as a regular preparative for the Eucharist." Whichever motive influenced the compilers of the Book of Common Prayer, their work is, in this respect, true to its general character, equivocal and vague, so that it may be employed by the advocates of confession, which it insinuates and recommends, and by its opponents, since by implication it denies its necessity. Dr. Hopkins bitterly laments that the rubric was inserted, and rejoices in the expurgated American ritual, which Dr. Jarvis shows to have been the result of compromise. To every unbiased mind it must be manifest that no argument can be derived from the English rubric in support of the practice, save as a relief for weak minds, and as the last vestige of a rite which the spirit of innovation sought to abolish. It may serve to recall those who glory in the recollections of the AngloSaxon Church to earlier and better times, when the clergy and faithful people sought relief for their distressed souls in the tri * Pastoral Letter on the Salisbury Convention. bunal of penance, and with contrite hearts confessed their sins before they approached the Holy Table. The absolution, in a deprecatory form, which is still pronounced after the people have acknowledged that "they have done what they ought not to have done, and have left undone what they ought to have done," corresponds with the prayer which the Catholic priest pronounces before he administers communion; but it is not an exercise of the absolving power, so that with Protestant Episcopalians there remains not even the shadow of that power, which Bishop Pearson regarded as distinguishing the Church of Christ from the followers of the Novatian heresy. It is not easy to understand how it is that the revised prayer-book varies, notwithstanding, in no essential matter from the formularies of the mother Church of England. Although Dr. Hopkins professes to have undertaken his work, because "no author in the English language had hitherto treated the subject as extensively as its importance deserves," we notice some omissions of authorities, even of some quoted by his predecessors in the controversy. St. Irenæus, whose testimony is recited by the anonymous writer, speaks of women. who for a time had followed the heretic Marcus : "These, often converted to the Church of God, confessed that, having their bodies exterminated, as it were, by him, and influenced by lust, they loved him to excess. Of another he says: "Penetrated with grief, she spent her whole time in confessing and bewailing her sins, (in exomologesi,) and lamenting the crime which she had been led by this magician to commit." The answer given to these testimonies is far from being satisfactory. Exomologesis, it is said, on the authority of Tertullian, is a public act, and the confession was a general one, imposed by ancient discipline; but Dr. Hopkins informs us that the system of canonical penance, of which public confession formed a part, was not regulated by any formal code until the fourth century. True, he maintains that it existed in substance in the days of Tertullian; but if this be admitted, it necessarily follows that, before any special legislation on this head, penance, as it was afterwards formally prescribed, was practised in virtue of the great principles of Christian doctrine. The prominent place which confession occupied is manifest from its being chosen as characteristic of the whole process. It can scarcely be contended-and certainly it cannot be provedthat public confession was generally required, at that early period, if indeed at any time, in regard to secret sins; so that, as confession of some kind was necessary, the inference is in favor of private or auricular confession. This may have often been followed by public demonstrations of sorrow on the part of those who, like the deluded followers of Marcus, had given scandal by their adherence to an heretical teacher. They may have been induced to make a public avowal, in order to unmask the teacher of error, when urged to it as a duty by a confidential adviser, such as a confessor; but if private confession was not practised, it is difficult to suppose that any would have followed their own sense of duty so far as to make so humiliating an acknowledgment. Origen, in effect, warns the sinner to use great care in selecting his spiritual physician, that, in case he should judge proper that his disorder should be stated and healed in the presence of the assembled church, it might be done with profit and edification. The observation of Dr. Hopkins, that any prudent Christian, having experience, may be meant by this physician, is refuted by another passage, in which Origen describes the penitent as "not blushing to confess his sin to the priest of the Lord." From a comparison of these various testimonies, it is evident that private confession regarded all sins without distinction, and that public confession was confined to such as might be declared before all without scandal, or danger to one's self or others. When, in the fifth century, some endeavoured to enforce the open confession of secret sins, St. Leo rebuked the rash attempt, and declared that it was sufficient to confess them to the priests of the Lord in private.* We are willing, however, to meet Dr. Hopkins on his own ground, and we leave him to choose whether public or private confession be meant by the early fathers; it is enough for us that confession the acknowledgment of special sins - was demanded. We ask him how he can dispense with public and private confession, when, long before any ecclesiastical enactment was passed to this effect, confession of some kind was urged under the most awful penalty. Exomologesis, according to Tertullian, implied "the falling down before the priests, the kneeling to the beloved of God," "a manifestation of one's self, which many through a false shame delayed from day to day, consulting more for their feelings than for their salvation, like those who conceal from the physician their secret maladies." Its necessity was such, that the stern moralist address Ep. ad Universos Episcopos, Tom. I. p. 356. es the reluctant sinner, "If you hesitate to confess, think on hell, whose flames are quenched by confession." This evidently implies its absolute necessity, which, as none assert it concerning public confession, — at that time not prescribed by any canon, must be understood of that which is auricular. It is impossible to restrict what Tertullian and the other fathers have written on this subject to confession made to God in secret. He, indeed, calls it "confession to the Lord," because it is made in the Divine presence, and with a view to obtain pardon from God. "This act," he says, "is exomologesis, whereby we confess our sin to the Lord, not indeed as if he knew it not, but inasmuch as satisfaction is prepared for by confessions. Penance proceeds from confession, and God is appeased by penance. This implies self-manifestation, "publicationem sui," which-since, as we have shown, it does not extend to a public confession must mean the disclosure of our sins to our spiritual physician. This passage may throw light on many others which we meet with from time to time in various fathers, who speak of confession of sin to God, plainly meaning that which is made to his ministers, in compliance with his command. It is of this St. Cyprian speaks, when he explains the practice of confession in regard to ordinary sins, and insists strongly on the criminality of admitting to communion those who had abjured the faith, and had not atoned by penance. "Since sinners guilty of lesser sins do penance during a suitable time, and come to confession according to the order of discipline, and receive the right to communicate by the imposition of hands of the bishop and clergy; now in a time of peril, whilst the persecution still continues, peace not being yet restored to the Church, these men are admitted to communion, and their name is recited; and before they have done penance, before they have made a confession, before the hand of the bishop and clergy has been laid on them, the Eucharist is given them, although it be written, Whosoever shall eat of the bread or drink of the chalice of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.'"+ This abuse called for strong condemnation from Cyprian, who exhorted the faithful to confess their sins whilst confession made to the priests of the Lord is acceptable. 6 The term exomologesis, used by all these ancient writers, is borrowed from the Acts, in which the verb from which it is + Ep. ad Clerum. * De Pœnit., Sect. IX. formed is used in regard to the believers who, on witnessing the visitation of God on the sons of Sceva, came forward to the Apostles, "confessing their deeds," and evincing the sincerity of their compunction by consigning to the flames a vast amount of superstitious books which they had in their possession. Bloomfield and other Protestants admit that they made a special acknowledgment, not only of the sin of magic, but of other sins, and the perfect participle, which is employed, denotes that they were persons who had long since come to the faith; yet Dr. Hopkins, with this fact under his eye, boldly asserts that "there is no example in the Acts of persons confessing their sins, after baptism, either to the Apostles or to any one else." St. Basil thought otherwise, since he alleges this example in support of the principle, that "we must confess our sins to those who are intrusted with the dispensation of the mysteries of God." But Dr. Hopkins does not hesitate to say, "he was plainly mistaken"; and yet he has ventured to designate the illustrious doctor as his tenth witness ! In the selection of his witnesses he has not been fortunate; but the confidence with which he calls them his own may deceive some readers. His first witness is Tertullian, who insists on confession under threats of hell-fire. The second is Cyprian, who states that persons guilty of sins far less heinous than apostasy must confess them, and extols those who reveal their sinful thoughts. The third is Lactantius, who makes our hope of pardon depend on our satisfying God by confessing our sins, and gives confession and penance as the characteristics distinguishing the true Church from pseudo-Catholic conventicles. If a father of the Church speak of the forgiveness of sin by God, Dr. Hopkins hastily concludes against the delegated power of the priesthood, and wrests most unscrupulously to an unnatural meaning other passages which clearly affirm it. Thus has he distorted its emphatic vindication by St. Ambrose, and referred to the public reconciliation of penitents what is said, without restriction, of sacerdotal absolution. He might have learned the necessity of confession from this admirable passage "If thou wilt be justified, confess thy sin for the modest confession of sins looses the bonds of crime." Of this saint his contemporary biographer relates that he wept in receiving confessions, so as to move the penitent to tears, and that he communicated only with God on the sins declared to him. Most † Inter. 288. L. 11, de Pœnit., c. VI. Acts xix. 18. : |