'wO L'^ %J W' I

-^¦^ .

*«-«**"

•sy ^rf« ¦ (^- I

SIX LETTERS
IN
ANSWER TO THE ATTACKS
OF
ONE OF THE CITY LECTURERS
ON
THE CATHOLIC PRINCIPLE AND PRACTICE
OP
PRIVATE CONFESSION TO A PRIEST :
IN WHICH ARE EMBODIED
SOME OF THE PEINCIPAL TESTIMONIES AS -WELL OF THB PEIMITIVE
FATHERS AS OF THE HIGHEST ANGLICAN AUTHORITIES
IN FAVOUR OF THAT PRACTICE.
WITH
A PREFACE, NOTES, AND A GENERAL POSTSCRIPT.

BY ACADEMICUS.

OXFORD,
JOHN HENRY PARKER:
RIVINGTONS, LONDON.
MDCCCXLII.

'[lL^S.1
¦ F_MAJ1WJ

OXFORD :
PKINTED BY I. SIIRIMPTON,

PREFACE.

The writer of the following Letters is fully aware that the
discussion of theological questions in a newspaper is an
anomaly to be justified only by peculiar circumstances. There
is however in this respect a wide difference between an attack
and a defence^ between voluntarily introducing such discus
sions, and merely taking so much part in them, when already
introduced, as may be necessary to set those facts right which
have been directly or indirectly mis-stated, or at least so stated,
as to give an impression very different from the true one.
Of course it is by no means assumed that it is always neces
sary to correct even mis-statements of facts : on the contrary,
as the truth itself is invulnerable, and the more it is opposed
and denied, the greater and more effectual is its ultimate
triumph, if we regarded only the interests of the truth itself,
we might well doubt the propriety, certainly the necessity, of
ever undertaking to defend what so little needs our defence* :
but it must be remembered, that though the truth is invulner
able, we are not ; and therefore, as there is a time to speak,
as well as a time to be silent, — so, while it appears mere waste of
words (if not worse) to attempt undeceiving those who are
willingly deceived, it does seem due to those who sincerely
* Tliose who are happily unaccustomed to the blinding prejudices of elec
tioneering tactics, and would tliinlc it scarcely credible that the hattie against
Orthodoxy should have been w.aged, (owing to whatever motives, or through
whatever carelessness), with weapons so exactly similar to those commonly
adopted by political " Reformers", will certainly be more than a little astoni.shed
if ever they come to know the real nature of statements which were circulated
without contradiction during the late attack. To have attempted, however, to
keep pace with the newspapers, or even to gain a fair hearing in the midst of the
then tumult, would have been something like haranguing the waves! — To give
but one instance : a person whose sayings and doings in France were copied from
paper to paper, and employed as a weapon of service in "the cause", has, to the
writer's knowledge, 77e2?er crossed tlie Channel! This fable appears to have been
procured from the same source with another since imported, -viz., that our Bishops
were engaged in getting up declarations against the succession of the Prince qf
Wales ! , Let us hope in. charity that the importers of both stories were alike
ignorant of the real facts of the case;

4 PREFACE.
desire the truth, and are in danger of being misled by erro
neous or injuriously defective representations bearing on im
portant questions, to put them in possession of the real facts of
the case as regards the questions concerned.
Of such a nature appeared to the writer of the following
pages the very incorrect impression which certain letters on
Confession, published in the Oxford Herald by the Rev.
W. S, Bricknell, (one of the Oxford City Lecturers,) were
calculated to produce, as to the teaching of the Church of
England and her leading Divines, in the minds of persons not
extensively read in their works, and happily inexperienced in
theological controversy, and therefore not aware of the extreme
caution necessary before giving weight to the quotations of
certain parties, and especially to the quotations of men of little
research, who (as in the case now before us) procure them at
second hand, and publish them without either acknowledging
to whom they are indebted for them *, or being at the trouble
themselves to ascertain their connection and object, and so
being altogether in the dark as to their true import, quote
them (as Mr. Bricknell is clearly shewn to have done) quite
aside of, and even in direct opposition to, the real sentiments of
their authors. All which was made so much the worse in Mr.
Bricknell's case, by his systematic reserve, in concealing not
merely the place whence his ready quoted quotations were
copied, but even the references which were there given ready
to his hand, and so voluntarily increasing to the utmost the
difficulty of sifting his assertions, and ascertaining the truth.
Mr. Bricknell's first letter appeared in the Oxford Herald
of Saturday Dec. 18. 1841, and was met by the first of the
following series, in the next Herald, that of Friday Dec. 24,
The second of this series, which was a kind of supplement to
the first, appeared in the following number, that of Saturday
Jan. 1. 1842, in which was contained also Mr. Bricknell's
reply to the first.

It IS of course quite a lowable to quote at second-hand without verifving
rf a due acknowledgement IS made of the channel through which a quo a "on
has been receivea. Even thi.s, however, requires no small laution I"""''""

PREFACE. • 5
Jn the next number, that of Saturday Jan. 8, appeared in
like manner Academicus's reply to Mr. Bricknell's, and Mr.
Bricknell's reply to Academicus's second letters. The Saturday
after, (Jan. 15,) there was, for the third time, a similar exchange
of letters.
The following number (that of Saturday Jan. 22) announced
as "unavoidably postponed," an answer from Academicus
alone; Mr. Bricknell having been sufficiently employed, as
one may conjecture, for that week, in putting together an
epistle of very nearly two columns in length, which appeared
in the same Herald, addressed, with a well-proportioned title,
"To the Rev. James Ingram, D.D., President of Trinity
College; William Cripps, Esq., M.P. ; and the Members of
the Oxford and London Committees for promoting the Election
of the Rev. Isaac Williams to the Professorship of Poetry in
the University of Oxford."
Mr. Bricknell being engaged in this happy diversion, the
battle now subsided into single instead of double firing, and
that too, thanks to the pressure from without upon the printers,
(which made it difficult or impossible to insert communications
of any length which arrived late in the week,) as well as to the
other engagements of Academicus, — at a rather slower rate.
Academicus's fifth answer duly appeared the following Satur
day, Jan. 29 : another letter from Mr. Bricknell was announced
a week, and appeared a fortnight later, (Feb. 12.) The answer
of Academicus to this last was delayed by both the above-men
tioned causes ; — the following notices being inserted :
Sat, Feb, 26. — " Academicus'' requests us to say that he has been
prevented hy other engagements, both last week and this, from noticing
Mr. Bricknell's last letter.
Sat, Mar. 5. — " Academicus" too late for this week.
Academicus took advantage of this last delay to make some
corrections and additions, " with the view especially of finishing
the subject at once." (P.S. to the Gth letter). The detention,
however, of the letter for this purpose was in part the cause of
its being again postponed with the following notice :
Sat. Mar. 12. — "Academicus" unavoidably delayed another week.

g PREFACE.
At length on Saturday March 26 (Easter-Eve), the last of the
Six Letters appeared, with the following note appended by
the Editor :
[We heartily hope that this controversy will, so far as we are concerned,
here terminate. A newspaper is no proper vehicle for theological discussion,
but as we had originally inserted jMr. Bricknell's observations, we felt that
we could not in propriety refuse the rejoinder of Academicus. We now
close our columns. — Ed. 0. H.]
The following letter in allusion to the controversy appeared
the Saturday after. It is here reprinted for the purpose of
observing at the outset, what is strongly stated in the sixth
letter itself, that it would have been inconsistent with Acade
micus's plan to have entered on the directly Scriptural part of
the subject.
AURICULAR CONFESSION.
To the Editor of the Oxford Universiti/ Herald.
Sir, — I have been much pleased with the letter written hy " Academicus,''
and published in your valuable Paper of this day, respecting aMricM^ar con
fession, and in which I agree to the fidlest extent, as not only being sanc
tioned by the ancient Fathers, but also by the " Common Prayer" of the
Established Church. I could have wished, however, that "Academicus"'
had (in addition to the evidence he has produced) quoted more passages
from the New Testament, which abounds with them, and a reference to
Cruden's Concordance will enable him to find them with facility. In
requesting your insertion of this note, I respectfully wish it to be understood
that I shall not join in any discussion upon this important part of Christian
duty. The previous correspondence between "Academicus" and Mr.
Bricknell I have not seen.
I remain, Sir, your obedient servant,
H. W. DEWHURST, F.E.S.L.
Sm'geon, Professor of Astronomy, Zoology, 5;c. 5:c.
Lambeth, March 26. 1842.
Academicus entirely agi-ees with Mr. Dewhurst as to the
clearness of Scripture teaching on the subject: this branch,
however, of the controversy appeared too purely theological for
a newspaper: it was also the less necessary on his part, —
first, because it is partly included in some of the quotations

PREFACE. 7
adduced in the first and sixth letters ; 2. because the
facts are in every one's reach ; and 3. because of the
very clearness to which Mr. Dewhurst alludes, which in
deed is such that a thoughtful and teachable person, not
already under the influence of any strong anti- Catholic bias,
can hardly fail to recognise it. Accordingly it will be found
that persons, not merely of what are commonly called " High
Church", but also of the so-called " Evangelical" views, though
differing so much on other points, have candidly and with excel
lent example acquiesced in this. The first of Suum Cuique's
four letters, — which (as well as that of A Constant Header) it
has been thought desirable, on account of their close connection
with the subject of Academicus's letters, and especially with
Mr. Bricknell's share in the controversy, to annex to the
Preface, — furnishes instances (which there is good reason
to believe are far from being singular) with respect to English
Evangelical Clergymen : of the opinions of our own and other
leading Reformers, and of some of the foreign Protestant
bodies, a specimen will be found in the Postscript, — further
particulars in Mr. Wordsworth's very valuable Appendix to
his late Sermon on Evangelical Repentance.
It has been the endeavour of the writer, considering the
unsuitableness for direct theology of the channel chosen by
Mr. Bricknell, to confine himself, as far as might be, to matter
of fact. To abstain entirely from any remarks of a theological
or practical nature, if indeed it would have been right to
attempt it, was what the nature of the subject seemed hardly
to admit. Should the pubHcation of these letters be found to
have contributed, in ever so small a degree, to guard against
error or confirm in the truth, or, above all, by reminding of
such truth, to stimulate to a deeper and more practical peni
tence, any such persons as from education or circumstances may
be less guarded and provided for themselves, the writer will
feel no cause to regret an irksome undertaking, to which not
merely the laborious and unpleasant nature of the work itself,
but also the great pressure of other occupations has made him
peculiarly averse.
orford, June 3. 18t-2.

APPENDIX TO THE PREFACE.

LETTERS

SUUM CUIQUE AND A CONSTANT READER.

The letters of Suum Cuique appeared, Sat, Dec. 11. 1841,
Friday Dec. 24. 1841, Sat. Jan. 8. 1842, and Sat. Jan. 22.
1842, respectively. The first was noticed by Mr. Bricknell, in
the first of those attacks in answer to which Academicus's letters
were written ; the second and third, in the second and fourth
of that same course. — That of " A Constant Reader " appeared
in the Herald of Saturday Dec. 18. 1842.
LETTERS OF SUUM CUIQUE.
LETTER I.
To the Editor of the Oxford University Herald.
Sir, — A good deal has been said lately about Confession, and the
honour of following out in ttiis particular the primitive and Scriptural
principles of our Prayer-Book assumed most unfairly to belong ex
clusively to 'the Oxford School'. Allow me, however, to assure you
that this is in reahty any thing but true, I myself having been
informed, not many months since, from independent sources, of two
different 'Evangelical' Clergymen who, to my informants' knowledge,
were in the habit several years since of recommending and receiving
auricular confessions and enjoining penance, both informants further
testifying to the good effects they knew to have resulted from the
practice. That you may be the better able to judge of the authority
on which the above statement is made, I annex (for your o-wn private
information), together with my own name, the names of my infor
mants ; and am. Sir, yours truly,
SUUM CUIQUE.
Oxford, Dec, 6, 1811. ^<J^-

APPENDIX TO THE PREFACE.

LETTER II.
To the Editor of the Oxford University Herald.
Sir, — I perceive by your last number, that a Mr. W. S. Brick
nell has made a "call" upon me to favour him with the names of
the two Evangelical Clergymen whom I mentioned in my last. I beg
to inform Mr. W. S. Bricknell that he is greatly mistaken if he ex
pects his " call " to be answered by, yours truly,
SUUM CUIQUE.
Oxford, Dec. 20. 1841.
P. S. No less mistaken was this same Mr. Bricknell in his rather
clever idea of substituting for Suum Cuique, Tu Quoque. As for
his giving his own paraphrase in such a way that it has been mis
taken for an extract from my letter, it would be uncharitable to call
that clever. LETTER III.
To the Editor of the Oxford University Herald.
Sir, — I am surprised to find that Mr. Bricknell thinks it " dis
ingenuous " to state facts in favour of Confession. If he wishes
to take advantage of my being anonymous, and insinuate that what I
have stated is or may be untrue, I beg to remind him that though
anonymous to him, neither I nor my informants are anonymous to
you ; requesting yourself at the same time, if you think us at all un
worthy of credit, to say so ; if not, I venture to hope that Mr.
Bricknell (however unpalatable he may find the facts in question) -will
endeavour for the future to treat even anonymous opponents in a
more Christian spirit.
I am, Su-, yours truly, SUUM CUIQUE.
Jan. 3. 1842.
LETTER IV.
To the Editor of the Oxford University Herald.
Sir, — I have to acknowledge Mr. Bricknell's explanation. What
remains is mere fancy, founded on air ; and in this region I beg
to leave Mr. Bricknell, together with his friends *, quite at hberty ;
remaining myself, in this as in all other respects, yours truly,
SUUM CUIQUE.
Jan. 18. 1842.
[* I. e. those who prevent him from being ' singular in his oinuion' :  see his
fourth letter.]

10 APPENDIX TO THE PREFACE.

LETTER OF A CONSTANT READER.
To the Editor of the Oxford University Hei-ald.
Sir, — It is instructive to observe the extreme practical ignorance
of some of those who pretend to " lead " public opinion. The Stan
dard of Thursday last reprints from the Morning Herald an article
in which a Bishop of the Church of England is actually called upon
(by the Editor forsooth) to suspend all such of his Clergy as may
be found guilty of the grave charge of recommending private confes
sion according to the Church Prayer-Book ! 1 ! Surely Mr. Editor,
we shall at length open our eyes to the necessity of a more active
and general support of the Society for the Difiiision of Useful Know
ledge. — T am. Sir, your obedient servant,
A CONSTANT READER.
O.ford, Dec. 10. 1841.

LETTERS OF ACADEMICUS
ON
PRIVATE CONFESSION TO A PRIEST.
LETTER I.
To the Editor of the Oxford University Herald.
Sir, — As your correspondent, Mr. Bricknell, has given from
Burnet what he conceives to be the AVadvantages of the practice of
Auricular Confession, I take the liberty of introducing to his notice
the foUo-^'ing passages in favour of it, derived from authorities of
considerably more weight in the Church than Bishop Burnet. As
for his quotations from Hooker, Hooker's own practice (see Walton's
Lives, published by the Christian Knowledge Society,) is decisive
evidence that he was opposed to nothing but the making it compul
sory, or urging it as necessary, neither of which has been heard of
amongst us : for as for Mr. Powell's expression of ' enforcing' , if he
meant any thing definite by it, it is well known that he was under
a total mistake. This enforcing, or, at most, objections in particular
cases, is all that is really meant by those Divines of any note who
have seemed to oppose it, as indeed one of Mr. BrickneU's own au
thorities, even Bishop Jewell [as quoted by himself] , clearly shews :
"As for private confession", says that "irreverent Dissenter",'^
" abuses and errors set apart, we do not condemn it, but leave it at
liberty ^"
Even Burnet himself may perhaps mean no more ; but be that as
it may, it is very certain that far greater and better authorities than
Burnet have advocated the practice, as the foUowing extracts afford
satisfactory proof.
I begin with giving entire, as I find it, the fourtli part of the
Appendix (p. 44, &c.) of a recent and very valuable Tract, entitled,
"The Doctrine of the CathoUc Church in England on the Holy
Eucharist iUustrated by extracts from her great Divines, with an
Appendix on various other points of faith and practice. Oxford,
Parker, 1841."
^ "'As for private confession,*' (says that ^^ irreverent Dissenter", Bishop
.Tewell, ) " abuses and errors set apart, we do not condemn it, but leave it at
liberty." ' — Mr. Bricknell's First Letter.
' So also Hooker, even -while in Mr. Bricknell's hands : — "the Fathers  did
not gather by our Saviour's -words any such necessiti/' &c. thereby marking clearly
what it was to which he was opposed. — It must have been owing to the great haste
with which Mr. Bricknell's letters were evidently composed, that both this and the
passage from Jewell, which it is impossible could otherwise be of seivice to his
cause than as an insinuation, such as that about fasting in his third letter, should
have found insertion in them. It is, however, only by confounding voluntary
with compulsory confession, that he is able to make out even the shadow of a case.

12 FIRST LETTER OF ACADEMICUS
"Appendix iv. Private Confession and Absolution — Bishop
Overall. — ' Let him come to me.] Confession of sins must necessarily
be made to them to whom the dispensation of the mysteries of God
is committed. For so they which in former times repented among
the saints are read to have done. It is written in the Gospel, that
they confessed their sins to John the Baptist. In the Acts they aU
confessed their sins unto the Apostles of whom they were baptized,'—
Notes on the Common Prayer.
•'Bishop Montague. — 'Doth he (the Minister) especially exhort
them (his parishioners) to make confession of their sins to himself,
or some other leamed, grave, and discreet Minister, especially in
Lent, against that holy time of Easter ; that they may receive com
fort and absolution, so as to become worthy receivers of such
sacred mysteries ?' Articles of Inquiry, tit. vii. 4.
"Bishop White, — 'Protestants, in their doctrine, acknowledge that
private confession of sins, made by penitent people to the Pastors of
their souls, and particular absolution, or special appUcation of the
promises of the Gospel to such as are penitent, are profitable helps of
-virtue, godliness, and spiritual comfort.' — Conference with Fisher,
p. 186.
" Bishop Taylor, — ' We may very much be helped if we take in
the assistance of a spiritual guide : therefore the Church of God in
all ages hath commended, and in most ages enjoined, that we confess
our sins, and discover the state and condition of our seuls, to such a
person whom we or our superiors judge fit to help us in such need.
For so, if we confess our sins to another, as St. James advises, we
shaU obtain the prayers of the holy man whom God and the Church
hath appointed solemnly to pray for us ; and when he knows our
needs, he can best minister comfort or reproof, oU or caustics ; he
can more opportunely recommend your particular state to God, he
can determine your cases of conscience, and judge better for you than
you do for yourself ; and the shame of opening such ulcers may re
strain your forwardness to contract them. . . . And it were weU if
this duty were practised prudently and innocently, in order to public
discipline.'- — Holy Living, chap. iv. sec. 9.
"Bishop Cosin, — (Points of agreement with the Church of Rome.)
6  ' In public<^ or private absolution of penitent sinners.' ....
It may be observed in passing, that the absolution in our daily morning
and evening service should be regarded as an effective declaration of pardon (in
such sense as pardon is given to a number at once) to all who have made the
preceding confession with a true penitent heart and lively faith. If it be
asked why, if we are already absolved, we are immediately exhorted to pray
for true repentance, it may be answered that true repentance is so far from
being unsuitable to one already pardoned, that it is, on the contrary, a condition
ot the validity of the pardon already bestowed ; and for this reason, as well as

ON PRIVATE CONFESSION TO A PRIEST. 13
11. 'In the use of indulgences, or abating the rigour of the Canons
imposed upon offenders, according to their repentance, and their
want of ability to undergo them.'
" And JJlieatly in later times ; —
' We may stUl, I presume, -wish veiy consistently with the deter
mination of our Church, that our people would apply themselves
oftener than they do to their spiritual physicians, even in the time of
their health. Since it is much to be feared, they are wounded
oftener than they complain, and yet through aversion of disclosing
their sore, suffer it to gangrene, for want of their help who should
work the cure. But present ease is not the only benefit the penitent
may expect from his Confessor's aid : he -wUl be better assisted in the
regulation of his life, and when his last conflict shaU make its ap
proach, the holy man, being no stranger to the state of his soul, wUl
be better prepared to guide and conduct it though all difficulties that
may oppose.' — On the Common Prayer, chap. xi. sec. 4.
" [See also Hammond's Annotations on James v. 16.]"
To which valuable coUection I -wUl add three decisive passages ; the
first two from the First Book of Edward VI. , which the very ParUa
ment which (in one of the most Protestant moments of our history)
substituted the Second for it, caUs " a very godly order", " agreeable to
ihe Word of God and the Primitive Church, very comfortable to all good
people desiring to live in Christian conversation, and most profitable to
the estate of this realm" ; and concerning which the same authority
adds also, that such doubts as had arisen had been occasioned " rather
by the curiosity of the minister and mistakers, than of any other
worthy cause", (5 and 6 Edw. VI. c. 1.)
1. "Requiring such as shaU be satisfied -with a general confession
not to be offended with them that do use, to their further satisfying, the
auricular and secret confession to the Priest; nor those also which
think needful or convenient, for the quietness of their own con
sciences, particularly to open their sins to the Priest, to be offended
-with them that are satisfied with their humble confession to God, and
the general confession to the Church : but in all things to foUow and
keep the rule of charity ;" &c. — Exhortation before the Communion,
p. 278. [in Dr. CardweU's editions.]
because the grace given in absolution is a great help thereto, this exhortation is
introduced by the conjunction Wherefore. The variation oi form, it must be re
membered, in the expressions, ' He pardoneth and absolveth', ' Almighty God —
pardon and absolve', ' By His authority committed to me, I absolve thee from all
thy sins', does not of itself , or as such, aifect the substance, much less the validity,
of the absolution conveyed ; — hut it must by no means be supposed that the grace
of a general confession and absolution of a number at once, is at all the same
thing -with that of Sacramental Absolution given after a special confession of sins.
This last absolution it is which our Homily allows to be a (Minor) Sacrament,
and of -which it states "imposition of hands" to be " the visible sign". See the
extract given in Letter III. (p. 17.)

14 SECOND LETTER OF ACADEMICUS
2. " Here shah the sick person make a special confession, if he feel
his conscience troubled -with any weighty matter ^. After which con-
fes.sion the Priest shaU absolve him after this form : and the same form
of absolution shall be used in all private confessions." — Visitation
of the Sick, p. 363.
The third, well worthy of the most serious consideration, from the
great Archbishop BramhaU :
" No better physic for a fuU stomach than a vomit. Bodily sores
do sometimes compel a man to put off natural shamefacedness, and to
offer his less comely parts to the view of the chirurgeon. By a httle
shame, which we suffer before our fellow-servant, we prevent that
great confusion of face, which other-wise must faU upon impenitent
sinners at the Day of Judgment." — Bramhall's Works, p. 997.
The above extracts will abundantly establish the fact, that to recom
mend private confession is anything but to oppose either the letter
or the spirit <= of the Church of England.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
ACADEMICUS.
lOxford, Dec.25. 1841.]
LETTER II.
To the Editor of the Cvford University Herald.
Sir, — Your correspondent, Mr. BrickneU, was perhaps desirous of
sa-ving trouble both to himself and his readers by gi-ving his quotations
without chapter and verse. Having, however, accidentaUy met -with his
standard passage from Burnet, I take the Uberty of sending you the
first half of the sentence preceding the commencement of his quota
tion : — " In the use of Confession, when proposed as our church
DOES, as matter of advice and not of obUgation, we are very sensible
many good ends may be attained ; but Ssc." Burnet therefore admits.

¦' In our present Prayer-hook the expression is stronger : " Here shall the sick
person be moved to malte a special confession of his sins, if he feel his conscience
troubled with any weighty matter." On which Bishop Sparrow {Rationale, p.
266. Oxford, Parlver, 1840.) makes this important remark: "It should be con-
.lidered johether every deadly sin be not a weighty matter."
° It should he understood, that even Mr. Bricknell, when he feels it his duty
to -itate formally against what it is that he is making such a mighty outcry him
self, and labouring so hard in the vain attempt to rouse the public to cry out
with him, — even Mr. Bricknell does not charge those who maintain Catholic
views "with direct opposition to the doctiines and discipline of the Church of
England", but " with an attempt to revive practices which that Church, ill her
wisdom, has not thought proper to encourage"; "with setting up their own
judgment against hers," and "pretending to have more understanding than their
teachers." (See his first letter.) The groundlessness of even this minimum
charge, and that the Cliurch of England, "in her wisdom", has "thought proper
to encourage" private confession, the proofs adduced in these letters will be suffi
cient, it is hoped, to satisfy every clear and candid judge.

ON PRIVATE CONFESSION TO A PRIEST. 15
on his cross examination, that the Church of England does recommend
the practice : how then could Mr. Bricknell venture to call in Burnet
as a witness to assist him in fastening on such of her Ministers as join
in her recommendation, the charge of going against her spirit, when
even that very witness aUows that they do only what " our church
does" ? In the rest of the paragraph Burnet certainly objects strongly
to its being made a law, and, in pointing out its dangers in the way he
does, intends perhaps to urge great caution even in recommending it :
more than this cannot be proved.
And now. Sir, having found and despatched Mr. BrickneU's quota
tion from Burnet, and having in my last called attention to the fact
that Hooker's own practice, as recorded in Walton's Lives, proved
that he could not mean to oppose Confession itself, but only the en
forcing it, I beg, after Mr. BrickneU's own, example, and with far
more justice, to " call upon" him to enable his readers to judge fairly
of the context of his quotations from that venerable Divine, by giving
chapter and verse; and, to use his own words, "He cannot hesitate to
comply with my request, if there be really anything of importance in
his communication." I remain. Sir, your obedient Servant,
ACADEMICUS.
Oxford, Cliristmas Eve, 1841.
P. S. Since writing the above, I have been shewn Bishop Taylor's
"Advice concerning Confession", in his "Guide for the Penitent"^,
prmtedwith"The Golden Grove", pp. 156— 158, Oxford,Parker, 1836.
The whole five sections are weU worthy of an attentive perusal. I
send you the first and third, which are more directly to my pm-pose.
" Advice concerning Confession, I. That besides this examination
of your conscience, (which may be done in secret between God and
your own soul,) there is great use of holy Confession ; which though it
be not generally in all cases and peremptorily commanded, as if with
out it no salvation could possibly be had ; yet you are advised by the
Church under whose discipline you hve, that before you are to
receive the Holy Sacrament, or when you are visited -with any
dangerous sickness, if you find any one particular sin, or more, that
lies hea-vy upon you, to disburden yourself of it into the bosom of
your Confessor, who not only stands between God and you to pray
for you, but hath the power of the keys committed to him, upon
' Since the above extract was made, it has been stated (without reference to the
present controversy), that this work is not sufficiently proved to be Taylor's. Into
this question it is unnecessary for me to enter ; as -whether or not it is rightly at
tributed to Taylor, the credit and approbation it has so long enjoyed in the Church
of England may well be considered as gi-ving it a greater weight than even Taylor's
name could give it.

16 THIRD LETTER OF ACADEMICUS
your true repentance to absolve you in Christ's name from those sins
which you have confessed to him."
" III. That having made choice of such a Confessor who is every
way qualified that you may trust your soul with him, you are ad-vised
plainlv and sincerely to open your heart to him; and that, la)Tng
aside all consideration of any personal weakness in him, you are to
look upon him only as he is a trustee from God, and commissioned
by Him as His ministerial deputy, to hear, and judge, and absolve
you." LETTER III.
To the Editor of the Oxford University Herald.
Sir, — Your correspondent, Mr. BrickneU, charges me with insinu
ating that Hooker preached what he did not practise. So heav)' a
charge, coming from the pen of a clergyman, ought certainly to
have some foundation : you wiU be surprised, therefore, when I say
that the passage which Mr. BrickneU has so perverted is the follow
ing : " As for his (Mr. BrickneU's) quotations from Hooker,
Hooker's own practice (see Walton's Lives, pubUshed by the
Christian Knowledge Society,) is decisive e-vidence that he was
opposed to nothing but the making it compulsory, or urging it as
necessary, neither of which has been heard of amongst us". Surely,
Sir, nothing can weU be more clear than that my object was not to
oppose Hooker's practice to his preaching, and so merely neutralize
his e-vidence, but to explain the latter by the former, and so claim him
altogether as a witness in favour of private confession. So injurious
a perversion, advanced publicly by one who from his position in
society must be incapable of intentionally misrepresenting and de
faming his opponent, would be altogether unaccountable, did we not
see daily that the power of prejudice is often so great as to pervert
not merely the mental, but even the bodily eyes. I once had occa
sion to notice a letter in a periodical, commenting in the severest
language on a running title (in one of the Tracts for the Times),
which, when I came to refer to it, was totally different both in words
and in meaning, from what the blinding prejudice of this censor had
led him both to read and to print 1
Should any one ask why I did not give the pubUc the passages, or
at least the references, from Walton's Lives, especiaUy as this is a
practice for which I have myself contended in opposition to Mr.
BrickneU ; it was, because the same friend who did me the favour
to call my attention to them, had himself written them out and sent
them to the Herald, in which they were promised insertion, though
they seem since to have been mislaid or overlooked. Under these

ON PRIVATE CONFESSION TO A PRIEST. 17
circumstances, I was naturally unwilUng to give either your readers
or myself the trouble of going twice over the same ground ; but
should the letter to which I aUude, and which I still hope to see
next Saturday, have been withdrawn, or otherwise not appear, I wiU
see myself that the public are put in possession of the authorities on
which my statement restsB.
As to the passage from the Second Book of Homihes, which,
according to custom, Mr. BrickneU has adduced -without chapter
and verse, but which is taken from the second part of the HomUy
on Repentance, (p. 593 — 595 of the 12mo. edition of the Christian
Knowledge Society, London, 1828,) the concluding words of that
passage itself fuUy confirm aU that I have maintained, -s-iz., that the
Church of England and her leading Divines are opposed to nothing
but this, "that any man should be bound to the numbering of his
sins." Against voluntary confession they say nothing, but on the con
trary, they praise and recommend it. As for the words of St. James
(5, 16), quoted in the above passage, it would certainly be a narrow
view to limit that text to private confession to the Priest : the more
natural interpretation is, that private confession to the Priest is a small
part only of what is there recommended.
As however Mr. BrickneU has his quotation from the HomiUes,
so I have mine, — a quotation implying directly the " ordinary
practice" (and that as a minor "Sacrament") of that private
confession and absolution which Mr. BrickneU's quotation so fully
aUows :
"For tho' Absolution hath the promise of forgiveness of sin,
yet by the express word of the New Testament it hath not this
promise annexed and tied to the visible sign, which is imposition
OF hands. For this visible sign (I mean laying on of hands) is not
expressly commanded in the New Testament to be used in Absolu
tion, as the visible signs in Baptism and the Lord's Supper are : and
therefore Absolution is no such Sacrament as Baptism and the Com
munion are." HomUy "of Common Prayer and the Sacraments",
p. 388 of the above-mentioned edition.
And now, Sh, ha-ving shewn clearly that the Church herself, as
weU as her greatest Ughts and most celebrated Di-vines, distmctly
recommend private confession, so that Mr. BrickneU's objection,
borrowed from the Tract of which I spoke in my first letter, (Intro
duction, p. 5.) that "Bishops derive whatever authority they possess
from the Church", is altogether out of place here ; the Bishops and
Di-vines whom / have quoted supporting and following out, not, (like
[^ We have since been requested by the gentleman alluded to by our corre
spondent not to print the letter. — Ed. O. H.]
B

18 FOURTH LETTER OF ACADEMICUS
those of whom the Tract speaks) opposing, the teaching of the
Church, I cannot but express my hope that Mr. BrickneU will see
the propriety, as a matter both of candour and of discernment, of
making that manly avowal which alone can satisfy the public that
he at least is not engaged in mere electioneering attacks, nor deter
mined to struggle hopelessly against the clear and decisive, testimony
of authorities which he himself first set the example of bringing for
ward. I am. Sir, your obedient servant,
Epiphany, 1842. ACADEMICUS.
LETTER IV.
To the Editor of the Oxford University Herald.
Sir,— I beg to remind Mr. Bricknell that my caU upon him to give
chapter and verse for his quotations, was for the sake of the pubUc as
well as myse-f."^ As, however, he is reluctant to give them, I forbear
to press an unpleasant request.'
As to the remainder he has now given us of Burnet's words, there is
nothing more contained in them than in what he gave before. Burnet
himself fully admits (as I have already she-wn), that our church re
commends private confession ; nor does Mr. BrickneU's attempted ex
planation (to which he refers us back) at aU weaken the force of
that admission. After this, even if Burnet's o-wn private opinion were
opposed to the practice, on Mr. BrickneU's own shewing it would go
for nothing, being contrary to the admitted teaching of the Church
herself. Happily, however, for Burnet, it cannot be proved (as I
have already observed) that even he meant anything more than to
urge great caution in its use.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
January 12, 1842. ACADEMICUS.
P. S. 1. I am sorry the letter to which I alluded m my last has
been withdrawn. I wiU send you the references I promised, but must
leave both them and another valuable passage from Taylor for another
letter. 2. The Oxford Chronicle, referring to the passage I gave you from
Taylor,*^ in which that Divine speaks of " your Confessor, who not
1' Mr. Bricknell expressed his readiness to furnish me with all the information
I required, ' if I would favour him with a public, or even private application
under my real name,' I have not hitherto felt the necessity of troubling either
him or the public with a name of no consequence, but I have given in my General
Poslscnpt a denouement of the mystery about Mr. Bricknell's quotations, which is
equally curious and instructive.
' They will be found, together with full remarks, in the General Postscript:
and will repay an attentive examination. ^
" Letter II. p 15. I perceive, however, that it is not to this, but to the passage
given ni Letter I. p 12, that the Chronicle refers. How far this mends the mat
ter, 1 must leave to tho reader to determine.

ON PRIVATE CONFESSION TO A PRIEST. 19
only stands between God and you to pray for you, but hath the
power of the keys committed to him, upon your true repentance
to absolve you in Christ's name from those sins which you have con
fessed to him", accuses me of having" tortured into an approval of
auricular confession to a Priest, in order to absolution", "his
(Taylor's) recommendation of confession ' one to another', as St.
James advises"! If the assurance of this charge surprises, your
readers, what wUl they think of the next sentence ? " The above
notices", continues that unhappy journal, "are necessarily brief, but
their accuracy may be relied upon, and can be easily verified" ! ! !
An Ulustration may perhaps throw light on the peculiar style of
the Chronicle.
"Our readers wiU leam -with indignation that numbers of Conser-
" vative cab-horses are daily feasted on pickled salmon. Incredible as
" this may seem, aU who know the metropoUs wiU be ready to con-
" firm the truth of our statement."
Facts equaUy true with the above, and not less coolly and con
fidently announced, are furnished with a steady weekly supply to the
deluded votaries of the Oxford Chronicle. WeU may they be pitied
who read nothing else P
3. The same paper makes a rather curious charge of partiaUty
against yourself; the proof being that you have pubUshed without
remark such and such letters in favour of Mr. WiUiams, not a word
being said of the hosts of letters against that gentleman under the
material (not the argumentative) weight of which your columns have
so long groaned. If the meaning of the Chronicle is, that there is no
thing in Mr. BrickneU's and the other letters on that side, this surely
is not your fault. You can but give both sides an equal opportunity
of speaking ; and ha-ving done this, if the speeches of the accusers
are found to be weak and empty, the fault is surely their own, or to
speak more correctly, that of the cause they have had the misfortune
to choose.
LETTER V.
To the Editor of the Oxford University Herald.
Sir, — Driven to extremities, your correspondent, Mr. BrickneU,
tries a new line, that of summing up apart of the evidence. In despair
* It is fair, however, to acknowledge, that the regularity of the Chronicle is
not nearly so dangerous as the uncertainty of some of its contemporaries. A
systematic peculiarity can escape no one long: we may wonder occasionally at
the more than usual skill and boldness of the -writer, but of course none but
strangers can be misled by his stateme^its or representations. It is not, therefore,
of those who systematically, but of those who occasionally, indulge in fiction, so
that one can be sure neither of their statements nor of the contrary of their state
ments, that one has a real right to complain.
b2

20 FIFTH LETTER OF ACADEMICUS
of making anything of the whole, he confines himself to what seems
the more favourable part, either dismissing without ceremony, or not
seeing at aU, those decisive authorities which to all open eyes shew at
once the true meaning of his own quotations. This, in fact, is the
system which alone keeps alive Mr. BrickneU's whole party : all who
have reasoned much with persons of Calvinistic or other mutilated
views, -will understand what I mean, and be accustomed to a simUar
mode of dealing with holy Scripture. To the same extremity is Mr.
Bricknell driven in the vain attempt to oppose or discredit what as weU
the Bible as the Fathers, as well the Church Universal as the Church
of England, as well our o-wn authorized documents as our best
Divines, aU unite in recommending. Instead of attempting to explain
all the passages, to take all the facts into consideration, Mr. Brick
neU's plan is, to attempt the explanation merely of a few isolated ex
tracts, which he fancies are on his side ; and for the rest, to throw
overboard the Divines, and say nothing about those direct statements
of the Church herself which he sees he can make nothing of. In the
true poetic style recommended by Horace, "Cluae
" Desperat tractata nitescere posse, relinquit ;"
AUow me, however, to remind Mr. BrickneU of the no less sapient
hint of another ancient poet :
" Si latet, ars prodest; affert deprensa pudorem."
In the hope of producing in Mr. BrickneU's mind a more distinct
consciousness of his own system of controversy, I have taken the
liberty of caUing attention to the subject, and now proceed to verify
my statement, by summing up not one but both sides of the question.
Mr. Bricknell first quoted certain Divines, who however were not
in reaUty opposed to private confession itself, but at most merely to
its being enforced or abused. This I pointed out : — a task indeed
of no great difficulty, considering that one of them. Bishop JeweU,
even whUe under Mr. BrickneU's own grasp, said distinctly : " As for
private confession, abuses and errors set apart, we do not condemn it,
but leave it at Uberty" ; — another, the celebrated Hooker, proved by his
own practice™ that the same was the case with him; — whUe Burnet, —
his own favourite and bosom-friend Burnet, — admitted, on his cross-
examination, not merely for himself, but stUl more distinctly for the
Church of England also, that the Church herself recommended the
practice. Such then being the evidence of the Divines (I wUl not say on Mr.
BrickneU's side, but) whom Mr. BrickneU himself subpoena' A, it might
"' ^Iso by bis own ,utrds, as i.. shewn at large in the General Postscript. See
also the second note to Letter I. (p. II.) '¦

ON PRIVATE CONFESSION TO A PRIEST. 21
seem almost superfluous to call witnesses at aU against a case which
destroyed itself. Considei-mg, however, the difficulty which some
find m seemg even the plainest objects in a direction different from
that m which they have been accustomed to look, and in order to do
something like justice to the merits of the case itself, I adduced in
favour of private confession passages of so decided a description, that
even Mr. BrickneU has not so much as attempted to explain them
otherwise, — taken from Bishop Overall, from Bishop Montague, from
Bishop White, from Bishop Taylor (twice), from Bishop Cosin,
from Wheatly, and from Archbishop BramhaU.
To aU these then what is Mr. BrickneU's reply ? Simply that a
Bishop speaking against the Church is nothing. Let us see then
whether it is against the Church.
1. The Prayer-book stiU recommends private confession in two
separate places. 2. These places are abundantly supported by the
clearer and more express declarations of the First Book of Edward
VI. , which the same authority which substituted the Second for it
declared to be " agreeable to the word of God and the Primitive
Church". 3. The HomUy on Common Prayer and Sacraments, argues
on the supposition of its being ordinarily practised. 4. His own
especial favourite Burnet, admits in so many words, that our
church does recommend voluntary confession. And yet Mr.
BrickneU, in the teeth of aU these facts, presumes to charge those
who do but join in the Church's recommendation, with " setting up
their own judgment against the wisdom of the Church"!
Determined, however, to hold out to the last, Mr. BrickneU pro
duces also a passage from the Homihes. It ought certainly to be a
strong passage which could neutralize the facts already established.
But what does Mr. BrickneU's passage turn out to be ?
Parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.
Mr. BrickneU's passage from the HomiUes actually draws its o-wn
conclusion in so many words, — merely that no man " should be
BOUND to the numbering of his sins" ! Thus is Mr. BrickneU's last
refuge found to be utterly unserviceable, and incapable of affording
him any shelter, whUe on the other hand, another passage from the
HomiUes (which, as weU -as those from King Edward's First Book,
Mr. BrickneU found it convenient to pass "sub silentio"^ in his sum
ming up,) not merely proves clearly the fact that private absolution
was ordinarily practised, and that as a minor Sacrament, with the ap
probation of the Church, but also declares what the outward and
visible sign of that minor Sacrament was.
Such then is the balance of authorities. On the one side are
° " The sui silentio system" is a term applied hy Mr. Bricknell, in his second
letter, to the crime of not answering unfounded accusations.

22 FIFTH LETTER OF ACADEMICUS
ranged the clear and decisive declarations of the Church and her "best
Divines : on the other are alleged certain isolated passages, whose
authors themselves, however, never intended to oppose voluntary, but
only compulsory or abused confession. To make Mr. BrickneU right,
we should be obUged, as Mr. Bricknell himself confesses, to throw
overboard those hitherto allowed to be the greatest Ughts of the Re
formed Church, — in reality, not them only, but the authorized docu
ments of the Church herself also. And this too while even his own
witnesses oppose nothing for which the others contend !
As to Mr. BrickneU's objection that according to Neal, Mr. Adams
maintained Confession to be necessary, — had we Mr. Adams's sermon
itself, we should probably find that he was by no means laying down
a general rule, but merely speaking of those cases in which it is ne
cessary ; as for instance, that of a troubled conscience, in which ac
cording to Taylor (Holy Dying, chap. 5. sect. 3. p. 553. Ed. Lond.
1839.) " all Churches" esteem it so. But whatever may have been
the cases in which Mr. Adams thought private confession necessary,
— how the stronger opinion of one Divine should weaken the admis
sion of another, I mean of Burnet, is a point rather difficult to see.
Mr. BrickneU however accuses me of 'passing the Fathers over in
silence'. He forgets that the passages which he, or rather his wit
nesses, adduced or referred to, were not merely included in my gene
ral remarks, but by his own witnesses, if not in so many words, at
least virtually, allowed to be opposed, not to voluntary, but merely to
compulsory or abused confession. I am glad, however, to find that
Mr. BrickneU has so proper a sense of the respect due to the Fathers ;
and with the view of keeping up this wholesome feeling, I wiU endea
vour, before I have done with the subject, to furnish him, together
with something more from our own best Divines, with one or two
extracts from those earUer and more indisputable authorities them
selves. For the present, I must remain as before, your obedient servant,
ACADEMICUS.
January 18. 1842.
P. S. Mr. BrickneU, when speaking of another of your correspond
ents, expresses his opinion, that, if " no anonymous communications"
were admitted, what he calls that correspondent's " misrepresenta
tions", "would never have seen the hght."" Mr. BrickneU is certainly
very charitable to his opponents : but that the addition of a name is
no more a security for correct statement than for charity, Mr. Brick
neU's own letters afford striking proof. One remarkable instance of
this I particularly noticed in my last letter but one.
o/ hf^'' °" " "'® Pi^i'ioiple of Reserve " in the Oxford Herald of Friday Dec.
24, 1841. •'

ON PSlVATE CONFESSION TO A PRIEST. 23
LETTER VI.
To the Editor of the Oxford University Herald,
Sir, — As Mr. BrickneU seems at length more disposed for peace,
and to be tired "of carrying on controversies with every body about
nothing, my remarks on his last letter shall be the shortest possible.
1. With respect to the temper of Mr. BrickneU's attacks and re-
jomders, I shall merely leave the pubUc to judge for themselves, —
the more, as one remarkable specimen was particularly noticed in my
last letter. Of the same cheiracter was an injurious insinuation at
tempted by means of a misappUed quotation from Sophocles (GEd.
Col. 1052, 3, ed. Oxon. 1832.) in his letter of Dec. 29. That he
should now complain of being attacked himself is indeed surprising.
2. Mr. BrickneU stUl keeps out of sight the fact that the objec
tions of the Homily, and of our English Divines generaUy, are levelled
(as he has repeatedly been reminded) only against the compelling private
confession : — when voluntary, even Burnet allows that our church
DOES recommend it.
3. The distinctionP which Mr. Bricknell accuses me of neglecting
is altogether unreal. For, not to use any other arguments, — (1.)
If it be once granted that not every one who can " quiet his own con
science," ought to be able so to do, — that a tender conscience, and
one that will not easily be quieted, so far from being a mere accident
or disease, is that very frame of mind to which both Scripture and the
Church, and every increased view of Divine hoUness, tends increas
ingly to bring us ; if this, I say, be granted, and also that the receiv
ing of the holy Communion is not in the eye of the Church a mere
occasional, but an habitual act, it will, I think, be sufficiently clear
that the Prayer-Book exhortation to private confession before the
Communion is of far more extensive application than Mr. Bricknell
seems to have supposed. — (2.) If life is indeed uncertain, then surely
it cannot be wise to leave to a death-bed that confession, at least of
any greater sins, which then at all events, [if at least we even then
feel them as we ought,] it is agreed we ought to perform. But if
this be true, then (hy inference at least) the exhortation to private
confession in the Visitation of the Sick also, is of far more extensive
appUcation than Mr. Bricknell seems to have supposed.
4. The Fathers included in Mr. BrickneU's modem quotations are
anything but opposed to private confession rightly used. This, in-
p I. e. that of confessing before communicating, and on a sick bed, if our con
science troubles us, and the doing it generally without reference to such supposed
limitations. It is indeed a strange interpretation, to make it even a duty to cal
culate carefully the letter, rather than freely follow out the spirit, of a Church
or Scripture recommendation.

24 SIXTH LETTER OF ACADEMICUS
deed, might well be taken for granted, when Mr. BrickneU's own
authorities, in whom he quotes them, are quite of the same
opinion, as I have already abundantly proved. — As to Nectarius, Mr.
Bricknell has mistaken the argument of the Homily, and altogether
misunderstood the whole business. What that patriarch abolished
was, the appointment of a penitentiary Priest to determine which of
men's privately confessed sins they should be recommended to con
fess pubUcly as well as privately. Private confession, as it obvi
ously existed then, (and had existed from the beginning,) so it has
continued to this day, as well in the Eastern as in the Western
Churches. See on this subject Wheatly on the Common Prayer,
pp. 428-430, ed. London, 1720; and Morinus De Poenitentia, Ub.
2, cap. 9, § 5-7, pp. 88, 89.
Mr. Bricknell wiU perhaps shelter himself behind the HomUy, and
say that if he is guilty of historical error, the writer of that discourse
must be so too, for that he (Mr. Bricknell) is at least guiltless of
searching history and the Fathers for himself, and merely quoted them
at second-hand from one of the Homihes. This, however, -wUl not do.
No one ever imagined that we were bound to do more than heUeve
the doctrine of the Homilies, (which is all the Articles require of us) ;
the particular arguments and interpretations by which their authors en
deavour to support or enforce that doctrine, are mere matter of opinion,
to which no one is required to assent ; much less to their errors
in matter of fact and history : else might we be expected to believe
even the ridicidous fable of ' Pope Joan ' , which the HomUy for
Whitsunday uses as an argument against the Church of Rome ! (P.
513, edition of the Christian Knowledge Society.) The writer of the
Homilies is opposed (as I have aU along reminded Mr. BrickneU) to
nothing but compulsory confession : and he appears to have sup
posed that what Nectarius abolished was ordinary private confession
compulsorily required, and that his aboUshing such confession was
a proof that he did not consider it of Divine institution. This, how
ever, is a mere historical error, into which Mr. BrickneU ought not
to have been led blindfold, it being now generaUy expected (except,
of course, in mere declamations) that men at least verify references,
and examine facts for themselves before they make them their own,
and refer with so great a parade, to that which has cost them nothing.
5. It is worth noting, that even Mr. Bricknell is aware that our
most celebrated Divines have always been of what he caUs Tractarian
views. This is sufficiently evident from the latter part of his fifth
paragraph. 6. When Mr. BrickneU talks of confining the controversy to the
Bible, and proposes my proving private confession from it, he forgets

ON PRIVATE CONFESSION TO A PRIEST. 25
that (however easy such a proof would be), any "controversy" would be
altogether out of my course. My business has been simply the proof of
an historical /ae?, viz. that, right or wrong, both our Church and her
most celebrated Di-vines, treading in the steps of the primitive Church
and the ancient Fathers, have always thought that the Bible itself, if
not in so many words, at least by fair inference, as in the case of infant
Baptism, does recommend private confession. To examine whether
they were right or wrong in so doing, is altogether beyond my object,
and would be as needless for those for whom I have written, as it
would unquestionably be improper and out of place for any one in
the columns of a newspaper.
7. As to private communications, if Mr. Bricknell wishes to favour
me in this way, he had better direct them to the care of the Editor.
I cannot, however, undertake to enter into private correspondence -with
him. My object has been to prevent others from being misled by his
confidence, and to expose the rattle of an empty and electioneering
attack. IloXXaii' dxcuo-aj olha Bp'iaiv rhv ^6cj)ov, says Bdelycleon,
(Aristoph. Vesp. 436.) ; and certainly Mr. BrickneU's fig-leaves
appear to be of a no less crackling description.
8. With respect to the living " Bishop " who (it seems) has called
that an " abomination of desolation", which the Church and aU her
greatest Divines have so uniformly recommended, if Mr. Bricknell
has rightly quoted his words, why does he not inform us further, to
whom we are indebted for so important an opinion, and the important
effect it may naturaUy be expected to have.
So much for Mr. BrickneU's letter. I now proceed to furnish you
with the long-promised extracts from Walton's Lives, shewing clearly
the real opinions both of Hooker and of Sanderson on this subject : —
" About one day before his (Hooker's) death. Dr. Saravia, who
knew the very secrets of his soul, (for they were supposed to be
confessors to each other,) came to him, and, after a conference of the
benefit, the necessity, and safety of the Church's absolution, it was re
solved the Doctor should give him both that and the Sacrament the
day foUowing. To which end the Doctor came, and, after a short
retirement and privacy, they two retumed to the company ; and then
the Doctor gave him and some of those friends which were with him
the blessed Sacrament of the body and blood of our Jesus. Which
being performed, the Doctor thought he saw a reverend gaiety and
joy in his face;" &c. — Page 189, Christian Knowledge Society's
edition, London 1840.
" After his (Bishop Sanderson's) taking his bed, and about a day
before his death, he desired his Chaplain, Mr. PuUen, to give him
Absolution, and at his performing that Office, he pulled off his cap.

26 SIXTH LETTER OF ACADEMICUS
that Mr. PuUen might lay his Jiand upon his bare head. After this
desire of his was satisfied, his body seemed to be at more ease, and
his mind more cheerful ; " &c. — Ibid, p. 363.
I promised also another passage from Taylor. After shewing the
httle good that can be done by a Minister without such private con
fession, he proceeds to give twenty -four "arguments and exhortations
to move the sick man to confession of sins." As I cannot, however,
expect you to reprint the whole of these reasons, I shaU content my
self with observing that he speaks of it as a duty " so useful in aU
cases, so necessary in some, and encouraged by promises evangehcal,
by Scripture precedents, by the example of both Testaments, and
prescribed by injunctions apostolical, and by the Canon of aU
Churches, and the example of all ages, and taught us even by the
proportions of duty, and the analogy to the power ministerial, and the
very necessities of every man" ; (Holy Dying, chap. 5, § 3. p. 554, ed.
London, 1839.); — strongly recommending your readers to study
the whole chapter, or rather the whole work, for themselves.
Colher, in his Ecclesiastical History, has also enumerated some of
the principal arguments in favour of private confession, (part 2,
book 4, pp. 247, 248, ed. London, 1714.)4
See also Hammond on James v. 14 — 16. >¦ And here again one can
not but remark : — if the fruits of Confession, even when delayed to a
death-bed, are so good and valuable, — how much better must it be,
to take our spiritual disorders in time, and not leave to the last that
for which, it may be, uo last may be given.
I now proceed to redeem another promise. In his letter of Jan. 12,
Mr. BrickneU had taunted me with 'passing over the Fathers in
sUence'. In my reply to that letter (dated Jan. 18.) I pointed out
his mistake ; but being pleased with his impUed good feeUng towards
them, I promised to endeavour, before I had done with the subject,
to furnish him with one or two extracts. Mr. BrickneU, I am sorry
to find, appears in the mean time to have gone back ; as in his last
letter he says ' he shaU dechne to foUow me to tradition and the
Fathers.' However, I shaU keep my word, and hope that he wiU at
least so far change his mind as to read the foUowing passages, which
have been carefully (and as hterally as possible) translated from the
originals. Should he ever feel disposed to enter further on the study,
he wiU doubtless be able to obtain from his friends the requisite in
formation. First, then, it must be home in mind that aU those powerful ex-
^ An extract is given in the General Postscript.
Already partially referred to in the collection reprinted in Letter I. (p. 13.)

ON PRIVATE CONFESSION TO A PRIEST. 27
hortatlons to public confession and penance^ which are found in their
writings, apply a fortiori as a recommendation of the infinitely easier
duty of doing the same things in private.
Thus, then, for example, does Tertullian speak of public confession
and penance for the greater crimes : —
(1.) "I presume, however, that most men either shun this work,
or put it off from day to day, as a public exposure of themselves ; re
garding more their shame than their health ; hke those who, having
contracted disease in the more private parts of the body, avoid
making their physicians acquainted with it, and so perish -with their
bashfulness." — (De Poenitentia, cap. 10.)
(2.) " If thou drawest back from Confession, consider in thine
heart that heU which Confession quenches for thee ; and first picture
to thyself the greatness of the punishment, that thou mayest not
doubt concerning the adoption of the remedy." — (Ibid. cap. 12.)
(3.) "When, therefore, thou knowest that after that first defence
of the Baptism given by the Lord, there is yet in Confession a second
aid against heU, why neglectest thou thy salvation ? Why delayest
thou to take in hand that which thou knowest will heal thee ?" —
(Ibid.) And concerning pubUc absolution : —
" Is it better, being damned to remain hid, than to be absolved in
pubUc? {damnatum latere quam palam absolvi?)" — (Ibid. cap. 11.)
2. St. Cyprian, in his Liber de Lapsis, praises those who, by con
fessing to the Priests their having even entertained the thought of
giving way in a time of persecution, ' put forth the weight of their
' Penance, as the term is commonly applied, whether it be of that severer kind
which belonged to the public discipline of the ancient Church, or of those lighter
descriptions now enjoined by Priests after hearing confessions, and before giving
absolution, must be regarded as repentance, (or to use the Latin term penitence
or penance,) expressing itself in acts of self condemnation, abasement, and casti-
gation ; whereby the sinner anticipating, at least by some small act of acknow
ledgement, the righteous judgment of God due to his sins, unites himself to, and
thereby lays hold by faith upon, the satisfaction made upon the Cross by his
Saviour and Head, and so ' acceptmg the punishment of his iniquity' (Lev.
26. 43.), receives from Him, by the hands of His Priest, the gratuitous pardon
and absolution of his sins. And hence it will appear that, however desirable
heavier penances may be as a matter of discipline, yet as the heaviest penance
possible cannot really atone for our sins, or any part of them, so even a
very light one, being approved by the Priest, may serve effectually as an
adinowledgement of the nature described. It must be remembered, however, that
the lighter the penance prescribed by the Priest, the more it is recommended to
the penitent to practise self-discipline himself, to wear out thereby the scars and
stains which even his pardoned sins (if mortal) have left, together with whatever
else remains after 'thewz'cfetinessof hissin' (Ps. 32. 6.) has been forgiven; and to
remember both the letter and the spirit of that heavenly religion which enjoins us
aU to deny ourselves and take up our cross daily (Luke 9. 23.), to take leave
of all that we can call our own, (&y ovk oTroTtitrireTai irStn toTj ka.vrov virdpxoviTiy,
ch. 14. 33.), if we wish to be counted among the disciples of Christ.

28 SIXTH LETTER OF ACADEMICUS
conscience, and sought a salutary remedy even for small and mode
rate wounds, knowing that it is -written, God is not mocked' ; and
holding these up as an example to the rest, " Let each," says he, " I
entreat you, brethren, confess his transgression, whUe yet he who has
transgressed is in the world, whUe his confession can be received,
whUe the satisfaction and remission made by the Priests is acceptable
with the Lord." — (Operum, tom. 1. p. 341. ed. Wirceburgi, 1782.)
3. Origen, in his second HomUy on Le-viticus, says, "There is yet
a seventh remission of sins, . . . when he (the sinner) shrinks not
from shewing his sin to the Priests of the Lord, and seeking a remedy
&c."— (Tom. 2, p. 191, cob 1, B. C. ed. Bened.)
In his seventeenth HomUy on St. Luke : — " For if we do this, and
confess our sins not only to God, but to those also who are able to
heal our wounds and sins, our sins wiU be blotted out by Him Who
saith, Behold, I wUl blot out as a cloud thine iniquities, and as a
thick cloud thy sins." — (Tom. 3, p. 953, col. 1. A.)
4. St. BasU thus answers the two foUo-wing questions : —
(1.) "Whether forbidden actions should be declared without
shame to all, or to some, and who these are ?"
Answer. "... So also the confession of sins ought to be made to
those who are able to heal them." — (Regulse breviores, qu. 229,
tom. 2, p. 492. B, C. ed. Bened.)
(2.) " He who wishes to confess his sins, ought he to confess them
to aU and any persons, or to whom ?"
Ans. "... It is necessary that the sins be confessed to those who
are entrusted with the dispensation of the mysteries of God." — (Ibid.
qu. 288, p. 516. C, D.)
5. Pauhnus, in his Life of St. Ambrose written to St. Augustine,
(§ 39.), says of that Saint : —
" Whensoever any one, in order to receive penance, had confessed
his faults to him, he so wept as to compel the other to weep also :
for he seemed to himself to be prostrate -with him who was prostrate.
And the nature of the offences which he (the penitent) confessed, he
uttered to none but God, with Whom he interceded." — (Gallandii
Bibliotheca Veterum Patrum, tom. 9, p. 29, col. 1. C, D.)
6. St. Gregory of Nyssa : —
" Take also the Priest a partaker of thy affliction, as a father. . . .
Shew him, without bashfulness, the things hidden. Make bare the
secret parts of thy soul, as shewing to a physician a hidden malady :
he will take care both of thy honour and of thy cure." — (De Poenitentia,
parag. ult. ; tom. 2, p. 176. A, B. ed. Bened.)
7 . Pacian, in his Parcenesis ad Pcenitentiam : —
"What wilt thou do, who deceivest the Priest, &c. ... I entreat

ON PRIVATE CONFESSION TO A PRIEST. 29
you, therefore, brethren, . . . cease to cover a wounded conscience.
The sick, when wise, dread not the physicians." — (Pag. 7. ed. Paris.
1538.) 8. St. Jerome, on Eccl. x. 11. {literally. If the serpent bite
without whisper, then is there no advantage to the master of
tongue) : —
" Otherwise : If the serpent the de-vil have bitten a man in secret,
and, -without any one's knowing it, have infected him -with the venom
of sin, if he who has been smitten hold his peace, and do not the
deeds of repentance, and -wUl not confess his wound to his brother
and teacher (magistro), the teacher who has a tongue to heal cannot
easUy do him good. For if the sick man blush to confess his wound
to the physician, what it knows not of, medicine does not cure."
On Matt. xvi. 19 :
" According to his office, when he has heard the varieties of the
sins, he knows who is to be bound, who loosed."
9. St. Leo the Great, blaming a custom which some had intro
duced, of pubUshing to the congregation the sins for which public
penance was performed, says : —
" It is sufficient that the guUt of men's consciences be laid open
to the Priests alone in secret confession. . . . For that confession
suffices, which is offered first to God, then to the Priest also, who
draws near to pray for the sins of the penitents."- — (Ep. 136, ad
Episcopos Campania &c., cap. 2, p. 719, ed. Paris. 1675.)
And again : —
" So that they who had violated the gifts of regeneration, con
demning themselves by their own sentence, should come to the re
mission of their crimes ; the helps of the Divine goodness being so
ordered, that the forgiveness of God cannot be obtained [i. e. by
those who have -violated those gifts] but through the supplications of
the Priests."— (Ep. 82. (al. 91. or 108.) ad Theodorum, p. 605.)
The above passages wiU more than suffice, both to redeem my
promise, and to satisfy every reasonable mind, what the teaching of
the Fathers, and what the practice of the early Church was, on the
subject of private confession to a Priest.
I remain. Sir, your obedient servant,
March 11, 1842. ACADEMICUS.
N. B. Some alterations and additions have been made since last
week, with the view especially of finishing the subject at once.

GENERAL POSTSCRIPT.
Since the above Letters were written, I have looked out the pas
sages from Hooker, the references to which, as to all his other quota
tions, Mr. Bricknell persisted so remarkably in concealing ; and find
there, in the sixth book, and within a few pages of one another,
not merely those passages themselves, but also aU his accompanying
quotations, that from Burnet, which has already been noticed, alone
excepted. Why Mr. Bricknell should have wished to conceal the sources of
his quotations is a question I shaU not attempt to answer : what tem
porary advantage he has gained, or appeared to gain, by so doing, the
pubUc wiU see for themselves.
The quotations from Hooker were adduced not merely in oppo
sition to the real sentiments of that great Divine, — of this the
most moderate recoUection of his works, even without the decisive
argument of his own practice, (see Letter 6, p. 25',) would satisfy any
one — but further, in opposition to his own clear statements of his o-wn
views in the same place of his works from which Mr. BrickneU's
picked fragments were selected. I wUl give the references which Mr.
Bricknell withheld, and enable the reader to judge for himself.
I. His first quotation was : "the Church hath hitherto thought it the
wiser way to refer men's hidden sins unto God and themselves only",
from Book VI. ch. $ 15. vol. 3. p. 50. second University (Keble's)
edition. That this relates oidy to the question of compelling or not
compelling, is clear from the sentence next before, in which he says
that the Church of England imposes on the people " no such neces
sity" " of opening their transgressions unto men, as if remission of
sins otherwise were impossible," nor regards the thing itself " as
though it were either unlawful or unprofitable, save only for these
inconveniences, which the world hath by experience observed in it
heretofore," i. e. (of couise) in compulsory, not in voluntary, con
fession to man. To this it is obvious that the term "experience"
distinctly refers: indeed, if anything else but absolutely necessai-y
confession had been spoken of, to what purpose would the preceding
words have been so carefully selected and defined : "no such ne
cessity as if remission of sins were otherwise impossible."
II. His next passage, "They are men," &c. wiU be found in
fuU in § 6. p. 23. It wiU be the less necessary to dweU upon it,
because Mr. BrickneU himsetf wiU not pretend to say that this pas-
' See also the second note to the first Letter, p. 11.

GENERAL POSTSCRIPT. 31
sage opposes anything more than what itself expresses, viz. "any such
necessity." I shall therefore content myself with remarking, that the
word "such" relates exclusively (as the reader wiU naturally anticipate)
to the view taken by the Church of Rome ; and that though Hooker
says that the Fathers of the first three centuries " did not gather by
our Saviour's words any such necessity" for private confession, he
adds, that pubUc confession (i.e. of the greater offences) they did
think necessary by way of discipline.
III. Next comes a memorable passage in Greek ; memorable at least
for this, — for the torture to which it has been put in its captor's
unhappy attempt to introduce it in that ancient garb, in preference
to a dress of plain British manufacture, such as Hooker had given it
in his text. In consequence of this unfortunate desire on Mr.
BrickneU's part, it has endured, not indeed mutilation, but what is
perhaps scarcely less painful, the incorporation of a' very awkward
excrescence. To speak plainly, Mr. BrickneU, in consequence, I
should suppose, of the want of a stop in his edition of Hooker, has
taken the title of the homily (or rather portion of homily) from
which that Di-vine had quoted in the margin, for a part of the quota
tion itself.
Hooker's Greek quotation, taken from the margin of p. 46. (§. 13.
note 22.) was :
" Chrys. Hom. rr^pl fxeravolas Kal c^oixoXoyrjaeas. rrapa Tols Xoyta-pois
ycveoSai tujv 7r€7r\T]ppe\r]^€VQ}v rj e^eracis' dpdprvpov fo-Toa to dLKaaTrjptoW
6 Geoff Spared pouos e^opoXoyovpepov.
Mr. Bricknell, whose intention it was not to let his readers know
either to whose researches he was indebted for his quotations, or
whence they were originally derived, of course omitted the words
" Chrys. Hom.", and would of course have omitted the foUowing
words, TTipl peravolas Kal e^opoXoyrjo-eais, (concerning repentance and
confession,) had he perceived them to be merely the title of the
homily (or supposed homily, in reality an extract from a homUy,)
from which the passage itself was drawn. This however I suppose
the want of a stop after i^ofioKoyfja-eais in his edition prevented him
from perceiving ; at least in the only edition besides Keble's to which
I have referred, I observe that it is so wanting.
This however is a trifling error if compared with that into which
he has fallen with respect to the sense of the passage itself; which
indeed is such as may weU be a standing warning both to himself
and others, of the danger of a careless way of adopting other people's
quotations. The Greek which Mr. BrickneU has given, reads in
English as foUows :
" Let the enquiry of the offences be made in the thoughts ; let

32 GENERAL POSTSCRIPT.
the tribunal be without witness; let God alone see (thee) con
fessing." Taken by themselves, these words certainly do not appear particu
larly favourable to Auricular Confession : they shall now be seen
in connection with what goes before and after.
" But dost thou feel shame and blush to declare thy sins ? It
were most fitting, even if thou hadst to teU and usher them forth
before men also, not even so to be ashamed ; for it is a shame to
commit, not to confess sins. Now however there is no necessity to
confess them in the presence of witnesses. Let the enquiry of the
offences be made in the thoughts of him who is conscious ; let the
tribunal be without witness. Let God alone see thee confessing,
God who upbraideth not with the sins, but pardoneth the sins
upon- the confession. And dost thou even so delay and refuse ?"
The difference of the idea conveyed by the let of the picked bit and
of the whole passage is striking. When taken by itself it looks hke
a recommendation : when read in its connection, no one can suppose
that it is any thing more than a concession to those who were not
in a state, or not prepared, to attempt more.
IV. His last passage from Hooker, " No, no : these opinions have
youth in their countenance, antiquity knew them not, it never thought
nor dreamed of them", is from the text of Hooker (ibid. p. 47), and
relates only to " that extreme and rigorous necessity of auricular and
private confession which is at this day so mightily upheld by the Church
of Rome" I
So much for Mr. BrickneU's quotations from Hooker. I wiU
now take the liberty of introducing to the reader, without Mr.
BrickneU's help, two more passages of Hooker, the first of which
follows almost immediately, the other at a very short distance, after
Mr. BrickneU's last citation from him :
1. "In the order which Christian rehgion hath taught for
procurement of God's mercy towards sinners, confession is acknow
ledged a principal duty; yea, in some cases, confession to man, not to
God only : it is not in the Reformed Chmxhes denied by the leameder
sort of divines, but that even this confession, cleared from all errors,
is both lawful and behoveful for God's people." § 14. p. 47.
2. " But concerning confession in private, the Churches of Germany,
as weU the rest as Lutherans, agree that aU men should at certain
times confess their offences to God in the hearing of God's Ministers,
thereby to shew how their sins displease them, to receive instmction
for the warier carnage of themselves hereafter, to be soundly resolved,
if any scruple or snare of conscience do entangle their minds, and,
which is most material, to the end that men may at God's hands

GENERAL POSTSCRIPT. 33
seek every one his own particular pardon, through the power of
those keys, which the Minister of God using according to our blessed
Saviour's institution in that case, it is their part to accept the benefit
thereof as God's most merciful ordinance for their good, and -without
any distnist or doubt, to embrace joyfuUy His grace so given them,
according to the word of our Lord, Which hath said. Whose sins ye
remit are remitted. Bo that grounding upon this assured beUef, they
are to rest with minds encouraged and persuaded concerning the
forgiveness of aU their sins, as out of Christ's own word and power
by the ministry of the keys." P. 48.
I now leave it to the reader to judge how much reason Mr. Brick
nell had for the innocent surprise his third letter expresses at my
claiming Hooker altogether as a witness in favour of private confession.
(Letter 3, p. 16.)
V. The only passage which remains to be noticed, is that from
JeweU, which wUl also be found in the margin of Hooker, (§ 15.
p. 50. note 29.), as foUows: "As for private confession, abuses
and errors set apart, we condemn it not, but leave it at liberty. —
Jewell, Defens. p. 156." In the editions of 1609 and 1611 (the
latter of which is cited by Keble) it is given as foUows (p. 158) :
"Abuses and errors removed, and especiaUy the Priest being leamed,
we mislike no manner confession, be it private or public."

I have mentioned in the Preface Mr. Wordsworth's very valuable
Appendix to his late Sermon on Evangelical Repentance. I wiU
now present the reader -with a specimen of the important documents
coUected therein, beginning -with the sentiments of the English
Monumental Reformers with regard to Auricular Confession.
1. For Cranmer' s opinions I shaU refer the reader to the above
named Appendix itself, p. 71, 72, with the note.
2. Those of Latimer are expressed as foUows : ' " But to speak ctf
right and trae Confession, / would to God it were kept in England;
for it is a good thing. And those which find themselves grieved
in conscience might go to a learned man, and there fetch of him
comfort of the word of God, and so come to a quiet conscience.
 And sure it grieveth me much that such confessions are not kept
in England, ^c."— Sermon on the Third Sunday after Epiphany, vol. ii.
p. 852.' App, p. &9. c

34 GENERAL POSTSCRIPT.
3. Ridley writes, — ' " Confession unto the Minister, which is able to
instruct, correct, comfort, and inform the weak, wounded, and igno
rant conscience, indeed I ever thought might do much good to Christ's
congregation, and so, I assure you, I think even at this day." — Letter to
one Master West, sometime his chaplain ; from Fox. See Eccles.
Biog., vol. in. p. 67.' App. p. 71.
The opinions of the Continental Reformers may be gathered partly
from the last cited passage of Hooker, but more fully from a note of
Mr. Wordsworth's, App. pp. 69 — 71.
Mr. Wordsworth observes: " It is right that those who are content
to look no higher than the Reformation, and so decline all appeal to
the practice of the primitive Church, should bear in mind what the
opinion and avowed principle even of the foreign Reformers, — of the
true and original Protestants themselves, was upon this point, how
ever little it has been acted out by those who profess to be their
followers." He then proceeds to give Latin extracts from the Con
fessions of Faith of the foreign Reformed Churches, and from the writ
ten opinions of the foreign Reformers, Cal-vin himself included. For
these I shall refer to the note itself, observing only that the extracts
both from the Augsburg and from the Scixon Confessions declare that
the rite of private absolution is to be retained in the Church, the latter
Confession adding, " and we firmly (constanter) retain it", and the
second Augsburg Confession even saying, that "to take away private
absolution out of the Church would be impious" ; while the order of
the Church of Lunenburg "very strictly (admodum severi) enjoins
that the Eucharist is not to be communicated to any one who has
not confessed and been absolved by private absolution, forbidding
pastors hereafter to absolve two or three at once."
I shall now add, from the same valuable collection, a few more
specimens of the way in which our own later Divines have treated
the subject.
1. Bp. ^Mrfrewes ironically observes : "' One we must have to know
thoroughly the state of our lands or goods : one we must have en
tirely acquainted with the state of our body : in our souls it holdeth not :
J say no more : it were good it did." — Sermon IV. on Whitsunday,
p. 636, fol. edit.' App. p. 74.
2. Bp. Moreton. — ' " It is not questioned between us whether it be
convenient for a man burthened -with sin to lay open his conscience
in private unto the minister of God, and to seek at his hands both
counsel of instruction, and the comfort of God's pardon." — Catholic
Appeal, lib. ii. cap. 14.' App. p. 76.
3. King James I. — ' "For my part, with Calvin (Inst. lib. iii. c. iv.
§ 12), I commend confession, even privately to a Cliurchman, and

GENERAL POSTSCRIPT. 35
/ wish with all my heart it were more in custom among us than it is,
as a thing of excellent use, especially of preparing men to receive the
Sacrament." — Medit. upon the Lord's Prayer.' Ibid.
4. Dr. Crackanthorpe (in Lat.) — '"We have abrogated neither
private confession nor private absolution." — Def. Eccl. Angl,, p. 605.'
App. p. 77.
5. Bp. Montague. — ' " It is confessed that private confession to a
priest is of very ancient practice in the Church ; of exceUent use and
practice, being discreetly handled. We refuse it to none, if men
require it, if need be to have it. We urge it and persuade it in
extremes. We urge it in case of perplexity, for the quieting of
men disturbed, and their consciences." — Ans. to the late Gagger,
p. 83.' Ibid.
6. Dr. Donne, — " ' This is the Sacrament of Confession. So we may
call it in a safe meaning ; that is the Mystery of Confession : for
Confession is a mysterious thing  If God had appointed
His Angels or His Saints to absolve me, as He hath His Ministers, I
would confess to them  Men come not wUlingly to this mani
festation of themselves  None of aU the Reformed Churches
have forbidden confession, though some practise it less than others.
 And this useful and un-mis-interpretable Confession is the
more recommended to us, in that with which David shuts up his act
.... adversilm se (Ps. xxxii. 5, as out of St. Jerom and our former
translation)  The more I find Confession or any reUgious prac
tice repugnant to mine own nature, the further I will go in it.'' Serm.
Iviii. voL i. p. 582, 589.' App. p. 78.
7. Archbishop Usher. — ' " Be it therefore known . . . that no kind
of confession, either public or private, is disallowed by us, that is any
way requisite for the due execution of that ancient power of the keys
which Christ bestowed upon His Church." Answer to a Jesuit's
Challenge. Of Confession, p. 82.'
"Otherwise neither they," (the ancient Fathers,) "nor we do
debar men from opening their grievances unto the physicians of
their souls ; either for their better information in the trae state of
their disease ; or for the quieting of their troubled consciences ; or
for receiving further direction from them out of God's word, both for
the recovery of their present sickness, and for the prevention of the
Uke danger in the time to come  But when it is not taken in
time, but suffered to fester and wrankle, the cure -wiU not now prove
to be so easy" (as to be effected by confession to God only) 
" At such a time as this, then, when the sinner can find no ease at
home, what should he do but use the best means he can find abroad ?
Is there no balm in Gileadi* Is thert no physician there!'  which

36 GENERAL POSTSCRIPT.
kind of medicinal confession we well approve of, and acknowledge io
have been ordinarily prescribed by the ancient Fathers for the cure of
secret sins.
" But as for notorious offences which bred open scandal, private
confession was not thought sufficient : but there was further required
public acknowledgement of the fault, and the solemn use of the keys
for the reconciliation of the penitent." Ibid. p. 89 — 92.
" We acknowledge most wiUingly that the principal part of
the Priest's ministry is exercised in the matter oi forgiveness of sins."
Ibid. Of the Priest's Potver, p. 109.' App. p. 79.
8. Dr, Heylin. — '"For confession to be made to the Priest or
Minister, it is agreeable both to the doctrine and intent of the Church of
England, though not so much in practice as it ought to be." Theolog.
Veterum, p. 455.' App. p. 81.
9. Dr. Hammond. — ' " And if it be now demanded of me, whe
ther private absolution be not contained under the importance of
these places ? I answer that this last distinction hath in effect
answered this question, and defined that in case of private binding
it doth come under it, and that that, though in some sense it be left
ad libitum, or voluntary to the penitent's wiU or choice, is yet neces
sary to every one whose conscience either is not able to perform and
go through the work of inward repentance with God alone, or is not
able to satisfy itself with such performance -without the Minister's
assistance caUed in." Of the Power of the Keys, ch. iv. § 103.'
App. p. 82.
' " There -wiUbe little matter of doubt or controversy, but that^r;-
vate, frequent, spiritual conference betwixt feUow- Christians, but
especiaUy (and in matters of high concernment and difficulty) be
twixt the Presbyter and those of his charge, even in time of health ;
and peculiarly that part of it which is spent in the discussion of every
man's special sins, and infirmities and inclinations, may prove very
useful and advantageous (in order to spiritual directions, reproof and
comfort) to the making the man of God perfect. And to tell truth, if
the pride and self-conceit of some, the wretchlessness of others, the bash
fulness of a third sort, the nauseating and instant satiety of any good in
a fourth, the follies of men and artifices of Satan, had not put this practice
quite out of fashion among us, there is no doubt but that more good
might be done by ministers this way, than is now done by any other
means separated from the use of this ; particularly than by that of
public preaching, (which yet need not be neglected the more when
this is used,) which hath now the fate to be cried up, and almost
solely to be depended on ; it being the likelier way, as QuintiUan saith,
(comparing pubhc and private teaching of youth,) to fill narrow-

GENERAL POSTSCRIPT. 37
mouthed bottles, (and such are the most of us,) by taking them single
in the hand, and pouring in water into each, than by setting them all
together, and throwing never so many buckets of water on them."
Ibid, sect 104. p. 449.' App. p. 83.
10. Herbert Thorndike. — ' " / must freely glorify God by freely pro
fessing, that, in my judgment, no Christian kingdom or state can main
tain itself to be that which it pretendeth more effectually, than by giving
force and effect to the law of private confession once a year, by such
means as may seem both requisite and effectual to enforce it. Not
that I do condemn that order which the Church of England, at the
Reformation, contented itself with, (as rendering the reformation
thereof no reformation, and leaving men destitute of sufficient means
for the remission of sin after baptism,) to leave it to the discretion
and conscience of those who found themselves burdened with sin,
to seek help by the means of their pastors, as appeareth both in the
Communion Service and in the Visitation of the Sick ; but because
I see the Church of England \i3.th. failed of that great piece of refor
mation which it aimed at in this point, to wit, the retrieving of public
penance. This aim you shall find expressed in the beginning of
the Commination against Sinners, in these words, ' Brethren,' &c.
What is the reason that so godly a desire of so evident a reformation
could not take place, when reformation in the Church was so generaUy
sought, (besides those common obstructions which aU good pretences
[i. e. proposals] will necessarily find in all communities of Chris
tians,) I shall not much labour to persuade him that shaU consider
the tares of Puritanism to have been sowed together with the grain
of reformation in the Church of England." Epilogue &c., book in.
On the Laws of the Church, chap. ix^. p. 104.' App. p. 86.
1 1 . Bishop Taylor. — ' " When a penitent confesses his sin, the holy
man that ministers to liis repentance, and hears his confession,
must not without great cause lessen the shame of the repenting man ;
he must directly encourage the duty, but not add confidence 
Let nothing be offered to lessen the hatred or the greatness of
the sin, lest a temptation to sin hereafter be sowed in the furrows
of the present repentance." On Repentance, chap. x. sect. vin.
§ 105. " There are many sad contingencies in the constitution of
Ecclesiastical affabs, in which every man that needs this help, and
would fain make use of it, cannot ; but when he can meet with the
blessing, it were well it were more frequently and more readily enter
tained." Ibid. § 110. See the whole section.' App. p. 89.
12. Dr. Robert South, — ' " So much oi private confession as may be

38 GENERAL POSTSCRIPT.
of spiritual use for the disburthening of a troubled conscience ....
So much, I confess, the Church of England does approve, ad-vise, and
allow of. I say it does advise it, and that as a sovereign expedient,
proper in the nature and reason of the thing." Sermons, vol. iv.
p. 212.' App. p. 90.
13. Dr. George Hickes. — '"It is most certain that the primitive
Church never accounted a sinner to be justified, however humble and
CONTRITE, till he had obtained Sacerdotal Absolution." Two Treatises,
Sfc' App. p. 91.
14. Dr. Jeremy Collier. — ' "That Auricular Confession is attended with
advantage seems not ill proved by Erasmus. I shaU mention a little
of his reasoning upon this subject. In the first place he takes notice,
that pride is the main principle of revolt and disobedience 
The making a discovery of our lives  cannot be done without
some conquest upon pride. The shame of repeating this discipline
makes a man more guarded in his practice, and is a sort of preserva
tive against a relapse. Besides the penitent, by laying the state of
his conscience before a Priest, is better acquainted with the degrees
of his guUt, and the danger of his miscarriage. To this he adds,
when the disease is known, the cure is more practicable, and the
remedies may he better directed." Eccl. Hist, part ii. book iv. vol.
V. p. 258, 9.' App. p. 93.
"And can we imagine that words so plain (Whosesoever sins ye
remit, &c.) in the expression, and so solemn in the occasion, are void
of weight and signification ? Not to mention the right they imply
of admitting into the Church, and excluding from it — not to mention
this, they must amount to this meaning at the lowest, that those who
neglect this ordinance of God, and [having need] refuse to apply for
absolution to persons thus authorized, shall not have their sins for
given them, though othenuise not unqualified." Ibid. p. 262.' .^pp.
p. 93.

In conclusion, it may be observed, that in proportion as men
realise tbe presence and tbe hoUness of Him to whom their sins are
already known, and therefore in proportion to the value of their
confessions to God Himself, in that same proportion will confession
to man become, in comparison at least, a less fearful thing. But to
diminish this fear is assuredlv to diminish one of the chief obstacles

GENERAL POSTSCRIPT. 39
to a right estimation, as well of the truth of the argument, as also of
the great advantages to be derived from the practice. Without this
bias men could hardly escape the reflection, that if aU must one day
confess their sins publicly, and that under circumstances so very
terrible, it cannot be without its use to begin now, and accustom
ourselves, in a degree at least, to that which must then be so fuUy
and so fearfully gone through with. And what kind of friends -wUl
they then be thought, who, by disparaging confession and self-denial
now, lead men to neglect for present ease the faithful performance of
duties which, however painful to do, it wiU ever be a source of com
fort to have done.

THB KND.

OXFOHD : PRINTED BY I. SHKIMPTON.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 02497 4488

VA.LE
PROJC'^TII ^^