counted for a sacrament of the Gospel, and, as judged by her formularies, knows no such words as Sacramental Confession." And in this same declaration, commenting on the two instances wherein the Book of Common Prayer recommends seeking the aid of a clergyman, is it said: "Thus special provision, however, does not authorize the ministers of the Church to require, of any who may resort to them to open their grief, a particular or detailed enumeration of their sins; or to require private confession previous to receiving the holy communion; or to enjoin, or even encourage, any practice of habitual confession to a priest; or to teach that such practice of habitual confession, or the being subject to what has been termed the direction of a priest, is a condition of attaining to the highest spiritual life." By far the greater majority of the clergy and laity endorse, heart and soul, this declaration.

Notwithstanding these clear utterances in Convocation, young curates and vicars took to themselves authority, and began to hear confession and pronounce absolution. These gentlemen had never been prepared for the work: in their course of ecclesiastical studies the hearing of confessions and the absolving from sin were never contemplated; they had to obtain their knowledge from the manuals in use among Catholic priests. Their bishops neither would nor could give them authority; and so these clergymen became an authority to themselves, and declared they had power to forgive sin, merely because they were ordained priests. Such a pretension could not be made by any priest or bishop of the Catholic Church, however valid may be his orders. To the sacramental power of orders must be added juridical authority to absolve. This, in the divine economy, as will be shown later, is the means whereby the exercise of such a power can be duly controlled.

Such was the movement in England. I find it transported to the United States. And I am told by honorable trustworthy people that in Boston, New York, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and other cities, there are Episcopalian clergymen who insist that their penitents shall confess at regular intervals.[54] That such a fact is possible, or that persons should be found ready to submit themselves to such a self-asserted ministry, is simply incredible in face of the clear declaration of the Thirty-nine Articles, the official commentary of the Book of Homilies cited above, the formal condemnation of the English bishops, and the intentional omission of the only two passages referring to confession from the Book of Common Prayer used in America.

In the United States it is the more inexplicable, inasmuch as by the Declaration of Independence there could be no jurisdiction derived from the Crown of England. And, consequently, the Episcopal Church, formed as it was after the Independence, could not, from the nature of the case, receive jurisdiction from without. It formed itself into a corporation, and its only authority was generated by itself. But that of confessing and absolving from sin could not have been so created: no more than it could have been done by the Episcopal Methodist, the Presbyterian, the Quaker, or any other religions corporation. It is not unreasonable in a matter so grave, affecting the eternal salvation of men, to ask of these gentlemen, calling themselves Reverend Father Confessors, by what authority do they these things, and who gave them this authority. Assuredly, their bishops declare they do not, and cannot. Excellent and beyond reproach as are these clergymen, well-instructed as they may be in the casuistry of the Roman Catholic moral, theological, and ascetical works, their absolutions are null and void, and of no more avail than if pronounced by mere laymen. The joy and peace produced in the souls of many who submit to these ministrations, arise not from the genuineness of the ordinance. God in His goodness rewards the honest intentions, the good dispositions, and faith of those who receive them. The same manifestations of grace are found among Methodists and Presbyterians; Episcopalians would be the first to deny the reality and truth of Sacraments in these bodies.

But, it may be asked, how has such a change been wrought in the minds of Episcopalians on both sides of the Atlantic? The Oxford movement of some forty-five years ago turned men's minds to the early history of the Church: and, finding confession and absolution then to be the ordinary and necessary conditions for reconciliation with God, the practice was introduced, but without seeing the important truth that, besides valid ordination, there is needed jurisdiction from the Church, so as to make absolution of avail.

This new school of religions opinion among Anglican and Protestant Episcopalians contributes its share of testimony to uphold what the Church of God has always taught, namely, that over and above having a genuine supernatural sorrow for sin, there is ordinarily required on the part of the sinner confession of sin, followed by the judicial absolution of God's minister, approved and commissioned by the Church, who alone possesses the power of the keys to remit or retain sin, and who has therefore the sole right to approve and authorize confessors.

The constant practice of the Roman Church; the belief and practice of the earliest schismatics; the existence of the Penitential Canons; the statements of the Fathers, representatives of all Christian lands in the first five centuries, when Latins and Greeks were in the "Undivided Church"; the discovery made by High Churchmen in our day: render, separately and cumulatively, evidence to the belief in "Confession and Absolution" which no reasonable man can or ought to reject. It is plain that had so painful a task as the confessing of sin to man not been of Apostolic origin, assuredly its introduction to the Christian Church would have caused the bitterest struggle, and the date of such a movement would have been indelibly impressed on the page of history. But no such strife is recorded.

Well, therefore, did the Church, assembled in General Council at Trent, having first taught and defined the nature of contrition or repentance, sum up the question of confession: "It is certain that, in the Church, nothing else is required of penitents but that, after each has examined himself diligently, and searched all the folds and recesses of his conscience, he confess those sins by which he shall remember that he has mortally offended his Lord and God; whilst the other sins, which do not occur to him after diligent thought, are understood to be included, as a whole, in that same confession; for which sins we confidently say with the prophet: 'From my secret sins cleanse me, O Lord.' Now, the difficulty of a confession like this, and the shame of making known one's sins, might indeed seem a grievous thing, were it not alleviated by the so many and so great advantages and consolations which are most assuredly bestowed by absolution upon all who worthily approach to this sacrament. For the rest, as to the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, although Christ has not forbidden that a person may, in punishment of his sins, and for his own humiliation, as well for an example to others for the edification of the Church that has been scandalized, confess his sins publicly, nevertheless, this is not commanded by a divine precept; neither would it be very prudent to enjoin, by any human law, that sins, especially such as are secret, should be made known by a public confession. Wherefore, whereas the secret sacramental confession, which was in use from the beginning in Holy Church, and is still also in use, has