the heart-crushing tendencies of politics-and from the faithdestroying examples of the crowded world. Amid these men, we find bosoms swelling with pity for the martyred Protestants, and indignation at the cruelties inflicted on them. Their instances of sympathy stand as green and refreshing spots in an oasis of impurity and cruelty. To their voluntary remonstrances we attribute the capricious returns to mercy occasionally mani fested by the monarch and his ministers: to the withering influence of the proud prelates, and the oily Jesuits about the throne, we attribute the as sudden recourse had to cruelty. These opposite influences we trace in the government decrees, some of which commence with approving of the good feeling manifested by the rural clergy for the reformers, and end by condemning it. They open with promises of clemency, and end with denunciations of death; they forgive, condemu, again forgive, revoke, once more promise pardon, and so go on alternately administering hope and dealing despair, as though insanity had smitten the unsteady mind which, infirm of purpose thus decreed, but which more incontestably proves that double influences worked on this mental debility-and that, with incli nation to listen to the whisperings of mercy, there was also a compulsion they dared not resist, to obey the deadly decrees of the heads of a Church which then in France, as only last month -in Austria, forced from the government a denunciation against every confession save that taught by Rome; and acknowledged, without being followed, by the princes, parasites, and prostitutes of Versailles.

It will be seen that we attribute to the apostacy and wickedness of Madame de Maintenon, working for the Jesuits on a profligate and superstitious king, most of the evils which pressed so intolerably upon the Protestants of France. The long chain of penalties and suffering may be traced back to her influence. It was a chain that continued unbroken until the horrible affair of the Calas family; and this affair, the most cruel of any in the history of religious persecution, singularly enough, 'speaking humanly, contributed to hasten the progress of religious toleration t in France. This sad story is fully and eloquently narrated by M. Coquerel, as such a story, which attracted the notice and ed t e notice indignation of all Europe, well deserved.

But we must pause; nor can we enter, as we designed to have done, into the consideration of many subjects connected with the question of religious liberty. It must suffice to say that the book before us confirms the truth of an assertion that we have frequently made-that the spirit of Popery is a persecuting spirit. That Protestant governments have, on their

side, dealt severity with their Popish subjects, we shall not attempt to deny. But, it must be remembered, that such severity.. was generally employed, not for offences against the established religion, but for crimes committed or expected against the throne and its authorities. Our own penal laws are directedagainst Popish traitors, because the Crown knew, for a longe time, no danger but such as threatened from, the sides of Popish councils. It was long the object and the interest of the Papists. of England, for instance, to overthrow the constituted order of things. When the religion of the state was not the religion which they acknowledged, they became hostile not only to the. Church of the State, but to the head of both: hence, the severe enactments. With the French Protestants the case was different their loyalty was unimpeachable-they were persecuted, not for being bad subjects, but purely because they were reformed churchmen. The difference should not be lost sight of Protestantism tolerates all religious opinions save those which may inculcate (as Popery once did) disloyalty to a Protestant throne; but Popery acknowledges no faith, let it teach as it may the duties of faithful subjects, but that springing from Rome. Loyalty to the temporal prince is in itself no recommendation to Romish powers, unless it be divided with the spiritual sovereign who still totters upon the Seven Hills.

T

ART. VI. Entire Absolution of the Penitent. A Sermon, mostly preached before the University, in the Cathedral Church of Christ, in Oxford, on the Fourth Sunday after Epiphany, 1846. By the Rev. E. B. PUSEY, D.D., Regius Professor of Hebrew, Canon of Christ's Church, and late Fellow oft Oriel College. Oxford: Parker,

THE period which was assigned to the suspension of Dr. Pusey it from the privilege of preaching before the University of Oxford, having, expired, and his turn having again come round, that, learned professor, as our readers are aware, returned to the pulpit at Christ Church, on the 1st of February, and the ser mon which he then addressed to his audience is that which has been given to the public under the above title.

nob

Until the moment arrived, at which the curiosity of those who were interested in the movements of Dr. Pusey was gratified, the utmost excitement prevailed; nay, it was carried to such a pitch as to be in no little degree reprehensible; but no sooner

had the sermon been delivered than it passed away, and is already reckoned among the things that have been: no one hardly speaks of the sermon-few read it—and, as is usual in such a state of things, booksellers begin to complain.

But are the mighty fallen on that account? Is the party annihilated or subdued? Is Dr. Pusey a true penitent, or are we to have some fresh developments of error through his agency? Does the silence of the university, as a body, or that of individual theologians, amount to a denial of all suspicion of heresy, or to a declaration of peace? We cannot say that we look upon it in this light. We do not think that either the university or individuals are satisfied-much less willing to come to any compromise; but that there is a disposition to allow of the fullest extent of license, before they will found, upon anything that is done or said, penal measures: they are anxious to bear, as much as possible upon the side of leniency, that no cavil may be raised against their proceedings.

There was, indeed, a party who thought that Dr. Pusey would, on his return to the pulpit, carry out to a fuller.extent the principles that he had before enunciated, and that, having summed them up with an amount of heresy that should be pal-· pable, would resign his position in the university, so as at once to avoid the consequences of his conduct, and follow those friends who, in publicly joining Rome, have contributed somewhat to his difficulties; but such a course was not necessary, and has not been adopted by him. We have before us a sermon, in many respects, of great beauty-much mildness of language and such as was calculated, on its delivery, to impress his hearers with respect; one, therefore, which was well adapted to the circumstances of the situation in which he was placed, as a preacher, at that particular moment. But, although it is one which was calculated to meet the difficulties of his situation, so far as the moment of delivery was concerned, and perhaps to carry him over the immediate dangers that might result from the peculiar method in which he treated his subject (and, indeed, it appears to have been successful, if we may gather anything from the calmness which reigns upon the subject), there is, as our readers will perceive when they come to examine the sermon, not only no apology for his previous conduct, but a reiteration of its principles; not only a reiteration of them, but a republication of Roman predilections, though, as was to be expected from the peculiarity of his situation, they be ingeniously veiled.

Our author does not, it is true, talk now of a sacrifice begun at the moment of the institution of the sacrament of the Lord's

Supper continued on the cross-and, afterwards carried on, down to the remotest period in the administration of the sacrament :* when he speaks of a sacrifice in the sacrament, he is content to call it commemorative, and to shelter himself under Bishop Wilson's words (and, as adopting his words, he must of course be supposed to use them in the same sense as he did); but he speaks of the entire absolution of the penitent, and, as we shall have occasion to see in our examination of the sermon, speaks of it as the result of a power inherent in the clergy by the express covenant of their commission; a doctrine that is no less removed from that of the Church of England than was the former, though it comes to us in a more becoming dress, and in a form that is more seductive. But we will give a sketch of the sermon, and then proceed to our observations, first selecting, from the doctor's preface, enough to show what was his meaning and what not, as he is himself pleased to declare in the coolness of deliberation, when we may suppose the sermon to have been preached, and to have passed agreeably to his most sanguine expectations:

"The writer of the present sermon has already stated, in the course of it, what was not, as well as what was his object; yet it may pos sibly save some misunderstanding here to re-state it: its object is, the relief of individual penitents. Consciences are burdened. There is a provision, on the part of God, in his Church to relieve them. They wish to be, and to know that they are, in a state of grace. God has provided us means, however deeply any have fallen, to replace them in it. They feel that they cannot take off their own burden, loose the chains of their past sins, and set themselves free to serve God; they look for some act out of themselves, if there be one, which shall do this-God has provided it; they want something to sever between past and future, that they may begin anew. By his absolving sentence, God does efface the past. They cannot estimate their own repentance and faith. He has provided physicians of the soul to relieve and judge for those who open their griefs to them. They wish to know how to overcome besetting temptations; God has provided those, experienced in the sad history of man's sins and sorrows, who can tell them how others, through the grace of God, have overcome them (p. iii.)

He then speaks of certain cases in which absolution is admitted by the Church in a form which may be said to be special, and then goes on to argue, that, though the Church does not require confession, she does not hinder it. Thus he says:

"Our Church, in leaving her children free, did not mean to stint the use of the gifts entrusted to her, to force all consciences to one level;

*See upon this point an article "On the presence of Christ in the Eucha rist," in No. XXXV. of our Review, published July 1845.

nor because she does not require confession, therefore (as some now would seem to interpret her), by an opposite constraint to that which she laid aside, to hinder or withhold them from it. It was beautifully said in her first Liturgy*requiring such as shall 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 consciences, 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; bnt in all things to follow and keep the rule of charity and every man to be satisfied with his own conscience, not judging other men's minds and consciences; whereas he hath no warrant of God's word to the same.' And in later days, the principle of our Church was briefly characterized by a bishop belonging to an acknowledged English school." It is confessed that private confession to a priest is of very ancient practice in the Church; of excellent 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 a case of perplexity, for the quicting of men disturbed in their consciences.'" (pp. viii. ix.) But not only is it argued that auricular confession is useful for the quieting of perplexed minds :

:

"But as was said, she (the Church) restricted it not to the cases in which she recommended it. She did not, therefore, discourage it, when she ceased to urge it. We must believe that she who encouraged it in these cases would have recommended it in any other, if the need had then arisen, when she was free to recommend anything. Such a deep need, then, has arisen in the case of our yonth" (pp. ix. x.)

Now it is very plain, that the Church of England has not recommended the use of auricular confession to the extent that Dr. Pusey would desire; and most certain that she has not recommended it to be used with children; and, when he says that it would have been resorted to, had occasion arisen, and goes on to say that such occasion has arisen in the case of youth, he would have us infer that the absence of the recommendation arose from the absence of need, up to the time in which he speaks of it as having arisen. It is, however, true that there is nothing in sin now that was absent from it formerly-it was as hateful to God then, as now; and there is nothing in penitence now that was absent formerly, the sting of sin being at all times the same. And, therefore, we must infer that the absence of the recommendation arose not from the absence of the charac teristic of penitence, the intense hatred of the first approach to

"The Book of Common Prayer, &c., 1549." (Pusey's Preface, p. viii.) "Bishop Montague, quoted by Wordsworth, p. 77," (Pusey's Preface, p. ix.)