their Office and reject their authority. Who does not see the unfairness of such a course? Who does not feel the justice of the Church's declaration, that "they who break laws cannot in reason claim any benefit by the same." (Canon 98.) Surely the British people ought to apply the same rule to this attack on their French fellow-Christians.

We have said that our time and limits will not allow us to follow the writer through the detail of his attacks; so much only we will say, that he betrays a profound contempt for the female sex, such as Christianity certainly would not have taught him. It is not Christian womanhood, which is so weak and fluctuating as he describes it; neither can we meet with charges like some of those which are here advanced, without feeling sure that they must rebound on him who makes them. When a man can charge Fénélon with the self-interested sacrifice of a person who had been entrusted to him, (pp. 109, 110,) it is only his own simplicity of purpose which can be questioned.

We must observe also respecting the volume at large, that it is not the mere practice of enforced Auricular Confession, in which we should be inclined to agree with him, but the implication of morality with religion, which he censures. Judaism (it is the old remark of Josephus) was the first system which made morality part of religion, because it referred all duties to the relation to GoD. In this it has been followed by Christianity. For this reason it is that the Pantheists of the modern academy are more friendly to pagan superstition than to the pure teaching of the Gospel. It was less troublesome. It did not pretend to interfere with life. It was

Semota a nostris rebus, sejunctaque longe.

But if all actions are to be judged of by the will of God, those whose office is to interpret and explain His will cannot leave any territory neutral. The Church admits of no extra-parochial districts of thought. And here, therefore, it at once clashes with the private interest of Michelet, and provokes that war of the Chair against the Pulpit, which has lasted from the days of Abelard. For if duty and action are to be prescribed by the European will, and the will of Europe is to be formed by France, and France means Paris, and if Paris is to obey the laws of literature, not those of revelation-to be guided by those who lecture, not those who preach,—how plain is it that the universal dictatorship of the human race must devolve on those who occupy the chair of its Professors.

We have no expectation that Michelet, large as is his reading and popular his style, will ever realize a scheme, which contravenes GOD'S laws as well as the experience of ages. Such men are born not to create but to destroy. He may do much mischief; he may weaken existing systems; he will rear none. The best part of his work is his observation of the peculiar and increasing difficulties which attend the system of private confession from the increased squeamishness of the age. How little he has viewed the subject at large is shown by his never referring at all to the private confessions of men, but supposing that in all cases the Priest and his Penitent are of different sexes. But he suggests, truly enough, if we look at the ideal of the system,

and at its more perplexing applications, that "the Priest ought to be an old man, or at least a man of mature age, who, having passed through the cares of this world, and being well acquainted with family life, has been taught by his experience to understand the sense of the Great Family of the Universe." (P. 260.)

Again: "The contrast is still more striking, when this inexperienced Priest, who has known nothing but his own seminary, sees at his knees a fashionable, intriguing, impassioned woman, who now, perhaps, at the close of her seventh lustrum, has passed through every thing sentimental and ideal. What, she ask his advice, she call him Father? Why, every word she utters is a revelation for him; astonishment and fear take possession of his soul. If he is not wise enough to hold his tongue, he will be ridiculous, and trembling, will depart laughing."

his penitent, who came to him all (P. 269.)

There is another difference, which will strike only those who are acquainted with the middle ages-the language was not developed as it is now. No one being then acquainted with our habits of analysing and developing, confession was naturally reduced to a simple declaration of sin, without any detail of circumstances." [It must be supposed the Author refers to the Laity, for he can hardly be altogether ignorant of the Secunda Secundæ.] "There was, if you will, confession; but the woman could not express herself, nor could the Priest have understood her," &c. (P. 170.)

In this there is a measure of truth, and yet no class stands in so much need of such a medicine as that very part of humanity, which explores all its pleasures, and finds the vanity of each. "The English people," says Burke, " are persuaded, that to the great the consolations of religion are as necessary as its instructions. They want this sovereign balm under their gnawing cares and anxieties, which being less conversant about the limited wants of animal life, range without limit, and are diversified by infinite combinations in the wild and unbounded regions of imagination." Some charitable dole is wanting to these, our often very unhappy brethren, to fill the gloomy void that reigns in "minds which have nothing on earth to hope or fear; something to relieve in the killing languor and overlaboured lassitude of those who have nothing to do; something to excite an appetite to exertion in the palled satiety which attends on all pleasures which may be bought."

We are persuaded that to no class of persons would the opportunity of confession be of greater value than to those who thus unite a craving and anxious mind with too abundant occasions of seduction. But the grand difficulty of the case has ever been to find men qualified for the general ministration of so difficult an office. For this difficulty an obviously partial remedy is provided in the Romish Church, by entrusting "reserved cases" to especial confessors. The same thing has been aimed at in the English Church, by leaving it to the party himself to seek, as he will, the remedy of confession. Of private confession, Hooker says, is no "such opinion had, as though it were unlawful or unprofitable, save only for those inconveniences, which the world hath by experience observed in it heretofore. And in regard thereof, the Church of England hitherto hath thought it the safer way to refer men's

hidden crimes unto God and themselves only; howbeit, not without special caution for the admonition of such as come to the Holy Sacrament, and for the comfort of such as are ready to depart the world."*

This system, however it is applied, has the sanction at all events of that primitive usage, to which our Church refers in all her institutions. Till Innocent III. published his Canon "Omnis utriusque sexus," &c., at the Fourth Lateran Council, A.D. 1215, it is impossible to show that confession, however usual, was matter of universal obligation. That it had ceased ever to be specially provided for in the Greek Church in the days of Nectarius is specially stated by Sozomen.† While Primitive authority was thus opposed to the enactment, its compulsory imposition would be contrary to the avowed principles of the Anglican Church. But if the two cautions to which Hooker referred had been properly regarded, the custom of our Church could never have fallen into that extreme of laxity, which is the best excuse to be found for the Romish innovation. If, before the Holy Communion, men had been habitually invited to "come to some learned minister of God's Word to open their grief," if the dying had uniformly been 'moved"" to make a special confession of their sins, if they feel their conscience troubled with any weighty matter," confession would hardly have become so unfrequent, nor repentance so perfunctory. The permission which the Church gives to any one to choose his own confessor, joined with the opportunity each man had of judging for himself, whether he needed such remedy, would in truth have placed us nearly in the position of antiquity. At present it can only be said, that if compulsory confession leads in other countries to formality, its almost entire disuse among ourselves leads in innumerable cases to total carelessness. What minister but must have found hundreds of instances in which the sick man confessed at large that he was a great sinner, but yet was not aware that any particular sin troubled his conscience. And how can a man repent of sins, of which he knows nothing? How can he feel their burthen intolerable, if his memory is not sufficiently impressed to recall their nature? It is obvious, that too often his grief for sin is only a desire to escape punishment: and thus real contrition, which is at the bottom of all holiness, is absolutely lost. How many souls will perish everlastingly through this neglect, will be among the fearful revelations of the Great Day? Meanwhile, we can only repeat our own declaration, that not the Church's law is in fault, but its negligent enforcement. The system is primitive in sound, but not in application. Let us awaken to the real nature of holiness and of sin. Let us perceive

* Eccl. Pol. vi. iv. § 15.

+ This circumstance is often referred to in the most false and injurious manner. We saw lately an allusion to it by Mr. Stanley Faber, in which it was implied that the Deacon, who is said to have offended with a lady of the city, had used the confessional as a means of seduction. Independently of the fact that Deacons never heard confessions, there is not a shadow of evidence for the assertion. All that Sozomen, vii. 16, says is, that a woman, who on account of advice given her by the Priest, was following a course of fasting and prayer, and on that account haunting the Church, εν τη εκκλησια διατρίβουσα, was seduced by a Deacon who belonged to it. The story is told in this unfair manner by Bp. Pilkington. "No time," he concludes, was fitter to woo or work their feat in than shriving time." Mr. Scholefield, who gives a note to the subject, does not think it needful to correct the false impression conveyed. Vide Parker Society's Pilkington, p. 554.

the last to be the greatest of all evils, which neither form nor custom, nor spurious liberality, nor false delicacy should induce men to admit. So may GOD have mercy on our land, and the ancient laws of our Church be embodied again in the practice of our people.

Could we enter into this subject at large, it were easy to be prolix. But because some may be surprised at our speaking of auricular confession as a custom of the reformed Church of England, we will just instance a few cases, (besides the two direct injunctions to it in the Prayer Book, to which Hooker makes reference,) in which it is plainly recommended by our early Divines. We say nothing of Hooker's own example, whose use of it shows that it was not confined to the case of heinous sins. But we will take the Divines of the Reformation itself; a class who, from circumstances, were peculiarly opposed to anything of a Popish cast. For in every reaction, the tendency of those who conduct it, is towards that which is antagonistic to the previous system. The Parker Society, therefore, is of necessity a collection of those onesided treatises which, neglecting other dangers of the Church, were for guarding it against what was then the prevalent tendency towards Romanism.

Let us take Becon's "Potation" for Lent. 65 Why auricular confession should be condemned and exiled from the bounds of Christianity, I see no cause; but that it should be approved, retained, maintained, and used, I find causes many, yea, and those right urgent and necessary." A subsequent speaker in the Dialogue, objecting to its abuse, the conclusion he adopts is, "That confession hath been greatly abused, it cannot be denied, as many other things in the Church have been also: yet ought it not therefore to be rejected and cast away, but rather restored to the old purity."-Becon's Early Writings, p. 100.

Latimer says, of "the use of auricular confession, they that are not satisfied with general absolution, may go to some godly, learned minister who is able to instruct and comfort them with the Word of God, to minister that same to their contentation, and quieting of their consciences."-Sermons, Remains, p. 13.

'Confession, if it is discreetly used, is a laudable custom-to the unlearned and feeble conscience, is good as a sermon."-Grindal, p. 57. To which we may add the higher authority of Ridley. "Confession unto the minister who is able to instruct, correct, comfort, and confirm the weak, wounded, and ignorant conscience, indeed I ever thought might do more good in CHRIST's congregation, and so I assure you I think even at this day.-Letter in Works, p. 338.

To which may be added the passages from Bishop Jewell, which are quoted in illustration in Keble's Ed. of Hooker vi. iv. § 15.

One word only in conclusion. The question between Michelet and the Church of France, respects not patronage but toleration. The compulsory system of education which has been imposed by the infidel party upon the Universities, is advocated by those who seem in this manner to obliterate the ancient faith from the mind of Christendom. On the other hand, the clergy entreat only to be permitted to teach the people what themselves believe. Their belief may be erroneous, in several important particulars we believe it to be so, but we have that intimate dread of an infidel persecution, which is enforced upon us by

the declarations of Scripture, that it will be the closing impiety of the last days. Not a little of this tendency we may discern at home: there is much of it agitating the mind of Europe. In our own land, among those who individually were amiable-Christian, we cannot forget that voices have been heard to declare that one part of liberalism was to persecute Oxford malignants, because to hold High Church opinions was a moral sin. How far this principle is to extend itself the next generation probably will learn, but we are loth to do anything towards preparing the way for that "child of iniquity," whom it is the fearful office of the last days to reveal.

ECCLESIASTICAL RECORD.

UNION OF THE SEES OF S. ASAPH AND BANGOR.-LETTER FROM THE EARL OF POWIS TO THE DEAN OF 8. ASAPH.

MY DEAR MR. DEAN,

I should not have been justified in having so long delayed (from causes which my former letter will have explained to you) my acknowledgment of your communication inclosing the address with which the Dean and Chapter of S. Asaph and the Clergy of the Diocese who have affixed their names thereto have honoured me, had not its tenor seemed to require from me not only an expression of my grateful thanks for their attention, but an intimation of the course which I propose to pursue in respect of the North Wales Diocesan Question in the ensuing Session of Parliament.

A reference to the debate of last year in the House of Lords and its consequences, will show that the S. Asaph and Bangor Question now stands in a different position from that which it had previously occupied. The ground taken by Lord Stanley in his speech, which, though beautiful in point of language, was most unsatisfactory in its conclusions, and Lord Monteagle's Bill, have effected this change. The proceedings of each require our

attention.

The whole of Lord Stanley's speech was directed to show, that any increase of the number of Bishops was undesirable, and would be injurious, not beneficial, to the Church. His words were these: "Right or wrong, the Commissioners reported that the number of the Sees ought not to be increased; and whatever advantages might be obtained by an increase would be far outweighed by the obstacles and hostility you would arouse against the Church; the political disadvantage would greatly overbalance any advantage derivable from the increase." This declaration made on the part of the Government may make the Episcopal Bench nearly, if not quite, unanimous in our favour. I need not press upon your attention the importance of such a result. Without the walls of Parliament, Churchmen are all but unanimous upon our question. If therefore we can show to those who have been hitherto opposed to us, that this question does not concern the Principality alone, that it has become, not a local, but a most important Church Question, and that, if Churchmen are not to be for ever precluded from making any eventual increase in the number of Bishops; the first step to be taken must be to resist the unnecessary swamping of one of our Bishoprics, and the proposed diversion of its revenues-the number of our supporters will be materially increased; and we shall also show to Her Majesty's Ministers that Lay, as well as Ecclesiastical, Members of our Church consider that the question of the Episcopal Superintendence of the Church requires more attention than the original Church Commission was enabled to give to it, and that the general feeling of the country is in favour of the continuance of our Sees.