It is respectfully submitted to the reader, whether it would be possible for Romanists, in endeavouring to re-introduce their doctrines and usages into the English Church, to take a course more likely to succeed; whether a bolder course would not be more hazardous and less effective; and whether, with his general knowledge of the wisdom and subtlety of the Roman sect called Jesuits, he does not think it such a plan of procedure as they would be likely to adopt and, once more, whether he does not think it impossible that such a plan could be the offspring of a set of honest, upright, straightforward English gentlemen,-not to say, English Clergymen.

However this may be, certain it is that such is the course of those who stand forward as the advocates of Anglo-Romanism in the pamphlets of which the titles are already given to the reader. To describe their method would be to repeat what we have already sketched. How many books and pamphlets on the subject, Masters, the Parkers, and other publishers may have brought out, we know not; but the line of argument is substantially the same in all those before us. The correspondence is very exact in many parts, whilst, in others, there is somewhat more of caution in one writer, and a greater dash of boldness in another. The same writer says, and unsays, or half unsays, the same thing in different parts of his book; and may be quoted for this or that, or the contrary of either, as shall be the more convenient. All the books are remarkable for their good sense and shrewdness; and the plausibility and cleverness with which they argue their own side, and leave out what may be said on the other, are really provoking. In a moment you see before you the class of persons they will deceive; and you have no opportunity of remonstrance. The style, moreover, is good; and honest, plain, vigorous, easy-flowing, colloquial English is used. So the books are readable by anyone but an earnest Protestant, who becomes utterly impatient at the ability and ingenuity with which error the most seductive is set forth. It may also be supposed that the writers give the opinions, and recommend for the most part (though they have amongst them persons in all stages of transition, and all degrees of conscientiousness) the practices, of the sect. The Honourable Mr. Liddell, having no intention, apparently, of writing on the Confessional, (leaving that to other schismatics less busy than himself,) but finding occasion to excuse or explain away the doings of his Curate, launches at once headlong into the general question. He boldly tells his superior, the Bishop of London, that, whether the Curate of St. Barnabas' did or did not ask the questions imputed to him, his conduct in "moving" to particular Confession was right enough; and that the class of sins said to have been inquired into was not unbefitting as a subject of interrogation. We also learn that the reverend gentleman himself approves and practises Confession and Absolution, but with such drawbacks and qualifications as reduce him, in his own estimation, to a modest, prudent, and irreproachable confessor. And every Puseyite, for aught that is known, may be another confessor, ready to rush forth on occasion, and acquaint the public with his own adhesion to

the same opinions. We may, therefore, fairly judge, that the books and pamphlets published exhibit not only the authors, but the whole heretic

sect.

Mr. Gresley's pamphlet has been long before the public. When the first edition was published, we know not; but the second, now before us, was published in 1852: so that there has been time enough for admonition and rebuke, if that were thought needful.-"It is not," says Mr. Gresley, "part of my design to describe the various means whereby sinners have been brought to repent of their sins; still less, to compare their efficacy. My present business is with one, which-if the records of the Church [what Church?] be not altogether fallacious, and the experience of the most holy men of all ages mistaken-has proved eminently successful in the work of saving souls: I mean, Confession and Absolution." The reverend gentleman congratulates himself that these and other "essentials of Catholic truth and usage" were preserved at the Reformation by a special superintending Providence :-" When reformation was needed, and other nations rushed madly into extremes, rooting up and destroying, instead of amending and reforming, God in His mercy placed a curb on the Reformers of the English Church, and prevented them from being guilty of the same extravagance. He preserved to us our Episcopacy, and our Apostolical Succession, whereby our Church is linked with the Church Catholic [the Roman and Greek Churches]. He preserved our Liturgy, and apostolic doctrine, and all the essentials of Catholic truth and usage. Amongst other things, He preserved to us the Ordinance of Confession. Whether it was that by a special providence He prevented its condemnation, when, from the temper of sonte of the leading Reformers, such a course might have been expected; or whether, using secondary means, as seems more probable, He put it into the hearts of the majority of those through whom the Reformation was effected to retain this Catholic [read, Romish] usage; the following facts are undoubted :—that the principle of Confession and Absolution is fully recognised in our formularies; that its practice on certain occasions is recommended, or rather enjoined; and its practice on other occasions is nowhere prohibited." The italics are Mr. Gresley's. "The difference between the Romish system and our own is this: that the Romish system is compulsory and periodical, ours is not so. The Romish practice rests on the order of the Council of Lateran,-Omnis utriusque sexûs, &c. Let every one of either sex, after he shall have arrived at years of discretion, faithfully confess all his sins to his own Priest, at least once a year, and study to fulfil the penance enjoined to him,'-this under penalty of prohibition from the Holy Communion. There is no such law in the English Church; though enjoined in particular cases, Confession is not enforced by any penalty except that of losing the benefit which the proper and timely use of this ordinance would afford." Attempt is here made to show (with some display) how great is the difference between the two Churches; but that difference, even on this showing, is very small. Rome enforces Confession once a year, under penalty of

withholding the Communion; the English Church makes it voluntary, and only enforces it by withholding "the benefit" of the ordinance,which benefit is (as is afterwards largely shown) the forgiveness of sins, full, entire, and immediate; with the peace, comfort, and holiness which are said to flow from the priestly unction in Absolution. But if these benefits are offered to those who confess, and denied to those who confess not, surely this is enforcement enough; enough to make erring souls come more than once a year "voluntarily " to seek such benefits. And what, pray, is the difference of the enforcement and compulsion? It will be answered: "Rome withholds the body and blood of Christ, which of themselves convey salvation: the Church of England leaves these accessible to such as decline Confession." If, then, the sacrament of the Lord's Supper conveys salvation (which always includes pardon and grace) to penitent souls, and is always accessible, what need is there for priestly absolution when all its benefits are found at the table of the Lord by confession to Him alone? But if these benefits are not found there, or not found there certainly and invariably, but are so found under the Priest's absolution, what greater compulsion can there be, than to withhold from all who confess not benefits so great and sure? In what degree does Rome's compulsion go beyond this? So we find that Mr. Gresley's Confession and Rome's are next door to each other, and that the difference on which he dwells is apparent rather than real.

After describing the various kinds of sins (very various indeed) which the "skilful Pastor" will inquire after, when he "moves" a sick person (or any other person, as he afterwards shows) to make a special confession of "any weighty matter," the reverend confessor proceeds :-" The skilful Minister knows that, as it is useless to attempt to heal the wound while corruption remains within, so it is equally unavailing to patch up a superficial repentance while there remains the taint of unconfessed and unforgiven sin. No inward peace, no strength of purpose, no true holiness, can be obtained until the hidden load of sin be put away and pardoned. And it should be particularly noted, that it makes no difference, whether the person so affected be conscious of the load, or unconscious. When flagrant sins have been committed, it is difficult for the sinners not to be aware of it, though it is wonderful how men are blinded to their real state: but in a large number of cases the ailment of the sinner is simply the feeling of present ungodliness; and it is the duty of the Minister of God to extract from one so burdened the confession of the sins of his past life, which are the real source of his ungodliness." Here "superficial repentance" means general confession; the thing these men utterly despise, and cannot away with. Particular confession is real repentance; and such repentance, be it observed, is all right, whether the person so affected be conscious of the load of guilt, or unconscious. Pretty repentance indeed; and to be the genuine sort too, as distinguished from the superficial! Thus a man may be truly contrite without being conscious of the burden of his sins! The fact is, particular confession is the thing required: if this be conceded, a man is

penitent for the sins of which he does not feel the guilt; if this be wanting, no tender grief before God, however great, is contrition for sin unconfessed and undetailed before man. So, again, there is "inward peace," "strength of purpose," and "true holiness," when the "hidden load of sin" (of unconscious guilt!) is "put away and pardoned "—by the Priest's absolution. Such is this teaching.

It cannot be doubted, we are told, "that in those churches where confession is generally used multitudes of persons have been saved by means of it." "Nor less can it be doubted that in our Church many souls have been lost by the partial desuetude of this holy ordinance." To the objection, that "practical evils" have been found to arise from the use of confession, the author answers: "It may at once be admitted that such is the case. But what then? It is scarcely a paradox to assert that the existence of evils is of itself a proof of the value of the ordinance. Those who have faith in the mysteries of the invisible world will be aware that it is, so to speak, the policy of Satan to use the greatest exertion to inar that which is most excellent-to poison that which is most wholesome. If the ordinance of confession were not eminently conducive to the rescuing of souls from his power, he would not so strive, as he does, to throw discredit on it. What holy ordinance is there which he does not thus endeavour to pervert?" We are then referred to distractions in prayer, eating and drinking the "Blessed Eucharist" to our own damnation, wresting the word of God to our own destruction, and various abuses of the institute of preaching; and the author proceeds: "Are we, then, to suppress the reading of God's word, discontinue preaching, discourage sacraments and prayer, because they have been perverted to evil ends? Surely not. Why, then, confession?" Such is the sacred category into which he puts confession; and such the boldness, the subtlety, and the plausibility of the writer. And does a man of this stamp-this cunning, this dexterity, this shiftiness-spring, as a natural growth, out of the simple, honest, unsophisticated Protestant Church of England, fed and furnished from the frank, open, truth-speaking gentry of the land? Believe it who may!

As our object in these quotations is to give to the reader who may not see the books some notion of what they contain, as well as to furnish evidence of the facts on which our remarks turn, we proceed.-To the objection, that confessors having a knowledge of the intention of murder, which they do not disclose," are accessaries before the fact," Mr. Gresley says: "I am very much inclined to doubt whether it is the practice of murderers to confess their murder beforehand. Of this I am quite sure, that the very best way to prevent murderers from committing the contemplated crime would be to persuade them to go to the Clergyman of the parish, and inform him of their intention; because, though he were precluded from revealing anything [even murder!] told him under the seal of confession, he would be able to use such arguments as would deter the murderer from his intention." But, suppose he did not succeed, (as he

might not,) are we to understand that a Clergyman of the Protestant Church of England is to see a gentleman (possibly a statesman; but say, any man, any being of our race and kind) shot in the streets of London, or elsewhere, of whose intended murder he has had previous notice; and whose murderer he is now to conceal (for any reasons whatever) from public vengeance? What else are we to understand? what less is taught? Whatsoever Rome may teach or hold, (and this, no doubt, is her teaching and practice,) the English Protestant people of this land will never believe that the Bible allows, or the law connives at, such a practice; and they will hold every man A MURDERER (in gown, as without one) who holds this dreadful secret against the life of his fellow-man, and does not make timely and pertinent disclosure of it. What does the law of England, or even of her poor Rome-ridden Church,-much more, THE LAW OF GOD,-know of the "seal of confession?"-a seal wicked and infamous indeed, when it puts the stamp of pardon on the confessed intention (itself a crime) of murder; and again re-impresses that stamp, with pledge of secrecy, when the deed is done! O famous triumph of archangelic skill!-that thou, Satan, shouldst have succeeded, in the face of Heaven, to give pardon and secrecy and safeguard to murder; and that, too, by thine adept use of the very Book and agency ordained of God to denounce and punish it: and shouldst also have prevailed with tens of millions of the most informed and intelligent of the redeemed race to believe that this is THE WILL OF JEHOVAH, AND OF HIS INCARNATE SON! But there is yet more fame for thee, Apostate! if thou canst bring back to this belief the recreant Church of England, which for three hundred years hath protested that the doctrine was not God's, but thine!

Verily do we believe that this latter is the work which the great Enemy is now about. As to this phrase, "seal of confession," quoted above, whence came it? Where do the formularies of the English Church undertake to arrange the details of the Confessional, to announce its secrecy, and exhibit its "seal ?” This, if we mistake not, is language from the Romish vocabulary. Whether it slipped in here by accident from a Romish mouth, rendered somewhat too fluent by its unetuous subject; or whether it was calculated that its "march forward" indication would be more serviceable than injurious, we undertake not to say. But Romish phraseology it is, and only Romish. It is observable, however, how writers of this class, having found some small footing for Popish dogmas in the Prayer-Book, and having got by degrees into the thick of a discussion, dismiss the modesty with which they started, make this assertion and that, and slip in, as occasion presents, sentiments and language altogether foreign to that book, which they wish to be received as likewise in harmony with it. It is scarcely necessary to say that, whether these are the tactics of "Churchmen" or not, they are the well-known tactics of the Society of Jesus.

To the objection, "that profligate Priests have made the Confessional the means of pandering to their passions, and that artful women have