shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven," Matt. xviii. 18. see xvi. 19. The use of the neuter gender here limits the authority conferred to that of excluding from, or admitting into the Christian Church, ceremonies, precepts, or prohibitions, which were found in the Old Testament. This authority was exercised, Acts, xv. 23-25, in a way which shews that it was exclusively apostolic. The use of the masculine gender in St. John, shews distinctly that persons not things are the objects on which the power it confers is to be exercised. But a power which is given to be exercised on persons cannot expire with those on whom it was first bestowed; it must be perpetual: but we have shewn that an apostolic power so far from being perpetual, must from its nature have been temporary; therefore a perpetual power must be a ministerial power; and a ministerial power must be transmissible. Thus we argue that the power to remit and retain sins is transmissible, because it is ministerial; that it is ministerial, because it is not apostolical; that it is not apostolical, because it is perpetual; and that it is perpetual because it is personal.

On these principles the Church of England acts, in exercising a power to declare sins remitted in her three forms of absolution, while the other branch of this power may be considered as exercised, though not formally, in the commination service. The most remarkable of the forms of absolution occurs in the service for the visitation of the sick, and for obvious reasons I shall confine my observations to it. None but those who wish to misrepresent her, can suppose that when our Church uses these words, " By his authority committed unto me, I absolve thee from all thy sins," she intends to convey the idea, that an absolute and irrespective pardon is thereby granted, and that her minister has a power either to forgive the sins of the impenitent by granting it, or to retain the sins of the penitent by withholding it. The form is couched in Scripture language, and we are to seek its meaning in that idiom of this language, whereby a person acting under superior authority, is said to do what he declares shall be done, or whatever he is the instrument of accomplishing. When the chief butler told Pharaoh how exactly Joseph's interpretation of his dream, and that of his fellow servant, accorded with the event, he uses this idiom; "And it came to pass as he interpreted to us so it was; me he restored to my office, and him he hanged." "See" (saith the Lord to Jeremiah,) "see I have set thee this day over the nations, and over the kingdoms, to root out and pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, and to build, and to plant." By the same idiom Ezekiel denominates the time when he came to predict the destruction of Jerusalem," the time when he came to destroy the city," xliii. 3. (Com. the marg. reading.) The same mode of expression prevails in the New Testament, as for example, when St. Paul tells Timothy, "In so doing thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee." He himself was sent to the Gentiles to " open their eyes, to turn, &c." and

to "

Judas "purchased a field with the reward of his iniquity." But the most striking and apposite illustration of the words we have adopted from John xx. 23, will be found in the 13th Chap. of Leviticus, where the Priest is said upon inspection of the leper pronounce him clean or unclean;" in the original, to cleanse or to pollute him. This case is strictly parallel to the one before us; as in both the speakers act ministerially; in both they are furnished with grounds, whereon to form their judgment; and as we cannot conceive that any mistake of judgment in the Priest, would alter or affect the health of the leper, neither can we suppose that the spiritual case of the person concerned is affected by any erroneous opinion which the attendant Minister may form

of his state.

However, what occurred at the Savoy conference must remove all doubt as to the meaning which our Church affixes to the expressions in question. The Puritans wished them to be altered to "I pronounce thee absolved," and it was replied that "the form in the Liturgy is more agreeable to Scripture than that which they desire; it being said in St. John's Gospel, not, 'whose sins ye pronounce remitted,' but, whose sins ye remit,,' and the condition need not be expressed, being necessarily understood.”

The exhortation directed to be read on giving warning for the Holy Communion, ascertains further the views of our Church on the subject of ministerial absolution. The person who requires further comfort or counsel is directed to "come to some discreet and learned minister of God's Word, and open his griefs; that by the ministry of God's Holy Word, he may receive the benefit of absolution, together with ghostly counsel and advice." In the first prayer book of Edward VI. the exhortation is to come to the Priest, that of him (as the minister of God and the Church,) he might receive comfort and absolution, to the satisfaction of his mind. The subsequent alteration of this passage shews, that as our reformers gradually emerged from the errors of Popery, they learned to substitute the ministry of God's Holy Word, as the medium of imparting spiritual consolation, in place of the authority of the Priest, as the minister of God and the Church.

The collect which is directed to be used after the form of absolution, is expressed in language altogether inconsistent with the idea, that an absolute and authoritative remission of sins had been just before imparted by the minister.

The form which we have under consideration, differs from the other two in the following particulars; 1st. In not being preceded by any confession to Almighty God. 2nd. In its being pronounced only at the special confession of the sick person, after he has disclosed some weighty matter which may trouble his conscience; the words "if he humbly and heartily desire it," were not in the Rubric previous to the last revision, 1682, at which time they were added. 3rd. This form differs from the others, in the minister not being bound to use the precise words in which it is expressed he is directed in the Rubric, to absolve after this sort.

In the Scotch prayer book, as well as in the second of Edward VI. the expression is, in this form. The alteration seems designed to relieve those who might scruple to use the words of the form, and it is remarkable that this is the only case where any permission is given to deviate from the prescribed formularies. We must not here overlook the obvious distinction between forgiving sin, and pronouncing a sinner to be absolved, which we do when first declaring the means whereby God forgiveth sin, we avow our belief that he of whom we speak has received "true repentance and a lively faith."

In the prayers used at sea, this form is not used, even in the most imminent. peril, which shews that it is not intended for a congregational or public office; and when a prisoner under sentence of death "desireth absolution," the minister may, or may not, use this form at his discretion. From the whole of the foregoing statements, it appears that our Church uses this form only for the comfort of a dying believer, whose mind may be harassed with temptations and fears, and that the comfort it imparts arises not from a pardon then bestowed, but from the assurance of the minister, that God has already pardoned his sins. In similar circumstances, I believe, any of our spiritually-minded dissenting brethren would pray in direct accordance with the spirit of this form..

Under this view of the entire question, it appears that our Church regards the absolution pronounced by her ministers, as a ministerial, and not as an authoritative act; and we are bound to shew that she does not, in any degree, countenance or adopt the doctrine of the Church of Rome; for this is the most popular and, perhaps, the most plausible objection urged against her upon this subject. First, The Church of Rome requires all her members periodically to confess and receive absolution, and making it necessary to salvation, she binds every person to receive it. We limit it to a person voluntarily confessing some special sin, and to this person so confessing, only when his life is in danger, and at his own particular request: the only resemblance here between the two Churches is in the forms, which partly resemble each other; and let it be remembered, that our's is an ancient form, used before Popery had corrupted the Church.

Secondly, The Father Confessor is empowered to impose penances, and spiritual satisfactions, on the due performance of which depends the ratification of his absolution. We pronounce no absolution until satisfied that the sinner does truly repent and unfeignedly believe, so as to have been already pardoned by Almighty God.

Thirdly, The Church of Rome bestows absolution upon the attrite, who are in the lowest possible state of grace, and by virtue of it they consider them advanced to contrition—a higher degree in their imaginary scale of spiritual existence; we never contemplate any such unscriptural distinction. But all doubt as to the actual difference between us, is removed by referring to the

decrees of the Council of Trent, where those who deny that absolution is a judicial, and affirm it a ministerial act, are branded with an anathema: see De Sacram. Pœnit. Canon 9.

It has been objected to the doctrine of ministerial absolution, that if it were true, an ignorant and ungodly Clergyman would be empowered to confer what he never enjoyed, and impart what he never possessed. We regret that there should be any colour for such an objection, but we think it unfounded, because we do not claim the power for the man, but for the office; and the objection further supposes a case, which our Church does not contemplate as possible; for she has done every thing which prudence could suggest, to exclude ignorant and ungodly men from her ministry, and has laid a fearful responsibility in the sight of God, upon those who have the power to admit into, or appoint to her ministry. Still, however, if men who regard its sacred functions only as the means of gratifying ambition, or indulging indolence, will obtrude themselves into an office which they disgrace and profane-this rests between God and their conscience; they are ministers de facto, and as such, they fill a spiritual office in the Church, while they are responsible to its great Head for not being his servants de jure.

The doctrine of the Church of England, on the subject of minis. terial absolution, is thus to be explained and defended, in order to shew that it is according to Scripture, and that it is not borrowed from the Church of Rome : it is a subject worthy of our most serious attention; for if our Clergy examine it closely, they will find it intimately connected with the preaching of Scripture doctrine, and with respectability of personal character; for it will shew that the principle on which it rests, is the declaration of mercy through a crucified Saviour, and its tendency is to require a conduct consistent with his profession, in every Christian minis

ter.

BIBLICAL CRITICISM.

MR. EDITOR.-In a book which undergoes such repeated reprinting as the English Bible, it is not surprising that some trivial errors should be propagated from one edition to another: thus, Bishop Horsley detected the erratum of" they doctrine," for thy doctrine," (1 Tim. iv. 16.) in several editions printed during the last century. The object of this letter is to point out a similar error, which has hitherto, I believe, escaped notice. In the standard editions of the authorised version, the marginal reading on Ps. x. 14, is, "Heb. leaveth"-but instead of leaveth" most of the common Bibles printed during the last and present centuries, read "cleaveth." This error has also found its way into Bishop Mant's Bible, Dr. Adam Clarke's Bible, (Liverp. 1813,) Reeve's Bible, Baskerville's Folio Bible, (Camb. 1763,) Hewlett's Bible,

and the English version of Bagster's Polyglott. The correct reading will be found in Mr. Scott's Bible, Browne's Self-interpreting Bible, Dodd's Bible, (Lond. 1770,) Basket's folio Bible, (Oxf. 1717,) and Poole's Annotations, (Lond. 1696, 2 vols. fol. :) the two last were probably printed before the error originated.* Trinity College.

T.

QUERY ON THE FORMULARIES OF THE CHURCH,

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHRISTIAN EXAMINER.

SIR-Perhaps you will permit me to propose in your pages the following questions, to be answered by some of your learned readers, should they appear of sufficient importance to merit insertion.

The authorised documents which contain the doctrines of the Established Church are generally counted the Liturgy, Offices, Articles, and Homilies, with Jewell's Apology and Nowell's two Catechisms. Is the authority of Jewell's Apology and Nowell's Catechisms the same as that of the others?

And if so, why are they (and especially Nowell's Catechisms) so little known among the Divines of the Church of England+? Nowell's smaller Catechism was translated into Greek by Dr. Whitaker, for the use of schools. In his preface he speaks of three Catechisms by Dean Nowell-Where is the third Catechism to be found?or do any of your correspondents know of a third Catechism?

It is conceived that Jewell's Apology would be peculiarly valuable to Divinity Students just now when the controversy with the Church of Rome is likely to engage so much of the public attention. The Homilies highly merit attention for the same reason; and it deserves the consideration of every Clergyman of the Established Church, and of every candidate for the ministry, Whe ther the Thirty-fifth article can be conscientiously subscribed to by one who has not read the Homilies, and compared the doctrines contained in them with Scripture. It is to be feared that many have professed to believe that the Homilies contain good and wholesome doctrine, while they have not so much as read those Homi lies. I remain, Sir, your's &c.

Trinity College.

T.

• Baskerville's Bible (1763) is the oldest in which I have found an error, but I cannot pretend to say, that it does not exist in any earlier edition.

+ It is extraordinary that the Library of the University of Dublin does not contain

a copy of Nowell's larger Catechism.