scription and some poetry; and erected a statue to his memory, which, with true Dutch frugality, as a modern traveller has observed, was at first only of wood: afterwards they got as far as stone, viz. in 1557. But this statue being rudely thrown into the Meuse by the Spanish soldiers, in 1562, they substituted one of copper, or bronze. Either the author we have just cited (Owen's Travels) or Mr. Butler is wrong in the dates of these commemorative honours paid to Erasmus. Mr. Owen says, the wooden statue was made in 1540, and seventeen years after, viz. 1557, the statue of stone. Now, Mr. Butler agrees in the latter date; but as to the wooden one, he says it was erected " when Philip II., in 1549, announced his intention of making his solemn entry into Rotterdam." As Philip's father, Charles V. was in the Netherlands in 1540, and Philip II. had not obtained that kingly title in 1549, we conceive Mr. Butler may be more wrong than Mr. Owen. We must, however, conclude our review, already much longer than we had intended it to be, by giving Mr. Butler the credit of having written a very entertaining book, but one, in our estimation, by no means to be implicitly trusted as an historical publication.

€

An Essay on the Absolving Power of the Church; with especial reference to the Offices of the Church of England, for the ordaining of Priests and the Visitation of the Sick. By the REV. Τ. Η. LOWE, A. М. Vicar of Grimley, in the County of Worcester, and Chaplain to the Right Hon. the Viscount Gage. 8vo. Pp. 66. 2s. 6d. Parker. Oxford. 1825.

To trace the different degrees of authority which have been at different periods ascribed in the judgment of the laity to the ministers of religion, would be, if the occasion permitted, an useful, and not uninteresting task. Certain it is, that never have more lax notions on this subject been current in the Christian community, than in our own eventful times. The minister of Christ is distinguished in the estimation of his lay brethren, not by the sacred character of an ambassador from the Most High, but rather by the consideration of his rank in secular society; he is known as the incumbent of the living, he is recognized as the lawful minister of the Church's ordinances, he is expected to have some more than ordinary share of literary proficiency, but he is seldom acknowledged as a person invested with spiritual authority, an authority delegated by the Great Head of the Church, for the conservation of order and unity, for the perpetual preaching of the Gospel, and for communicating spiritual blessings to the people by the administration of the Sacraments. It will no doubt be said, as it is indeed very commonly said, that the clergy ought to be content with the respect already paid to them, and not seek to revive any of that superstitious feeling with which their office was regarded in the unhappy times of Papal ascendancy. No doubt they ought not, neither do they, -at least we would not now be understood so to argue. Our complaint is of want of respect, not to the clergy, but to the commission which they bear. It is to this subject that we wish to draw the attention of our readers, and it is on this account, that we consider the appearance of Mr. Lowe's pamphlet important at the present juncture. We write as Christians to Christians, as members of a congregation whereof Christ is himself the head: and we ask seriously and solemnly whether the real nature of the commission which his ministers hold is duly considered amongst us? Is it enough that they are regarded as a respectable class of society, that they are allowed an undisputed claim to the much-valued appellation of gentleman? or is this altogether insufficient, and inadequate to the nature and excellence of their office? That office is of a spiritual nature. That it should be attended by the tokens of secular respect is well; but it is not enough; nay, it is so far mischievous that it blinds men to their deficiencies in regard to the more important duty of spiritual subjection. These are strong words, and unwelcome to ears accustomed to the smooth prophecyings of modern liberality; such persons, however, we would remind of that good old summary of duty, which once at least they learnt to respect, in which each of us acknowledges the obligation " to submit myself to all my governors, teachers, spiritual pastors, and masters."

Now if it be asked, On what ground is this claim of spiritual authority founded? We answer, that it is not only supported by the testimony of God's Word, but has a title independent of all written revelation. The order, succession, and authority of ministers, is as clearly demonstrable from antiquity, as the canon of Scripture itself; and as we must believe them to have commenced at least as early as, probably earlier than, the composition of the apostolical writings, we need not hesitate to assume that the validity of their commission is truly independent of any written testimony. Their very existence, much more their preaching, and other ministrations, are independent testimonies of the truth of Christianity. The corruption of their order in

1

the dark ages of Christianity, proves the wisdom of that dis pensation, which trusted not to the sole agency of corruptible man, but left a distinct and unimpeached testimony of its truth for the security and benefit of all ages, in the purity and integrity of the written Word. In the Reformed Churches there has been a natural tendency to underrate those means of edification which the Romanists had most corrupted, and to extol to their prejudice the paramount authority of the Scriptures, which in those times of darkness were subjected to their caprice and ignorance. Every man would now fain be his own priest, and be for himself the sole judge of the intent of Scripture; the sufficient interpreter of the oracles of God. No wonder then that objections are started, and even loud clamours raised against that sober, primitive, and scriptural view of ministerial authority, which is adopted in our truly Apostolical Church.

In the way of answer to these difficulties, Mr. Lowe has sent forth the present publication, which he states to be designed chiefly for the younger Students in Theology. We cannot say, that the subject is discussed in so satisfactory a manner, as we could have wished, nor do we think the method or style likely to engage and fix the attention of the reader. Of these, however, we proceed to give some specimens, both by way of furnishing an outline of the argument, and doing justice to a writer, who evidently studies the subject of Theology with anxiety to find and to communicate the truth. We are of opinion upon the whole, that a sound view of the independent spiritual authority of the Christian ministry, would do more towards the solution of these and other similar difficulties, than the system of explanation which Mr. Lowe and many others before him have adopted.

Mr. Lowe commences his Pamphlet, and states the difficulties which he proposes to discuss, in the following explicit but rather abrupt manner:

"The Church of England confers ordination on her priests in the very words with which our Lord consecrated his Apostles, and in her office for the Visitation of the Sick, she authorizes her priests so ordained, to give the penitent after confession made, a full and authoritative absolution from his sins. Both these points have given great offence. It appears intolerable presumption for the ministers of the Church in the present day, to claim in this respect, equality with the Apostles; and to arrogate to themselves a power peculiar to the Godhead, is nothing less than blasphemy. P. 1.

The passages in the Ordination Service, and in the Office for the Visitation of of the Sick need not be quoted at length; we

trust that our readers are well acquainted with both, nor do we think that either of them can be fairly so interpreed, as to subject our Ministers to the charge of intolerable presumption. On the first point, Mr. Lowe's object seems to be, to prove that the Orders of Ministry in the Church of Christ, are not only a copy but continuation of the several orders of Ministers in the Jewish Synagogues. He next proposes to shew, that the terms "binding and loosing," remitting and retaining sins, were made use of at the ordination of the Jewish Ministers; he assumes for them a certain limited import, and thence argues that our Saviour addressed them in this very same sense to his Apostles; and that in this sense they are literally and justly applied in the Ordination service of our Church.

"To understand the extent of those ordinary powers that were originally conferred on the Apostles, we must therefore recur to the practice of the synagogue. Now the ordination of the Jewish Presbyters was performed with solemn imposition of hands; to denote that the person so ordained, was, in a peculiar manner, dedicated to God's service; and to invoke the divine blessing on him; and on those who were lawfully ordained, it was believed that the Holy Spirit rested. In these ordinations, which were slightly varied according to the different offices to which they were applied, and the different powers which they were intended to convey, authority was usually given to bind and to loose, to remit and to retain; that is, either as interpreters of the law, or as rulers of the synagogue, to declare what was lawful, and what was unlawful; as guides and teachers of the people, to rebuke, to exhort, and to instruct; or as presidents and judges in spiritual matters, if need were, to pass sentence on offenders. That this is the right interpretation of the phrase, which is very comprehensive, and embraces almost the entire circle both of Hebrew theology and jurisprudence might be shewn, were it needful, by many examples." P. 12.

This view of the subject is well expressed in a passage quoted from Bishop Beveridge in the Illustrations and Notes, which form perhaps the most useful part of the publication.

"According to the practice of the Catholic and Apostolic Church,' says the very learned Bishop Beveridge, 'in the ordination of priests, the bishop, when he lays his hand severally upon the head of every one that receives that order, saith, Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a priest in the Church of God; now committed unto thee by the imposition of hands: whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven, and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained. Where we may observe, that although some other words are inserted, to determine and distinguish the office committed to them, yet all the same words repeated, which our Lord himself used at the ordination of his Apostles; which the Catholic Church always judged necessary, not

only in imitation of our blessed Saviour, but likewise because that the persons who are ordained priests in his Church, are to preach the same word, administer the same sacraments, and exercise the same spiritual authority in the censures of the Church, as the Apostles themselves did.' [Vol. 1. Serm. 2nd p. 20. fol.]" P. 50.

The second point discusssed in the Essay is the form of Absolution, which occurs in the office for the Visitation of the Sick. On this subject also we find in the notes a good practical observation from the author himself.

" See the Rubric immediately preceding the absolution; where the expression is, 'The priests shall absolve him, (if he humbly and heartily desire it,) after this sort.'--It is possible, that some latitude might be here intended, as in the preceding exhortation, where the minister is not tied down to the use of the prescribed form: but it is certain that he is not at liberty to use this form of absolution unless the penitent himself desire it. The precatory absolution in the Communion office (which almost always accompanies this office for the Visitation of the Sick) is wholly unexceptionable, and formed upon the best models of primitive antiquity: and it never can be necessary to use both. Observe also how differently the Rubric there is worded: 'Then shall the priest (or the bishop being present) stand up, and turning himself to the people, pronounce this absolution. So marked a difference cannot be unintentional."

In the Essay, Mr. Lowe accounts for the form of Absolution in question, by reference to the Romish doctrine of penance.

"At the æra of the Reformation, these opinions were so inveterately rooted in the minds of men, that baptism itself was considered not more indispensable to procure their admission into the Church of Christ, than priestly absolution to ensure their pardon at the hour of death, and in the day of judgment. To eradicate this mischievous persuasion our reformers appear to have done all that the soundest wisdom, and most enlightened Christian piety could dictate. In the public offices and Liturgy they retained none but the declaratory or precatory forms of absolution; and in the elaborate apologies of Jewell and Hooker it was unequivocally asserted, that the ministerial sentence of absolution, except when it relates to the removal of ecclesiastical censures, is no more than a declaration of what God has done. But whilst they made use of every prudent caution to remove the grounds of the opposite error, they knew that the great mass of the people could not at once be thoroughly divested of their ancient prejudices; and that, especially in the hour of sickness, when bodily weakness was superadded to mental infirmity, they would be apt to languish for those consolations which both they and their fathers had hitherto thought necessary to their quiet passage out of this mortal life. In compassion to these human weaknesses and natural misgivings, they retained, for the comfort of the dying penitent, a full and authoritative form of