Potter's Electric News

'CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION.' A lecture was recently delivered under the auspices of the Cheltenham Protestant Church Union, at the Town Hall, Cheltenham, by the Rev Joseph Bardsley, M.A., Secretary to the London Diocesan Home Mission. The room was well filled. The Chair was occupied by the Rev E. Walker, D. C. L., and there were present on the platform, the Baron de Ferrieres, Rev G. W. Cham. berlain, Rev J. Ramsey, Rev J. H. Cardew, Rev D. 0. Harrington, Rev R. Hepworth. Rev J. Speak, Col. Schreiber, Colonel Crompton, and other members of the Union. The Rev J. Bardsley commenced by referring to Mr Groodlakb'a pamphlet, and said that the Chairman had oommerited upon some of the very same passages as he had marked himself. He had, however, only shown them one of the mistakes in the quotation from the Catechism, whereas there was another. Mr Goodlake said the outward and visible sign of the inward and spiritual grace the Catechism read, 'an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace.' He did not think Mr Goodlake ought to insinuate that the Evangelical clergy did not know their Catechism whe$he did not remember it himself. Mr'Bardsley next noticed another part of Mr Goodlake's pamphlet, in which a refutation of his opinions on the subject of a sacrificing priesthood was attempted. Mr Goodlake sought to show that the words 'table* and 'altar' were synonymous, and that, therefore, there was a sacrificing priesthood. He (Mr Bardsley) denied this altogether, and proceeded at some length to defend his former position from the attack which had been made upon it. Having expressed his willingness to discuss with Mr Goodlake all the opinions he had expressed, he passed on to a considerrtion of the subject which had that evening brought them together, namely, Confes- sion and Absolution.' They would have, ho said, in the first place to consider what was I Confession and Abso- lution as the subject of the present controversy. Dr. Pusey stated that in the Church of England confession was voluntary, no one being bound to confess. In a letter to the Times he said that so long as a certain pas- sage was found in the ordination service, so long would men confess, because they wanted absolution. Mr Gresley stated that in the Church of Rome the confes- sion must be complete and must include everything, nothing should be held barJk; in that Church confession was binding, but in the Church of England they could do as they thought fit. At the same time Mr Gresley gave them to understand that m n's souls would be lost by failing to confess. If Confession was an ordinance of God, and necessary to salvation, the Church of Eng- land must have made a great mistake in leaving it op- tional with her members. Great things were hoped for by Auricular Confession and some spoke of it in strong te.rms, giving them to understand that there was no Absolution without private Confession. There were four passages of scrip'nre quoted in favour of it, from the 3rd chapter of S. Matthew, the 19th of the Act?, the 5th of the Epistle of St. James, and the Ist of First Epistle of St. John. The first of these (S. Matthew iii., 6, 6) was in connection with the account of the preaching of John the Baptist—' Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.' The lecturer thought that John the Bapt'st must have had hard work if he received the confessions of all the people in Judea and Jerusalem and all about that country. He could not see how they could have made a full and complete confession, or how, it could have been a private one. Their being baptized was a public act, and the inference was that the confession was also public. According to the Ritualists baptism must "wash away all their sins, and sins committed after baptism must be taken away by confession to the priest -so confession was for people who had been baptized. If that was so, why did these people confess their sins before baptism ? In the 19th chapter of the Acts they read that certain parties came and confessed and burnt their books before all men. He thought that was a public act; at any rate there was not a syllable to show that the confession was private. The men having been engaged in an unlawful calling, publicly confessed that they were wrong, and, as a proof of the sincerity of their confession, burnt their books; but there was no allusion to any private confession to a priest. The third passage, which occurred in the Ath chapter of the epistle St. James, was Confess your faults one-to another, and pray one for another, that he may be healed.' They were told in the Homily on Repentance that if, as the Roman Catholics believed, it was necessary for the people to confess to the priests, the priests were as much bound to confess to the people. The Homilies were in- tended to express the teaching of the Church, and if the Church recommended Confession, it would surely not have furnished so forcible an argument against it. He left it to them as sensible people to form their own opinion about it. The Scriptures told them to confess their sins one to another, not to the priest. The 9th verse of the 1st chapter of the first ephtle of St. John had about as much bearing on the subject of Auricular Confession as the first of Genesis. It ran- If we say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. But if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteous- ness.' "He is faithful and just'—that was God, no the priest, was faithful and just. To whom, there- fore, should they confess ? To God, from whom they expected to receive Absolution. The passage showed that it they were conscious of their sinful state before God, and confessed their sins, then God was faithful and just to forgive them their sins and to cleanse them from all unrighteousness. Two passages of Scripture were put forward in favour of Priestly Absolution. One was in the Kith chapter of the gospel according to St. Matthew- "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on eara shall be bound in Heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven. They found a parallel passage in the 18th chapter and 18th verse. In neither of those passages was there a word said about forgiving sins; it was not whose sins soever," but" wha tsoever" was bound on earth shall be bound in Heaven. If they examined the context it appeared that our Redeemer had just been informing his Apostles, that be was about to establish his Church, and that a great change was to take place in connection with the new dispensation. He addressed them as those to be guided by the Holy Ghost, and in respect to the kingdom of Heaven, whatsoever they bound on earth should be bound in Heaven. Dr. Lightfoot, who was certainly one of the best scholars in such cases, said that the words binu' and 'loose' occurred an infinite number of Limes in the Hebrew lan- guage, and were generally used to express the terms to make lawful' and 'to make unlawful.' Applying that meaning to the present case, Christ would be telling his disciples that whatsoever they made lawful in con- nection with the Church of God on earth should be lawful. They were to be guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth. The other passage was found in the 20th chapter of S'. John's Gospel and the 23rd verse—" Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." These words occurred in the Ordination Service and required explanation. They would consider what power was granted to the Apostles by our Saviour. He believed the words simply conferred upon the Apostles the power and privilege of declaring the terms aud conditions upon which men's sins would be remitted or retained. There was nothing in the Acts of the Apostles us far as was recorded to induce them to believe that they adopted the view of the words that was held by the Church ot Rome—that they gave the Apostles power absolutely to forgive or retain sins. If they asked any clergy-man of the Church ol England the question, whether, if a man was truly peni- tent, because he or any other minister refused to pardon him, he was not pardoned by God? he believed ther<j was not a minister of the Church who would dare to say that the man was not forgiven. What was the province of the Christian Minister towards such a man—what tiould he do for him? He could only convey to that. man's conscience the blessing of pardon bestowed upon him-he could only bring home to the believer's heart the sense of forgiveness. This interpretation was fully borne out by the doctr ne of the Apostles, who preached that whosoever beheved and was baptized should bt saved, and whosoever believed r.ot should be damned. Their Saviour commanded them to go forth and preach repentance for the remission of sins, to all nations,—to preach the Gospel, the terms of pardon and forgiveness The history of their doings and the epistles they wrott fully showed that they acted according to such a meaning )f the words. Throughout the whole of the scriptures hey found that men commanded by God were ofteu said o do that which they only declared to be done. For instance, in the case of the cleansing of the leper, as related in the book of Leviticus, they read that when the leprosy was found in a man be was to tro to the priest, who should pollute him—meaning that he should declare him polluted or unclean and when the leper was cured he should again go to the priest who could make him clean. Throughout the chapter the priest was said to do what he only declared was Gone. It was evident the man was unclean before the priest made him unclean. and when he was cured he was clean before the priest made him, or declared him so. He would remind them of the passage Who can forgive sins but God alone?' When the Pharisees asked that question they were quite right, and the sin lay not in asking the question, but in not perceiving that Jesus was God and so had the power to for- givesins. lie would leaveit fortheir consideration whether his view was the correct one or not. If a person was truly penitent and believed, the minister could only deolare him pardoned; but if on examination he found that the man was not truly penitent, anl not pardoned, he could only declare him so. There was a passage in the Prayer Book which was supposed by some to favour Auricular Confession. In one of the exhortations in the Com- munion Service they found that if any man could not quiet his conscience he was invited to come to some discreet and learned minister of God's word, and to open his grief, that he might receive the benefit of absolution and ghostly counsel and advice, to the quieting of his conscience, and voiding all soruple and doubtiulness. There was a similar passage in the Visitation of the Sick, but that was no argument in favour of Auricular Con- fession as it applied to the sick only, and not to the healthy. The first passage said nothing about a priest, but a discreet and learned minister of God's word. The writer of the pamphlet he had previously alluded to said with regard to the alterations which were made in the Prayer Book of 1562, (the former Prayer Book containing the doctrine of the Real Presence in the consecrated elements, the Eucharistic Sacrifice, and the doctrine of Priestly Absolution) that no real alteration was intended, so as to contradict the former Prayer Book, but that they were made or,ly to satisfy the Puritan leaven that was penetrating the English Church through the influence of foreign reformers'. He (the lecturer) thought it a most extraordinary thing for Mr Goodlake and the Puritans to be satisfied with the same thing. In the old Prayer Book the passage he quoted concerning confession to a discreet and learned minister of God's word, ran to the effect that the man should come and secretly confess to the priest. The old Prayer Book clearly taught he doctrine Dr Pusey wished to teach now, but which the present Prayer Book certainly did not. The lecturer dwelt at length, and in a very able manner, upon this exhortation, clearly showing that it was not intended to teach Auricular Confession or Priestly Absolution. He also clearly showed by their statements, that the English Reformers did not hold those doctrines, but took every precaution to prevent such a doctrine creeping into the Church. He concluded by considering the moral bearings of Auricular Confession and Priestly Absolution. Miles Cuverdale had stated that it was a tree planted not by the father of heaven but by the children of the devil to pry cut the privacy of men, and it ought to be plucked up by the roots. Seymour, in his Evenings with the Jesuits,' gave some interesting returns of the crime of the different countries in which Auricular Confession and Priestly Absolution existed, and ot those in which they did not. For the last ten years the number of murders to every million inhabitants were, in Ireland, 19 to the million, in Belgium 18, in France 31, in Austria :36. As they got nearer to the see of his Holiness the crime of the countries increased: thus in Italy the rate of murder WHS 174 to the million, while in England it only stood at 4 to the million. In Roman Catholic countries the highest average was 174, aud the lowest 18 to the million. It these were the results in countries where Popery w.ts carried out to perfection, he could not see that there was anything in it for English people to fall in love with. He exhorted them to remember the words of Coverdale, I Since it is a tree not planted by the father of heaven, and as it is an invention of the children of tne devil, raethinks it ought to he plucked up by the roots.' The rev gentleman was warmly applauded at intervals, aud at the conclusion of his lecture. GALLANT CONDUCT OF A YOUNG NAVAL OFFICER. .On the night of the At of June last, while Her Majesty's sloop Myrmtcton was lying in Banana Creek, Kiver Congo, Western Africa, an able sea- man, named Torrance, fell overboard. Sub-Lieu- tenant Lionel De Sausmarez was officer of the watch, and though a strong current was running at the time, and the river is infested by sharks. this gallant young officer, with the utmost promp- titude, jumped overboard, laid hold of the drown- ing man, and swam with him to the pier, support- ing him until assistance caine. As the man could not swim there is no doubt that be owes his life to the courage of Mr De Sausmarez, and we trust such noble conduct will be noticed in the proper quarter. A YEAR'S JURIES.—In the year 1867 there were 24,647 coroners' inquests held in England and Wales 18,012 prisoners were tried before juries 2,960 causes were tried in the superior Courts of common law—viz. 1,553 in London and West- minster, and 1,407 on circuit; 50 causes were tried before juries in the Probate and Divorce Courts, 856 causes were tried before juries in the county courts, and 843 in the Lord Mayor's Court and other local courts. The list is probably not quite complete, but it shows that 47,369 cases were tried before juries in the year, averaging more than 150 for every working day in the year. This is a heavy tax upon the time of jurymen. Those who think it to a certain extent, at least, an unnecessary tax, may feel an interest in some further official returns, which show that in the county courts 542,560 causes were de- termined in the year, but only 856 of them were tried before a jury and the year's re- turns from borough, hundred, and manorial courts show 6,91)3 cases determined without a jury, and only 483 with a jury. In the three superior courts of common law 32 juries had to be discharged in the year without agreeing upon a verdict—21 in London and Middlesex and 11 on circuit. SHOCKING MURDER NEAR LEWES.—A brutal mur- der was committed on the Southdowns on Friday night last. It appears that a farm labourer named David Baldey, aged sixty, in the employ of Mr Hudson, farmer, of Kingston village, near Lewes, received on Friday night £ 2 Is, being a fortnight's wages for himself and his two sons. He left Mr Hudson's house about six o'clock to go, as was supposed, to bis own cottage, situate at the sum- mit of Newmarket-hill, one of the Southdowns. Nothing more was, as far as is at present known, seen or heard of him that night, and his family-a wife, two sons, and a daughter—went to bed with- out inquiring or searching after him. Next morn- ing. about six o'clock, as the two sons were pro- ceeding to their work, they discovered, lying across the foottrack, about 500 yards from the house, the dead body of their lather. He had received dreadful injuries. They raised an alarm, and the body was removed to the cottage. The police were called in, and Dr. Smythe, police surgeon, Z, who examined the body, found that the deceased had been shot through the back with a (yun or pistol, the bullet being found in his breast, and that his nose and teeth had been crushed in, ap- parently with the but of the weapon which had been used to shoot him. The money which he had received on the previous night had been taken from his pocket, which was turned inside out when the body was discovered. The surgeon had no doubt, from the appearances which he found, that the men who fired the fatal shot was at the time of doing so within a few feet of his victim. The de- ceased is said to have been a steady, hardworking inoffensive man, and he leaves an aged widow and three or four children. Suspicion has fallen on a man who formerly lodged with the deceased, and who is said to have left his lodgings on Friday night with a gun, which he has not since brought back. THE UNTRAVELLED ROAD.-A country hawker, calling upon an old lady to dispose of some goods, inquired of her if she could tell him of any road that no hawker had ever travelled.- Yes,' said she, I know of one and only one, that no hawker has travelled (the man's counten- ance brightened,) and that's the road to heaven.' A HEAVY HEART.-The inquest upon the man Jeltey, who eloped with a young lady of whom he was the guardian, has resulted in a verdict of 'Died from disease of the heart.' His heart was declared by the surgeons who made the post- mortem examination, to be the largest human heart they had ever seen. The heart of a mart should weigh from eight to nine ounces the heart of this man weighed nearly thirty-two ounces. 0 DR. CUMMING AGAIN PROPHESYING.—Dr. Cum- ming has appeared once more before his country- men in his familiar character of far-seeing pro- phet. He believes that in our day is the prediction fulfilled that nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes in divers places.* In these days we are probably about as free from war, famine, and pestileuce, or from the risk of any of them, as mankind, on an average, have been in any age of the world and we are unable to see. that the Peruvian earth- quake greatly helps the case of the seer of Crown- court. Dr. Cumming, however, is nothing, if not a prophet and he has made up his mind that we are on the eve of the most terrific and destruc- tive war in which the human race has ever taken part. England is to be deeply chastened for her sins but after all she will emerge from the trial purified as fine gold,' and it is cheering to learn upon such authority that her sun will not set until it mingles with the splendours of that sua which will have no western declension.' He further tells us that about this time the 'pro- phetic chronology expires-a circumstance at which some profane persons may be disposed to rejoice—on this if on no other account, that it ought to extinguish Dr. Cumming. The effect of these prophetic utterances is somewhat marred by the manner in which the oracle winds up. I la conclusion,' says the reporter, he explained the objects of the Protestant Reformation Society for which a collection was to be made at the end of the lecture; and he promised, if the contributions were liberal, to give another address if well, next year.' RELICS OF THE FRANKLIN EXPEDITION.—It will be remembered that some time ago, Capt. Hall, of New York, set out in command of an expedi- tion in search of the survivors of the crews of the Erebus and Terror. Dr Goold, of Dublin, arrived at New London, Connecticut, a few days since, on board a whaling ship, from Cumberland Inlet, and states that in August, 1867, he spent some consi- derable time with Mr Hall, who was then at Re- pulse Bay. Mr Hail had traced the fate directly of two of the last survivors of Sir John Franklin's party, and bad obtained valuable information re- garding the relics and some records reported by the natives to have been left by the lost expedition in King William's Land. Captain Hall is confi- dent of the identity of Captain Crozier with one of the men described to have,petished, as the natives not only have Captain Crozier's name, but were in possession of certain articles that belonged to him and to his companion. Mr Hall obtained from these Esquimaux Captain Crozier's watch, a gold chronometer, made by Arnold -uid Dent, of Lon- don, besides some small articles of silver, and trinkets belonging to their outfit. These relics Mr Hall now holds, and they have been seen and handled by Dr Goold. Captain Crozier's com- panion, who died with him, is believed to have been a steward of either the Erebus or Terror, as the natives say he was a server of food, but could not, recollect his name. The natives also state that they have among them, near South- hampton Island, a piece of gold lace and a piece of gold bullion which belonged to Captain Crozier, and is believed to have formed part of one of the epaulettes. They also stated that a number of others had started with Captain Crozier from a place very far north to reach Southampton Inlet, but had perished one by one on the way. They had been passed from one band of Enewits to the other, and when Captain Crozier had passed through two tribes the natives say all further traces were lost, but Captain Hall himself traced the remainder there. Captain Hall also says:— 'The opinion most entertained is that the natives killed them. They say themselves there was no difficulty in Captain Crozier getting through, be- cause he was accounted amongst the natives a first-rate hunter for that country, and could at all times keep himself in food.' The records which Captain Hall hopes to be able to secure are iR King William's Land, and considerable difficulty is anticipated in the effort to reach them. According to native information the last six survivors built a. cairn, or rude vault of stones, on the rocks, and depositedithin it some documents and such arti- cles as they had no further use for, or would have been an incumbrance on their journey. When Captain Goold left Captain Hall he organised an expedition to go in search of this cairn. A RUSSIAN STORY.—Mr Andreoli, a Russian writer, who was exiled some years ago to Siberia, is now contributing to the Revue Moderne under the title of Souvenirs deSiberie,' his recollections not only of Siberian but also of Russian life. In the last number of the Revue he tells a story, the end of which belongs to the present reign, the be- ginning to the reign of Paul, of whose period it is strikingly characteristic. The Emperor's favourite was at that time a young French actress, ot whom he was u.adly jealous, One evenIng, at a ball, he noticed that a young man named Labano'i" was paying her a great deal of attention. did not lose his temper, but at the end of thebalL gave orders that Labanoff should be arrested and thrown intogthe citadel. He oniy intended to keep him there a few days 'to make him more serious, after which he proposed to reprimand him and to appoint him to an office which had been solicited for him. Labanoff, however, was forgotten. At the death of Nicholas, Alexander II., then full of magnanimity, liberated all the prisoners in the citadel, without exception. In a vaulted tomb in which it was impossible to stand upright, and which was not more than two yards long, an old man was found, almost bent double, and incapable of answering when he was spoken to. This was Labanoff. The fimperor Paul had been succeeded by the Emperot Alexander I., and afterwards by the Emperor Nicholas he had been in the dungeon more than fifty years. When he was taken out he could not bear the light, and by a strange phenomenon, his movements had become automatic. He could hardly hold him- self up, and he had become so accustomed to move about within the limits of his narrow cell that he could not take more than two steps for- wards without turning round, as though he had struck against a wall, and taking two sleps back. wards, and so on alternately. He lived for only a week after his liberation.'