with Eusebius-by St, Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, a very little later-by A. Placentinus, another pilgrim, two centuries laterby Arculfus, only much more distinct, towards the close of the same century-by the English Saint Willibald, in the following century-by Paschasius Radbertus, in a description which he professes to have taken from the accounts of many travellers of that time, in the ninth century.

Very curious and interesting extracts are likewise given, from the Russian pilgrim, Daniel, who visited Jerusalem in the twelfth century (which passage alone might suffice to establish the identity of the sepulchre of that day with that of earlier times, as regarded its outward features), and from Father Boniface of Ragusa, who was employed by Pope Julius III. in the sixteenth century to superintend the restoration-and lastly, from certain eye-witnesses of the fire which took place in 1808, when the ante-chapel was dreadfully burned, and the chapel erected by the Crusaders on the top of the monolith was entirely consumed; yet the cave itself received not the slightest injury internally. These extracts all unite to prove the continued existence of the native rock within the marble casing.

Thus we have endeavoured to lay before the reader an analysis of the arguments and inductions by which Mr. Williams seeks to support a belief which has come down to us venerable with the hoar of ages; and piously steps forward to rescue from the charge, not merely of pitiful ignorance, but of wilful imposition, the bishops and clergy, and some of the brightest ornaments in the purest days, of the eldest Church in Christendom. And we bid him, God speed! Without pledging ourselves to a complete agreement with deductions founded upon arguments which we have had no opportunity of testing, we need not hesitate to declare that, so far as common sense can aid us, in almost all points where he and Dr. Robinson engage, we think the palm of victory must be awarded to our author-always supposing that citations be correctly made, and local facts truly stated. Nor do we shrink from avowing an antecedent sympathy with one who takes his stand on the side which our English Churchman has espoused, in preference to those who set out as the American Presbyterian seems to have done with the axiom that ecclesiastical tradition is synonymous with fraud; or who-like his coreligionist of Scotland-while charging a Christian bishop with an impious fabrication, deliberately asserts that primitive Christians were likely to pay more marked honour to the resting-place of their human teachers, than to that grave in which the body of the blessed Saviour had been without seeing corruption; or to

1 Dr. Wilson, "Lands of the Bible," vol. i.

one, and he (alas, that we should have to speak it !) a professor in one of our own ancient universities, who-while calling the saints and fathers of the fourth century "ignorant priests"-had the temerity to pronounce dogmatically, after a run of only fifteen days through Palestine, Jerusalem included".

For ourselves, we beg to tender to Mr. Williams our earnest thanks for his very valuable work, and to congratulate him on the patience, diligence, research, and piety which he has evidently brought to bear upon a subject of surpassing interest-whether it be viewed in a geographical, historical, or religious aspect. It is with sincere pleasure that, while writing these pages, we have heard of an act which reflects equal credit on him who gives and him who receives. We allude to the following gratifying announcement, which appeared in the "Guardian" newspaper of Sept. 12th :

"The King of Prussia has presented to the Rev. George Williams, M.A., Fellow of King's College, Cambridge (through his ambassador, the Chevalier Bunsen), the golden medal for science, as a token of his high esteem and appreciation of the important services rendered to the republic of letters by that gentleman, in his interesting work The Topography of Jerusalem."

It would not be right to close this article without saying, that a large portion of the second volume is dedicated to an investigation of the Temple-mount as it was and as it is, as well as to the antiquities without the walls. The volume closes with an interesting account of the inhabitants of modern Jerusalem; and with several long notes, for one of which-on Proselytism in the East, Bishop Gobat and the Malta Protestant College-we wish we had space. We earnestly invite attention to it.

We must not omit to mention the very beautiful chapter, by Professor Willis, on the Architectural History of the Holy Sepulchre. And we would express a hope that Mr. W. will consider over our suggestion in p. 180.

Dr. E. D. Clarke. He fell into the monstrous absurdity of placing Mount Zion south of the Valley of Hinnom.

ART. X.—1. An Inquiry into the Doctrine of the Church of England upon Absolution. By the Rev. WILLIAM MASKELL, M.A., Vicar of St. Mary Church, and Domestic Chaplain to the Lord Bishop of Exeter. London: William Pickering. 1849. 2. The Ministry of the Word for Absolution, according to the Doctrine of the Church of England since the Reformation. In reply to the Rev. W. Maskell's Doctrine of Absolution. By the Rev. CHARLES WARREN, M.A., Vicar of Over, Cambridgeshire. London: Hamilton and Adams. 1849.

THE question treated in these publications is one altogether of considerable difficulty, and yet of great practical importance, as all questions relating to absolution must necessarily be. The effect of the absolutions in the daily service and the office for the Holy Communion, may not in itself at first sight appear to comprise so many subjects of inquiry as it really does; but Mr. Maskell has thrown a new light on the subject in his sermon, followed up by the able publication mentioned at the head of this Article, on which it is our purpose to make some comments.

The excessive evils resulting in many ways from the practice of enforced confession which had prevailed for some centuries before the Reformation, induced the abolition of that practice as a necessary preliminary to the reception of the Holy Sacrament, though it was still left optional in the case of any person whose conscience was troubled and who required further comfort or counsel, and the benefit of special absolution. The canons of the Church also recognize and sanction the practice of confessing sins to the minister of God, with a view to spiritual comfort by the same means. Jewell, Hooker, and, we may say, all our divines, concur in affirming that the Church permits and authorizes the practice, though she does not, like the Church of Rome, make it compulsory; and Mr. Maskell agrees with this view, while he states his full conviction that the Church of England has done well and wisely in suppressing the practice of compulsory confession. The following passage conveys Mr. Maskell's view on this part of the subject:

"In this place I must say that it is no part of my duty now to defend the truth which our Church insists upon, namely, that priestly absolution is not necessary to salvation; and, therefore, that oral confession is not obligatory upon all her members. It must be enough for me to declare

my entire and unhesitating acceptance of this, her decision: nor that alone; I would express also, with all humility, my deep conviction that the removal of the old rule, and the return to ancient practice in this respect, was one great and chief blessing of the Reformation.

"Quite in accordance, therefore, with Holy Scripture, and with catholic tradition, is the statement that God' pardoneth and absolveth all them that truly repent, and unfeignedly believe his holy Gospel.' Excellent is the admonition which succeeds the pronunciation of this statement: Let us beseech Him to grant us true repentance and his Holy Spirit, that those things may please Him which we do at this present; and that the rest of our life hereafter may be pure and holy.' Most true do I believe it to be, that if returning sinners would once again be accepted of God, would once again' come' before Him 'holy and clean,' they may with all confidence rely upon the way and means thereto,'-alone and without other means, which our Church has set before them; that is, to examine their lives and conversations by the rule of God's commandments; and whereinsoever they shall have perceived themselves to have offended, either by will, word, or deed, there to bewail their own sinfulness, and to confess themselves to Almighty God, with full purpose of amendment of life.'

"And once more: fully do I accept, and with God's help, most plainly would I always endeavour to urge and to insist upon this truth also,—that, without any resort at all to priestly absolution, without receiving it, without desiring it, if we have sinned, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous.' If, therefore, we return to Him, who is the merciful receiver of all true penitent sinners, we may assure ourselves that He is ready to receive us, and most willing to pardon us, if we come unto Him with faithful repentance, if we submit ourselves unto Him, and from henceforth walk in his ways; if we will take his easy yoke, to follow Him in lowliness, patience, and charity, and be ordered by the governance of his Holy Spirit, seeking always His glory, and serving Him duly in our vocation with thanksgiving. This if we do, Christ will deliver us from the curse of the law, and He will set us on his right hand, and give us the gracious benediction of his Father, commanding us to take possession of his glorious kingdom. These are indeed golden words; they are words, I humbly and heartily believe, founded, to their full extent, and in their obvious and honest meaning, upon the word of God itself, and the primitive teaching of the Church."- —pp. 151–153.

This passage states the author's full conviction that the Church of England held sacerdotal absolution not to be essential to the remission of sin; and that she is right in so holding and teaching.

The particular point, however, made by Mr. Maskell is this,that, although remission of sins may be obtained by other means besides the absolution of the authorized minister, that absolution,

when it is given, must always be preceded by special confession of sin made to him; and, therefore, that a general confession of sin made in and with the congregation, as it is in the daily service and the Holy Communion, is not such a confession as entitles those who make it to receive absolution; and that, in point of fact, the absolution in those services is not, properly speaking, an absolution, but a declaration of God's willingness to forgive, or else a prayer for the forgiveness of the penitent. We think that this is a fair representation of Mr. Maskell's view on the point. It is comprised in the following passage:

"So far as I am able to comprehend the teaching of our Church, sbe holds the grace of absolution to be given, and to be given only, to the true penitent after a distinct confession by word of mouth of all known and remembered sins: such confession to be made to a priest, not for the purpose of asking counsel and advice, but in order to receive absolution through his ministry.

"Hence the third form in our office for the Visitation of the Sick, and the absolution contemplated and advised in the exhortation which follows the appointed notice of Communion, alone convey and assure the grace of sacramental absolution, because they alone fulfil the required conditions. If this position be true, then, as to the other two forms which are contained in our Common Prayer-Book, it is, comparatively, of no great consequence to examine very minutely into the extent of the spiritual graces which commonly accompany them. More than a declaration of comfort and consolation, by an authoritative assurance of the infinite mercy of God towards all who repent and amend their lives, with an exhortation so to amend, the first so-called absolution does not appear to be. Nor do I know that the second absolution, that, namely, which is in the Liturgy, although it may convey remission of venial sin, can in any important particular whatever be regarded as more than an earnest supplication to God for mercy towards all who are then present," &c.-pp. 44, 45.

After perusing this passage, we are naturally led to inquire, On what authority the statement is made, that the doctrine of the Church of England is as Mr. Maskell describes it? The doctrine appears to us novel, at least if we take into account those writers who have lived since the Reformation; and we are not aware that any such writer has been produced by Mr. Maskell as holding exactly his view. Certainly ritualists may be pointed out who hold the absolutions in the daily service and the Communion to be declarations, and not authoritative absolutions; and, doubtless, writers may also be found who maintain that the absolution in the Visitation of the Sick, and in private confession, is strictly authoritative, and an exercise of the power of the keys. But we do not recollect to have observed authorities subsequent to the