21 AUGUST 1858, Page 15

OXFORD VERSUS LONDON—THE CONFESSIONAL. MS Question which lately agitated St.

Barnabas has disturbed the parish of Boyne Hill, but with exactly opposite results. The Reverend Mr. West, like the Reverend Mr. Poole, has been in- ducing a poor woman to use the observance of confession ; and some neighbours, zealous for the purity of Protestantism in the diocess, have brpught the case before the Bishop and the public, with the result that the Bishop upholds the curate and defends the practice, instead of dismissing the curate and 'condemn- ing the practice, as the Bishop of London did. There were some very considerable differences, however, between the Boyne Hill and the St. Barnabas cases. The Oxford case is far less pro- nounced in its aspect ; Mr. West is not accused of using cere- monies borrowed from another formula, and though the evidence against him appears to come through an uneducated and therefore questionable channel, it is not so improbable as that by which Mr. Poole's personal as well as clerical character was assailed. The kind of catechizing which the curate of Boyne Hill is de- scribed as using is such as might be defended on the ground that it was necessary, if confession be used at all, to extract the truth. The case therefore is not so incredible, and, if we do be- lieve it, is not so repulsive to the general feeling of this country. It is so far less interesting, inasmuch as it is less startling ; that which is startling and interesting lies in the result and in the conduct of the Bishop. For if scanty justice was done to Mr. Poole through the mild rule and "low" Protestantism of Dr. Tait, more than justice appears to be done to Mr. West through the energetic rule and "high" Protestantism of Dr. Wilberforce. It must be remembered. that, properly_ speaking, the policy or moral advantage of confession is not really brought under debate. We may, or we may not, think it conducive to morality or to im- morality. We may, or we may not, think that inasmuch as, dogmatically, all human beings are considered to sin, so the soul shall stand relieved of its load by unburdening itself in confes- sion' and the sinner shall receive from the priest an assurance that the work of moral penance has been effectually performed. After very elaborate reasoning and careful deliberation, we may decide those questions in one way or the other ; but they are at present scarcely under review. The Bishop of Oxford draws a astinction which is not entirely unworthy of consideration be- tween the " enforced " confession of the Roman Church and the " permitted " confession of the Anglican Church. There is a dis- tinction but the true one differs somewhat from that laid down by Dr. Wilberforce. According to the general English view of the subject, the troubled sinner may naturally take counsel with his clergyman ; and the clergyman may, on his own personal re- sponsibility, afford advice, receive confidence, and give consola- tion. The Office for the Visitation of the Sick prescribes certain rules in restraint of the clergyman, leaving him to a certain ex- tent free in the exercise of his discretion, but reminding him that such confidences must be sacred against disclosure. But it is clear that the clergyman who meets the spontaneous desire of the conscience-troubled man cannot represent himself as exercising any authority over that person in the name of the Church. Let us illustrate the case by an analogy. According to the doctrine of the Bishop, as he explains it, a clergyman might employ the name of the Church, its authority, its influence, its implied power, for the purpose of inducing a man to pay his just debts, making the clergyman, pro hac vice, a sort of spiritual county court judge, counsel, and bailiff, all in one. Now the clergyman, as presumably the best informed and most conscientious man in the parish, may be a very proper person to be consulted by a con- science-troubled debtor; but always, of course, without the sha- dow of an idea that the clergyman exercises in the matter of debts any authority whatsoever. The Bishop confounds the two unctions: he can split hairs, but not comb them out of tangle. There is a consideration beyond the doctrine which has received tlietounter-signature of "Si Oxon." We are to understand that '1*Yartioular view which he expounds is the rule in his diocess; Woltave already learned that the opposite doctrine, explained by Dr. Tait, is the rule in the diocess of which London is the centre. If it were possible to continue this peculiar kind of distinction, there not only would be a divided national Church, but there would be a tendency for the members of it to redistribute them- selves topographically ; Oxford would become the abode of a " high " section, London of a " low " section. University asso- tions perhaps might be brought to play in support of the high, metropolitan resources in support of the low. It is impossible that the lines of divergence thus indicated can be " produced " so as permanently to mark the spiritual map of the United Kingdom; but if we are not to be drawn into that evil condition, it is a. present evil, far from devoid of bad consequences, that membeiv of the accredited Church should be able to make false starts ; and, while distracting their flocks by diversity of leading, bring doubt even upon the authority of the body to which they belong.