the part of the Minister. No such command then is implied in the Rubric, which relates to his Confession. Nor must we forget, that this Confession is not recommended in all cases; it is recommended only "if he feels his conscience troubled with any ἐσ weighty matter." And how is the Minister to know this, unless the sick man of his own accord declares it. But if he does declare that "his conscience is "troubled with some weighty matter," the Minister who prays with him, may surely advise him to specify the cause of his uneasiness, as the surest mode of quieting his conscience. Here is no spiritual tyranny, for all depends on the will of the patient. On the other hand, if a Minister of the established Church were desired to pray with a sick person, and that sick person gave no intimation of a troubled conscience, or a want of spiritual relief, the Minister would not be authorised by the Rubric even to recommend a special confession. It would be a most impertinent, and unjustifiable prying into secrets, with which he is no otherwise concerned, than as the patient himself requires his assistance. There is no similarity therefore what

3o Even the Absolution is not given unless "he humbly and heartily desire it." Of this absolution, though it is often quoted for the purpose of shewing the similarity of our Church to the Church of Rome, it cannot be necessary to make many observations. The case, in which alone it is to be used, is a case, which hardly ever occurs. It is to be used only, according to the Rubric, when the sick person has thought proper to make a "special confession of his sins," and then heartily desires the absolution. The consequence is, that very few clergymen have ever had occasion to use it. It would be foreign to our present inquiry, to consider how far a Christian Minister can go beyond the act of declaring,

that

ever between Confession in the Church of England, and Confession in the Church of Rome. Confession of sins to a priest, being an act of obligation in the latter, becomes a powerful engine of spiritual

that God pardoneth and absolveth those who truly repent, as in the Absolution of the Morning and Evening Service; or of offering a solemn petition to Almighty God for that purpose, as in the Absolution of the Communion Service. But if the form of the Absolution in the Visitation of the Sick implies a judicial power, or a power of pardoning vested in the Minister himself, it is still an act of injustice to the Church of England, to compare a form which is prescribed for the bed of sickness, at the approach of death, and even then to be used only in extreme cases, with the ordinary form of absolution in the Church of Rome. This form, as given in Latin in the Rituale Romanum Pauli V. Pont. Max. jussu editum, in the Chapter De Sacramento Pænitentiæ (p. 37. ed. Antverpiæ, 1625, 4.) is as follows, Dominus noster, Jesus Christus te absolvat; et ego auctoritate ipsius te absolvo ab omni vinculo excommunicationis, suspensionis, et interdicti, in quantum possum, et tu indiges. Deinde ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis in nomine Patris, Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen. Now this judicial absolution is not confined to the bed of sickness, but is employed for persons in health; a shorter form being used when there is danger of death, namely, Ego te absolvo ab omnibus censuris et peccatis, in nomine Patris, Filii, et Spiritus Sancti, Ib. p. 58. The foregoing judicial absolution therefore is repeated, as often as a person confesses, and does the penance enjoined him. Such a power of absolution is capable of the greatest abuse, whereas it is hardly possible to convert the absolution in our " Visitation of the Sick" into an engine of spiritual dominion. The cases indeed are widely different; the Confession which precedes Absolution being in the one case compulsory, in the other case voluntary. Nor must we forget the difference arising from the power of the Romish Clergy to require acts of penance, before they give absolution, a power, which no Clergyman of our Church can exercise toward those, who have confessed to him. If at any time penance is enjoined with us, which happens very rarely, it is a punishment inflicted for some offence by the sentence of an ecclesiastical

court.

tyranny". But as private confession is a voluntary act in the former, provision is made for the spiritual comfort of the sinner, without diminution of his spiritual freedom.

The last engine of spiritual tyranny in the Church of Rome is the Inquisition, which is very closely connected with that of compulsory Confession. This horrid tribunal was founded on the arrogant assumption, that they who conduct the councils of that Church, are exempted by the Holy Spirit even from the possibility of error. Pretending to possess that unerring judgment, which belongs alone to the Almighty, but discarding the attribute of divine mercy, relentless man inflicted tortures and death

31 Mr. Crowley, who was formerly a Student in the College of Maynooth, and is therefore perfectly well acquainted with the effects of Confession among the Romanists in Ireland, says at p. 4. of his Thoughts on the Emancipation of the Roman Catholics, "Long before children are sent to Confession, they are taught by "their parents and others to respect and dread the Priest. Con❝fession, and especially Confirmation, afford him the best oppor"tunities that can be, and which he very rarely neglects, to "make the deepest impressions on their tender minds. And his "occasonal admonitions and threatenings, together with the dis"courses and examples of priest-ridden or credulous people are in "general sufficient to prevent those impressions from being after"wards either effaced or weakened," At p. 23, he says of the Romish Priests in Ireland, "Considering the restraint under "which they labour, it is wonderful how much power they presume with the aid of these doctrines to exercise over the com "mon people." And he adds in a Note, "that many a country"man has patiently borne a flogging from a priest, which would "entitle him to heavy damages in a Court of Justice.”—Among other instances of patient submission, I remember many years ago to have seen, in the Cathedral of Mechlen, a Grenadier, who had been the terror of the Turks, kneeling two hours on the bare stones, performing a Penance imposed by his Confessor.

on his fellow-creatures, for the sole offence of entertaining opinions, which differed from his own. It is true, that the Inquisition, though lately restored in Spain, and at no time abolished, either in Portugal or in Italy, was never established as a regular tribunal in this country. Yet many have been condemned to the flames for heresy against the Church of Rome. It is urged indeed, that similar cruelty has been displayed by Protestants themselves: and the victims of the Church of Rome in the reign of Elizabeth have been compared with the victims of the Church of England in the reign of Mary. But the cases are quite dissimilar. When Craniner, and Latimer, and Ridley, and Hooper, with the numerous other martyrs, were committed to the flames in the reign of Mary, their sole offence was a rejection of Transubstantiation, and other Doctrines peculiar to the Church of Rome. But the Papists, who were executed in the reign of Elizabeth, were not executed because they believed in those Doctrines, but because their desire to restore the Romish Religion had led them to acts of rebellion against their lawful Sove reign.

CHAP. X.

THE PROOF OF THE PROPOSITION, ADVANCED AT THE HEAD OF THE PRECEDING CHAPTER, CONTINUED AND CONCLUDED.

THE second part of the proposition, of which the first part was proved in the preceding Chapter, derives additional importance from the close connexion, which subsists in this country between the State and the established Church. If the Church of Rome tramples on the rights of all other Churches (the part of the proposition, which we are now going to prove) it is a necessary consequence, that it effects, in this country, the rights also of the State.

The arguments, which were used in the preceding Chapter, to shew that the Church of Rome enslaved the consciences of its own members, are, many of them, applicable also to the proof, that it tramples on the rights of all other Churches. When, for instance, the Church of Rome contends that it " re"tains its jurisdiction over all Apostates, Heretics, "and Schismatics, though they no longer belong "to

to its body'," it pretends to a right, which directly interferes with the rights of the Church, or Chap. IX. Notes 2, 3.