vice versa. Then come these excellent words, 'But in all things to follow and keep the rule of charity; and every man to be satisfied with his own conscience, nor judging other men's minds or consciences; whereas he hath no warrant of God's Word to the same.'

It is exceedingly remarkable that this invitation to unburden the conscience remained in all the successive revisions of the English Prayer Book, and that after 1549 it was not even considered necessary to retain the warning that members of the Church should not criticise one another's action in respect of confession. The fact is that there was little or no necessity to defend its use. The words which were and are employed at the Ordination of every priest-whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained-made a misunderstanding almost impossible. The same words had been employed in the Ordination of Priests in the medieval services, and they were intended in 1550 to bear the same meaning as before. It should also be observed that the phrase 'discreet and learned' is a technical expression which is now frequently used by the clergy without an exact appreciation of its meaning. 'Discreet,' or 'discreet and prudent,' is the medieval term for an "authorised' confessor. To suppose that the English Reformers, who had been authorised to hear confessions in the unreformed Church, did not know what the word meant, verges on the ridiculous. Every parish priest was entitled to hear confessions in his own parish, but not other priests, unless they had a special faculty from the bishop of the diocese. Such priests were 'discreet,' being regarded by the bishop as trained men competent to undertake the most difficult and trying duty of a Christian minister.

6

The unanimity of the great divines of the Church of England with regard to Confession and Absolution Sacramental' is so obvious that it requires little com

ment. It may be doubted whether any serious diversity of opinion on the subject existed until the later Georgian period, when the clergy, having shirked some of their more irksome duties, began to be tempted to find reasons for their conduct. Bishop Ridley, who died in protest against Rome; Richard Hooker, who appealed to men's consecrated reasoning powers; Bishop Overall, the author of the latter part of the Catechism; George Herbert, the typical English priest and gentleman; Bishop Ken, who would not resign his conscience into the hands of William III.; Bishop Berkeley, the refined philosopher-all uphold the usefulness of auricular or particular' confession. He would be an unnatural son of the Church of England who could look with indifference upon such a roll of names. But it is a roll which can be indefinitely enlarged for the simple reason that men took, in their plain and Catholic meaning, the words contained in the Communion Service, and in the Visitation of the Sick. And with regard to the latter service, which contains the form of absolution ordinarily employed in the case of auricular confession, it may be fit to quote the reverent words of Dr. Donne, one of the ablest ecclesiastics of the time of James I.: 'We are to remember that every coming to the Communion is as serious a thing as our own transmigration out of the world, and we should do as much here for the settling of our consciences as upon our deathbed.'1

It is strictly forbidden to the clergy to reveal any matter made known to them in confession. The 113th Canon of 1603 says:

...

If any man confess his secret and hidden sins to the Minister we do straitly charge and admonish him, that he do not reveal and make known to any person whatsoever any crime or offence so committed to his trust and secrecy (except they be such crimes as by the laws of this realm his own life may be

1 Sermons, lvi.

called into question for concealing the same), under pain of irregularity.1

If the conscientious physician regards himself as morally bound not to gossip about the facts which he learns in his professional capacity, much more is the clergyman bound by every conceivable moral and legal obligation not to make known the troubles and sins of those who have sought his absolution. In any case where there is any abuse of confidence the penitent should at once inform the bishop, who in such cases has the full right to withdraw the power of the priest to hear confessions.

It is difficult to realise how in this country it should ever be imagined, even by the most prejudiced, either that the clergy would wish to violate such confidence, or that clergymen and laymen alike do not frequently desire to avail themselves of confidential help. The growing complexity and the increased temptations of life makes it a matter of the utmost importance that all, and more especially the young and inexperienced, should know whither to turn when they need both the assurance of divine pardon and the guidance of human counsel. This assurance and this guidance are, as a matter of fact, perpetually being sought, and an immense number of lives would be saved from shipwreck if a larger number of persons in this country had been regularly taught to avail themselves of this means of grace. It is possible that an infinitesimal number of priests, like an infinitesimal number of qualified

1 This canon was by no means a dead letter. The bishops of the seventeenth century in their visitation articles made careful inquiries to ensure the regular hearing of confessions by their parish priests. Thus Bishop Montague in 1638 inquires, 'Doth the minister exhort his parishioners to make confession of their sins to himself, or to some other learned, grave, and discreet minister, especially in Lent, against the holy time of Easter, that they may receive comfort and absolution, and so become worthy receivers of such sacred mysteries?' Express inquiries were made by the bishops as to any breach of secrecy on the part of priests.

physicians, misuse their power. But in England such a misuse is almost an impossibility. The clergyman who is not above suspicion in the eyes of his people knows that he is destitute of influence and that his private ministrations will never be required. The repulsive suggestions which have sometimes been made with regard to the method and results of private confession must always remain unjustifiable except in a country where the moral tone is universally low, where there is also compulsory celibacy among the clergy, and where private confession is always required before Communion if the intending communicant suspects that he has been guilty of any deadly sin.1 There is probably not a country in Europe where all these three necessary conditions are fulfilled. They are certainly not fulfilled in Ireland. Nor are they fulfilled in France. No one was capable of giving better evidence on the subject than Renan, who was trained for the French priesthood, and then attacked the Church with every faculty at his command. Renan's testimony is unequivocal. He says, 'The fact is, that what people say about clerical morals is, so far as my experience goes, destitute of any foundation. I never saw the shadow of a scandal. . . . Confession Confession may be attended in some countries with serious drawbacks. I did not see a trace of them in my ecclesiastical youth.'2

This, and more than this, is true of England. The standard of clerical morality is very high, compulsory celibacy does not exist in the Church of England, nor does the Church in any way deny that contrition for sin may be adequate without sacramental confession.

It may be added that the parochial clergy would do

1 It is not strictly true to say that confession is 'compulsory' in the Roman Church. It is compulsory before Communion when the penitent is conscious of having committed deadly sin.

2 Souvenirs, p. 139.

much to protect themselves against misunderstanding if they clearly informed their people precisely when, and by whom, and where, confessions are heard in the churches under their care.

Note on Lay Confession.-In the Middle Ages, when a priest could not be found to hear a confession, penitents sometimes confessed their sins to a lay friend, who prayed for them though he could not pronounce absolution. The custom is sanctioned by the high authority of S. Thomas Aquinas (Summa, Suppl. iii. Partis, q. viii. a. 2) and Peter Lombard (Sententiarum, Lib. iv. dist. 17, q. ii.). In 1349, being a time of pestilence, the Bishop of Bath and Wells said that if no priest were present the dying were to confess to a layman or even to a woman, and in 1524 the famed Chevalier Bayard made his confession to his steward.