were refused to such characters, that refusal would at once make it evident that they had confessed some great guilt.

However Cardinal de Lugo and others think that it would not be an infringement of the seal to deny a testimonial to such persons, but Liguori opposes the Cardinal, and says, that if it be simply written in the testimonial that the penitent confessed without any mention being made of absolution, he may grant it—he cannot, he says, deliberately write that the penitent was absolved when he was not, but if a printed form or certificate be put into the hands of the confessor, in which it is stated that the penitent was absolved, he may sign it!

Thus the confessor may give a printed testimonial to the most abandoned character, certifying that he was duly confessed and absolved, when he was not!!!

This is no lie, the saint adds, because the confessor only performs a material act!

No. 640.-All sins of the penitent, future and past, told for the purpose of accusing, fall under the seal, hence, if a man reveal his intention to commit murder, the Priest cannot divulge it! but if sins are mentioned by way of simple narration, they do not fall under the seal. According to the Thomists, accomplices can be brought under the influence of the Priest-inquiry can be made concerning them.

No. 641.-With the license of the penitent, an accomplice can be corrected ;-odiousness is that which is calculated to drive away penitents from the confessional.— Penance imposed comes under the seal; circumstances not pertaining to the subject do not fall under the Seal.

Here the Saints and Doctors disagree; some think that defects and circumstances mentioned irrelevantly do not fall under the seal.

Cardinal de Lugo, Fagundez, Averza, &c., maintain this, while other authorities think otherwise, on the ground that their disclosure would render confession odious, or drive away penitents from it. Liguori appears to agree with the latter. The same difference exists as to the defect of scrupulosity,-by the way, it is worthy of notice that the Saint makes the following strange statement, "otherwise if it be said of a prelate, confessor, and the like, in whom scrupulosity is a mark of a confused and irresolute mind."

No. 645.-In considering the persons bound by the seal, Liguori authorizes the confessor to swear that he does not know a sin which in reality was made known to him in the confessional. I have had occasion before when treating the subject of equivocation to notice this. The confessor is considered in a twofold point of view; as God and man. God in the confessional, man out of it. If the confessor should be asked to swear without equivocation, even in that case he may persist in his denial. Thus there is no means by which the Church of Rome can be bound by an oath; she will even swear that she does not use equivocation when in reality she does, and her conduct she justifies by that most convenient word,-distinguo.

British legislators exact an oath from Romish members of Parliament, in which those members swear that they use no equivocation. I give the oath and a passage from Liguori in parallel columns, and it will be seen how its obligation can be evaded, if it be not improper for a confessor to evade an oath, "a fortiori" it is not for a layman.

"I do swear that I will defend to the utmost of my power, the settlement of pro

"What if he should be asked to answer without equivocation? Even in that

perty within this realm, as established by the laws; and I do hereby disclaim, disavow, and solemnly abjure any intention to subvert the present Church Establishment as settled by law within this realm: and I do solemnly swear that I will never exercise any privilege to which I am or may be entitled, to disturb or wea ken the Protestant Religion or Protestant government in this kingdom, and I do solemnly, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare, that I do make this declaration and every part thereof in the plain and ordinary sense of the words of this oath, without any evasion, equivocation, or mental reservation whatever.”— Oath for Roman Catholic members of Parliament.

case he can answer with an oath that he does not know it, as more probably Lugo, n. 79. Croiz 1. c. cum Stoz. et Holzm. num. 722. with Michel teach against others. The reason is, because then the confessor verily answers according to the oath made, which is always understood to be made in the manner in which it was possible to be made: to wit, of manifesting the truth without equivocation, that is, without that equivocation which can be lawfully omitted. But as to the necessary equivocation which could not be omitted without sin, the other has not a right that an answer should be given to him without equivocation, neither moreover is the confessor bound to answer without equivocation.—No. 646.

No. 647.-The superior who grants licenses for reserved sins is bound by the seal-so also a confidant, a person who stealthily overhears, a layman supposed to be a Priest, a Doctor consulted on the case-he who writes the confession of an unlearned man-he who hath found a written confession and reads it, and according to some the penitent himself.

No. 648.-As to the doctor consulted with the license of the penitent, there is a variety of opinion ;-according to the third opinion mentioned by Liguori he is bound by the seal.

No. 649.-The question arises, whether a consiliarius," or person consulted preparatory to confession, be bound to the seal? some answer in the affirmative, but the general opinion is in the negative.

650. The person who reads a written confesssion

with a few exceptions, is not bound by the seal according to the more probable opinion.

No. 651. A Confessor can act on the knowledge acquired in the confessional, if he have a license from the penitent. St. Thomas says, that the penitent "can so act, that that which the Priest knew as God he may also know as man, which he does, when he gives him permission to speak concerning them, and moreover, if he speak he does not break the seal."

As to the license it must be free, but a most important statement is made; “If it be doubtful whether the confessor may have spoken with the permission of the penitent, the Priest is to be believed rather than the penitent."

Nos. 652, 653.-The confessor can speak to the penitent of sins made known in former confessions.

In No. 656, he discusses more minutely the subject considered in No. 655.

Here he maintains that a superior cannot remove his subject, Priest, or otherwise from office, though from confession he knows him to be a murderer, an adulterer, the guiltiest character. If a man confess his intention to commit murder, he cannot be delivered up to justice, and the Priest must coolly look on while the murderer commits his guilty work. A Bishop cannot deny holy orders to a man whom by confession he knows to be unfit for the office.

So binding is the seal that a Priest cannot save his own life, though from confession he knew that it was endangered, if thereby he should render confession odious.

No. 660.-If it be known from confession that the supposed Priest to whom the penitent is accustomed to confess, is not in reality a Priest or confessor, but a de

U

ceiver, the penitent is still bound to confess to him, lest the seal should be broken.

This co-operation, says Liguori, is not sin, but only a material act.

Remarkable are the words with which the Saint closes his dissertation :

"If the removal of a subject from office can lead to the disclosure of a crime heard in confession, or to any (mark) probable suspicion to be held concerning himself, by no means ought the prelate to remove the subject."

II. We will consider the subject matter of conversation or confession between the Priest and the Penitent. In one word it is Sin,-sin in all the varieties in which it can be committed. In the secrecy of the confessional, secrecy, the inviolable character of which we have been considering-inviolable to suit the purposes of Rome,the Priest and the penitent converse not on righteousness and true holiness," but Sin.

66

The Romanist kneels down beside the Priest, and having asked his benediction repeats the confiteor as follows:

"I confess to Almighty God, to the blessed Virgin Mary, to the blessed St. Michael, archangel, to the blessed St. John, baptist, to the holy apostles St. Peter and St. Paul, to all the Saints, and to you my ghostly Father, that I have grievously offended in thought, word, and deed, through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault.

"Therefore, I beseech the blessed Virgin Mary, the blessed St. Michael the archangel, the blessed St. John, baptist, the holy apostles St. Peter and Paul, and all the Saints in Heaven, and you my ghostly Father, to pray to our Lord God

for me."

Some at the words " through my fault" make the confession, and afterwards close the confiteor; while others make the confession at the end of the confiteor.