receiving any confession of the kind. Let the minister only teach his parishioners the necessity of sincere and hearty repentancelet him assure them that God will not despise the broken and contrite spirit and he will have little need of hearing any special confession of sins that have been committed.

We have taken no notice of sins confessed before they are committed-for we hold it a solecism in religion, that any person making such a confession should go on to do the deed which he confessed to his minister, only "for the purpose of disburdening his conscience and receiving spiritual consolation." But should such a circumstance ever occur in the church of England, we hold it the imperative duty of every clergyman, if he cannot prevent the crime, to make it known instantly to the proper authorities. There is, evidently, no repentance in this case the canon has nothing to do with it-and any other interpretation would again lay us open to all the horrible evils of auricular confession.

PURGATORY.INDULGENCES.-On these doctrines we shall say very little-we reject the former because we conceive that no hint or intimation of it is to be found in any of the books of scripture which we esteem canonical, and farther we consider it to have given rise to all the evils of private masses and the corruptions which resulted from them. We reject the second, not only because they are altogether unwarranted by any word of holy writ, and contrary to every principle of reason, but because we conceive the foundations on which they rest to be, in the highest degree, blasphemous and absurd. These principles are: 1. That the power of the Pope, great as it is, does not properly extend beyond the limits of this present world.* 2. That the power which he possesses of releasing souls from purgatory arises out of the treasure committed to his carea treasure consisting of the supererogatory merits of our blessed Saviour, the Virgin, and the saints. One drop, they say, of the Redeemer's blood, would have sufficed for the redemption of the world-if he shed so much more than was required, what is to be done with the excess? The saints did much more than was required of them-what advantage is derived also from this superfluity of merits and good works? The whole

• Idcirco dicuntur indulgentiæ concedi defunctis per modum suffragii, non per modum absolutionis; non enim potest Pontifex absolvere defunctos à pœnis, quomodò absolvit viventes, quia illi non sunt ei subjecti, isti sunt: potest tamen, tanquàm summus dispensator Thesauri Ecclesiæ communicare illis bona operæ pœnalia, quæ in thesauro sunt. Bellarm. de Purgatorio, lib. ii. cap. xvi.

† See the Bull of Clem. VI. quoted by Dr. Phillpotts.

is to be applied by the Pope to the deliverance of souls out of purgatory, and from those temporal punishments of this life, which remain according to the doctrine of the Romish church, after the forgiveness of the sin. This is the treasure of which Pope Leo, in his Bull of the present year, 1825, speaks in the following terms:-" We have resolved, in virtue of the authority given to us by heaven, fully to unlock that sacred treasure, composed of the merits, sufferings, and virtues of Christ our Lord and of his virgin Mother, and of all the saints, which the author of human salvation has intrusted to our dispensation." We refer our readers for farther particulars on so extraordinary a topic to Dr. Phillpotts,* and the evidence of the Romish prelates before the two houses; only adding, that the fullest information on the whole subject of indulgences is to be derived from the Corpus Juris Canonici, vol. iii. Extravag. Commun. p. 349. We dare not trust ourselves to say more upon a subject on which Mr. Butler flatters himself that "when we see the doctrine of the Roman Catholics divested of the misrepresentations, which have too often been made of them, and are yet too often repeated, we shall find nothing in it contrary to common sense, or prejudicial to the interests of religion and morality."

FAITH WITH HERETICS.-It is so far from our intention to write any thing which may tend to irritate, that we would willingly have avoided the present topic, and have admitted without reluctance that the French and English Romanists of the present day do not hold the principle that "faith is not to be kept with heretics." But when we are challenged to produce any authentic documents of the church of Rome, in proof of this opinion ever having been maintained; when Dr. Doyle, with unparalleled boldness, rejects the idea with indignation, and declares that it is a tenet "too blasphemous to be contemplated," it becomes necessary to say something, lest we should seem to submit too humbly, and too consciously, to this twofold imputation of ignorance and calumny.

Of the light, then, in which heretics are to be regarded, we may form a sufficient judgment from the following passage, which Dr. Phillpotts has quoted from the Catechism of Trent, translated (as he observes in a note) into English, by permission, Dublin, 1816. "Heretics and schismatics do not belong to the church, any more than vagabonds or renegadoes belong to an army from which they ran away. Yet it is not to be denied, but

P. 158. See also Evidence on the State of Ireland, pp. 354, 418, 439.

+ Book of the Roman Catholic Church, p. 110.

that they are in the power of the church, as those who may be judged by her, and condemned with an anathema." There can be no question, then, that the ancient principle of the Romish church, "Omnis hereticus est excommunicatus,"* is still retained by the Roman Catholics of Ireland. Let us look, then, to the decrees of the church concerning persons excommunicated; and if it shall appear from these decrees, that faith is not to be kept with the excommunicated, it will follow, à fortiori, that it is not to be kept with the heretic-à fortiori, we say; for the difference between a heretic and an excommunicate, is enormously in disfavour of the former-so much so,† that although an excommunicated person may not be admitted in a court of justice, as evidence against any member of the church, though neither his word or his oath are to be believed in such cases, yet against a heretic he may make common cause with the church, and his evidence is admissible and valid. We assert then, boldly, and without qualification, that it was the avowed doctrine of the church of Rome, that faith is not to be kept with those who have been excommunicated, that it was maintained and expounded by their canonists, and acted on in their courts of law. In proof of this assertion, we adduce the following canon: "Nos, sanctorum prædecessorum nostrorum statuta tenentes, eos, qui excommunicatis fidelitate aut sacramento constricti sunt, apostolica auctoritate à sacramento absolvimus: et ne eis fidelitatem observent, omnibus modis prohibemus."§ In English," We, maintaining the statutes of our holy predecessors, do, by our apostolic authority, absolve from their oath all who are bound either by oath or promise to persons excommunicated; and prohibit them, in every way, from keeping faith with such persons." Now, mark the note of the commentator on this canon. "A question," he says, " may here arise as to the payment of debts whether, if I have promised to pay a sum of money to a person on a certain day, and he, in the mean time, is excommunicated, I am bound to pay him or not?" It should seem, he says, that I am not bound. First, Because it is our duty to vex the wicked in every way we can:-Secondly, Because my oath must be

66

• See Council of Lateran 4, cap. iii. De Hæreticis, cap. Excommunicamus. † Nullus anathematizatorum suscipiatur, nec à quoquam credantur quæ ab iis dicuntur vel conscribuntur. Eos dico anathematizatos esse, quos episcopi suis scriptis anathematizaverunt, aut eorum statuta anathematizant. 3. q. 5. nullus. And in the next chapter, "Omnes, quos sanctorum Patrum statuta tam præteritis quàm futuris temporibus anathematizant, submovemus, et ab omni accusatione fidelium alienamus," In fidei favorem concedimus, ut in negotio Inquisitionis hæretica pravitatis excommunicati ad testimonium admittantur. De hæret. in 6. cap. in fidei.

§ Corp. Jur. Can. 15. q. 6.

understood to have been taken on the supposition of all things remaining in the same state. Thirdly, Because we are to hold no communication of any kind with the excommunicate with various other reasons. On the whole, however, he is inclined to think that money contracts are obligatory, although the excommunicated person has no right to sue for his debt; and he concludes his note with these words, that "although excommunication releases all obligations of promise, yet other contracts may, possibly, be binding." Will it be said that this canon is obsolete? No such claim can be put in by those, who refer us to the decrees and catechism of the Council of Trent: for the Corpus Juris Canonici, from which the canon is extracted, was compiled subsequently to both those documents, having been emended and restored, by order of Gregory XIII., in conformity with the decisions of the Council of Trent. This Pope, the successor of Pius V. in the year 1583, ratified the catechism, and so highly approved of the doctrines contained in it, that he gave the order just mentioned, for the new edition of the canon law, and particularly enjoined, that every thing should be left out which had been abrogated, either by the Popes, the Council of Trent, or the Roman catechism. This canon law he put forth himself, and for the use (as he says in his preface) of the Catholics on both sides of the mountains.* "Gregorius XIII., Pij. V., successor; Francisco Gratiano de Gazatoribus Jurisconsulto, et Canonico Vicentino suasit, ut juris Canonici epitomen ederent, in quâ, quicquid vel à summis Pontificibus, vel à Concilio Tridentino, vel à Catechismo Romano fuerat abrogatum, resecarent." It is difficult, surely, to reject the authority of a work of this kind, in proof of the tenets maintained at the time of its publication by the courts of Rome, and if its authority be admitted, it does not seem possible to deny, that a heretic was in a very ticklish situation, who was once within the precincts of that court.

We will say only a few words of the case of John Huss. The Emperor Sigismund, in the year 1414, gave John Huss, accused of heresy, a safe-conduct to Constance, in virtue of which he presented himself before the council; the council refused to acknowledge the safe-conduct as applicable to the case, they tried, excommunicated, and degraded him, and then handed him over to the secular power. Sigismund ordered him to be burnt. The question is, was the council or Sigismund guilty of a breach of faith, and, if so, on what principle? It has, of late, been

Præfatio ad Catechism Rom,

maintained that the council was not guilty; because, according to the principles of those times, the ecclesiastical being, confessedly, superior to the secular power, the emperor had no right to grant a safe-conduct to the council. Be it so: then the council was not guilty, but Sigismund was; for, after the council had degraded him, it had done its office; and the violation of promise must be ascribed altogether to the emperor, who, in defiance of that kind appeal to mercy, which was always made by the church,* when it had handed over a criminal to the secular arm, ordered Huss to be burnt. But be this as it may, it was not on this principle that the act of the council was defended by the Romanists about the time of the Reformation. The defence that was then made, went on the ground that the passport was only a common passport, which is always understood to be granted salvâ justitiâ; that is, if a person obtains a passport for travelling through France, this passport does not prevent his being tried, condemned, and executed for any murder he may commit. So said the Council to Huss: "Yours is only a general passport; there is no exception or saving clause which can prevent you from being tried for heresy." The argument in this case is evidently a gross quibble, for the act of heresy had been committed before the safe-conduct was granted; and it was granted with especial reference to this act and no other. Supposing, however, the council to have violated faith on any principle, we, as Protestants, not holding the infallibility of councils in action at least, should not be inclined to argue, that, because one set of men acted in this way, this was the established principle and practice of the church of Rome. Let her own children look to that. We consider it of much greater consequence to determine whether the council of Constance did not, by a positive decree, enact, that "faith is not to be kept with heretics." The Romanists deny this, because it is not to be found in the published acts of that council. But there seems very little doubt of the fact. Mr. Van der Hardt found this decree in the MS. of the council at Vienna, and published it in his Collection of the Acts of the Council of Constance. The fact has never been denied, nor can the only conclusion to be drawn from it ever be overthrown; and the words of Simancha,+ so frequently alleged, no doubt rested on this decree.

• See the Pontificale Romanum in the ceremony of degradation.

† Ad hæreticorum istorum, (speaking of the Lutherans,) poenam et odium etiam pertinet, quod fides illis data servanda non sit, non obstante juramento: Nam si non est servanda tyrannis, piratis, et aliis latronibus, qui occidunt corpus, multò minùs hæreticis, qui occidunt animas. Cum hæreticis nullum commercium, nec pax ulla esse potest-ideoque fides illis data, etiam juramento firmata, contrà bonum publicum, con