He replied, "Yes." I said, "If you do, then you make St Paul to teach a contradictory doctrine, and act most inconsistently."

He said, "That is not my desire. How can you make that out ?" I said, "Let us read chapter xiii. 38, 39, on this point; here we find St Paul preaching the forgiveness of sins through Christ alone, and in his letter to the Christians at Rome, we find that he destroys the doctrine of private confession. As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to ME, and every tongue shall CONFESS TO GOD.' Surely, sir, this is not teaching confession to man; and another apostle is equally clear and strong on this subject. St John, in his First Epistle, writes: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us; but if we confess our sins, HE is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.'

I added, "I trust, sir, you will bear with me when I say, that you are arrogating the Almighty's prerogatives in this matter, for His Word tells us that He alone can absolve us. 'I, even I, am He that blotteth out your sins for mine own sake, and will not remember them.' So that we are really, fully, freely, and eternally pardoned without going to man." After making these few simple remarks,

He said, "I am glad you know your Bible so well, and if you have no objection to come to-morrow night here I will speak to a brother clergyman who has examined more minutely into these things."

I said, "that I should consider it a favour to have the benefit of his investigations, for if I am wrong in my belief, I shall feel thankful to any one that will set me right."

He then told me to meet him again to-morrow evening at 6 P.M., and we then bade each other "Good night."

On the following evening I went, in accordance with my promise, accompanied by two brethren. When we reached the church we found the doors all closed. I knocked at one of them, and after some delay it was opened by the same rev. gentleman whom I met last night.

66

He apologised for keeping us out so long, stating that he could not come any sooner, as he was hearing the confessions of some gentlemen. He then requested us to be seated, stating that the other priest who was to meet me had not yet come." I was not long sitting until the other rev. gentleman made his appearance; he was very friendly and courteous, and seemingly young. He asked me, "Was I the man who was here last night?" I said "that I was, and that I considered that the other gentleman did not prove private confession from the Bible or Prayer Book; I suppose he told you the ground we travelled."

He answered in the affirmative. I then asked him for Scriptural authority for this doctrine of auricular confession and priestly absolution. The first proof he advanced was, "Adam sinned, and required confession, in order to be pardoned for the sin committed."

The second he gave me was, "All Jews made a private confession in offering their sacrifices."

The third proof brought forward was, "David confessed to Nathan." The fourth proof was, "The ten lepers healed by our Saviour, were sent to the priest to be pardoned;" and then said, "These are my Scriptural examples warranting me to enforce the duty of private confession, and to grant absolution." I replied, "That, in my humble opinion, there was

not a shadow of proof or authority in any of the texts quoted by him," and in proceeding to refute his statements,

I asked him, "Did he believe that it was right to confess to any but those in priest's orders?" He promptly replied, "Certainly not." I then remarked that I should go through the same passages advanced by him, and show that they condemned his teaching, instead of proving it. I said that I admitted the fact of Adam's guilt; but I denied that he made a private confession, "for he had no man to confess to; he had only God or the wicked one."

"To whom then did he confess ?" To this he made no reply.

I then took his second proof, "That all Jews made a private confession in offering sacrifices."

This, I remarked, is not stated in the Bible, therefore I deny it; but what is stated is, that they did make an open general confession, the "priests" as well as the laity, over the head of an animal.

Referring to the third proof advanced by him, "David confessed to Nathan," I asked him, was Nathan a priest or a prophet? he said, “the latter."

"Then you told me first that it is not right to confess to any but those in priest's orders. According to that, David must have done wrong in confessing to Nathan, who in your sense of the word 'priest,' was nothing but a layman. But, sir," I added, "I deny that David confessed to him at all. His was an open confession of the sins committed against God; hear his own testimony on this matter- Against thee, thee only, have I sinned.""

The fourth passage brought forward by him was the case of the ten lepers healed by our Saviour.

In answering this weak argument I said, that I was greatly surprised at a gentleman professing to teach the religion of Christ, quoting certain portions of Holy Scripture in support of a doctrine and a practice which have no warrant of Holy Writ. We should all, I added, guard against handling the Word of God deceitfully, or wresting the Scriptures to our own destruction, "and as for the case of the ten lepers proving private confession, sir, I can't see a shadow of any proof in it to favour you. If private confession was essential to salvation, or taught by Christ, we cannot in this instance see that Christ practised or taught it. The fact of sending them to the priest to show themselves proves nothing for you. The inspired writer does not say that it was to hear their confession or give them the benefit of absolution, as claimed by you, for Christ could have done so Himself without sending them to the poor priest, who He knew had not the power to forgive sins. But they were sent in accordance with ceremonial rites of the Jewish law-the priest had to examine them like a physician before they could be admitted into visible communion again." I then quoted Matthew xviii. 15-20, to prove open general confession, and that the Church has the power to absolve the guilty party on profession of repentances.

To which he replied,

clergy."

"The word 'Church' in that passage means the

This I denied, and I said, "Sir, I trust that you believe the Thirtynine Articles, to which you subscribed at your ordination."

"The 19th Article does not bear out your meaning of the word 'Church.' It states that the church is a congregation of faithful men in

which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments administered according to Christ's institution; and I respectfully call upon you to give a single passage from any of the apostles' writings, in which the word 'Church' means the clergy." This, of course, he could not do.

One of my friends then asked him a question concerning the words "priest," "sacrifice." This led us to the subject of the "real presence," which was debated between us three for more than an hour.

The line of argument which he took was the same which I have often heard from a Romish priest.

Before we left the church, nearly twenty young females had come in, and remained till they made confession and received absolution.

Knowing, as the writer does from bitter experience, the evil influence of those doctrines in keeping souls from Christ in whom alone is salvation, it was painful to him to hear them advocated by one who was bound by the most solemn engagements to expose their falsehood, and warn simple souls of their danger.-The Irish Church Advocate.

THE

THE LOYALTY OF MAYNOOTH.

LET ENGLISHMEN READ, MARK, AND LEARN.

(To the Editor of the Bulwark.)

HE statute which gave birth to the College of Maynooth was the 35th George III., cap. 21; it received the Royal Assent on the 5th June 1795.

A sum of eight thousand pounds was voted for its establishment, and during the years 1796, 1797, and 1798, sums equal in amount to £24,249, 2s. 1d. were paid over by the Treasury, under the authority of Parliament, to the trustees of the College.

In 1798 a rebellion of a very formidable character disorganised Ireland. The College had been established "for the better education of persons professing the Popish, or Roman Catholic religion." It was naturally expected that the teaching and the preaching of the priesthood, educated in this College and at the cost of the nation, might have exercised a peaceful and a loyal influence upon the population of Ireland. Alas! having sown to the wind," the country "reaped the whirl

wind."

66

I feel no hesitation in expressing my conviction, that fifteen, if not nineteen, in every twenty of the members of the present House of Commons, and I believe I might say the like proportion of those by whom those members have been sent to St Stephen's, are ignorant of the fact that one of the latest convulsive efforts of Ireland's last Parliament was, by a refusal of the annual grant of six thousand pounds, virtually to overthrow this Babel of its own rearing; though, phoenix-like, we still see this College—and we feel it, too, like a nightmare-an incubus upon the social system of Britain and its dependencies.

In the Library of Dublin Castle, in 1852, I transcribed the information on this subject, which I shall now proceed to submit: "Facts are stubborn things."

Let it, however, be kept in mind, that, at the formation of this College, amongst other trustees were the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, the Chief Justice of the King's Bench, the Chief Baron of the Exchequer, and the

Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. Three of those functionaries are now (1869) Roman Catholics!

In the journals of the House of Peers, and under date the 15th April 1799 (a date of ominous import in the present serious crisis of national history), the following is recorded :

:

"Hodie secunda vice lecta Bella, entitled an Act to authorise the issuing and payment of the sum of £6,615, 4s. 2d., for defraying the charge of the full establishment of the Roman Catholic seminary, for one year, to the 25th of March 1800." "A motion made, that the said Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House on the 1st of August next." "A debate arising thereupon, and the question being put, the House divided, and the Earl of Athlone reported, that the Contents below the bar were TWENTY-FIVE, and the Not Content in the House was ONE. It was resolved in the affirmative."

I copied the debate which ensued from two sources-from the columns of the Dublin Evening Post, a journal of uniform liberal opinions; and also from Faulkner's Dublin Journal, which represented, to some extent, opposite political views, and I believe this latter paper was the Government organ of the day.

In the Dublin Evening Post it is stated that "the Lord Chancellor entered at some length into observations upon the seminary of Maynooth."

Let it be kept in mind that the Lord Chancellor was himself one of the trustees of this College at this time.

"He considered it inadequate to the purposes for which it was established, and, therefore, not entitled to the bounty which it claimed from Parliament. The school was merely calculated for the education of youth of the middle class; the consequence of which was, the parents of those of a higher distinction would not send their children there."

"His Lordship noticed several abuses which had taken place in forming this Establishment, one of which was the appointing of a collector at a large salary, for whom there was no business. He entered into an ex

amination of the conduct of the Roman Catholic clergy of this seminary, in the course of which he depicted, in very severe terms, the seditions of Dr Hussey, who, instead of being a minister of the gospel and a preacher of peace, had been the author of a diabolical pamphlet, that went to commit Catholics" (Roman) "against Protestants, and to excite rebellion in the country."

Dr Hussey, let it be remembered, was the first President of this College, and likewise a trustee of the Institution.

The Lord Chancellor proceeded to say, "When the persons in the management of this College come forward to ask a boon from Parliament, they should show themselves deserving of it, and that they were useful to the State; but this they could not do. Had they shown themselves active among the lower classes during the late disturbances, in rescuing those unhappy people from fatal delusions, and in extinguishing the flame of rebellion? They had not: though they might have prevented much mischief, had they done their duty? Some Roman Catholic clergymen were to be found at the head of the rebels, encouraging and deluding them to outrage; and others were silent observers of crimes, sanctioning them by not timely expressing their abhorrence of the enormities, and exhorting their flocks against the treasons of the day. His Lordship, after

many pointed remarks upon the institution of the Maynooth College, as being a useless expense to the public, moved that the Bill should be committed for the first of August."

"Lord Glentworth suggested that alterations might be made in the Bill itself, to give better plans to the Institution."

"The Earl of Altamont disapproved of the motion, and impressed upon the consideration of the House that only some of the Roman Catholic clergy were found concerned in the rebellion."

“The question was put for the Bill being committed on 1st of August. Contents, 25; Not Content, 1."

As reported by Faulkner's Dublin Journal, 18th April 1799, I found the following paragraph:

"His Lordship went at large into the abuses that already had crept into the establishment; sinecure places, &c.; where fifty students only were supported, for the enormous sum of eight thousand pounds, which was expended under the patronage and direction of Dr Hussey, a preacher and publisher of sedition-a man who had used his utmost exertions to inflame the minds of the lower orders of Roman Catholics against the Protestants; ordering servants of that persuasion not to attend their Protestant masters to church, or hear our form of prayer, under pain of excommunication. His Lordship stated, that had that reverend gentleman, and several of his brethren, used half their exertions in preaching against treason which they did for the purpose of raising religious animosities, this kingdom would not wear the appearance of desolation it now displays."

"His Lordship, in strong language, reprobated the criminal silence of many Roman Catholic clergyman during the rebellion, which might have been checked, if not prevented, by their influence."

Under the circumstances set forth in the foregoing debate, and considering the decision of the House of Peers, we naturally ask, How is it that Maynooth College survived such a judgment? The answer is obvious. In the anxious desire and determination to carry the Act of Legislative Union, there existed at that time an amount of political profligacy, perhaps without its parallel in the annals of England; except, indeed, it may be found in the madness and infatuation of our rulers at the present hour. Notwithstanding the deliberate decision of Parliament, as above stated, the Treasury in that same year, 1799, paid into the coffers of Maynooth £9933. The nation, it would appear, was thus made to pay a penalty of £3377, 15s. 10d. for the indignity perpetrated against Popery by the House of Peers! The contemplated grant in the first instance was only £6615, 4s. 2d. But besides this unconstitutional interference with the deliberate judgment of Parliament, the meddlesome interference of the Lord Chancellor must receive its fitting rebuke; and, as if to mark that censure more conspicuously, the Act of 40 Geo. III., cap. 85, "for the better Government of the Seminary established at Maynooth," received the Royal Assent on the 1st August 1800; by which Act the Lord Chancellor, the Chief Justice of the King's Bench, the Chief Baron of the Exchequer, and the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, who had been appointed by the first Act as trustees, and, as such, were empowered to examine into the minute details of the working of the Institution, were removed from their position, and, under the new statute, were placed in the the distinguished position of "Visitors of the College;"