theoretically cognizant of the crimes, iniquities, and weaknesses of
mankind. But they, no more than doctors or lawyers, speak of these
things, unless the penitent has been guilty of and confesses some such
offence. On the contrary, those who enter the Ministry are taught to
be most prudent and discreet in putting questions; never to ask more
than what may be necessary. The rule is to err on the side of too
little. Nay, rather than suggest or make known that which a penitent
may be ignorant of, the minister must consult more what is for the
good of the soul than for the integrity of the Confession.

2. Again, let it be remembered that it is not as in a court of
justice, where the plea of "not guilty" is set up, and all has then to
be wormed out by examination in the most detailed manner. For the
penitent enters the confessional as self-accuser, states the offence,
together with the number of times it has happened, and any
circumstances which may alter or aggravate the deed. There are,
therefore, in Confession, none of the nauseous details and
descriptions of crime which may be heard in our courts and read in our
newspapers.

The remarkable testimony of a Protestant gentleman--Doctor Forbes--may
here be of much value. In his memorandums, made in Ireland in the
autumn of 1852, he says: "At any rate, the result of my inquiries is
that--whether right or wrong in a theological or rational point of
view--this instrument of Confession is, among the Irish of the humbler
classes, a direct preservative against certain forms of immorality at
least."[58] "Among other charges preferred against Confession in
Ireland and elsewhere, is the facility it affords for corrupting the
female mind, and of its actually leading to such corruption. * * * So
far from such corruption resulting from the Confessional, it is the