their duty to heretics, over whom they have any power, or chance of power? And then, how far do true Romanists hold themselves obliged to obey the commands of the church? And, finally, are Mr. A, and Mrs. B. true Romanists? If they are, they will obey the church; and the church will take good care to teach them their duty, when it is for their interest that they should know it. They may, therefore, never have had an unkind thought towards you or any other protestant before. But in changed circumstances, will they not both think and do, if they are sincere, whatever their church teaches?" If this answer is common sense, the practice of the liberals at present is any thing but common sense; for they will not inquire into one of these points, but keep to their old logic. "They never saw any evil designs on the part of Mr. A. or Mrs. B., and therefore, under no possible change of circumstances, can there be any such." An Irish protestant liberal is indeed just now the most absurd of human beings. He who suspects all other men of all bad things which can disgrace humanity, cannot believe that the Irish Romanists have a single evil feeling towards the reformed church, nor the slightest wish to establish their own upon its ruins. He resists, without a moment's thought, all the testimony of the whole history of all countries, and all times, with which the Romanist religion has been connected, on the solitary ground, that in these days nobody is intolerant, or violent, or bad! Having made these prefatory remarks, let us look at the facts in the case of Dens's Theology, which has excited so much discussion, and see whether the conduct of the liberals respecting it is not absurd beyond belief. In 1808 a System of Theology, in seven 4to volumes, is approved by the Roman catholic prelates in Ireland, and the Roman bookseller at Dublin publishes 3000 copies of it. In 1832 he republishes it (in another edition of the same extent) with another volume, sanctioned by the present Roman Archbishop of Dublin, who in the mean time, when a bishop, had used it as a conference book for his diocese, and afterwards united with the other bishops of the province of Leinster to authorize its use for the whole province. Now, the Roman church has, as is well known, very peculiar advantages of all kinds with respect to discipline. It can, and does, constantly condemn books, and, what is more, parts of books; so that it has no excuse for letting any thing erroneous or evil go forth unnoticed. In our church, from want of a competent organ for censure or approbation, a bishop, or person in authority, who recommends a book to a young man's notice, must always recommend it on the ground that it is on the whole a good book, though there may, and probably must be, some errors in it. However, if all the English bishops (even without the means of censuring books) were to venture on the strong step of proposing a book as a system of divinity for all the clergy, they could not escape from the charge which would be naturally made against them, if in the midst of much good, many cruel, mischievous, intolerant, indecent, or immoral doctrines were taught in the book. Still less, then, can the Roman church, or its prelates, escape from similar VOL. VIII.-August, 1835. 2 E charges, if they can be brought with justice, for they have no difficulty to prevent their marking with reprobation every bad passage in a book: they are only following their usual rule in doing so, and departing from it if they neglect this step. For the doctrines, then, whatever they may be, in Dens's Theology, no one can doubt that the Roman prelates, by giving their approbation to it, have made themselves fully and completely responsible. But this is not the strength of the case. There are certain doctrines with respect to the treatment of heretics, and the power of the papal church over them, which were once avowed and acted on by the Romanists, and which, from their intolerance and cruelty, have ever roused the warmest indignation of protestants. So far has this gone that, latterly, the Romanists have thought proper to disavow these doctrines, to declare that they are not matters of faith, that they arose in a barbarous age, and that they have given way before the mild and enlightened spirit of the present day. The prelates in Ireland abjure these doctrines-their universities on the Continent repudiate them. Thus the Romanists well know the feeling which exists as to these doctrines, and the prejudice which is done to their cause by them. Yet these doctrines are found in their worst form in the book adopted within these few years by the Roman prelates in Ireland, (so secretly adopted, that while it was in the hands of their priests everywhere, its use was not known to protestants,) and adopted without one word of reprobation of these doctrines. Nay, in order to prove yet more fully that the parts of the book where these horrible doctrines are held were not overlooked in carelessness, the subjects for discussion in the conferences of the Roman priests for Leinster have been taken from these very parts of the book for the last five or six years. That is to say, ever since the prospects of the Roman church gaining the dominion in Ireland have been brightening, the attention of the priests has been called to all these questions as to the toleration of heretics and of their rites, and as to the authority of the church over them, and the right to force them to embrace the truth. Will any man of common powers of reasoning then say, that if he finds that doctrines extremely favourable to the powers of the Roman church, but so cruel and intolerant as to have been disavowed when occasion required, are most unflinchingly held in a book adopted (with great privacy) by the Roman prelates as the best book for their clergy, and that the attention of the clergy is carefully turned to these very doctrines, at the exact time when the power of their church seems to be daily increasing-will any man, finding all this to be the case, hesitate to pronounce that such facts cast the strongest discredit on the disavowal of these doctrines, and make it but too probable that they are held with just as much eagerness as ever? But farther still. When the House of Commons examined the Irish prelates as to their doctrines, some years ago, and asked to what books they referred as their standards, they mentioned, besides Pius IV.'s The formal and technical proof of this will be found in Mr. M'Ghee's speech, given in the last number, and in the additional documents in this. "Ana Creed, and the Catechism of the Council of Trent, Holden's lysis," Bossuet's "Exposition," and Verron's "Rule of Faith." Dens's book was never named ! Now it has been ascertained, within these few days, that the Roman bookseller in Dublin, (who is the bookseller to Maynooth,) not only never reprinted one of these standard works, but has not a copy of them, while he reprinted two enormous editions of Dens, a work in 7 vols. 4to! It has been found, too, that the questions for the priests' conferences are not taken from these books, or from the authorized books at Maynooth, (De La Hogue and others,) but from Dens! Who, then, can fail to see and acknowledge that there must be some most powerful reason for the Romanists having a book in such general use among the priests that they take their conference questions from it, though not avowed, and privately circulated, while they are not taken from those books which they openly declare that they use? It is exceedingly difficult to imagine any reason for this, except that they know, on the one hand, that the doctrines of that book would cause a great outcry, and yet that, on the other hand, they are most anxious for the propagation of them. If they wished to circulate the good parts of Dens's book only, what possible difficulty could they have in adding a caution against the bad parts, especially against those very doctrines for which they have so often been called into question, which they know do them so much harm, and which are so fully and so foully set forth in this book which they recommend? Do they wish to bring evil on their own heads? Do they wish to be suspected of holding what they say they do not hold? If they do not hold that of which they are accused, then their conduct in recommending and using a book in which all this is held in the most offensive shape, is positive insanity or folly-a total want of that wisdom of which their worst enemies never accused them of having an ample share. In one word, the privacy with which a book holding abominable doctrines has been circulated, is certainly a very reasonable ground for concluding that the doctrines are held, and that their being held is to be kept a secret. But farther. Dr. Murray and other Romanists say, that the doctrines complained of are obsolete; and that no one, consequently, would attend to this part of Dens's book. How happens it then, as the Bishop of Exeter asks, that, under Dr. Murray's authority, these very obsolete questions have been made the subject of discussion for the priests for the last two or three years—i. e., since circumstances have arisen which may make clear notions on the proper way to treat heretics very desirable? Look, then, at this chain of evidence. The authorized Roman bookseller says he has the authority of the prelates of his church to publish this book; he prints three thousand copies of it: that large number is all sold, (not a copy to protestants, for they do not know of its existence;) a demand for another supply as large arises, and another edition, dedicated to the Roman Archbishop of Dublin, (the dedication stating his approbation of the work,) is published. That is, to say, the Irish priests are fully supplied with this book. The prelates of Leinster direct their attention especially to certain parts of it, by taking the conference questions from it. These parts contain the very offensive doctrines of which protestants complain, as to the treatment of heretics wherever the Roman church has power, and the questions taken from this book canvass these very doctrines. A twentieth part of this evidence would convict a man of murder, and yet the liberals cannot possibly believe that the Romanists either hold a single evil doctrine, or would put it into practice-not a suspicion, good easy men, and wise men, that protestant worship, or, what they love much better, protestant property, is in the slightest danger in Ireland! Three hundred Anticyras would not cure such heads as these! They who have sounder minds will feel no little obligations to the gentlemen who have rendered to protestants the great service of establishing, in one country at least, a standard authority for Roman doctrine, from which the Irish Romanists at all events will find it impossible to escape, and of calling public attention at this eventful crisis to the doctrines taught, and the subjects canvassed, by the Roman clergy in Ireland, under the direction of their prelates. It is easy to cry out bigotry and fanaticism, &c. &c. But if these cries are just, it seems that it is bigoted and fanatic to say that a certain prelate authorized a book, that his bookseller published it, and that then the same prelate called his clergy's attention to certain parts of it. It is bigotry to state facts, to call attention to them, and to quote a writer in common use among a body of men, as evidence of the nature of their studies. They who observe Mr. O'Connell's fury about those meetings, and Lord Melbourne's extraordinary irritation on the subject, will see that these things have not been done in vain, and that their full force is felt in some quarters at least. At this moment, when Mr. O'Connell is quite satisfied with the Irish church bill, it is necessary for those, who wish to appreciate that measure, to know what Mr. O'Connell and his prelates really wish, expect, teach, and inculcate as to the protestants in Ireland. It may be fanatic to ask, but considering how many protestant clergy have been murdered, how many are starving, and what is the nature of the pastoral instructions given from the altar, it is prudent also. And before any man makes up his mind on the nature of the Irish Church Bill, let him practise this prudence, and see what a bill must be which satisfies those who hold such and such doctrines, and nourish such and such expectations! But do not let us deceive ourselves with imagining that Romanism either is or will be contented with Ireland. The English Romanists, it is very true, may not tolerate the doctrines inculcated in Ireland, (and if they do not, those doctrines will be held back,)* but no one who The extraordinary violence and vulgarity displayed by the Roman priests latterly must be highly offensive to their elder brethren, who were gentlemen. Let any one who has read Mr. Hulme's speeches at Whitwick, observed the usual tone of the "Catholic Magazine," or heard the language and the cries of the Romanists at the Exeter Hall meetings, say whether he could possibly imagine that they who indulge in this conduct have any affinity with gentlemen, or any knowledge of the habits and manners of decent life. has examined the facts can doubt that most strenuous efforts are making by the Romanists at this moment to proselytize in England. The extraordinary increase of their chapels within a few years clearly shews this; and many curious facts which could be alleged of the struggle made in America, and of the large sums supplied by continental Romanist funds to assist the progress of this corrupt church, tend to shew the hope nourished at this particular season of a general renovation of the power of the papal see. That such an hope will ultimately be disappointed no one who loves the truth will doubt. But neither, when he remembers the miserable state of schism exhibited by protestants, the total ignorance of the controversy, of the history of the church, and of all church principle, existing among too many churchmen, (need one appeal to the House of Commons for proof?) can he doubt that the Romanist has a fair field, and will use the opportunity? A few words may be said to those who will have to stand in the fore-ranks on this occasion-the clergy. That we shall have to fight seems perfectly clear; and that we may fight with courage, first of all let us be sure of our grounds. Warfare is defensive as well as offensive, and we must look well to see that we can stand on the ground which we choose. On this point it is better to speak plainly at once. If we in England are to fight matters of doctrine on what are called the grounds of common protestantism, if, because the danger is great, we are ready to call in any allies of any principles whatever, the fight is fought before it is begun. No doubt we may call up in a large body of men violent feelings against popery and its corruptions and superstitions; nay,we may resist popery, if need be, by force and numbers. But that real victory of the gospel over popery, which has been won before, and may be won again, we shall not win, the real fight with the real weapons we shall not fight. If the warfare were offensive only, the matter might be different. If we had only to destroy, if we were only anxious to hold up to scorn and hatred, or pity, the lamentable delusions of the rosary, and the girdle of St. Dominic, &c. &c., the atheist, the deist, the Socinian, the quaker, &c. &c. &c., might join with the churchman. But on whom will the scorn, and hatred, and the pity rest, if the Romanist turns on his assailants, and asks them what they believe themselves, and by that one question dissolves the confederacy against him, and turns these false allies into bitter enemies? Do not let men deceive themselves with saying that the differences between protestants relate to externals, and non-fundamentals, &c. &c. Is it nothing, for example, but a nonessential matter, whether, as the quakers say, there are any sacraments, any outward means of grace at all-whether, as the antinomians teach, the believer cannot sin? and so on. And when it is remembered not only that all the monstrous doctrines which might be named exist among protestants, but that they exist in consequence of a flat denial on part of those who hold them of any authority whatsoever, of any kind, in the church catholic on matters of faith, the flat repudiation of the general opinion of holy men of all ages, the flat repudiation of what would be deemed the most elementary knowledge of the human |