deed, expressed in a manner which implies that they would not give up the feudal claims of the Pope, though they use language which was calculated to mislead those Protestants, who did not understand the two-fold foundation on which the claims of Papal authority are rested. Also, it should be remembered, that, according to the true Popish view of the question, it may be denied upon oath that the Pope has any temporal authority in Ireland, while it is stoutly maintained that he has supreme authority in things temporal. Does this sound something like equivocation to Protestant ears? Observe, then, the Bull, quoted pp. 65-67, and the express words of the Romish champion, Bellarmine :

"The third and intermediate opinion, and that which is generally received by Catholic theologians, is this; that the Pope, as Pope, has not directly and immediately any temporal, but only a spiritual power; that nevertheless, by reason of this spiritual power, he has a certain authority, and that supreme, in temporals. That the power of the Pontiff, properly, directly, and in itself, is spiritual; but that by it he can dispose of the temporal things of all Christians, when such a measure is necessary to the end of his spiritual power, to which the ends of all temporal powers are subordinate.-He has no power merely temporal; and yet, in order to a spiritual good, he has the supreme power of disposing of temporal things.-The spiritual power does not interfere in temporal concerns; but suffers all things to proceed, so long as they do not oppose the spiritual end, nor be necessary to obtain it. But if any thing of this sort occurs, the spiritual can and ought to coerce the temporal, by any way or means which may appear necessary. Lib. 5. de Postestate Pontif. capp. 1 et 6.'

P. 94.

Perhaps we may appear to be dwelling too long upon this part of the subject: but we make these quotations, not merely to shew what claims are still maintained by the court and see of Rome, but in order to point out the necessity of study and accurate information, if we would meet the Papists upon any thing like equal terms. The denial that the Pope had any temporal power, would have satisfied most Protestants at once: it seems to have satisfied the British Government completely: yet we see that the supreme authority of the Pope over all temporal things is not impeached by this denial. And so it is on many points of vast importance. Romanists may seem to deny various things, which all the while, if their language be duly weighed and understood, they will be found to be stoutly maintaining.

Neither is this claim to the feudal supremacy over Ireland a vain thing, a mere assumption of an empty title. The Pope, throughout more than two centuries, has actually exercised the authority of feudal lord paramount in Ireland. He has in every reign, from that of Elizabeth to that of George III., and to as late a period as 1774, interfered to prevent Roman Catholics in Ireland from taking an oath of allegiance to the British crown;

and that effectually. This itself was sufficient to foster among them a spirit of disaffection and rebellion, even if more direct measures had not been resorted to for that purpose. And even now it appears, that, though the policy of the court of Rome is changed, the principle is not given up, but the Irish RomanCatholics, having obtained a previous indulgence from the Pope for that purpose, take an oath of allegiance which in several of its clauses is illusory and nugatory!-still not venturing one inch further in this temporal matter than their Lord the Pope permits. (See pp. 222, 254.) And, to mention one fact more, even to this day the Pope has in his cabinet of cardinals one who is specially entitled THE CARDINAL PROTECTOR OF THE KINGDOM OF IRELAND, and this cardinal is no other than THE GRAND SECRETARY OF THE INQUISITION!! (pp. 52, and 236, 237.)

Have we said enough of the arrogant claims and pretensions of the Church of Rome at this day? We might proceed much longer, and point out, among other important facts, that the Romish clergy and laity in Ireland still maintain their claim to the tithes, and all the ecclesiastical property which formerly belonged to their church in Ireland; and expect, in the course of time, the actual possession of them: but on this point we can only refer to the Digest itself, Part II. chap. vii. pp. 193-221. It is necessary to say something of the awful manner in which the Church of Rome dispenses with the obligations of conscience and morality. Something, indeed, we have already seen of this, in considering how allegiance to the king and government under which they live is subjected to an allegiance to the Pope. This point is yet further discussed in the Digest, Part II. chap.viii. on Roman Catholic Oaths of Allegiance; from which it is but too evident that Roman Catholics, as such, never can be trusted as true and faithful subjects of a Protestant government. We have pointed out already, that in some instances a Roman Catholic (according to Dr. Doyle) cannot even pray without a mental reservation; that, according to another of their own writers, a Roman-Catholic bishop may take his oath to the Pope with twenty reservations, and so be a good and faithful subject of the King! We have brought forward in a former Number some awful proofs of the duplicity of the Romish clergy, even when speaking under the solemn sanction of an oath, and we have referred to many more: we might swell the list by referring to many other passages of the Digest; but, in truth, the whole of the Second Part is little more than a continual exposure of the prevarications, evasions, and falsehoods of the bishops who were examined before the Committees of both Houses, by con

trasting their evidence with authentic documents and declarations of their church, which they had solemnly professed to receive, and even zealously defended in their writings. In fact, all that we can conclude from their evidence, compared with other documents, is this, That, under all circumstances, their only consideration is, not What is just and true? but, What is it for the interest of my church to say? See, among other instances, the direct denial of Dr. Murray that a Roman-Catholic priest takes any oath to the Pope, p. 60, compared with Mr. Dixon's evidence, p. 63. To this, all considerations, even the most sacred, must give way. For example: it appears that nothing is esteemed more sacred by a Romish priest than the seal of confession; insomuch, that if a priest, in the course of confession, becomes acquainted with treasons or murders plotted or perpetrated, he must not take any measures (independent of his influence with the person who is making the confession) either to detect the criminals, or to prevent the intended crimes. He must not even give to the King a general warning to be upon his guard, when he knows that his life is in danger (Part I. pp. 271-279, and Part II. pp. 235-242). He may have taken a solemn oath that he "will do his utmost endeavour to disclose and make known to his Majesty and his heirs all treasons and traitorous conspiracies which may be formed against him or them;" nevertheless, the seal of confession cannot be broken. He may be guilty of misprision of treason, or be, to all intents and purposes, an accomplice in murder, before or after the fact: the sacredness of confession rises above all! He is bound by a triple precept-a natural, divine, and ecclesiastical command-not to violate the seal of sacramental confession, even under such peculiar and awful circumstances yet (observe it well!) when the interests of his church require it, and the Inquisition commands, even this thrice-sacred bond at once gives way! and in cases of heresy the priest not only may, but does, disclose the secrets confided to him in confession! (Part II. p. 236.) This is confirmed by some expressions in the Edict of the Inquisition, dated May 14th 1829, published lately in this country; which is an awful document of the immutability of the Church of Rome; and one from which we may learn, especially, in what a dreadful manner that church dispenses with all the obligations of confidence and friendship, and poisons all the charities of social and private life, by making every individual an informer against his nearest and dearest relatives and friends, whensoever any suspicion of the vague and undefinable crime of heresy arises!

But on this subject we cannot do better than refer our readers

to the Rev. Blanco White's "Internal and Practical Evidence against Catholicism," or "The Poor Man's Preservative against Popery," by the same author, as containing abundant proofs that the Church of Rome is still unchanged in regard to the moral influence of its doctrines and practices. The Digest brings forward some important facts upon this head, more especially with reference to the duties of subjects to the government under which they live; and points out particularly the practical influence of confession.

'Have you any knowledge of the influence exercised by the Roman Catholic priest in matters concerning the administration of justice?'

(REV. M. O'SULLIVAN.) It appears to me, that the system of auricular confession renders the obtaining evidence and discovery of crimes in Ireland, much more difficult. The pain of mind attendant on being the confidant of a guilty secret, is completely removed by having an opportunity of communicating the secret to the priest in confession; and, as he does not make it a condition of absolution that information shall be given of the crime committed, there is a tendency to lessen the people's regard to justice, and to increase that dislike to the name of an informer, which is so generally felt throughout Ireland.' Part. I. p. 272.

Then follows more evidence upon this subject, extracted from the examinations of Dr. James Magaurin, Roman-Catholic bishop of Ardagh, with some important remarks of the editors, pp. 272-282, to which we must refer our readers. And on this part of our subject we will only mention further, that in the Digest, Part I. pp. 387-389, are related two instances in which persons, on the advice and authority of their priests, were actually guilty of perjury. One was the case of a woman, who swore positively that her father had died intestate, and left no widow, when the fact was notorious that he had been married a second time, and left a widow; which was proved by an officer of the court: but, as the marriage had been celebrated by a Protestant minister, her priest had told her, that the relict of the deceased had never been his wife, and therefore she might safely swear that he had left no widow! The witness excused herself by saying, that she could not presume to know better than her priest. Doubtless it must greatly conduce to the fearless and shameless commission of crime, when men put their consciences entirely into the keeping of their priest, and are saved all trouble of considering for themselves what is right or wrong. And, with reference to some strained explanations of revolting declarations of their church, which had been offered by some of their witnesses, the Archbishop of Dublin well observes:

A system such as this, which lets in habitually a familiarity with reservations, is most dangerous; and those who continue to act upon such a system cannot be safe members of society, without such checks and guards as may secure the community against the system, without any consideration of what may be respectable in the character of the individuals. Part II. p. 7.

But we hasten to say something upon another point, in regard to which we presume it is that the partizans and apologists of the Church of Rome will more particularly insist that it is changed for the better: we, on the contrary, maintain, in the last place, that it is still the same in its persecuting spirit.

We the more boldly appeal to the facts detailed in the pages of the Digest, because the editors do not take our view of the question. If the Roman Catholics reckon them among the decided opposers of their claims, they must at least admit that they are among the most mild and moderate. They seem, indeed, with all willingness beforehand to make concessions to have examined the question, how far it was safe and politic; and we conceive that the evidence they have themselves adduced will carry most of their readers much further in decided opposition to the Romanists, than it seems to have carried them. We should often dissent from their conclusions, but the evidence they bring forward enables us to form our own, and justifies us in going far beyond them. The book also is valuable, not only for itself, but on account of its references to many other important works, to which the diligent and laborious student will gladly refer, while ordinary readers are content with the work itself. Among these is the "Development of the Inquisition in Ireland," by the Rev. Lawrence Morissy, a Roman-Catholic priest. Perhaps our readers will be startled at the very title of this book: we must confess that we were: much more when we learned that this book was written

to shew that the Inquisition is established in this country, as far as circumstances have yet enabled the bishops to put its rules in force. He has met with many severities, but no reply.

Every bishop is, ex officio, the inquisitor in ordinary for his diocese. p. 179. See also p. 236.

Here, then, is the grand engine of Papal persecution at work, and prepared already for more extensive and powerful exertions, whensoever circumstances will permit. It may be, therefore, important for us to know, how far the claims of the " holy office" extend-who are liable to become its victims. We shall readily enough suppose, that all who themselves abjure Popery are liable to be the objects of its fury, whenever the present Providential restraints are removed, and to be punished as rebels and deserters. But perhaps our readers will suppose that here its power ceases, and its claims find their limit. But no such thing. Let them know, and deeply consider of it, that (according to the views of the Church of Rome) the blessed ordinance of Christian Baptism, whereby they are openly sealed as members of the visible church, is the badge of slavery to the Pope; constitutes them his subjects; liable, therefore, to be put in the Inquisition, and compelled by force and cruelty to become Roman Catholics.