The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1836-11-11 00:00:00

THIS LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

ingly estahlisheil the justice of his charge as to have reduce 1
the advocates of Itoneinisin to silence, W. to have extorted,
from them those irrelevant and unbecoming cries of pet suns!
invective which serve to little other purpose than to render
the confession implied in their silence the more significant.
A moment's reflection will show htiw aptly the inyvtivo with
which this ardent asseitor of the truth has been assailed har-
monises with the evi)ence by which his propensities have all,
substantially, been confirmed. Among the ninety and-nine
documents which he set forth as authenticated by the Church of
Route, there was one which was not genuine—a docuinent which
he had hastily adopted, anti which he lost not a day in retracting.
(Rear, hear.) What does the rage and the perseverance with
which he has been assailed for this *one mistake prove? It
proves that the mistake was solitary. If a second instance of
error could be discovered in his statements, his adversaries
would have adopted an occasion of giving variety to their in-
vectives more creditable than that to which they have been
driven. (Hear ) Their charge is. new, 1 understand, that Mr
Nl-Ghee has not expressed regret for his mistake. Never was
charge more unjust. He did deeply feel, and most affectingly
expressed, his sorrow for having done, in a single instance,
through inadvertency, what his adversaries have been unceas
ingly doing with design. But while he so expressed himself, he
could not be unaffected by ;sleeting of thankfulness that, through.
his transient and amply atoned-Cur error, the weakuess of tne
cause to which he was opposed had become so signally inardis;
rested—eo groundlesi was the calumny of his accusers. (Long
continued cheering.) Mr. INl`Glatie has expressed the deepest
sorrow for this single act of mistake, but which, I am happy to
state, has done no injury to the cause. It was impossible fur a
man like Mr. IVl`Ceheefo look to observations that were of a
personal nature. He knew that in consequence of his mistake
the cause had prospered, and the measures taken by his enemies
showed the rottenness of their cause. He, therefore, had reason
to rejoice at the consequences of that mistake. Bit there is
another matter on which Mr. M`Ghee has been assailed. It is
said that he declined accepting a challenisienddressed to him by
a Roman Catholic clergymau. Mr. 'M ignite. (Hisses.)
Tins is, no dulskd, a subject on which Mime should exult, and
ott which she should instruct her a'dvecatCs to insist strongly.
Mr. M`Ghee clArees the Church of Rome; generally, sort
certain of her eceklsiastics directly. and by name,, with dis-
seminating the most abominable principles. (Loud cheers.)
He summons them to meet his charges in person, or by ap-
proved advocates—leaving them liberty and choice wide as the
world. (Loud cheers.). They etw nutlety and prudently decline,
and theu souud trout pets of triumph over his Imagined unwil-
lingness to meet in argument the adversary by whom he hail
been provoked to engage in a disputation. It •wiiuld be indeed
a sickly triumph were the case such as they would iepresent it.
(Great cheering.) But what were the facts?—what is the his-
tory of this challenge ? I wish that he were here to narrate'
them who could speak with authority. '1 know them only Irons
the published cerrespondence till the subject, and from that I
learn, that, in -conseieie ere of expressions used by Mr. Maguire,
Mr. Nl‘Ghee addressed to him a proposal of which no notice
was taken; but that, instead of a reply, Mr. Maguire issued a
challenge on cond,tions wholly dissimilar to those on which it
had been proposed to meet him. The correspondence is before
the world, and could not be abridged within limits, which justify
me in laying its substance before yon. (.Loud cheers.) But
there was one condition proposed by Mr. 'Nlaguire which served
to indicate the character of the proceeding, and to intimate the
impossibility of complying with his propesitions. He required
that there shoultl be judges to decide tin the matters at issue be-
tweeu (din and the Rev. gentleman whom he invited to a dis-
classical. And how were these judges to be selected? Mr.
Maguire was to choose three Protestants. Mr. Nl`Gitee was to
much out nutting Roman Catholics three, by whom impartial
judgineut wars, to be pronounced. On what question ? The
very first question which naturally presented itself was on the
right of private judgment. Anil Roman Catholiss, to whose
profession of faith it was essential thet they shout renounce
such a right—who, in truth, would become Protestants by ex-
ercising it, were to act in judgment, and pronounciupon
matter in which they had incapacitated themselves from de-
ciding. (Cheers.) No Roman Catholic clergyman could be
unaware—indeed. Mr. Maguire was not—that the first question
to he determined was on this solepin right. Protestants are
free—Roman Cathoteras are intellectually fettered—Rome boasts
herself -the champion. of freedom, but it is of that freedom
which is conceded only to x part of man's nature—a free-
dom which would set the nerves and sinews at large, and
would reserve its fetters for thought. (Loud cheering.)
I address myself to another topic—one in which I was myself
more immediately concerned—l too was charged with misre-
presentation. The matter may appear, at first, merely per-
sonal, and unworthy to engage your attention; but you will
find that in all its facts it admits of general consideration, anti
introduces matter of general interest. At the time when I was
accused of misrepresentation I was occupied in duties interest-
ing and absorbing, which did not allow of looking back. Such
opportunities as incidentally presented themselves I employed
to explain and vindicate my conduct, and as soon as leisure was
given me I availed' myself of the freedom it gave maniere for-
mally to address myself* to the task of vindication. Previously,
however, I made known to Dr. Murray, by private letter, the
statements which I actually had made, and of which he had
seen imperfect reports. The fact is, that, although there were
in circulation authentic and exact reports of the proceedings at
various meetings, Dr. Murray, leaving all the'accnrate reports
unassailed, vented his indignation on one which did not even
profess to he verbal. The charges he had advanced against me
were, that I had Misquoted a decree of the Council of Trent,
and that I had misrepresented evidence delivered by hint be-
fore a parliamentary committee. I stated to him the substance
of what I had said, anti forwarded to his address a paper con-
taining a statement more in detail. I said that the Council of
Trent had alfirnted the Nicene Creed to be the creed of• the
catholic church, and al* Pius IV, proposing, after the council
had disperser!, a new geed. instituted thus a new church anti
established a new religion. [Here the reverend speaker enter-
ed into a detail of the argument, by which he showed that the
Church of Rome is a schism, dating its origin no farther back
than the year 1551, ;And even then with an anathema from the
Council of Ephesus. (Applause.) He concluded his argu-
ment by stating that Dr. Murrav's silence, who never attempt-
ed to reply, gave it confirmation, the most reverend divine,
haviieg addressed himself with eagerness to assail the incorrect
report, and receiving with submissive silence the allegatl?ns in
the more exact report.] The reverend gentleman continued.
With respect to the evidence offered by Dr. Murray, I had
stated two truths, and I name) them to him. One was, that he
that. comprehensive and most abominable oath
which' piiests or his church take oii collation to benefice,g.
( Hear.) To this charge • lie anade no reply. He neither
explained nor extenuated the actual, I do not say wilful, un-
truth he had uttered. I shall recur to this topic, and beg you
to bear it in mind. The other notice of his evidence was con-
tained iu my charge: that according to the testimony which he
hail borne, and which was borne by the Right Rev. Dr. Doyle
—the Church of Rome did not permit the circulation of the
Bible in the vulgar tongue, without notes; and that up to the
year 1825 there was no Bible in Ireland containing notes of
which the bishops of the Church of Rome entirely approved.
To this he hazarded a denial; but when I demanded what was
the Bible thus sanctioned? why Dr. Doyle denied it with an
oath? why he himself directed attention trout it by an evasion ?
he was silent. Perhaps the researches of Robes t-M.Ghee may
explain Why. 'Phis is a subject of SO much importaece that I
must beg your permission to state the argument sbuiewhat
more fully. The Church of Rome prohibits the study of the
Holy Scripture. I do not read the prohibition from the testi-
monies of individual divines, or even from the rules of congre-
gations. The prohibition which I regard as issued with the
authority of tire church (for a church is responsible) is that it is
acknowledged' in the promise—the promise which is all but a
direct renunciation of faith in. Ged—contained in the creed of
Pius IV :—" I also admit the Holy Scripture accusing to the
501150 WhiCh our holy mother the church has held and does hold,
is which it belongs to judge of the true sense and iuterpretation
of the Scriptures." This is sufficiently disparaging to the
divine word; but how eau we, without amazement and sorrow,
hear what follows?—" Neither will I seer take and inicrpret them
otherwise than according to the unwell:tow; consent of the fathers."
I need not prove to von that the lathers are..not unanimous,
that the Church of Rome has not set forth with authority a full
interpretatiou of Scripture. Uri that, accerdingly, the votary
who has premised solemulv to embrace traditions, to receive
without any doubt the conflicting declarations of canons and
councils—who has thus pledged hituisellto learn and revere the
canteMs of those most voluminous records in. which the
ch,tracter of the Church of Rouse is depicted—pledges him-
self. with equal solemnity, to renouuce fur ever that one
book which Grua has commanded to be written for his learning.
I had adduced testimohy to prove, that the Practiced the church
of Rome is conformable to this denunciatiou. Dr. Doyle, ex-
amined on (Nita before a parliamentary committee, it F 182.5, was
asked, '' Have you in any instance allowiel the circulation of
the bible among the laity without notes ?" He answered, " I
do not kuow that we luive." He was asked •whether he and his
brethren 'considered themselves "pledged do all matters con-
tained in these spites?" " No—not by airy He said
further, "the notes carry, in our editions of 'the bible, no
weight." In the same year Dr. Murray was examiued, and
bore testimony not adverse to that part °f Ida episcopal brother.
Ile was asked, "Do you approve of the circulaiien ache scrip-
tures, without notes, among the Rienau Catholics ?" Ile est-
i au test approve of the circulation of the scriptures
vv. d
hates; wish there should be sortie notes appended to
:; tehrtemt—‘‘
them, as au iudicatiou that Units ale not to ,he interpreted ac-
cording to privet'• judemeid, but according' to the authority of
the church:" Ali this. is consistent • with the promise its the
Creed of Pius the•dth.. Tbe scriptures are to be received in the
sense admitted by the church. But was that scosemade ichowu?
You have heard the testimony of Dr. Doyle, who declared, ou
oath, that it was not.; that he had not approved of the utiles ap-.
pended to the editious of the Bible-them iu circulatiou, (Lout!
cheets.) Had Dr. Murray'approved of them ?—of those :ap-
!tended to any. edition? Hear his reply. He was asked,
"What are the particular notes ; by what authority prepared ;
or where are they to be found; which, in your opinien, should
accompany the *Bible?" And he answered,—abet ? Did he
name any published notes? • Did he lay ally copy of Scripture
upon theiable of the committee S lie. did not; he promised
one.. lie said, " 1 have myself prepared an edition of the Bible,
which is now ready to be issued; a stereotvpe edition of the
lailtiti, with notes, such as I approve of." ,Here is a tacit te-
jettion es existing notes not less clear than Dr. Doyle's sworn
a, when they were asked, t
(~"„nic,iatnnatien them. I did dot ascribe division tu these bi-
and inferred t'rom their joint testiieunsy, wham was little
s
answered, 'No '''ar
"f
, w-ithunt minim's of ',which t ou approve ?" they
again, when asked, 'bad they published
editions of tact:i conteining the netessat y naaotatious,
they answered rho
ti„tll larther" „„ thin th"""Yilab (Greet cheering.)
;p_eurt 0.., the Keiji-ea. lam satisfied to
leave the denial of )
to be j„dged by eyeliov reader, ail e""f"""i"a
iii"tY ""d
was not nature), anti whether thji "nclusi"
justice uses not
ill-judged, involsatig as it did, an, its
in a
duirge of pesjur,, copyittiiies Dr. I CV"'"c Ibisf"P
discreditable evasion, end lea vine his cht;,-T.'s 1):•
- a with)st
I;lelarrigseet,pilheru,stosfhseueibi'ra"tat(ii'sict's.i"ri,nansietihta; upon the
ga
which bad caled lo•ult'liaeni
rued then--Dr. Murray evaded then—and. that ten. veiii; after,
he cannot venture upon tile task of exp,amil,g evasion
copies of the Scriptures had been cir-
d
rlit:i7; selne l'uell:terne'n?er
the oath. anti flawing the Bible w
( hear, bear, and much applause.)
would
his thurrh. Is this established
:11:)':').::'''rtsi(ss.v(elat'lltitoll:f°gt;'11.1stebitialiit?"Innullet:IhYnebeltrIste"iti.p ash iter h ve been a p t'sro v
ed—
He
implied that circulation infers sanethinr.„Bl,l,ln, n
nesiiiucl,dntiett
Dens has been approved. That he vistadd fernierly not admit.
his
hr what they
sfacts,hnlonukrlidiov,n.who not, ,hataffiht there he
rns, tire? ta:ticiietastifjleyfii,,mittihfe,u(idi.)::ae:npaLssi
is
argument front principle. admit, fully, the import-
e h it
ra-
diet till
where facts are exhibited to opeoisneanpyrii:vihii
enure of appeal to fact : where such appeals arn made for the
of
fact
cr et ait mo-
en . But
ne
r, n the parent stock on which they should grow, they perish.
' purpose of exhibiting principle
bet-
ter They
than a thousand arguments." Tbe fact is, we live in times
o are re-
puted
when observation seems to have overlaid refletai„„, and, when
lailnoisosnogmt
eo ,riiore.
discreet,
"Factsl th
acr
the-actions, which, betraying inconsistency in the performers
of them, serve to awaken suspicion in the wise, shall be noticed
by the ready reasoners of our day, as calculated to dissipate
:dame and to restore and confirm their confidence. (Cheers.)
I wish, sir, those who- are to decide for others as well as them-
seine, would lotiktipcn the acts of anyeportiou of uteri debut.% nig
reyvi:l ut:e_ are
o

them by the light in which the principles of the agents exhibit
them. fee treseaeses of nations wined not ies so thgreet
their perils not so formidable if a rule like this were conaa
observed. Beene circulates Scripture—therefore she Mies out,
should she obtain power, tine-obit it. She does permit the eir-
culation—but she prove :ea not to steely except according to the
sense of the church, winch has not been insale known—or the
consent of the fas hers, who unauiuio in consenting,
renders the circulation unprofitable. I need not prove here that
-the fathers, whom Rome has not even named, are not unanimous
—not even cousistent with themselves. 1 most highly respect
and lova the wisdom which 1 semetimes find iu the writings of
the sages of the early church. I look heck to them with interest,
a feel simnel, moved by the testimeny which they bore, amid
trials by which the stoutest of men might be shaken, to the faith
they professed, and by the energy of their dependence and the
strength of the hope welch cheered them through their troubled
lives and crowned their heityrdom—but I cannot disguise from
myself that they were men—and to postpone Scripture until
their differences can he adjusted, and in the mean time to have
their discourses as the substitute, would be about as wise as to
deprive our navy of the mariner's compass, until the traditions
left by men who hail prosecuted their unadventurous voyages
by the guidance lent them by the stems, coule be collected and
reconciled with the. truth, and with each other. To say then,
that humanism chile permitting the Scriptures to circulate
under the shackles of a premise which makes it a sealed book,
vindicates herself from the charge of opposing and prohibiting
the study of it, is, at the least, to speak rashly. Indeed, sir, I
am strongly disposed to filial( that such rashness, indicates inure
often indifference than imbecility. On mural and religious
topic e. empty shows content many. Shows at variance with the
principles of those who exhibit them will suffice. But where
personal interest or political predilection are concerned, there
the value of such exhibitions will be as fully uederstood, as a hill
of exchange is by a broker. .1 will put this matter to the test.
I have hazarded a comparison between navigation directed by
the mariner's compass or guided by the stars. Let it be sup-
posed that among - the vessels which have entered your pert,
there was one in which the romantic guidance of mere poetical
days was substituted for that which has been formed by 1111.11 of
our times, more eligible and safer. Do I impose too seriously
on your credulity whew I affirm, that, were the master of such
as vessel to advertise for passengers, he would not be embarrassed
by a very earnest competition. But let it be imagined, that, in
• a spirit of curiosity, a stranger visited the vessel, and thee the
I first object which presented itself to his eye was that very cote-
pegs which the men said had been prohibited and disused, would
sou think it it matter of course that he should at once account
thierepreeentatieos of star-light wanderings all untrue, and pro-
nounce the good ship sea worthy and safe ?--( Loud applause.)
I think, sir, ho would not if he were wise. No! he would in-
quire how the sinister reputution had been acquired? and if in
the course of examination it was brought to light, that although
the compass was exhibited, it was nut consulted ; if the master,
the.tuate, the helmsman, the crew, all were bound to postpone
inquiry at the compass until previous questioning had been suc-
cessful; • that all were bound first to consult the traditionary
relice of old star guided voyages; that they were lensed to hear the
mandate of the captain or the mate—and it the voice of a superior
instructed them that the needle ought to point to the north, when
their eyes taught them that it pointed actually to the south
or west--that they were bound by their sworn obligations to give
credence to what they heard, and to disregard the testimony of
their eyes--he would surely hesitate, at least, before he decided
the charges against the suspected vessel were mere calumny and
slander. What would, in such a case, he the natural interpre-
tation of the phenomena. It would be, that while the regula-
tions of the vessel were unchanged, while fragments of tradition
constituted the directions by which it was to be governed, an
idle show had been set up, that men of easy credulity'might be
deceived, and that the inAtious accusations might be averted.
It would be natural to interibat the captain, who beheld barks
from all realms surrounding his—who saw plain proofs of the
prefeience with which those were favoured—who were governed
by the guidance which was safest—accommodated himself to the
necessities of the times—set up the compass as a pirate might,
for an advantage—display the conquering ensign of Britain—to
be taken down and cast aside so soon as the emergencies ceased
to require it. Is this illustration overstrained? No, sir;—the
teaching of the Church of Rome suggests it,—Dens directly re-
commends a practice not dissimilar. Lie has recited the re-
strictions by which the reading of God's Word is encompassed,
and he adds, that in countries where heresy prevails a more li-
beral indulgence may be granted. Is not this hoisting upon
occasion the convenient flag, without giving up the purpose of
r.ot always sailing under it,--the setting forth the compass, but
preserving an unchengeable resolution that it shall never direct
the voyage. Why is it that 1 have dwelt at such length on a
topic which seems so little to require elucidation ? Because I
regard the policy by which the Church of house is governed in
her dispensation of scriptural truth, as her most prominent and
unambiguous cnaracteristic. She proclaims that the bible con-
tains the pure word,of God. She does not impute to it admix-
ture of human error-e The bible is the only book reepecting
which she makes thiee comprehensive acknowledgment; and
the bible is also the only book which she forbids her votaries to
study. Individuals may prohibit works which Sap the founda-
tion or morals, but the authority of no individual is paramount.
Congregations established as a censorship over the press may
endeavour to correct what is partially erroneous, or to suppress
what is all evil; but the cowman& of congregations may be
altered or overruled, and, even while unrescinded, have no au-
thority to compel assent and obedience. All that has been pro-
nounced by subordinate and unaccredited depositaries of power
in the Chuech of Rome is to be regarded as neither permanent
or constraining. The only prohibition for which as a church
she is responsible, is contained in the declaration to which all
her votaries subscribe, which her ecclesiastics confirm with an
oath, that unless they can accomplish the impracticable task of
rendering the fathers unanimous, they will never take or inter-
pret God's Holy Scripture. " Hear, 0 heavens ! and give ear
0 earth ! for the Lord hath spoken," is the language of God.
I-leaven must suspend her harmonies—earth must admit the
quickening power of reverence and still attention—all that is
created must pause from its agitation or waken front its inert-
ness, because the Lord hate spoken, and everything that has
any being should hear. This is Gial's law. What is the law
of Hume ? She, too, acknowledges that the Lord hath spoken ;
but does she invoke silence and attention to what he utters. Is
her language "Hear, 0 earth ?" No, it is, pour your voices
free, ye fathers of the early time. Speak, thou church, for the
Lord hath spoken, and unless the words obscurely uttered ob-
tain your approval and interpretation, they must fall to the
earth neglected. Ant I not justified in calling this a proscrip-
tion of the bible? The voice that cried in the wilderness was
powerful to reach many hearts—when wisdom cried in the streets,
those who disregarded were at least free to hear and become
wise. But it is not so with respect to the bible. On that blessed
hook the Church of Rome scowls suspicion. She does not leave
it free to contend with the natural obstinacy of the human will
—to overcome the distraction and indifference and preoccupa-
tion of human intellect, and to soften the obduracy of the hu-
man heart. No, every avenue to the soul is preoccupied and
guarded by -sin, invested with a-character of religion; the bible
is actually sent into banishment, unless the fathers go forth on
an unanimous mission to return it into the ways of life it must
remain a fugitive in the desert. No marvel that the Church of
Rome has excommunicated the saints of God when thus she
pours an anathema upon- his bible.' No marvel, if, instead of
listening to the still small voice, and distinguishing it from the
tumult of voices which raise their clamours above it, she teaches
that nothing should be respected except what these earthly
voices pronounce. If thus she suffer the voice of truth to be
drewned in the confusion of tongues, whirls arrogate an au-
thoi ity as the interpreters of the truth they stifle. No marvel
if the doctrines which God has revealed, are superseded or de-
faced, sod the church which renounces them gives heed to se-
taming spirits, and te doctrinesof devils. A manifestation of the
power that opposeth and exaltetti itself aleive all that is called
God, and worshipped, so plaits as this demands ample and cogent
proofs. (Cheers.) You will not think me unpardonable for hav-
ing been even tediously minute in my enumeration of them.
-1 turn from Dr. Murray's charge against me, and pass away
also from a eliminating. defence, attempted by another. On
this toy bus are sealed—a domestic calamity has visited my ac-
cuser, ale! debarred. me from the privilege of adding to the ob-
eervations,•in which E have already exposed the injustice with
which he had assailed me. 1 abstain : and lest, if [entered into
a review of the topics which had celled eirth the invective, I
might inadvertently make use of some expression unsuitable to
the circuinstauces which restrain me. I dismiss the topic alto-
gether, iteporteut though it be, and turn to another portion of
my subject. But in comparison with the defence which Dr.
Murray has been bull enough, recently, to adopt, all pi ecteling
attempts at justification are of but little moment. I will not
enter into an examination of the different parts of the memorable
and characteristic epistle in which the defence is stated. I will
confine myself to a single topic. Dr. Murray recommends the
theology of Deus to the attentive perusal of his clergy, and
justifies the recommendation by referring to the oath in which
they and he had declared that they rejected doctrines which
Deus maintains. " I have now no hesitation," he writes, "in
recommending it to your' attentive perusal, convinced that,
trained as you have been to theological discussions, you are well
qualified to appreciate the value of the arguments which the
;tether adduces in support df his opinions, and bound as you
are by the sacree obligation of an oath, that you do, as you have
solemnly sworn, reject and abhor the opinion, that it is lawful
to injure any individual whomsoever, on account of his religious
opinions." " Bound as you are by the obligation of an oath."
—What oath? I repeat—rif what oath ? Why do I propose
such a question ? You shall hear : Dr. Murray was asked be-
fore a eoinmittee of the Douse of Commons, in the year 1825,
on the 17th of Mee., " Do the priests take an oath similar to
this? (The oath taken by Roman Catholic bishops.) lie
aesweeee, e• No ; they take no oath but the oath of allegiance
its his Majesty—they Make a promise of obedience at the time
of their ordination—that is alt." This answer of the witness
may be divided, as logicians say, into two propositions—one
priests of the church of Rome in Ireland take
affirming that the
the (Fah of allegiance to his Majesty, the other asserting that
they take uu other. The answer, it is plain, conveys intelligence
ere the effect that priests, as priests, swear allegiance to the
terune, and that they swear, as priests, no other oath. In both
parts it wa; false. Students at May noolh, at their entrance into
that .seminary, use required to take an oath of allegiance. Ne
such teals is required at any other Roman catholic college, and
no such oath is required at ordination. It is raise, than, to say,
that the priests take it. Mete Dr. Doyle, shat was on his oath,
appears to have given testimouy the very opposite to Dr. Murray.
Lords' Committee, Mu/ eh 21, 1825.
RIGHT AM ES Dov r.e.—Are there any oaths taken
by the Roman retholie eriests in Ireland to the state at present?
Alt those educated at Maynooth are obliged, on their entering
„liege. to take the oath of
the c allegiance prescribed to be taken
by Roman catholics.

I -j. A-re all the persons appointed to be parish priests in Ireland
now educdted at Mayioddh? No, far Crum it.
triien, if a per Son is not educated at Map-moth, is he obliged
to take the oath of idlegiance? Not unless he succeeds to some
property, or is appointed to some office requiring it. I neve'
rook the oath of allegiance in this country until about a year
ago,--( Dr. Doyle, accorditig to the Ordo Divini qfficii of 1825,
had been consecrated bishop in I819,)—" and probahly," he
continues, "should not !ince then done so. had I not been ap-
pointed to some situation." - 'rhos is Dr. Murray plainly con-
tradicted. Had he said, there are some priests who, when they
were students iu Maynooth, took an oath of allegiance, he
would have spoken truth. . Had he said " priests" meaning
"some priests," did so. he Might have an opportunity of special
pleading in his dett>nce. But when, in answer to a question
respecting the whole body of the Romish clergy-in Ireland re-
specting " the priests," he affirmed that they took an oath of.
allegiance. it is impossible to escape from the 'conclusion that
the testimony of Dr. Doyle convicts him or direct untruth,—
whether ascribable to an -inteotion of decetVing or to inexplica-
ble ignorance, I du not presume to determine.—(Loud cheers
and a latigh.
I turn to the second part of the answer.
The priests in.lr-
eland take no other oat h ;—is this the truth? No. I cannot
cite the testimony of Dr. Doyle to prove its falsehood, but ant
not without evidence strong as the case requires. The Appen-
dix to the Report of the Lords Committee 4,11 Ireland, in 1823,
Dlav 'li, (at pane 913.) recites. "rie form of oath taken by
• :,„1, on being collated to narishes " It conclUdes with the 3
folio" inn (;„ ( 0 promise and xus,ar true obedience to
ow rope of Home, sr. censor of the blessed Peter, Prince Of the
Ale. and the V r Jesus Christ.` Also. all other things
A pt,„
&tined, delivered: mot r! eel eed by the sacred cantina and
cecumenicalcoinicds, and especiallv the holy Council of '['remit,
I do, without doubting, receive and profess; and also all things
contrary, and ail heresies whatever. condemned by the church, I
and tu ccted and anatheatibed, du I, in like manner, coudeum,

reject, and anathematise. This true cat tholic faith, without which
uo !nen eau be saved, which at the present I do voluntarily profess
and I rely hoid, the same 'eel 1 t eke care to hold entire and inviolate
by God's help, meet coustautly, even to thc„laet 'Heath of my life,
and as 1111,01 its in use lieth, to be held, taught, anti preached by
these that are tooter me, or whose care belongs to use in my of-
tiee. This Idu promise, vow, and swear, so help me God and
these holy Gospels of Gal." Such is the oath which Da Mur-
ray solemnly denied tem his exemination before a parliamentary 1
committee. I charged bile with the denial. It was necessary
that I should call his especial attention to the chaege, and I did !
so. He huts not ventured to deny the justice of the accusation ; .
he has not thought it advisable to attempt any excuse for his
most false disclaimer. Yet he expresses auger at being charged
with disengenuous tititice, and he remains,—may God pardon
the nation which continues the enormity,—he remains patron of
the system of mural education in Ireland.—(Hear, hear, and
much cheering.) When he reminds his clergy that they are
"hound by the obligation of an oath," you do not now marvel
that I should ask, " What oath does he mean?"—the oath
which he drew upon his invention to say that they had taken, or
the oath which they lied taken, and which, at the convenient
season, was erased from his memory, or which he denied with
an untruth—the path in which some have sworn that they re-
gard as flagitious anal abominable the doctrine that faith is not
to be kept with heretics, or security afforded them for property
or life—or the oath in which they have sworn to receive, with-
out, any doubt, the declarations of councils and canoes which
teach that, where the interest of the church demands, those doc-
trines must be received and practised which, in the oath of al-
legiance, must be pronounced impious and unchristian ? What
oath is to govern the clergy in their attentive perusal of Peter
Dens ? Which oath have they taken ? We do not know that
one has taken the oath of allegiance. We know that every
priest collated to a parish has taken the oath of perfidy and in-
tolerance. How, then, are we to regard the obligation which
is recalled to their remembrance ? Is it cautionary against
I Dens—is it cautionary against the charities—against the im•
1 pulses of natural feeling, and the warnings of conscience,'
l which teach that Dens should be condemned and rejected ?
I The recotninendation, for aught we know to the contrary, may
be interpreted su as to challenge Approbation from the Inquisi-
tiott-in Koine, as well as to win favour in England. ( Applause.)
But it may be said that the oath to which Dr. Murray refers,- is
one in which Catholics hare sworn to injure no titan " on ac-
count of his religions opinions," These are his wards—are
they spoken in guilaor in simplicity? Can it be that he ranks
heresies ;Among " religious opinions ?" Most surely he does
not. He accounts heresy irreligion, and the oath not to injure
an individual on account of his religious opinions would much
more rationally be interpreted as applicable to the permitteddi,
versity of opinion whirls is confessed within the Church; of
Rome, than to that wider deviation which is not tolerated by the
church, but is condemned as heresy and irreligion. We may
then boldly say, that an oath containing the professions relied
upon by Dr. Murray is not such as Protestants ought to hold
satisfactory.—( Hear.) But we should not be so precise in cri- 1
ticising language. Ile means the oath of allegiance, which
pronounces it impioui and unchristian to hold that men ought
to be injured, "(or, or under pretence of, their being, heretics."
This, too, is insufficient. A man may swear that he does not
passively or actively injure a fellow-creature because he is a
heretic—while yet he abets his destruction because he has been
axcommuuicated. You have no right to strike a man dead be-
cause you are convinced be is a murderer; but when sentence
has been pronounced upon him, as a convict he forfeits life. In
like manner, a bigoted member of the Church of Rome may
affirm that lie does not cherish a purpose of injuring heretics—
nay, that he renounces it—while vet, if his church pronounced
an anathema, and demanded of bins that he should be a minis-
ter of vengeance, he may afford himself as willing an instru-
ment to wreck its merciless will, as he was ready when the sea-
son required—to win favour for it by swearing oaths which were
so constructed as to disarm the vigilance of those who dreaded
intolerance, and yet to leave him free for any demonstration
which a more favourable time would encourage him to exhibit.
(Loud cheers.) As a case in point, call to mind the bull of
Sextus V., excommunicating Elizabeth and calling on her sub-
jects to depose her, and remember how the command was ac-
commodated by his successor to the difficulty of the tunes, when
he interpreted it es being always binding on Protestants, but
not obligatory on Roman Catholics until the day in which it
should be found wise to enforce it. In the interval. peace and
guod•will may be sworn, and it' a time arrive in which mercy
and justice mime, be disregarded, Protestants may be taunted
with their simplicity, and it may he said by those who are then
armed as their oppressors, "we swore to do you no wrong fur your
heresies. We do nut, but we obey the commands of our head,
the Vicar of Christ„eual we visit on you the penalties not of
heresy, hut of excommunication." Are we to account oaths ca-
pable of such interpretation a security ?—( Loud applause. )
But, suppose theist inure precise, suppose the oath one less
elastic and aecommodeting, what is to be thought of an oath by
which practice is so uninfluenced? Dr. Murray confesses that
the Theology of Deus teaches doctrines which he has, on oath,
rejected—he recommends this theology to the attentive perusal
of his clergy, and he assigns as the justification of his having
recommended so pernicious et book—the oath in which he and
those whom he governs swore that they rejected some of its
doctrines as impious and unchristian. NVliat an age in which
such confusion shall be committed by one who holds an office
of the highest trust mid importance ! It is a grave offence for
one having influence to recommend, as a safe guide, a book
containing impious doctrine. This, the Romish bishops did
when they so highly eulogised Professor Dens. It is an aggra•
legion of the crime when the opinions thus indirectly, but ant-
biguously, countenanced in secret had been publicly abjured on
oath—but it leaves all common iniquity behind, when the oath
to reject evil doctrine is, with unabashed effrontery, alleged as
the justification for recommending it—when a bishop of the
Church of Rome stands before the public—confesses that he has
sanctioned, and that he recommends a detestable book—anti
presents, to the nation he abuses and insults, the oath he has
broken as the shield by which he would cover himself from
their indignation. Who can say—it is true I recommended
Dens, but what right have you to object—have I not given
you an oath, which should cause you to believe that I condemn
him—how can you find fault—if after having quieted your sus-
picions, I follow the course which my judgment recommends,
and direct my clergy to study with profound attention the book
which my oath to you comprehends as among those which I
detest, abjure, and condemn. I would propose to any twelve
men, of plain sense and honest principle, a question as to the
duties of devolving on men who swore the oath of which Dr.
Mum ray would rewind us—in which he, in the face of the En-
glish nation, abjured intolerance and bad faith. It was not an
oath England required—that is, it was not for its own sake the
oath was demanded—it was to obtain assurance that habits of
sincerity and general good will were not incompatible with the
principles of those who swore. The oath taken by Dr. Murray
to renounce and abhor certain dogmas ascribed to his church
was desired only as containing or giving an assurance that he
would practically abjure them. I would ask of any twelve
honest men whether this is not the truth—with a full assurance
that their answer would be affirmative and unanimous. Further,
I would not hesitate to ask, whether, in their judgment, he who
swore had not taken upon himself as an. imperative duty to
stigmatise and discourage every book which taught the con-
demned opinions, and to seek out and bring into general circu-
lation such as were in canfurmity with the spirit of the oath. ,I
have no fear what the answer would be, and boldly affirm that
the oath by which Dr. Murray qualifies his recommendation of
Dens—pledged him to censure it, to prohibit his clergy from its
perusal—in short—bound him to act in a manner the very re-
verse of what his conduct has been—and further, I affirm that
the man who could pursue such a course of action as he has
adopted. cannot possibly, have a just sense of the oath he has
taken, or feel the abhorrence which he professes, of the foul
doctrines which he had, in evords, rejected as impious and un-
christian. (Loud cheers.) Dr. Murray knew his duty; I pro:
nisei' to show you that he did, by his own confession. A letter
was addressed to Dr. Murray, dated Pembridge Rectory, Sep-
tember 17, 1835, and signed Maurice James, B.D. It con-
tained the following expression, " Your lordship will greatly
oblige me by ieforming me how it was that the authorised re-
publicatiun of Dens, in 1808, and again in 1812, took place
without the omission, or any explaeation of the passages
objected to, and also what is the nature of the conference in
which the hook is used, and to what use it is therein applied;.
and especially to what kind of comment or interpretation the
passages are there subjected." The answer of Dr. Murray was
satisfactory to the polite and reverend querist. " I ant con-
vinced," he says, " that because we dissent from the opinions
of an author, it would be quite fair to mutilate his book," Are
we to believe, that his belief of Scripture is his reason for mutil-
ating it ? " The work was designed solely for professional
men." Now those men had disavowed on oath, the only opinion
that could lead to any practical mischief. Of what advantage,
then, would it have been to load the page with a tiotef No
student could be placed on time roll of Maynuoth College, with-
out taking the oath alluded to, iu one of the letters, which you
will find in the Dublin Morning Register, (the oath to which I
have already adverted.) " This, surely, was the strongest com-
ment that could be made on the text of Dens." " Conferences,"
are " meetings held by our clergy, at stated times each year,
for the purpose of discussing, for their mutual ioformation,
questions connected with their profession." " Questions are
proposed in the order in which they are usually found in theo-
logical works. The Order adopted by Deus was found to be
couveuient, and therefore, the questions to be discussed in this
province were set down in the order in which they lie in his
book; but when brought under consideration, they arediscessed
exclusively on their own merits, without any other reference to
that author." But why were questions regarding the punish-
ment of heres•y, discussed at all ? " Because they form a part of
a treatise on heresy, which is never omitted in a theological
course, and which should, therefore, naturally come under
consideration in its turn. Surely, a clergyman ought
ughhtatos beso
ashamed, not to know the state of a question, which
often agitated the Christian world, or to be unacquainted with
the arguments which would enable hint to coin. to a just con-
clusion regarding it ? Would it nut be satisfactory to hint to
be able to prove, to his owu mind. the justice of the oath which
he haul taken, and to . Which I have already alluded. Anti is
there anthything so very alarming in his being allowed to dis-
cuss the question, even for that excellent purpose?" Such are
the leading parts of Doctor Murray's reply. Mr. Janice, who
forwards it to the editor of the Hereford l'imes, fiats it with his
approbation. " I will only add," he writes, "that lam entirely
satisfied with the answer given in the above letter," etc., Sze.
No doubt Dr. Murray was well satisfied with his judge. If nut,
his case is hopeless. Perhaps outside the guardianship of the
wicked and the weak,—Great Britain could not afford him one
more to his purpose,—a more exact counterpart of himself:—
a Daniel come to judgment. (Tremendous cheering.) The
oath. you obsvve, is the governing principle of all the 'neve-
!bents of the most reverend divine. He and his priests had
sworn that they rejected math] opinions. It was, therefore,
right that they should be taught the justice of the oath they had
taken. (Hea a hear.) " Sufficient !" cries Mr. James. "lii
toy conscience I acquit," he says, "the water, individually,
and the Ramat' Catholics in general, of entertaining, at this •
day, the persecuting and homicidal datelines and dispositions
attributed to them." Even with this the leyerend judge is not
contented. He is so fully possessed with the innocence of the
bishop mid priests, that be passes sentence on their accusers,
"which doctrines." he adds. (the spirit of them, at least,) "and
dispositions belong, I believe, much more to their accusers."
And what is the argument by which the volunteer arbitrate,.
i has become thus enchanted? I dwell not on that inversion of
every thing honest and reasonable implied in the acknowledge-
ment. that the priests first swear solemnly to certain matters,
' and then are taught that they were justified in sa earing. Nei-
ther do I detain you with comments on the third step of this in-
comprehensible produce,—the adopting ns the ()weer means of
reconciling, priests to their obligation. the book which teachrs
them that they have takeu a false oath. It is sufficient to state
the process at which Mr. :James cries out, Ohe ! The priests
swear that they renetince certain opinious. Whey are then taught
that it was right so to swear, and the book selected to teach this
lesson, instructs thew that it was wrong. It is, in truth, d novel,
mode of pleading which Dr. Mut piy has adopted.. First, Dens
caunot embarrass the !Outlet; clergy, because they halve taken
au oath that they a iej uu e his objectionable doctrines; and Then,
this oath cannot rirove enibarrislng to them. because Dens
guides the conferences in which they learn that it was right to
take it. I do net dwell um this "satisfactory" reasoning: I
come to a metier tit' wore importance. 'l' he priests have token
reconciline them, profnaoutittho;,ersittyh
to
an oath to which it is eNp-dient that they be reconciled. The
the priests' disturbed cunsciences.
hook waned t. the Ai, a ef
What has been selected as ui
the oath was false.
qu,,,ii,rtl, iend Dr. Murray declined,
and to COrreet Ihe perniumius innuete eof Dols ? Mr.
jaws,
appeese the restlessness
.of
Lis eva,ion, the complai.
igiiiiisitni tii.stueitil cue.; Ju,,rzus es..l
umttthsta
ivlitig.

Nov: 11 tS::6.

sant pietist pronounces himself satisfied. But the inquiring
public wilt not be so. They will form a wiser and fairer judg-
ment- The hook which appears us a guide to the priestly con-
ferences teaches the lawfumess of perjury and murder. The
natural inference on tioalog. that no better appears is, that none
mere creditable grids. If llsenish theology can supply a safe
guide. it is disgraceful to have chosen one who is " impious and
unchristian." If all are alike abominable, is it unjust to com-
plain of a church which has not a single complete standard of
faith and morals of which its bishops and priests have not Own
in one oath that they embrace all its parts; and in another,
that they renounce and detest portions of it as damnable ?
More than a year has now gone by since Dr. Murray was first
charged with his patronage of the Theology of Dens. His recent
epistle contains a full avowal of the charge. He admits that he
gave permission to have the work printed—he admits that to
withhold his permission would have prevented the publication.
It is necessary merely to add, that he had previously opened a
mart for the book by adopting it for the conferences, and all is
Omitted which was originally charged against him. During
the interval which elapsed since his partnership in the publica-
tion of Dens was exposed, he has been repeatedly called on in
distinct terms by some, in substance by Mr. James, to name
any complete system of theology, by which the errors of Dens
could be corrected. He has never given heed to the demand,
and now, wholly unmasking himself, he recommends his clergy
to engage iu—not some safe and Christian course of study—not
some work, by which they should be taught to reject the abomin-
able principles with the report of which the country has been
ringing—but the very book against which, if he and they have
any respect for an oath, they ought to be especially guarded.
Ile says he sees no reason to be ashamed of having, if he bad,
directed the publication, he evidently is not ashamed of recom-
mending it. No reason to be ashamed! After a year's acs
quaintance, to say no more, upon these odious and demoralising
volumes. No reason to he ashamed—what! of recommending
to the attentive study of his clergymen, those odihus pictures of
crimes which, as Robertson says, " never had existence except
in the impure imagination of a casuist," not ashamed of sug-
gesting the torture _,(>l. those flagitious questions, which if they
are proposed, convert the confessional into a retreat of intel-
lectual prostitution—and which, if they were not to be so em-
ployed, it, was an uncompensated enormity, profligacy without
the plea of a base necessity in him to recommend. No reason
to be ashamed ! .My valued friend, Robert M'Ghee, was ac-
cused-1 was accused—by partizans of the Church of Rome of
having translated extracts from this bad book, and do not ascribe
blame to the translator. His motives and the result may have
justified his undertaking. We, however, felt ourselves called
upon to deny, as We could, all knowledge of a translation likely
to prove the fouleit work in 'the language, and Dr. Murray is
not ashamed to recommend it to his clergy—who are to inter-
pret it to female penitents in the confessional. (Rapturous anal
prolonged applause.) There is another topic of defence which
I would fain have spaken upon if I bad the opportunity afforded
me of so doing; but, circumstances which go home to the heart
' of every man prevent my entering upon that peculiar point, in-
asmuch as the person who has accused me has lately been visited
with a domestic calamity. Under these circumstances, there-
fore, I will give up the topic altogether. (Hear, hear.) I con-,
ceive I shall notate under the necessity ef much longer detain-
ing you. Well, then, in the general charges brought against
the Church of Rome are those of preventing the dissemination
of truth; and they, fur the most part, exist in the iniquitous
practices which have, from time to time, called into public view,
the doctrines of the Church of Horne; and, if those doctrines
were found to be contained in obsolete volumes, or if, in the
-general improvement of the people professing the Roman Ca-
tholic religion, it could. be conceived that those pernicious doc-
trines had been left behind, and that those had been formally
reuounced. 1 for one would not have taken the liberty of bring-
ing those charges to light. No, 1 would rather consult 'the
peace and tranquility of the inhabitants of this country at large.
than be the means of reviving the errors of the Church of Rome of
which she had herself become ashamed, although she had never
formally renounced them. But I find the worst doctrine of the
olden times promulgated and arranged in all their theoretical
forms, and assuming a twofold aspect, for the purpose of making
an attempt to undermine the Scriptures, and to break down that
church in which the Scriptures are approved and acknowledged.
They had seen how in Ireland the Bible had been partially
closed, and the children in the schools merely indulged with
portions of it extracted at the will and pleasure of the Church of
Rome. As an illustration of what has there taken place, I
may say, that if Satan could not destroy the field of wheat he
would at all events introduce the tares into it ; and, in like man-
ner, if the Church of Rome could not altogether withhold the
Bible from her people, she would at least contrive to mix up
with it sonic of her own absurdities—and how far she has suc-
ceeded in doing so I need only refer you to Ireland herself; for
there they have been eminently successful in subjecting the
national schools to their commanding authority, and have al.;
most entirely excluded the book of God's Word. But now, in
this age of improvement, we are told that the book which the
Church of Rome has prevented her votaries from reading is the
book on which men sit in judgment. it is to you a subject of
thankfulness that you can lock back with pleasure upon the
time a ben the enemy passed from the west and visited your own
homes, that you engaged with such earnestness and vigour in
the work of God's vineyard, the result of which will, by God's
blessing, be your recompence. The accusation, therefore, whichl
bring againsethe Church of Rome is, that she has been from
time immemoriatguilty of intolerant acts, that she has promul-
gated intolerant doctrines. And those intolerant acts, those
intolerant doctrines, have not been practised iu the dark ages
alone, or confined to their councils, but have been promulgated
in the nineteenth century; and the accusations which I now
bring against the Church of Rome are
.precisely those which
have called forth of late so many champions in defence of the
Protestant truth. (The speaker was here interrupted by some
noise in the gallery, which shortly subsided.) The accusations
thus brought against the Church of Rome were founded on
grounds which could easily be met and refuted if they admitted
of any refutation. They might meet the accusation in either if
these two modes. Either they might prove the statements made
against their church to Le false, or they might prove that the
Church of Rome had abandoned the practices which she had' in-
chlged in in former times • but neither of these modes having been
adopted, the inference I draw therefrom is, that the charges
cannot in any way be disproved. The truths I have stated have
been confirmed and acknowledged, and so far is the Church of
Rome from repudiating the doctrines which has. led her into
these errors, that she would rather heap obloquy upon those whir
refute her trines, than attempt to clear herself of the charges
made against her. As a proof of what I have said, I will beg
lease to allude to a letter recently addressed to his clergy by
their diocesan, the Right Rev. Dr. Murray, Roman Catholic
Archbishop of Ireland. And, with your permission sir; and the
permission of this congregation, I will confine my remarks to
that letter, which, be it remembered, will prove the charge
brought against the Church of Rome in a two-fold capacity.
I had nearly omitted to notice a point which in a former part'
of this address, begged that you would keep in wind. Dr. Mils-.
ray says, as a defence for enjoining that Dens should be read
and studied by the Roman Catholic clergy, that they have each
taken an oath.. He says that every student of the College of
Maynooth takes an oath. This is his defence of Dens, and this
oath is to guard them against the false and pernicious tenets
contained in the works of that writer. Now, Dr. Doyle declares
that the College of Maynooth is the only college where this pro-
tective and guarding oath is taken, for in fact this oath is in-
tended as a protection for the doctrines of Dens. My respected
friend, Mr. M'Ghee, made this statement publicly at Hereford,
and he has never yet been contradicted; and we may, I think,'
rely pretty implicitly upon the truth of any statement which
may be made respecting the catholics, when such statement re-
mains for so great a length of time without contradiction. I
, have always made it a rule not to give implicit credit to any
charge against the Church of Rome. until it has remained one
whole week without contradiction. Robert M'Ghee stated that
in a book put chased at an auction, he had found the identical
advertisement which was a copy of Coyne's Catalogue for 1814.
It was called the " Catalogue for 1814; of the books published
by Richard Coyne." In this was set forth "Dens' complete
system of theology, seven volumes, duodecimo, price £3." This
is the work which is now read in the catholic colleges, and
which had been adopted by the catholic bishops, as the safest
and best work whereby to instil into the catholic students a
knowledge of their principle's. Now, not at one college in Ire-
land, with the exception of Maynooth, is there an oath admie
nistered. At Carlow there is no oath. At Dublin, at Cork, at.
'Limerick, at Cove, there are no oaths of protection wile inixtered,'
and yet in all these Dens is introduced. In Maynooth there is an
oath, and Dens is not introduced. This, then, is the state of
the case. An oath is used to protect the clergy of the Church
of Rome, against the pernicious doctrines of bens. There• iS
no oath used in any one of the colleges where it is used, and in
the only college where the oath is administered. his works are
not introduced. This is the species of argument that is used by
the supporters of the Church of Rome, by Dr. Murray. Ile
says, be sees no reason to object to the clergy studyaes the doc-
trines of Dens, he even recommends them, saying, that one or
two pages of objectionable matter can make but little difference,
where there is so much that is good : some of the gentle and
li-
beral of the present day have agreed to this, They say, it is
harsh to judge of the merits of a work by what is expressed ha
only a few pages. Out of seven colonies there are only a few
pages of what is objectionable, and it is hard and rigorous to
pronounce strong objections. hecauseof a few pages. We might
say, that this is like the argument adopted by the man whom
one person had seen killing the sheep. "Oh! said he, " you
state, that you can bring forward one person who saw me kil-
ling the sheep; but I can bring forward one hundred people-
who will swear that they did not see me kill it." (Cheers:)
should like to see one of these individuals sitting in judgment
upon a case. Some one comes forward who has been accused
of a crime, and he makes his defence as follows. " Moat wor-
shipful sir. It is true I am guilty. I do not deny it. But I
have lived in this world forty-five years. During the whole of
these years nothing of wickedness has ever been laid to my
charge ; all my life has been passed in respectability and ho-
nour, with this exception, and uow, because on one day I 'have
committed perjury, robbery, murder, that one day is to be pitt
against forty-five years of a life against which you are not able
to say anything. My long life of virtue ought to stand against
one day of crime and iniquity, and I ought to be acquitted."
By such arguments do they reply to our insinuations against
the poor injured and persecuted Dens. (Cheers.) We know
that oft in the olden time there were men who exercised the
otlice of poisoners. We know that annexed to things which
destroyed there were frequently numbers of others adduced of a
neutral character, awl even those which shed forth an agreeable
perfume to greet the senses; hut, would any man say, that •bes
cause there were to one poisonous, ninety-nine neutral ingre-
dients, end even several that were agreeable, that the person
who had administered such potion had done no harm. We,
object to Dens for his one poisonous passage, even though all
.rho rest of his ingredients had been full of virtue, and power,
cud truth. (Cheers.) We object tO the Romish Church be-
cause it teaches doctrines whirls efface the best impressions of
the human beat t. T
hey teach that your neighbour is to be of
no repute if he have been stained. by the guilt of heresy.; the
laws of the land are of no avail if the Church Of Rome pro-
nounce that such lees tally not with ecclesiastical intentions.
(Cheers.) We may say that the laws are the means of recon-
ciling man with his fellow, and of conducing to our individual
repose and security. We might expect that every man would
pay habitual respect to his neighbour's life and property'
through the laws that teach others to reverence that which be-
longs to him. We might expect habits of sincerity, and that
in an especial manner, where God was solemnl called upon t`! y
witness their sayings, the details of the truth should be presented
inviolate. The laws may be mild and we may wish for them .t"
be obeyed through the reverence they inspire. But it is the
business of Dens to teach disobedience to the laws of the land'
except inasmuch thee may be according to the rules of the
!famish Church. It is, therefore, that we protest against Dens,'-
and say that if Dr. Murray is not ashamed of having sect",".4
mended him to the study of the clergy of his church, then
absence of shame indicates the power of habit. lie sacs that
our object—the object of myself and my friend Mr. Alls :orn_
is not to teach the truth, but to endeavour to detect and ,
reads'
'less of error. To maintain what he terms the "bloodeitatee
tithe." We disavow it boldly, and at once appeal to the
'less of our church in Ireland to make any sacrifice for that
Uri
line' to make
religion which we profess. But, even if we bad such au file one
it would not be one of which we need be ashamed. O
side we see law and established possession struggling
ap
etrd.;
rti; faoli;dthat e
olwhiched eeltooitit
isiu
et o
g 'hie" %ft'. tr:o.e r that we
lug. Is it of standing forward in aid of t
gentry of the
the" wise, those %vim have been termed t
I • imersed in ter-
land—e e see them suriounded by danger and
We see those who
ought to be ashamed? On the one sidehewzessete the good and
son. On the Other side what do we' see?
ndit themtinisn'ivii""Y )s-etii)ptil:"::