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

THE LIVERPOOL STANDKO.

ingly established the justice of his charge as to have reduced
the advocates of Itienanisi to silence; or to have• extorted_
from them those irrelevant and unbecoming cries of personal
invective which serve to little other purpose than to renders,
the confession implied in their silence the snore 'significant.,
A moment's reflection -will show how aptly the invective with
which this ardeut asseitor of the truth has been assailed har-
monises with the evidence 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
Rome, there was one which was not genuine—a document which
he had hastily adopted, and which he lost not a day in retracting.
(Hear, 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 now, 1 understand, that Mr.
M'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 a feeling of thankfuluess that, through
his transient and amply atoned-for error, the weakness of the
cause to which he was opposed had become so signally mani-
fested—so groundless was the calumny of his accusers. (Long
continued cheering.) Mr. M'Ghee 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 for a
man like Mr. INl`Ghee to 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. But there is
another matter on which Mr. iNPGhee has been assailed. It is
said that he declined accepting a challenge addressed to him by
a Roman Catholic clergyman, Mr. Maguire. (Hisses.)
This is, no doubt, a subject on which Rome should exult, and
on which she should instruct her advocates to insist strongly.
Mr. 11I‘Ghee charges the Church of Rome, generally, and
certain of her ecclesiastics 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 than liberty and choice wide as the
world. (Loud cheers.) They obstinately and prudently decline,
and then sound trumpets of triumph over his imagined unwil-
lingness to meet in argument the adversary by whom he had
been provoked to engage in a disputation. It would be indeed
a sickly triumph were the case such as they would represent it.
(Great cheering.) But what were the facts 7—what is the his-
tory of this challenge? I wish that lie were here to narrate
them who could speak with authority. I know them only Irons
the published correspondence on the subject, and from that 1
learn, that, in consequence of expressions used by Mr. Maguire,
Mr. M`Gliee addressed to hint a proposal of which no notice
was taken; but that, instead of a reply, Mr. Maguire issued a
challenge on conditions 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 you. (Loud cheers.) But
there was one condition proposed by Mr.'Maguire which served
to indicate the character of the proceeding, and to intimate the
impossibility of complying with his propositions. Ile required
that there should be judges to decide on the matters at issue be-
tween him and the Rev. gentleman whom he invited to a dis-
cussion. And how were these judges to he selected? Mr.
Maguire was to choose three Protestants. Mr. M‘Gliets was to
search out among Roman Catholics three, by, whom, impartial
judgment was to be pronounced. On what question' ? The
very first question which-naturally presented itself was on the
right of private judgment. And Roman Catholics, to whose
profession of faith it was essential.that they should renounce
such a right—who, in truth, would become Protestants by ex-
ercising it, were to act in judgment, and. pronounce upon a
matter in which they had incapacitated themselves from de-
ciding. (Cheers.) No Roman Catholic clergyman could be
unaware—indeed Mr. Maguire was not—thatthe•first question
, "to be determined was on this solemn right. Protestants are
free—Roman Catholics are intellectually fettered—Rome boasts
herself the champion of freedom, but it is of that freedom
which is conceded only to a part of man's nature—a free•
dom which would set the nerves and sinewe 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-1 too was charged with misie-
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, and
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 me inure, 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 accurate reports
unassailed, vented his indignation on one which did not even
profess to be verbal. The charges he had advanced against the
were, that I had misquoted a decree of the Council of Trent,
and that I had misrepresented evidence delivered by him be-
fore a parliamentary committee. I stated to him the substance
of what I had said, and forwarded to his address a paper con-
taining a statement more in detail. I said that the Council of
Trent had affirmed the Nicene Creed to be the creed of the
catholic church, and that Pius IV, proposing, after the council
had dispersed, a new creed, instituted thus a new church and
established a new religion. [Here the reverend speaker enter-
•ed into asletail of the argument, by which he showed that the
Church of Rome is a schism, dating its origin no farther back
than the year 15111, and even then with an anathema from the
Council of Ephesus. (Applause.) He concluded his argu-
ment by stating that Dr. Murray's silence, who never attempt-
ed to reply, gave it confirmation, the most reverend divine,
having addressed himself with eagerness to assail the incorrect
report, and receiving with submissive silence the allegations 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 named them to him. One was, that he
had denied that comprehensive and most abominable oath
which - priests of his church take on collation to benefices.
(Hear.) To this charge he made 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 in my charge, that according to the testimony which he
had 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 from it by an evasion ?
he was silent. Perhaps the researches of Robert 111•Ghee may
explain why. This is a subject of so much importance that 1,
must beg your permission to state the argument somewhat
more fully. The Church of Rome prohibits the study of the
Holy Scripture. I do not read the prohibition from the 'testi-
mouies of individual divines, or even from the rules of cringres,
gations. The prohibition which I regard as issued with the
authority of the 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 God—contained in the creed of
Pius IV :—" I also admit the Holy Scripture according to the
sense which our holy mother the church has held and does hold, I
to which it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation
of the Scriptures." This is sufficiently disparaging to "the
divine word; but how can we, without amazement and sorrow,
hear what follows?—" Neither will laver take and interpret them
otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the fathers."
I need not 'Wove to you that the fathers are not unanimous,
that the Church of Rome has nut set forth with authority,a full
interpretation of Scripture. On that, accordingly, the votary
who has promised solemnly to embrace traditions, to receive
without any doubt the conflicting declarations of canons and
councils—who has thus pledged himself to learn and revere the
contents of those most voluminous records in which the
character of the Church of Rome is depicted—plcdges him-
self, with equal solemnity, to renounce fur ever that one
book which God has commanded to be written for his learning.
I had adduced testimony to prove, that the practice.of the church
of 'Rome is conformable to this denunciation. Dr. Doyle, ex-
amined on oath before a parliamentary committee, in 1825, was
asked, " Have you in any instance allowed the circulation of
the bible among the laity without notes ?" Ile answered, " I
do not know that we have." He was asked whether he and his
brethren considered themselves " pledged to all matters con-
tained in these notes ?" " No—nut by any means." He said
further, "the notes carry, in our editions of the bible, no
weight." In the tonne year Dr. Murray was examined, and
bore testimony not adverse to that part of his episcopal brother.
He was asked, "Do you approve of the circulation of the scrip-
tures, without notes, among
,the Roman Catholics ?" Ile an-
swered—" I du not approve of the circulation of the scriptures
without notes; I wish there should be seine Mites appended to
them, as an indication that they are not to be interpreted ac-
cording to private judgment, but according to the authority of
the church." All this is consistent with the promise in the
Creed of Pius the 4th. The scriptures are to be received in the
sense admitted by the chnrch. But was that sense made known?
You have heard tile testimony of Dr. Doyle, who declared, on
oath, that it was not ; thathe had not approved of the notes ap-
pended to the editions of tire Bible then in circulation. (Loud
cheers.) Ilad, Dr. Murray approved of them?-of those ap-
pended to any edition? Hear his reply: tie was asked,
"What are the particular notes ; by what authority prepare,d ;
or where are they to be found; whicli,in your opinion,,should'
accompany
the )3ible ?" And he answered,—what? Did lie
Lreadysuch t
a hos issued;
approve
or, stereotypeer e is a tacit .
name any published notes? Did he lay any copy of Scripture
upon the table of the committee? He did not; he promised
One, Ile said
now , " I have myself prepars.l an edition of the Bil,le,
which is edition of
the
ss
; notes
re-
jection °f existiu notes not less clear than Dr. Doyle's sworn
condemnation of diem.
I did dot ascribe division to those bi•
shops, and inferreil froth their joint testimony, what was little
if, when they were asked, the
less than equivocation
du you
answered, "No," and again
containing
studs of the Bible, without"
ewd
htande
tliey indiscriminate
published
same necessary annotations,
they editions of Scripture, cont.:
answereddwell no iuthe Ers.'
itlhteh s
(ust(ticu:, I stn satisereu fied to
leave the denial of Dr. Murray, soar toy
part of the sub' : t(. (Great cheering.)
and
to be judged by every impartial reader, t~'b~thcr my
was not natural, and whether the tleni,d IS its justlee w:stTont
ill-judged, involving as it did, cue Roman Catholic bishop in a
charge of perjury, convicting Dr. Morley himself of amost
discreditable evasion, and leaving his church burdened with a
charge,.that she circulated comments upon the Bible anion,
her people, of such a character, as that in 1525, Dr. Doyle de-
nied then—Dr. Murray evaded then—and that ten years after,
he cannot venture upon the task of explaining the evasion and
the oath, and naming the Bible which had called for them.
(Hear, hear, and much applause.) Instead of this defence, or
a defence like this, Dr. Murray would pour Comm fusien upon me
by asserting, that many copies of the Scriptures had been cir-
culated among, the members of his church. Is this established
approval of them ? The Rhsiwish flutes have been approved—
Dens has been approved. T hat he would formerly not admit.
He should not, therefore, have framed au arginnem in which it
is implied that circulation infers sanction. But • how could this
•be ? I know that there are many who appeal to what they term
facts, and who affirm, that facts confute reasoning, and contra-
dict all arguinent from principle. 1 admit, fully, the import-
ance of appeal to fact : where such appeals are made for the
purpcise of exhibiting principle in action, they are of great mo-
ment. But where facts are exhibited to oppose princis!e--rent
from the parent stock on which they should grow, they perish.
They blossom no more. Still the cry is of many who are re-
puted among the discreet, "Facts are valuable—one fact is bet-
ter than a thousand arguments." , The fact is, we live in times
when observation seems to have overlaid reflection, and, when
the actions, which, betraying inconsistency in the esrsormers
of them, serve to awaken suspicion in the wise, sl,all be noticed'
by the seedy reasoners of our day, as calculated to dissipate
alarm, and to restore'and confirm their confidence. (Cheers.)
1 wish, sir those who are to decide for others as well as them-
selves, would look upon the acts of any portion of then &Eel% ing

them by the light in which the principles of the agents exhibit
them. rue trespasses of nations would not be so flagrant—
their perils not su formidable if a rule like this were constaie.ly
observed. Rome circulates Scripture—therefore she does not,
should she obtain power, prohibit U. She does permit the cir-
culation—but she promises not to study except according to the
sense of the church, which has not been made known—or the
consent of the fathers, who are not unanimous in• consenting,
renders the circulation unprofitable. 1 need nut prove here that
the fathers, whom Rome has not even named, are not unanimous
—not even consistent with themselves. I most highly respect
ar►d loVe the wisdom which I" sometimes find in the writings of
the sagei of the early church. I look back to them with interest,
and feel strongly moved by the testimony 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 which cheered them through their troubled
lives and crowned their matyrdorn—but I cannot disguise from
myself that they were men—and to postpone Scripture until
their differences can be 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 had prosecuted their uuadventurous voyages
by the guidance lent them by the stars, could be collected and
reconciled with the truth, and with each other. To say then,
that itonianisin while permitting the Scriptures to circulate
under the shackles of a promise 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 think that such rashness, indicates more
often indifference than imbecility. On moral and religious
topics, empty shows content many. Shows at variance with the
principles of those who exhibit them will suffice. But whore
personal interest or political predilection are concerned, there
the value of such exhibitions will be as fully understood, as a bill
of exchange is by a broker. I 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 De sup-
posed that among the vessels which have entered your port,
there was one in which the romantic guidance of mere poetical
days was substituted fur that which has been formed by men of
our times, more eligible and safer. Do I impose too seriously
on your credulity when I affirm, thct, were the master of such
a vessel to advertise fur 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 that the
first object which presented itself to his eve was that very coin-
pass which the men said had been prohibited and disused, would
you think it a matter of course that he should at once account
the representations"of star-light wanderings all untrue, and pro-
nounce the good ship sea worthy and safe ?—(Loud applause.)
I think, air, he 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 not consulted ; if the master,
the mate; 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
relics of old star guided voyages; that they were bound to hear the
mandate of the-captain or the mate—and if the voice of a superior
instructed them that the needle ought to point to the north, when
their eves 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, be the natural interpre-
tation of the phenomena. It would he, 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 sel up, that men of easy credulity might be
deceived, and that the injurious accusations might be averted.
It would be natural to inter that the captain, who beheld barks
from:all realms surrounding his—who saw plain proofs of the
preference 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-
comniends a practice not dissimilar. lie has recited the re-
strictions by which the reading of God's tvord 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
cot always sailing under it,--the setting forth the compass, but
preserving an unchangeable resolution that it shall never direct
the voyage. Why is it that I 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 Rome is governed in
her dispensation of scriptural truth, as her most prominent and
unambiguous characteristic: She proclaims that the bible con-
tains the pure word of God. She does not impute to itadinix-
lure of human error. The bible is the only book respecting
which she makes this 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 of 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 commands 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 Church of Rome is to be regarded us 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
() earth ! for the Lord hath spoken," is the language of God.
Heaven must suSpead her harmonies—earth must admit the
quickening power of reverence and still attention—all that is
created must pause from its agitation or waken from its inert-
ness, because the Lord bath spoken, and 'everything that has
any being should hear. This is God's law. What is the law
of Rome? 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 bath spoken, and unless the words obscurely uttered ob-
tain your approval and interpretation, they must fall to the
earth neglected. Am 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
book 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
drowned in the confusion of tongues, which arrogate an mi-
nim ity as the interpreters of the truth they stifle. No marvel
if the doctrines which God has revealed, are superseded or de-
faced, and the church which renounces them gives heed to se-
ducing spirits, and to doctrines of devils. A manifestation of the
power that opposeth and exalteth itself above all that is called
God, and worshipped, so plain 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.
I turn from Dr. Murrav's charge against me, and pass away
also from a criminating, defence, attempted by another. On
this my lips are sealed—a domestic calamity has visited my ac-
cuser, and debarred me from the privilege of adding to the ob-
servations, in which 1 have alreadyexposed the injustice with
which he had assailed me. 1 abstain : and lest, if I entered into
a review of the topics which had called forth the invective, I
might inadvertently make use of some expression unsuitable to
the circumstances which restrain me. 1 dismiss the topic alto-
gether, important though it be, and turn to another portion of
my subject. But in comparison with the defence which Dr.
Murray has been bold enough, recently, to adopt, all preceding
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 Dens 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
Dens 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
author adduces in support of his opinions, and bound as you
are by the sacrei 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—of what oath ? Why do I propose
such a question ? You shall hear : Dr. Murray was asked be-
fore a committee of the House of Commons, in the year 1825,
on the 17th of May, " Do the priests take an oath similar to
this? ('l'he oath taken by Roman Catholic bishops.) Ile
answered, "No ; they take no oath but the oath of allegiance
to his majesty—they make a promise of obedience at the time
of 'their ordination—that is all." This answer of the witness
may be divided, as logicians say, into two propositions—one
ilifirming that the priests of the church of Rome in Ireland take
the oath of allegianCe to his Majesty, the other asserting. that
they take no other. The answer, it is plain, conveys intelligence
tb the effect that priests; as priests, swear allegiance to the
throne, and that they swear, as priests, no other oath. In both
pail's it was false. Students at Maynooth, at their entrance into
are required to take an oath of. allegiance. No
t hut' seminary,
such oath is required at any other Roman catholic college, and
no such oath is required at ordination. It is false, then, to say,
that the priests take it. Here Dr. Doyle, I,t ho was on his oath,
appears to have given testimony the very opposite to Dr. Murray.
Lords' Committee, March 21, 1825.

THE RIGHT REv. JAMES DOYT.E.—Are there any oaths taken
by the Roman catholic priests in Ireland to the state at present?
All those educated at Maynooth are obliged, on their entering
the college, to take the oath of allegiance prescribed to be taken
by Roman catholics.

-:•Are all the persons appointed to be parish priests in Ireland
now educated at Maynooth? No, far from it.
Then, if a person is not educated at Maynooth, is he obliged
to take the oath of allegiance? Not unless he succeeds to some
property, or is appointed to some office requiring it. 1 never
took the oath of allegiance in this country until about a year
ago,—( Dr. Doyle, according to the Ordo Divini Officii of 1835,
had been consecrated bishop in 1819,)—" and jirobably," he
continues, "should not have then done so, had I not been ap-
pointed to some situation." Thus is Dr. Murray plainly con-
tradicted. Had he said, there are some priests who, when they
were students in Maynooth, took an oath of allegiance, ho
would have spoken truth. Had he said "priests" meaning
"some priests, did so, he might have an opportunity of special
pleading in his defence. But when, in answer to a question
the whole body of the Itomish clergy in Ireland re-
respecting
" the priests," he affirmed that they took an oath of
specting
allegiance. it is impossible to escape from the conclusion that
the testimony of Dr. Doyle convicts him of direct untruth,—
whether ascribable to an intention of deceiving or to inexplica-
ble ignorance, I do not presume to determine.—(Loud.—(Loud cheers
and a laugh.)

I turn to the second part of the answer. The priests in Ire-
land take no other oath;—ii this the truth? No. I cannot
cite the testimony of Dr. Doyle to prove its falsehood, but am
not without evidence strong as the ease requires. The Appen-
dix to the Report of the Lords Committee on Ireland, in 1825,
May 27, (at page 913,) recites. " The form of oath taken by
priests on being collated to parishes." It concludes with the 3
following clauses: "1 do promise and swear true obedience to
the Pope of. Rome, successor of the blessed Peter, Prince of the
Apostles, and the Vicar of Jesus Christ. Also. all other things
defined, delivered, and deemed by the sacred canons and
cecumenical councils, and especially the holy Council of Trent,
1 do, without toibting. receive and profess; and also all things
contrary, and ull heresies whatever, condemned by the church,
and rejected and anathematised, do I, in like manner, condemn,

reject, and anathematise. This true catholic faith, without which
ire man can be saved; which at the, present I do voluntarily profess
and tru hold, the same w ill I take care to hold entireand inviolate
by God's help, most constantly, even to the last breath of my life,
and as much as in ins Beth, to be held, taught, and preached by
those that are under me, or whose care belongs to me in my of-
fice. This Idu promise, vow, and swear, so help me God and
these holy Gospels of God." Such is the oath which Dr. Mur-
ray solemnly denied on his examination before a parliamentary
committee. I charged hint with the denial. It was necessary
that I should call his especial attention to the charge, and I did
so. 1-le has nut 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 anger at being charged
with disengenuous artifice, and he remains,—may God pardon
the nation which continues the enormity,—he remains patron of
the system of moral education in lieland.—(Hear, hear, and
much cheering.) When he reminds his clergy that they are
"bound by the obligation of an oath," you do not now marvel
that I should ask, "What oath does he mean?"—the oath
which ho drew upon his invention to say that they had taken, or
the oath which they /sad taken, and which, at the convenient
season, was erased from his memory, or which he denied with
an untruth—the oath in which some have sworn that they re-
gard as flagitious any 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 canons 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
Dons? Which oath have they taken? We do not know that
one has taken the oath of allegiance. We know that every
priest colliited 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
Dens—is it cautionary agaiust the charities—against the im-
pulses of natural feeling, and the warnings of conscience,
which teach that Dens should bo condemned and rejected ?
The recommendation, for aught we know to the contrary, may
be interpreted so as to challenge approbation from the Inquisi-
tion in Rome, 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 have sworn to injure no man " on ac-
count of his religious opinions," These are his words—are
they spoken in guile or 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
wore rationally be interpreted as applicable to the permitted di-
versitY of opinion which is confessed within the Church of
• Rome, than to that wider deviation which is not tolerated by the
church, but is condemned us 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-
ticising language. He means the oath of allegiance, which
pronounces it impious and unchristian to hold that men ought
' to be injured, "for, or under pretence of, their being heretics." i
This, too, is nsufficient. A man may swear that he does not
passively or actively injure a fellow-creature because he is a
heretic—while vet he abets his destruction because he has been
excommunicated. You have no right to strike a Irian dead be-
cause you are convinced he is a murderer; but when sentence
has been pronounced upon him, as a convict ho forfeits life. In
like manner, a bigoted member of the Church of Rome may
affirm that he does not cherish a purpose of injuring heretics—
nay, that he renounces it—while vet, if his church pronounced
an anathema, and demanded of .him that he should be a minis-
, ter of vengeance, he may afford himself as willing an instru-
ment to wreck its merciless will, as ho was ready when the sea-
son required—to win favour fpr 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 encoilrage 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 times, when
he interpreted it as 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
good-will may be sworn, and if a time arrive in which mercy
and justice may be disregarded, Protestants may be taunted
with their simplicity, and it may be said by those who are then
armed as their oppressors, "we swore to do you no wrong for your
heresies. We do not, but we obey the commands of our head,
the Vicar of Christ, and we visit on you the penalties not of
heresy, but of exconununication." Are we to account oaths ca-
pable of such interpretation a security ?—(Loud applause.)—
But, suppose them more precise, suppose the oath one less
elastic and accommodating, what is to be thought of an oath by
which practice is so uninfluenced? Dr. Murray confesses that
the Theology .of Dens 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 a book—the oath in which he and
those whom he governs swore that they rejected some of its
doctrines as impious and unchristian. What an age in which
such confusion shall he committed by one who holds an office
of the highest trust and 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-
vation of the crime when the opinions thus indirectly, but am-
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—and
presents, to the nation he abuses and insults, the oath he has
broken as the shield by which he woulil cover himself from
their indignation. Who can say—it is true I recommended
Dens, brit 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 1
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.
Murray would remind 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 thii 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 conformity 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 words, rejected as impious and un-
christian. (Loud cheers.) Dr. Murray knew his duty; I pro-
mised 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 informing me how it was that the authorised re-
publication of Dens, in 1808, and again in ]Bl2, took place
without the omission, or any explanation 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. ‘4 lam 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, this only opinion
that could lead to any practical mischief. Of what advantage,
then, would it have been to load the page with a note? No
student could be placed on the roll of Maynooth College, with-
out taking the oath alluded to, in 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 information,
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 Dens was found to be
convenient, 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 arediscussed
exclusively on their own merits, without any other reference to
that author." But why were questions regarding the punish-
ment of heresy, discussed at all ? " Because they form a part of
a treatise on heresy, which is never omitted in a theulogical
course, and which should, therefore, naturally come under
consideration in its turn. Surely, a clergyman ought to be
ashamed, not to know the state of a question, which has so
often agitated the Christian world, or to be unacquainted with
the arguments which would enable him to come to a just con-
clusion regarding it? Would it not be satisfactory to him to
be able to prove, to his own mind, the justice of the oath which
ho bad taken, and to which I have already alluded. And 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. James, who
forwards it to the editor of the Hereford Times, fiats it with his
approbation. " I will only add," he writes, "that lam entirely
satisfied with the answer given in the above letter," &c., &e.
,No doubt Dr. Murray was well satisfied with his judge. If not,
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 hiinself,—%
a Daniel come to judgment. (Tremendous cheering.) The
oath, you observe, is the governing principle of all the move-
ments of the most reverend divine. He and his priests had
sworn that they rejected certain opinions. It was, therefore,
right that they should be taught the justice of the oath they had
taken. (Hear, hear.) "Sufficient !" cries Mr. James. "In
my conscience I acquit," he says, " the writer, individually,
and the Roman Catholics in general, of entertaining, at this
day, the persecuting and homicidal doctrines and dispositions
attributed to them." Even with this the reverend judge is not
contented. lie is so fully possessed with the innocence of the
bishop and priests, that he 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 arbitrator
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 swearing. Nei-
ther do I detain you with comments on the third step of this in-
comprehensible produce,—the adopting as the proper means of
reconciling priests to their obligation, the book which teaches
them that they have taken a false oath. It is sufficient to state
the process at which Mr. James cries out, Ohe ! he priests
swear that they renounce certain opinions. 'They are then taught
that it was right so to swear, and the book selected to teach this
lesson, instructs them that it was wrong. It is, in truth, a novel
mode of pleading which Dr. Murray has adopted. First, Dens
cannot embarrass the Romish clergy, because they have taken
an oath that they abjure his objectionable doctrines; and then,
this oath cannot prove enabarrising to them, because Dens
guides the conferences in which they learn that it was right to
take it. I do not dwell on this "satisfactory" reasoning: 1
come to a matter of more importance. he priests have taken
an oath to which it is expedient that they be reconciled. The
book named to the office of reconciling them, pronounces that
the oath was false. What has been selected as Of authority to
appease' the restlessness of the priests disturbed consciences,
and to correct the pecnicious influence of Dens? Mr. James,
in substance, proposed this question, and Dr. Murray declined
giving en answer. Notwithstanding his evasion, the complai-

Nov. 11. ISM.

sant vet ist pronounces himself satisfied. But the inquiring
public will not be so. They will form a wiser and fairer judg-
ment. The book which appears as a guide to the priestly con-.
ferences teaches the lawfulness of perjury and murder. The'
natural inference on finding that no better appears is, that none
mere creditable exists. If Roinish theology can supply a safe
guide, it is disgraceful to have chosen one who is " ins pious and
unchristian." If all are alike aboinineble, is it unjust to coma
plain of a church which has not a single complete standard of
faith and morals of which its bishops and priests have not sworn;-
in one oath that they embrace all its parts; and in another,
that they renounce and•cletest 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 be
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
admitted 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 in—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 bare
any respect for an oath, they ought to be especially guarded.
He 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 ac-
quaintance, to say no snore, upon these odious and demoralising
volumes. No reason to be ashamed—what! of recommending
to the attentive study of his clergymen, those odious 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 of 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 I ! My valued friend, Robert hl-Ghee, was ac--
cused—l 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 foulest, 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 and
prolonged applause.) There is another topic of defence which
I would fain have spoken upon if I had 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 .not be under the necessity of 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, for the most part, exist in the iniquitous'
practices which have, from time to time, called into public view
the doctrines of the Church of Rome; 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
renounced, I 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 if 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 some 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 cif
thankfulness that you can look back with pleasure upon the
time a hen the enemy passed (ruin the west and visited your own
homes, that you engaged with such earnestness and vigour itt
the work of God's vineyard, the result of which will, by God's
blessing, be your recompence. The accusation, therefore, which
1 bring against the Church of Rome is, that she has been from-
time immemorial guilty of intolerant acts, that she has promul-
gated intolerant doctrines. And those intolerant acts, those
intolerant doctrines, have not been practised in the dark ages
alone, or confined to their councils, but have been promulgated
in the nineteenth century; and the accusations which 1 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 of
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-
dalged 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 have led her into
these errors, that she would rather heap obloquy upon those who
" refute her doctrines, than attempt to clear herself of the charges
made against her. As a proof of what I have said, I will beg
leave 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 I, in a former pad
of this address, begged that you would keep in mind. Dr. Mur-
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 purchased 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 principles. Now, not at one college in Ire-
land, with the exception of Maynooth, is there an oath admi-
nistered. At Carlow there is no oath. At Dublin, at Cork, at.
Limerick, at Cove, there are no oaths of protection administered,
and yet in all these Dens is introduced. In Maynooth there is an
oath, and Dens is not introduced. This, then, is the state or'
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. He
says, be sees no reason to object to the clergy studying 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 tie •
only a few pages. Out of seven volumes there are only a few
pages of what is objectionable, and it is hard and rigorous to
pronounce strong objections, because of 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.) I
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. " Most wor-
shipful sir. It is true I am guilty. I do not deny it. Bull
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 now, because on one day I have'
committed perjury, robbery, murder, that one day islo be prat'
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 ae•ainst
the poor injured and persecuted Dens. (Cheers.) We ltnovt
that oft in the olden time there were men who exercised the
office of poisoners. We ktrow that annexed to things which '4l,
destroyed there were frequently numbers of others adduced of a
neutral character, and even those which shed forth an agreeable
perfume to greet the senses; but, would any man say, that be-
cause there were to one poisonous, ninety-nine neutral ingre-
dients and even several that wore agreeable, that the person
who had administered such
.potion had done no harm. •NV,e,
object to Dens for his one poisonous passage, even though all
the rest of his ingredients had been full of virtue, and power,
and truth. (Cheers.) We object to the Romish Church he;
cause it teaches doctrines which efface the best impressions of
the human heart. They teach that Tour neighbour is to be
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 laws tally not with ecclesiastical intentions.
(Cheers.) We may say that the laws are the means of recon-
ciling man wills his fellow, and of conducing to our individua!,
repose and security. We might expect that every man would
pay habitual respect to his neighbour's life and props
through the laws that teach others to reverence that which
longs to him. We might expect habits of sincerity, and that
in an especial manner, where God was solemnly called upon to
witness their sayings, the details of the truth should be presented
inviolate. The laws may he mild, and we may wish for them
be obeyed through the reverence they inspire. But it t.
lend.
business of Dens to teach disobedience to the laws of theete.,o_
except inasmuch as they may be according to the rules of
Roniish Church. It is, therefore, that we pretest againstipeco_s_.
and say that if Dr. Murray is not ashamed of having '
mended him to the study of the clergy of his church, then
this
vs that
absence of shame indicates the power of habit. Iles%6___
our object—the object of myself and my friend Mr. M
reign
pislatiinotetfoertreearc. teach
lt,heemtariuetthe,ieb.uwt
htentehnedetaesr•onuisr
tthoed.Teta.zsdt:ionn!l.„,.*:-
etiethsse.'e'f
our
re
etsearycohwiiet lioreldlelye,danted
santeokneceenayppseeaelnt
religion which we profess. But, even
it would not be one of which we need be ashamed.
to make
possession struggling
side we see law and established posse
on the other,
a claim for that which belongs to them inviolably;
against the law oppos.-
perjury and recorded recommendations riga
f the former that we •
ing. Is it of standing forward in aid p
if we had such
see the good and
tenbseft :ohne,:
an object,
lohueghetisteo,
immersed tn ter-,,
land--we see them surrounded by danger andwe
Bee
those
tbheosaeshwamheedh?eveOnbeethne
;or. On the other side what do we see
toernienesdidteheheest gentrY 6.1° LaP'.

♦*-
...

It
(

836.