true that such contrivances will impose only on a few. Their craft is too obvious. They are better adapted to the meridian of Rome, as Rome was during the dark ages, when every thing but truth was believed, than they are to the meridian of London at the present time. They produce, however, a powerful effect on the minds of a few timid and excitable persons, whose consciences are sufficiently susceptible when the secular supremacy of the Irish Church Establishment is threatened.

We admit that Roman Catholics are more numerous in this island now than they were thirty years ago. But have no other denominations increased within the above period? Have not the Wesleyans, the Baptists, the Congregationalists added to their numbers in a much greater proportion than the Catholics? And has not the zeal and expenditure of the Catholics, which received an impetus from the passing of the Emancipation Bill, in 1829, begun to cool and gradually to diminish? We know not what other localities may present, but there is one affords a striking illustration of the unwise conduct of him who begins to build but does not count the cost. If any of our readers are travelling to the southern coast during these summer months, they may see, about mid-way between Dungeness and Beachy Head, on the head of a cliff, the foot of which is washed by the waves of the channel, an enclosure of several acres, partially walled round with a preparation for a magnificent entrance to a Roman Catholic school, chapel, and convent.

The pon

derous piers and the wall of solid masonry have now been for some years completed, but all within is waste and bare as the great Zaara of the African continent.

The

unwary passenger who, from the road or the beach below, catches a glimpse of the crown of the piers and the coping of the wall, may, by the aid of a vivid imagination, readily conceive that beyond there is a space, not vacant and desolate, but replete with nuns and friars, with cowls and hoods, fuming with incense, and resounding with the voices of the priests reciting masses for the living and the dead, and the tones of the lecturer on Den's Theology, or on the Annales Ecclesiastici of Baronius. But let him only take the trouble to turn the point and ascend the cliff, and he will find all that his vivid imagination has depicted as void of reality as the unsubstantial shadows of a morning dream. He may see, indeed, an entrance and an enclosure; but the former and the latter, as was once said of the splendid portico of a chapel belonging to another and a very different sect, are merely "a pompous introduction to nothing."

We have no fears, then, of the spread of popery. The Roman Catholics may make a few proselytes. A few of the deplorably ignorant, and a few also of those who, urged by secular motives, make the change from Protestantism to Popery the means of worldly aggrandisement, may go over, by profession, to the com munion of Rome. But what will be gained by that church, though the accession of converts were to be much more numerous than it really is? it will gain no man of principle, no man of piety, no man of a sound understanding. The force of habit and early association may retain some such men in its communion; but the time has gone by, knowledge is too widely dif fused, Protestant principles have taken too deep a root, and bibles

and books of scriptural truth and scriptural piety are far too widely disseminated to leave any rational hope to the advocates of that church that her dogmas will again be believed, the power of her priests once more acknowledged, and the supremacy of the Pope at Rome submitted to by any more than a mere scantling of our

population. We have hope that

there will not only be little accession to the Roman Catholic Church from without, but the agitation of feeling and opinion on political subjects is beginning to appear in those which are religious. The Irish Romish Church will have little leisure to make conquests without, if the movement goes on, and enemies increase within her own enclosure. All the adversaries who assail the Romish Church from the different points of attack are weak, are powerless, when brought into contrast with the defection of the standard bearers within the garrison. These failing, draw others after them, and dismay and confusion follow. following letter, extracted from the Dublin Evening Post, will explain our allusion and the ground of our hopes.

The

THE MASS CELEBRATED IN ENGLISH. "To the Editor of the Dublin Evening Post.

"MY DEAR SIR,- We have glorious news to communicate to the friends of

pure religion, which we trust will be hailed as the dawn of brighter and happier days for Ireland. On this day we have celebrated the ceremony of the mass in the vernacular tongue. The people were highly edified and delighted, and as they left the chapel were heard to exclaim, May God forgive the priests for having so long kept us in the dark! We never heard a mass until to-day.'

"It may be right to mention that we have reformed the Roman missal, and expunged exceptionable passages, such as prayers to saints and for the dead, with many other parts of the canon. We have also changed the substance of the mass. In the Church of Rome it is

offered as a sacrifice propitiatory for sin; but we offer it as it was offered by all the early fathers of the church, 'in commemoration of the death and passion of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and in thanksgiving for all the favours and blessings we have obtained through the Lord."

merits of the same Jesus Christ our

"It may be right also to mention that we have expunged the ceremony of the elevation, together with all the other of the Romish mass. nonsensical mummery and criss crosses

We

"Our intention is not to form a new religion, but to retrench the novelties and superadditions of men, and revive then merely want to go back to first the old religion of Jesus Christ. principles-to lop off the excrescences of superstition, and restore Christianity to its primitive purity. May our gracious Holy Spirit, without which we can do God grant us the aid and guidance of his nothing, and so enable us to preach up pure religion, reckless of all human fear, and in despite of all human opposition; ficed to the insatiable fury of that Scarlet and may he never suffer us to be sacriLady of Babylon, whose only argument is fire and faggot, and is described in the Book of God as 'drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.'

"I remain, Sir, "Your most obedient Servant, "WILLIAM CROTTY, "Catholic Priest.

"Birr, June 5, 1836."

We must turn our attention to the volumes with which this article is headed.

The first publication on our list consists of three distinct parts; the first is a letter to the Rev. John Keaveny, Roman Catholic priest of Achill. The letter explains the circumstance which produced it, which is no other than this: The Rev. John Keaveny, the Romish priest, informed his congregation that the four personswho addressed this letter to him would be damned; and that he, the said John Keaveny, was ready to attest the same, by oath, upon the Holy Bible. The four persons thus de nounced were Edward Nangle, Owen Downey, John Joyce, and

John Gardner. They signed the letter with their names. There is also a postscript to the letter, of which the following is a copy: "We, whose names are undersigned, pledge ourselves, that if Mr. Hughes, parish priest of Newport, or any other priest, can answer from Scripture, and refute the above objections to the

Church of Rome, we will leave the Protestant Church, and join the Roman Catholic Religion. If he fail to do so, every one who values his soul, ought to abandon a false religion.

"WILLIAM B. STONEY, "WILLIAM MAIRS, "J. F. DOHERTY." "Dugont, Monday, Aug. 25, 1834."

The second part of this pamphlet is a letter addressed to the writers of the former, and has the title 66 Imposture exposed." It is professedly written by a Catholic layman. The third part is "A Reply to the Second Letter," by the Rev. E. Nangle, a clergyman of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Ireland, in which the queries in the first are justified, and the attempts in the second to show the fallacy involved in them, are exposed as futile.

From such controversies as these we have every thing to hope, and nothing to fear. They will establish the authority of truth, and subvert the throne of error. The second part of the pamphlet, written professedly by a Catholic layman, is a very striking instance of that indication of weakness which is always most evident when boasting and violence are the substitutes for argument, and virulent and foul abuse occupy the place which, in a good cause, would be filled by a statement of unquestionable facts. We wish the Roman Catholic Church a host of such defenders as the author of this portion of the pamphlet.The absurdity of the defence will then be in admirable keeping with the absurdity of the system. This

pamphlet is, as a whole, interesting and valuable, and we heartily wish it an extensive circulation.

The second book on our list is evidently the production of a superior and cultivated mind. It has all the fascination of a work of fiction, and all the force of truth. We hope it will obtain attention from Protestants of all parties, and that many Roman Catholics, for whom it was especially written, may be induced to open and peruse its convincing pages. These contain the progress of the writer's mind from superstition and error, to scepticism and infidelity, and thence onward to a theoretical conviction of the truth and divine authority of the gospel and its doctrines, and eventually to devout, humble, and cordial reception of the Lord Jesus Christ as the "one Mediator," the Almighty Saviour, and the only King in his Church. A large portion of the volume is occupied with a full, clear, and biting exposition of the errors and absurdities of Romanism, and the duplicity, craft, and brazen audacity of very many of its champions. All these are brought by the writer to the infallible test of Scripture, which is made to bear with unconquerable force on the vast mass of superstitious observances, false dogmas, and unrighteous practices of the advocates and defenders of the holy Roman Catholic church.

The third volume in our list is the production of the Rev. J. Young, of Albion Chapel, Moorfields. These Lectures have been published, he informs us, in consequence of "the solicitation of a great number of friends, whose judgment he was bound to respect." The author adds, that "he has been the more reconciled to the course which he has adopted, from the circumstance, that while all the details of the popish contro

versy are to be found in many voluminous publications, both of earlier and later date; and while there are many valuable treatises on one or more of the popish dogmas, he is not aware of any book which, like the present, in small compass, professes to discuss all the principal points of difference between the Protestants and Roman Catholics."-PREF. p. 3. As this is a large and expensive volume, we shall give a brief outline of the topics brought under review in its pages. These, are after,

I. An Introductory Lecture. II. The Popish Doctrine respect ing Indulgence and Absolution. III. Auricular Confession. IV. The Authority of the Church. V. The Insufficiency of written Revelation. VI. The Sacrifice of the Mass. VII. Justification. VIII. Venial and Mortal Sins. IX. Purgatory. X. The Supremacy. XI. The Headship of the Pope. XII. The Intercession of Saints and Angels. XIII. The Veneration of Images and Relics. XIV. The Sacraments. XV. Transubstantiation. XVI. Concluding Lecture.

We are not quite satisfied with the arrangement. The second and third Lectures are devoted to minor topics in this great argument-indulgence, absolution, and confession. The authority of the church and tradition form the topics of the third and fourth Lectures. It strikes us that these ought to have had the first place; and if the supremacy of the Pope had followed, the order could not have been objected to, but this topic does not meet our eye till the eleventh Lecture.Transubstantiation also falls into the last place; but surely this is much more important than the doctrine of saints and angels, and the veneration of relics and images, which precede. We think that,

N. S. No. 140.

in a second edition, a much more interesting and orderly arrangement might be made, either by placing the main points before the reader in the first few Lectures, or inverting this order, by placing the minor topics first, and following with those of increasing importance till we reach the summit of passive absurdity and assumption, the authority of the church, and the supremacy of the Pope. As it is, there is a strange blending of primary and secondary topics throughout the series. It is true that the author apologizes for commencing with indulgences, on the ground that these, in the hand of Tetzel, gave rise to the Reformation. Had the Lectures been historical, this would have sufficed; but so far as we can discover, this is the only attempt at a chronological arrangement. Having made these few observations on the arrangement, we hasten to express our decided admiration of the volume. It is an able, manly, and uncompromising exposure of the errors of Roman Catholicism, blended with a sound and searching exposition of all those truths of Revelation, which the Church of Rome either deprives of their force, perverts from their true import, or entirely nullifies. The style, moreover, is popular and efficient; and though we should be disposed to think it rather too colloquial and declamatory, if employed in a laboured treatise, we cannot utter a whisper against it, as the volume was published at the urgency of friends, and is composed of sermons, and does not form a regular essay. We present our readers with two extracts, as fair specimens of the general character of the volume. The first is on Confession, the second on Justification. 3 T

"This dogma has been the prolific source of the greatest wickedness. To quote the pithy sentiment of an able writer in this controversy,' The mind of every popish priest is the common receptacle of all the filth in his district.'Let no one imagine that in such an assertion it is the men we condemn, and not rather the system. It is not insinuated that a Roman Catholic, or Roman Catholic priest, is a worse man than his neighbours; but neither is it to be admitted that he is so much better than they, that he is able to withstand the power of temptations and the influence of circumstances, which they could not. Constituted as human nature is-so easily tainted and polluted, if it at all come into contact with vice-so liable to catch the infection of sin-having so much within itself which is congenial with temptation from without-no man could, without the most imminent danger, listen to a detail of all the corruption that is in the breast of a fellow creature. And if in place of a single fellow creature he has to listen to a detail of the corruption that is in the hearts of multitudes, wonder not that through familiarity with the depravity of others, his own depravity should be fearfully augmented, that he should become hardened in iniquity, and instead of being the guardian of the piety and virtue of others, he should become their corrupter and destroyer. Familiarity with vice necessarily lessens our abhorrence of it, and debauches the imagination, and acts as fuel to the unhallowed fires within our bosoms, that only require some outward incentives to make them blaze with all their fierceness, and with all their destructiveness. Accordingly we find that the questions put by the Romish priests, with the view of searching the consciences of penitents, are of the most pernicious kind, and calculated to suggest what had otherwise never been entertained. The Catholic helps to devotion, in like manner, contain questions, by which the individual is taught to examine himself, on which it is impossible to glance without contamination. I might quote to you the language of one who was himself a Roman Catholic priest, that at the confessional, and by the questions of the confessor, he had learned more sins than he ever heard of in the world.'A student of Maynooth College, in Ireland, told me,' says a respectable writer in this controversy, that he confessed the sins which the books of devotion mentioned, and when asked if he had been guilty of such as a student of divinity, his reply

་

was, No, not in act, but in thought, which my book of devotion inspired.' It is in my power to put you in possession of testimony, on this subject, of the most satisfactory kind. The following are the words of a gentleman, once a Roman Catholic, and now a faithful Protestant minister with whom I have the pleasure to be personally acquainted.

"If auricular confession be at all times conducted as it was when I engaged in it, I have no hesitation in saying, that I consider it one of the most abominable and corrupting institutions of popery. If the person confessing hesitates for a moment, through defect of memory, or through feelings of shame, the father confessor proposes a leading question on the various kinds and degrees of iniquity, and thus stimulates the reluctant devotee, and drags from him or her the inmost secrets of the heart. To say a single word in explanation of the questions which a father confessor will thus propose to a young man or a young woman, a husband or a wife, would be to imitate his vile example. You will perceive, at a glance, that they tend to increase the knowledge of the young and simple in the ways of transgression, and to render vices of the most injurious and disgusting kind familiar to all.'"The Protestant, vol. ii. page 306.

"The idea of merit or goodness in the sinner forming any part of the ground on which forgiveness is bestowed by God, is inconsistent with the perfection of the work of the Redeemer. It is undeniable that Christ must first be supposed not to have done enough, before the notion of any thing in addition to his merits can be entertained. Before this can be entertained, the incarnation, the righteousness, and the blood of the Saviour must first be supposed to be defective; we must first cast dishonour on him who died for us; we must first detract from the perfection of his obedience, and from the efficacy of his bloody sacrifice; and for all the abasement to which he stooped, for all the labours he performed, for all the sacrifices he made, for all the sufferings he endured, and for all the anguish of body, and all the agony of soul which he bore, we must pronounce his merits to be insufficient. And were it so indeed that the Redeemer had failed; were it so that his merits were incom plete, and that the obedience and suffering of one who was divine as well as human, were defective, what utter folly is there not in the supposition, that any merits of ours could add even one drop to the ocean, or form one pile of sand on