This Address consists of a preamble followed by certain Resolutions. Naturally therefore we begin with the former.

And here what immediately stares us in the face, what we shall and must at all times reprobate, is the inflammatory language, and irritating, as well as unfounded, assertions, with which this address opens. For, we will ask, for what purpose is the first paragraph thus decorated with a reference to "privations, penalties, or hardships," as if any such were now to be dreaded by the Roman Catholics? Is it not most notorious that to до penalty," to nothing like a penalty-they are now exposed? We would say to no " hardships :" but unquestionably there can be no pretence for talking of" penalties." It can only have been introduced for the purpose of irritation and of keeping alive against government-a charge of oppression. The only evil they endure, is, what is more truly stated in their fourth resolution, that they "forego the attainment of civil advantages, rather than purchase them at the expence of any sacrifice, which might endanger the safety and integrity of their religion." Which if they would be content peaceably to do, we should indeed consider as Jaudable conduct, and as evincing sincerity as well as the "zeal" for which they are complimented. The next paragraph, going on to represent all this as most undeserved and uncalled for, and the demand for further securities as most unreasonable and oppressive; boldly states nothing more or less than a FALSEHOOD as barefaced as it is deliberate. We say deliberate and wilful. For it is a most deliberate and wilful falsehood to say that "the most distrustful ingenuity cannot possibly devise securities more "binding than the assurances which they have given of their conscientious "loyalty." Alas! alas for conscience! we might say alas for Scullabogue, Wexford, and a long list of etc's.-But pasing that by, for the present, we say that Dr. Troy and his colleagues knew that they were uttering what was false when they said this: they knew, they know better

than any one, that with their knowledge, in concert with them, the measure of the Veto was devised, not by "distrustful ingenuity," but by that credulous liberality which was ready to grant to them and their people all that they asked. Thus concerted with, approved and ratified by Dr. Troy and his colleagues, and even by that prince of bigots the Bishop of Casta bala, it has since, although to this day approved by a great proportiou of the Roman Catholics themselves, it has since, as we allow and argue upon it, been rejected, and by these identical men who now issue this very paper to tell their misguided dependants, or rather subjects, (Subditi" is the word in the Popish Vocabulary) that neither that nor any other "security" shall be granted; who thus necessarily refer to a security ac tually desired by themselves: and thus pointedly give the lie to their own assertion that no such security can be devised.

As to the conduct of these gentlernen towards Dr. O'Conor and the Abbé Blanchard, which follows next in order; we shall only repeat what we have elsewhere said, that it proves most decidedly the arbitrary and uncontrolled empire which these prelates claim to exercise over their clergy, and consequently over the whole body of their people. They suspend, and, of course, by the same rule, may excommunicate any individual, not only without hearing, not only without notice, but without assigning any reason or motive for their sentence. This is what Dr. O'Conor complains of, most directly, in his last number of Columbànus. He loudly and repeatedly calls by letters, as he has personally called on Dr. Troy, to state his motions, or to point out the obnoxious passages in his writings, upon which this suspension is founded; but without being able to extract one word from him or his colleagues. except this vague accusation of "calumny" and "misrepresentation" and "presuming to dictate his opinions :" that is, to do that which, it seems, the prelates in that church wholly reserve to themselves.

As to the Abbé Blanchard, it is indeed intimated that his crime is, that he has called the Holy Father a Heretic, or Schismatic, or the abettor of Heresy or Schism.". Now all that we shall say to this is that it would be much better to silence the Abbé, as well as Dr. O'Conor, by arguments than by an arbitrary sentence. And suppose a Pope to become an abettor of Heresy or Schism, (such things have been), why may not priests, as well as bishops, nay, why may not laymen say so? To what indeed amounts that acceptance or acquiescence of the church, which as they sometimes tell us, stamps infallibility on the Bulls of the Pope, if no one is allowed to lift up his voice against them? After all, what the Abbé and Dr. O'Conor both stipulate for, is little more than what are called the liberties of the Gallican Church, which all the Protestant partizans of the VOL. I. [Prot. Adv. Jan. 1813.]

2 E

Popish claims (the gentle and the simple, the wise and the foolish, all indeed who condescend to give any reasons), tell us, are both asserted and enjoyed by the Romanists in these kingdoms: how truly, is now sufficiently evident.

Come we now to the Resolutions.

The plain drift of them, as well as of what goes before, is to keep up a spirit of discontent in Ireland by cheering and encouraging those who are now almost formally embodied against the government. The aggregate meeting of Roman Catholics having lately declared that they will accept no terms, that they will have nothing less than unconditional submission. on the part of the legislature; they are here assured that their spiritual rúlers entirely approve of their conduct, and join in the same determination. The prelates therefore re-echo, in their VIth. resolution, that no securities or pledges can be devised more efficient than those already given. What those are we are not told, except that they recur (for the purpose of conciliation no doubt) to their constant theme, their " long continued endurance under the penal code." And they rely upon this as "proof incontrovertible (of their loyalty, we presume, or why it is adduced? and) of their regard for the sacredness of an oath." Now we assert, and will do so, as often as this stale and hackeyed, as well as unfounded argument is resorted to, that it proves no such thing. The fact is simply, that the Popes having, by their Bulls and their Nuncios, always expressly forbidden them to take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, (no fact in history is better established), they have as constantly, in obedience to the Popes, refused to take those oaths, and even others which were devised for the ease of their consciences, which qualified oaths they have since taken, but then refused; and in consequence of such refusal, became liable to certain legal disabilities and, in some cases, penalties. This is the whole "of their's does but of the matter; clearly therefore this "endurance prove their subjection to the Pope, and nothing more.

Of this their subjection, indeed, if we wanted any farther proof, it is afforded amply by their. Vth. Resolution. The Pope being in confinement, and no intercourse with him permitted, these prelates declare that, simply on that account, no change whatever can take place in the mode of ap'pointing Romish Bishops in Ireland. Let the situation of things in that part of the United Kingdom require ever so much that the Veto or some similar measure should be adopted, it comes out now that there is no power which can effect this but the Pope's. Without him, not a hand is to be stirred. And here, let us be allowed to remind our readers, that this is the authority which some men affect to characterize as "weak and contemptible" Yet without the intervention of this weak and contemptible

old man, the most important concerns of a nation (and this too, a nation which, as such, does not acknowledge the authority of this old man) must stand still, and even go to ruin. Nothing must be done, however urgent the occasion, which he may possibly disapprove! Now, observe, our ears are perpetually dinned with exaggerated accounts of the absolute necessity of conciliating the Irish Romanists; we are told that the country cannot exist unless we gain them over at whatever price: and here we see how absolutely devoted they, confessedly, and avowedly, are to the authority of the Pope: yet we are told by the very same persons that the Pope is a mere bugbear, that it is out of his power to do us any harm! Surely there is great inconsistency in all this: such inconsistency, we will be bold to say, as does not commonly dwell with truth. One or other of the propositions must be abandoned. Either the Irish Romanists are not formidable, or the Pope who rules them must be allowed to be so.

:

Lastly, we have to remark that in their IIId. Resolution these right reverend Doctors declare that they "adopt as their own " the opinions of the Six Roman Catholic Universities taken in 1788 and 1789.* For what purpose this is introduced we know not. It was not at all, as far as we can perceive, called for. Some effect however it is certainly intended to have; and it therefore becomes our duty to make our readers acquainted with certain parts of those opinions, which the Romanists and their abettors are wise enough to keep out of sight. Since their first publication in 1805,† they never have been brought forward entire but only such extracts from them have been adduced as have been deemed unexceptionable, or least liable to be attacked. Of the parts omitted we shall notice only two. First then, it is studiously concealed that the University of Alcala elaborately and at length justified the burning of John Huss and Jerome of Prague, and the violation of the safe conduct granted to the former. They do this, by ad vancing more than one gross falsehood, as we could easily shew; but that is not necessary, we trust. The reader will only bear in mind that Dr. Troy and his colleagues, "adopting as their own," the opinion of the University of Alcala, of course mean to justify the Council of Constance in its intolerance and perfidy. That indeed this is their denberate judgment we might gather from a defence of that council, in this point as in all others, having been formally attempted by the Professor of Theology at Maynooth College in his treatise de Ecclesia. ‡

Declaration and Protestation.—Stockdale, 1812.

+ Appendix to the impartial deta:l of the debates in 1805. Published by Cuthell and Martin.

The Claims of the Roman Catholics considered. Cadell, 1812,-at F. 124, &c. where this point is most ably discussed.

Again, the University of Salamanca, pressed by what they knew to take place in Spain, in giving their opinion, draw a curious distinction between civil and religious toleration, for the purpose of authorizing a departure from both. With respect to the latter they say that certainly they, and persons holding their creed, can have no ecclesiastical communion, nor religious concord with men of any other sect or persuasion. But then they say it is otherwise in civil transactions; for there they are at liberty to unite with or separate from "Heretics," as shall appear most conducive to their own interests. And they shew how this liberty may be exercised by what happened in Spain. There, they say "for these three hundred "years past, no one is permitted to hold military offices, nor to enjoy a per"petual settlement," (that is, to be a settled inhabitant) "who is consi"dered as an avowed enemy of the Catholic Faith, because our princes "have thought it better to forego certain advantages which might perhaps "be derived from commercial intercourse with men of different persua "sions, or from their improvement in the arts, than either to endanger the "faith of their subjects, or expose their empire to frequent broils and con"tentions about the doctrines of religion." According to which opinion, thus "adopted as their own," it is clear that the Irish prelates, if they could get the upper hand, would think themselves at liberty so to. separate from Heretics, that is, from us Protestants, as not to allow any of us to be settled inhabitants of that island, lest we should endanger the faith of their subjects or expose the empire to frequent broils and contentions in mallers of religion. And such we verily believe, reasoning from what has. passed, would be the no distant consequence of giving to the Roman Catholics that ascendancy for which they are contending.

What then is it that we are left to collect from this most factious, we might say, seditious paper?

First, that these prelates exercise the most arbitrary and despotic sway over their brethren of that communion, suspending them from their functions, censuring or excommunicating them without any check, and at their mere will and pleasure.

2dly. That, on their parts, they also are in complete subjection to the Pope, so as to be "utterly incompetent" to act without his authority.

3dly. That in a case where the general opinion, and that of many among themselves, has called for some additional security to be given to the established government before they can be admitted to political power, they decide positively that there shall be none such given, because they have already given sufficient security; although the only fact by which they prove this, merely demonstrates their implicit devotion to the Pope.