either deceives himself, or he wishes to deceive others. Semper eadem is more emphatically descriptive of our religion, than of our jurisprudence." In like manner, Dr. Troy, titular archbishop of Dublin, in a "pastoral letter," says, "The religious opinions of Roman Catholics, being unchangeable, are applicable to all times." Indeed, this boasted immutability of the Romish religion, is a necessary consequence of the claim made by the Romish Church to infallibility. Any change whatever, especially if it relate to principle, must be an acknowledgement of past error: and the least error is as incompatible with infallibility as the greatest.

Instead, however, of relying on this collateral testimony, conclusive as it may seem to be, the author proceeds to examine the direct evidence, on both sides of the question. It is well known that in the year 1789, the universities of Paris, Douay, Louvain, Alcala, Salamanca, and Valladolid, in reply to certain queries which had been proposed to them at the desire of Mr. Pitt, declared it to be their opinion, that the Pope has no power to absolve his Majesty's subjects from their allegiance, and that there is no principle in the Catholic faith by which Catholics are justified in not keeping faith with heretics. This is the evidence on which the promoters of the Roman Catholic claims rely, in proof of the fact that a great and extraordinary change has taken place in modern times, in the religion of the Church of Ro re. This evidence the author meets by a twofold reply.

First, He shews, that the past conduct of the Church of Rome has been such as to justify the supposition, that the tenets here disclaimed on her behalf, namely, that it is lawful to break faith with heretics, and that the Pope can absolve subjects from their oath of allegiance to heretical princes, constituted her leading principles of action with regard to Protestants, invariably termed by that Church, heretics.

The pages of history are so crowded with instances of the practical application of these tenets, that every Protestant (looking back to past transactions) must be ready to exclaim with Dr. Barrow; "How often bave the popes excommunicated princes, and interdicted their people from entertaining communion with them? How many commotions, conspiracies, rebellions, and insurrections, against princes have they raised in several countries? How have they inveigled people from their allegiance,-how many massacres and assassinations have they caused?" Treatise on the Pope's Supremacy.

He then proves that these principles were but professed, maintained, and acted on, by the Church of Rome, upon an authority which that Church, and all its members ever held, and still hold to be infallible.

"Whatever doubts," he observes, "may exist, respecting the tenets actually maintained by the Church of Rome, there is one tenet of that Church, which is held by all its members to be, indisputable, and beyond the reach of doubt or controversy,"—that " infallibility resides in its œcumenical or general councils."

This is a point on which Dr. Troy says, in his pastoral charge, "all Catholics are agreed." The infallibility of the church is a doctrine which is taught, by its catechisms, to its juvenile members; and two catechisms are here quoted, which are in use in Ireland, the one published at Dublin, and the other at Waterford (the latter having reached the twenty-second edition) in each of which are contained the following question and answer:— "2. Cannot the Church itself fall into error?-A. No; by no means."

It being then admitted as an incontrovertible maxim, by all the members of the Church of Rome, that her General Councils are infallible, in order to fix upon that church any particular tenet, nothing more can be necessary than to shew that it has the sanction of a General Council. To the test of this criterion the author brings the question, whether the Romish church do really maintain the tenets upon which she has so long acted, but which are now disclaimed on her behalf, by certain foreign universities. And he quotes several decrees of General Councils, which, in our opinion, establish incontrovertibly the affirmative of that question; decrees which breathe a spirit of "irreconcileable, and indeed, exterminating hostility to Protestants," and "involve, with respect to such persons, an express renunciation of all ties of honour, sincerity, and moral obligation." We shall briefly notice some of these decrees. "The third Council of Lateran declares all persons released from the obligations of fealty, homage, and subjection to obstinate heretics."-By the third canon of the fourth Council of Lateran, it is decreed that, "if any temporal lord, being required and warned by the Church, shall neglect to purge his territories" of heretics,

"The Pope shall pronounce his subjects absolved from their allegiance, and shall give his territories to be occupied by Catholics, who, having exterminated the heretics, shall hold them by an incontestable title."

The Council of Constance, in order to justify a notorious breach of faith in the violation of the safe conduct granted to John Huss, by the Emperor Sigismund, decreed that, "according to the law of nature, of God, or of man, no faith or promise was to be kept with him, to the prejudice of the Catholic Faith."

The force of this reasoning, deduced from the decrees of General Councils, is, we conceive irresistible; as it opposes an authority, still maintained even by our antagonists themselves to be infallible, to what is, in truth, no authority at all; for, as the author argues, universities are no authority in the Romish church; and he pertinently says,

It is natural to inquire when were those universities, or any universities, constituted the mouth-piece of that church: when, indeed, did she authorize any organ to speak for her? The only sure way of arriving at a kuowledge of her real principles, is to refer to her own acts and declarations,-her Canons and Decrees ;-and when these are once ascertained, it should be remembered that they continue in force, in spite of any collateral disclaimer, until they are reversed by the very authority from which they emanated.

It may be urged, however, that though in theory the church of Rome indisputably maintains and inculcates these principles, yet in practice and in disposition she partakes of the liberality of the age, and that there is, therefore, little or no danger of her acting any more upon such principles. This supposition of a change of character and conduct, without any change of principle, is sufficiently repelled by the history of the late Irish rebellions, and by the proceedings of the Irish Roman Catholics in violation of the Convention, and with regard to the Veto; as those proceedings are pourtrayed in the fourth and fifth chapters of the work before us. But to those persons who are disposed to indulge in such speculations, we earnestly recommend the following observations of our author.

It may be said, perhaps, that the Church of Rome, far from attempting to enforce her exterminating and perfidious principles, suffers them je repose quietly in her judicial code, and that, in the present enlightened

state of society, mankind can have nothing to fear from those thunders of the Vatican, which formerly convulsed and terrified the world. Satis factory as this change of policy may appear, it proves nothing more than that the above Church, without any sacrifice of principle, knows how to accommodate herself to times and circumstances. There is an elasticity in her system of policy, which enables it to dilate or compress itself, according to the weight of the incumbent atmosphere; but, at all times, and under all circumstances, she will be found to act upon one general principle, that the good of the Church, being paramount to every other consideration, must ever be promoted by all practicable means.

As a further reply to the evidence so much insisted upon, in proof that Popery has undergone a great and marvellous change since the period of the Revolution, the author appeals to a most important document; a document which cannot, in our opinion, be made too generally known. This document he thus introduces to the notice of his readers:

We are frequently referred to the opinions of certain foreign universities, as affording certain criteria of the principles of the Romish Church. But, instead of relying on the opinions of universities abroad, delivered in reply to abstract interrogatories, we shall probably arrive at more satisfactory, because more practical, conclusions upon this subject, by inquiring what principles are actually taught at a Popish seminary at home. This information may be obtained by consulting a Treatise upon that very Church, drawn up, in an academical form, by a Professor of Theology, in the Royal College of St. Patrick, at Maynooth, for the use of the students in Theology in that college. The 'inquiry thus conducted, besides enabling us to judge, upon authentic grounds, whether the Church of Rome has really experienced the change which is attributed to it, will be, to us, the more interesting, because the principles avowed in such a work are inculcated among our own youth, and must therefore be expected to govern the opinions and the conduct of the Roman Catholic body, in whose opinions and conduct we have so deep an interest.

The work thus brought forward, is entitled, "Tractatus de Ecclesiá Christi," the author has made from it very copious extracts, which, with his masterly comments upon them, we do most strongly recommend, to the perusal of our readers, at this particular point of time.

"The work in question," the author observes, "naturally begins with a definition of the Church, which furnishes the subject-matter of the

treatise. In this definition, the only part which calls for observation is the concluding sentence, in which the Pope is stated to be the head or primate of the Church. This deserves particular notice, not merely as proving Papal supremacy to be a primary and a fundamental article of the Roman Catholic religion; but also as displaying, at the very threshold of an institutional and didactic treatise on the Church,-the illiberal and into. lerant character of that religion. For the Church here professed to be treated of is,-not the Church of Rome, eo nomine,-but the Church of Christ. Of this Church, it is stated to be an essential and fundamental quality, that the Pope is its head. The inevitable consequence of this doctrine is, that every other church, calling itself Christian, but not acknowledging the supremacy or primacy of the Pope, is no part of the Church of Christ."

And, accordingly, the very name of Christian, is, in this theological work, denied to all who are not members of the Church of Rome.

The author next proves, by apposite quotations, that the two distinguishing and fundamental doctrines of Popery, the infallibility of the Romish Church, and that out of it there is no salvation, are unequivocally maintained and inculcated by the Maynooth Professor-doctrines which the author justly represents as "the two grand pillars of the despotism" of the Church of Rome" over the mind;" and which he demonstrates to be incompatible with freedom of research in matters of religion, and with social liberty, civil and religious; whilst the doctrine of Papal supremacy, which is also taught at Maynooth College, is alike hostile to the essential rights of governments, and to the independence of states. These important positions are established by a series of close reasoning, which, we think, must convince every candid mind, that no true friend to rational freedom can countenance the claims of the Roman Catholics. We must content ourselves with referring to the work itself, p. p. 147 to 161. The references already made by the author to the Maynooth Treatise de Ecclesiá, are justly considered by him as sufficient to convince any unprejudiced reader of the perfect identity of the antient with the modern Church of Rome. But there is one

⚫ Christianorum cœtus, ejusdem fidei professione, et eorundem sacramentorumCommunione conjunctorum, sub regimine legitimorum pastorum, QUORUM PRIMUS EST ROMANUS PONTIFEX,