tions, the name of the author from whose work I had taken them by command. Of this Dr. Murray knew nothing until the Directory was printed and put into his hand. Nay, further, he never desired me to publish the name of Dens, nor to announce it to the clergy. He proposed that author to me for my guidance in preparing questions; he did not name any book whence the clergy were to gather their solutions, and he publicly declared so at a full and numerously attended conference of the metropolitan clergy. Dr. Murray has nothing to do with Mr. Coyne's catalogue, which is bound up with the Directory for the purpose of circulation. It derives no authority from this circumstance; it is neither more nor less than what it professes to be,' a catalogue." Perchance his Grace never cast his eyes over it. But what is the whole upshot of this monstrous discovery ?-istly. The Catholic prelacy of Ireland approved of Dens's Theology in the year 1808. More than a fortnight ago the editor of the Freeman's Journal was authorized to state that no such resolution was ever passed at a general meeting of the Irish bishops. He did so, and called for the proof of this alleged approbation. It is not yet forthcoming. 2ndly. Dr. Murray confirmed the acts of the bishops of 1808 by a new approbation in 1832.' This his Grace has emphatically denied; but he approved of an eighth volume, and thereby sanctioned the foregoing seven. When the new edition of Dens was nearly ready to issue from the press, it was suggested to Mr. Coyne by a friend, that a volume, not at all by Dens, (as the advertisement in the Directory clearly shews,) would prove a useful supplement to the forthcoming work. Doctor Murray was already aware of the valuable information contained in this proposed supplemental volume, and he gave his sanction to its publication, without reference to Dens or any other work. What more? Dr. Murray made Dens a conference book.' So says the printer's advertisement, and very fairly too (it has served the sale of the work within the last few weeks.) But Dr. Murray says not, and he said so before his assembled clergy in 1831. Which is the better authority on the subject? If the opinions of any one private theologian were to form the standard of our belief and practice, what necessity for discussion'? If we had a conference book, then why publish questions? The same prescribed book which would furnish the answers, would also give the questions, and the bishops of Leinster had but simply to state that the clergy would be interrogated from page 1 to p. 10, in vol. of Dens's Theology. We have merely adopted the order followed by Dens, and we shall, God willing, continue to do It is true that he maintains some obsolete opinions, which nobody holds at the present day; but are we, therefore, to reject the useful matter with which his work in many places abounds? While I write I have a book before me which professes to record the doctrine of Coke, the celebrated jurist, on heresy; I have not his works in my possession, but I am referred by my author to Inst. iii. 5.' If he be truly reported, I never read anything more intolerant in Dens: and this Sir Edward Coke was attorney-general to Queen Elizabeth, and a great luminary of the British bar in the reign of that princess; and will any one pretend to say that the lawyers of the present day hold his opinions on this subject because they read his works, and that he is to be exiled from their studies because he maintains an opinion now exploded, but too commonly held and acted upon in the age in which he lived? "I have the honour to remain, your very obedient, humble servant, P. WOODS." So. DENS'S THEOLOGY. The following documentary evidence will be useful to confirm what will be found in the last number of the magazine : One correction is requisite in the extract from Mr. M'Ghee's speech there given. The declaration of the prelates' approbation is from Mr. Coyne's catalogue. What appears from Mr. Wyse's book is, that the prelates did hold a meeting on the day on which Mr. Coyne alleges that this approbation was issued. (1) The dedication of the work.--Strange to say, almost every copy now in the hands of protestants has had this dedication cut out. A person perceived, at last, as he thought, marks of such an operation; and then diligent search was made, and at last, in the copy placed in the library at the Athenæum, all the care of the extirpators had neglected to extract the fatal dedication to Archbishop Murray. There it stands ;-after due praise of the archbishop, it concludes thus:-" Hanc secundam editinem Theologiæ P. Dens. Ejus cum approbatione susceptam, &c. &c., D.D.D., &c. &c. Recordus Coyne." The authorized Roman bookseller dedicating a system of theology to the archbishop, declaring that it is undertaken with his approbation. Is it to be denied after this? P. S. It appears by the "Standard" of July 25, that the copies imported by Mr. Cowie from Mr. Cumming, a presbyterian bookseller, who has, however, a large Romanist connexion, have this dedication. If this had been known, would Dr. Murray's and Mr. Wood's letters have appeared? (2) Mr. Nolan's declaration. (From the Bishop of Exeter's speech on Thursday, July 16.)—" He had seen only that day a letter, published in the Dublin newspapers, written by Mr. Nolan. In reference to a remark made by Mr. Maguire, a Roman catholic priest, that the Roman catholic religion rested on the authority of Johanna Southcote as much as on that of Peter Dens,' Mr. Nolan observed, Pray, sir, let me ask you, is not "Dens's Theology" one of the reference-books of Maynooth College, where you and I have studied, though not as contemporaries? Is not that book left in the public library for the perusal of all the students? Again, have you or I ever heard of its perusal being prohibited? Had you not often made its contents your answers for class? And with all these questions, which must be answered in the affirmative, will you still assert that your religion no more rests upon the authority of Peter Dens than upon the authority of Johanna Southcote? Many students had copies of it in my time for their own use, and were never prevented from reading it. When I officiated as a Roman clergyman, many of the priests conferences in Ireland were regulated by questions and answers from 'Dens's Theology.' To these circumstances must be added the fact, that Dens's opinions are as much respected in Maynooth as Blackstone's Commentaries' in the protestant universities of England." Was not Dr. Murray president of Maynooth in 1813? (3) Mr. Croly's declaration. (From the "Times" of July 22, page 6.) -The Rev. Mr. D. O. Croly, whose pamphlet on the state of the Irish Roman catholic priesthood is well known, has just published "An Address to the Lower Orders of the Roman Catholics of Ireland." The postscript contains unanswerable testimony to a fact which nobody in Ireland disputed, though it was positively denied here by the low radical prints : "Postscript. Omnibus quorum interest.-The Theology of Peter Dens,' which is now before the world, is a standard work of Irish catholic orthodoxy, and of Roman catholic orthodoxy universally. It was published in Ireland and on the continent in the customary way, permissu superiorum,' with the full sanction and approbation of episcopal authority. No exception was ever taken to it in whole or in part. It was printed in Ireland expressly for the use of the Irish catholic priests-to be their guide in casuistry and speculation. In the library of Dr. Murphy's seminary, in Cork, there were fifty or sixty copies of it, for the use of the seminary and the diocesan clergy. It should be remarked here, that Dens is not singular in his doctrine respecting heretics.' Every Roman catholic theologian who has written on the same subject coincides with Dens. This matter shall be handled in my next publication. -D. O. C." (Much more document which was marked for insertion is deferred for want of space.) 206 CHURCH MATTERS. DENS'S THEOLOGY. MUCH and deserved attention has been excited by two very im portant meetings lately held, in order to bring before the public the tenets now held and taught by the Roman church in Ireland. The character of these meetings seems to have been misunderstood in various ways and quarters (in some, wilfully), and a few words shall therefore be given to explain it. They were not meetings for discussing the doctrines of the Romanists. There have been such, and very grave objections exist to them. Whether, at particular periods, indirect good may not be done by such meetings, by exciting attention, is not indeed clear; but they cannot tend directly to forward the truth, because in meetings, nine-tenths of which are ignorant alike of divinity, of the original language of even the New Testament, of the right principles of interpretation, and of sound logic (and such must be a true account of miscellaneous audiences), real or sound argument cannot be appreciated, while there is a strong temptation to each speaker to gain the favour of the audience by means of appeals to passion, and of those common arts of debate which are too well known to need description. Neither, again, were these meetings in any degree like those of religious societies, where a great religious object is to be urged, or great duties of religion and charity are to be recommended, by means of the interest excited by narrations and appeals of clever and experienced speakers. These meetings neither discussed doctrines, nor sought to recommend any par ticular object. What they wished to do was this. It has always been very difficult to know exactly what doctrines the Romanists will and what they will not own. Many books appearing to have authority are repudiated by them. But a system of theology has lately been discovered by some protestants in Ireland, of which it was alleged that it had received the approbation of the Roman Archbishop of Dublin, and other prelates-that large editions had been published by the authorized Roman bookseller in Dublin, and that it had been made the text book for the conferences among the priests. In this book were contained a number of doctrines which have ever been denounced by protestants as most wicked and dangerous. Now, the object of these meetings was to establish the truth or the falsehood of these alleged facts-and, in case of their truth being made apparent, to state, not to discuss, the doctrines, so that it might be clear what is taught by authority among the Romanists in Ireland. Whether it could be expected that the Romanists would attend or ought to attend such meetings, is a question of which men may judge differently. The belief that their declining discussion of doctrines in public meetings by no means implies any doubt on their part of the truth of these doctrines, is not at all inconsistent with the belief that they would have done wisely to attend these meetings and rebut the very serious facts alleged against them if they had the means of doing so. But, however that may be, very many who, in quiet times, would deprecate even discussion of facts in a public meeting as inexpedient, cannot but form a different judgment now. They see the gigantic strides to power made by the Roman church in Ireland, the horrible spirit of persecution displayed towards the protestants waxing gradually fiercer as the power of shewing it increases, the denunciations of protestants by priests in their chapels, and the murder of protestant clergy-they see the progressive steps by which the government thinks fit to weaken the protestant episcopal church in Ireland, and by which, ere long, protestants must be delivered over, bound hand and foot, to their enemies; and they remember what were the principles entertained towards heretics by Romanists, avowed by their highest authorities, and never renounced by any authority which, on another occasion, the Romanists themselves think sufficient. At such a crisis, they cannot but feel anxious to know exactly what the Romanists teach at this moment among themselves as to heresy and various other points-what, in short, is the exact complexion of that religion which seems likely to be dominant in Ireland-that they may see what protestants have to expect, if they allow it to become so. They know well that (witness the cruelties of St. Bartholomew and of the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes) the Romanist doctrines as to heresy were bad enough as held by the Gallican church; but they know that there is a spirit even fiercer than this-the ultra montane Romanism, and they have had strong grounds for suspecting that this is the Romanism of Ireland-more cruel and more intolerant to the heretic subject, and more dangerous to the heretic monarch and heretic constitution than that form which existed in France. They may and do regret the necessity of such an inquiry-they may and do regret the spirit of anger and suspicion which they must awaken. But they see that this is no time to talk of peace-that Romanism is growing in strength and growing in fierceness* in Ireland every daythat not a month passes which does not furnish a thousand proofs of it-that as no conciliation can soften, so no open declaration of hostility can produce any feeling or any effects worse than what exists already -and that to sit down now and decline opposing it for fear of a breach of charity, is only to give up the cause of truth to destruction without a struggle, and those who hold it to the destroyer. Such then are the grounds on which, in the writer's opinion, these meetings were not only justifiable, but most desirable and important. But one may go a step farther than this, and say, that the strange sentiments prevalent among many protestants render some such steps almost indispensable. It is certainly not a very amiable employment, at first sight, to set men suspecting their neighbours of evil; nor is it very often that the race of man requires much stimulus in that direction. But there is either an affected, or (from party motives) a wilful blindness on the subject of popery, which is remarkable, and, at this time, likely to be most mischievous. The liberal world is quite in • Look, too, at Mr. Shiel's speech of July 28. amazement, or horror, or scorn, or commiseration, at the folly, want of charity, credulity, or childishness, which can believe that the papists have evil designs. They shrug their shoulders, and bless their stars, that they are not bigots, and have no idle fears, no foolish, fond, absurd belief that any body of men care one farthing more than they do themselves about the rise or fall of this church, or that. Certainly they have good ground to go on, if you will grant them THIS, that it is fair to reason from themselves to others, for so far from committing any crime, in order to farther the good of their church, they would think that strengthening it, or promoting its interests, is so com. pletely a party object, that a probability of success, in either object, would be a considerable objection to their doing their duty. It is edifying to hear their holy indignation at the narrow views, and party prejudices, which can lead any one to admit the possibility of evil being dreamt of, far less done, towards protestants by papists. They who are outrageous against any other priestcraft and despotism, and will not hear their very names, scoff at the notion of any priestcraft, or any love of despotic power in the popish clergy. History bears no witness to it: reason is against it; charity forbids us to think of such things! The clergy of the reformed church, indeed, are monsters, lovers of gain and power, and ready to attain and maintain both by every evil means; but the popish clergy, the sweet popish clergy, the kind popish clergy, the true popish clergy, oh! banish not them! banish the popish clergy, and banish all the world! Talk to an individual liberal, and he puts you to the test at once. "What," says he, "do you believe that my good friends and neighbours, Mr. A. and Mrs. B., the papists, would do me any harm? Have not they been good friends with me, and other protestants, for years? Ought I to suspect them of any such evil intentions as those which you charge on their brethren ?" The answer to this question is not a very pleasant one to give, but it is a very important one. "Mr. A: and Mrs. B. may be liberals, and, like many protestant liberals, perfectly careless about all forms of religion; or, if not, they may be like many other liberals, very ignorant of their own, and very probably are so. The times have been quiet, and, till lately, the Roman catholics have had no hopes of recovering their lost ground: it has not, consequently, been necessary for the papist clergy to point out to their flocks their duties towards the church, as regards heretics. They might recommend zeal in conversion, but when they were, and were likely to remain, without any power over protestants, of what good could it be to teach them how such power was to be exercised? In all probability, therefore, no such lessons have been given; and Mr. A. and Mrs. B. being like too many Christians of other denominations, careless people, have not sought what was not put in their way, and have therefore never considered their protestant neighbours as persons to whom they could have any other relation than the common relations of neighbourhood, courtesy, and friendly intercourse. But the question is, how is the case altered by an alteration of circumstances, by the prospect and the hope of power on the part of the Romanists? That is to say, what does the Roman church teach her children, as to |