dividuals in the dock, together sentenced to death" were so completely fortified by the Catholic doctrine of Absolution, that not one of them evinced "the least degree of emotion in consequence of the pronouncing of sentence;" (the italics are all your own,) not one was found to give the shudder which under such circumstances is sometimes wrung even from exalted faith by the weakness of humanity. No! Every one was unmoved; and this is not an extreme case; it is the mere "ordinary effect" of the doctrine; for you tell us to "seek the truth" in it, and advise us to legislate upon it. But as I should wish to retain my faith somewhere within the very extreme verge of human probabilities, I decline to "seek the truth" in this statement, as you decline to seek it in the "goodly glozes" of Dr. Doyle. I beg leave however to express my complete accordance in your opinion, that the "practical results of "the Absolution of the Church of England, "are totally dissimilar" to that which you have by this evidence "proved to be the ordinary "effect of the Absolution of Romish Priests upon the populace of Ireland."

66

Probably, Sir, none of the thirty-five individuals are now in a situation to be more influenced by the Concessions of the Claims than the effect produced by absolution on the populace of Ireland will be--so we may pass on to

DANGER VI. From the Doctrine of Works of Supererogation, and from Indulgences.

66

66

I will not interfere between Mr. Canning, you and the Calvinists, but pass on to the following observation. "I will remind you of a real political objection against the Roman Catho"lics founded on the value they attach to good "works-but then it is to the good works of "others, not their own-and consequently it has no tendency to improve either their loyalty or "their morals. On the merit of the supernumerary satisfactions of departed saints, the "doctrine of indulgences, remissions, that is, "of the pains of purgatory-has been built. "These indulgences have often been employed "in Ireland, as means to stimulate and reward "the disloyalty of the people to their heretical "sovereigns. So late as the reign of George "the Second, money was raised by them for the

66

66

express purpose of raising a force to expel "the reigning family, and restore the House of "Stuart." It is indeed a real political objection to the Catholics; but it is not created by the Concession of the Claims. If they are refused for the next hundred years, will the objection cease to exist? Will the Pope, of whom you are so much afraid, be more or less likely to raise money by selling indulgences for the purpose of raising

a force to expel George the Fourth, if that Prince should conciliate him, by removing the degradation from his Catholic subjects instead of aggravating him by confirming it? That Popes are not indifferent to the subject is plain, from their repeated recommendations to the Bishops to concede the different vetos. Or will the Irish Catholics be more or less likely to buy the indulgences in furtherance of the above object, if they are tranquillized and attached to this country instead of being left in their present state of irritation? But as you say, enough of this.

DANGER VII. From the Pope's Supremacy."

I certainly shall not enter into the question whether the Councils of Pisa, Constance, and Basil, or that of Florence regulate the tenets of the Roman church on the subject of the Supremacy of the Pope. I am generally in the happy condition of being able to admit your premises, not because I allow them to be correct, but because they do not injure my cause. I cannot, however, avoid remarking, that after reading all your statements, my decided conviction is, that the class-book at Maynooth does not teach the temporal supremacy of the Pope; and that the Irish Catholics do not hold it. Indeed at the

outset of your seventeen pages on this subject, you only venture to speak conditionally. Your expressions are-" In England there are, I "doubt not, few individuals who persist in hold66 ing it; but that in Ireland there are millions, "who, if their priests will teach it to them, are "most ready to receive it, is unhappily a point "equally clear. And what security have we, "that the priests will forbear to teach it? If "there be none, I think, Sir, that even you must "admit, that this wide and indefinite tenet of "the Pope's supremacy, is both a valid and “a strong objection against making further con"cessions to those who hold it." This paragraph contains a very singular specimen of your usual insidious unfairness. In the enunciation, the Irish Catholics are most ready to receive this doctrine if their priests will teach it to them ; but in the penal clause they "hold it." You bring in a verdict, that they are ready to commit a crime if they are incited to it, and you pass sentence on them for having committed it. Your conclusion is too indefinite to merit a reply; and though you feel so confident that Mr. Canning could not hesitate to subscribe to it, he would I think not wholly pass over as you do

the nature of the concessions, and their probable effect for good and evil. He perhaps might think the following question not wholly unworthy of an answer-In what way will the concessions act

on the dangers, which might be apprehended, if the Irish Catholics were to admit the Pope's claim of supremacy? Your argument is-Catholics ought not to sit in parliament, because there are millions in Ireland who will hold the doctrine of the Pope's Supremacy, if their priests will teach it to them. Argument indeed by courtesy, for it is beneath the contempt of a child of ten years old: but with you it is “valid "and strong" it settles the whole question.

66

Having thus covertly introduced the Irish as holding the doctrine, you do not revert to the conditional form of expression, but, waxing warmer and bolder as you proceed, you convict them by the Legend of St. Gregory the Seventh, and the Canonization of Pius the Fifth, of adopting all its consequences, even those most dangerous to a state. On your road you pick up an ally, and introduce him thus in a note-" Isaac Barrow expresses himself on this matter in the following unanswerable terms. No man, "apprehending it false, seemeth capable with good conscience to hold communion with those "who profess it;""* (i. e. the doctrine of the Pope's Supremacy.) And after a variety of arguments, the sum of which is, that a man who does profess it is "a heritick;" he adds-"How "then can any man safely hold communion with "such persons?"

66

66

* Letter I. p. 113.

6