in proving that it also sanctions falsehood in practice. This is shown in the doctrine of transubstantiation which it requires all to believe—in the sacrifice of the mass-in the doctrine of confession of sins to a Priest' and in that which declares the intention of the Priest to be necessary in order to the valid administration of the sacraments.

Now what is the answer which the well-instructed advocate of Romanism has to make to such a mass of serious charges? In reply to the introductory observations of Mr. Venn, regretting the necessity which lay upon him to expose the errors of the church of Rome; Mr. Waterworth says:

'Ladies and Gentlemen, I am not surprised that my Rev. opponent, when he began to address this assembly, should have said that he could not express the pain he felt, and that, therefore, he would throw himself upon your indulgence to conceive the pain it must give him to assert that 250 millions of the Christian world are tricked and deceived by their clergy; and that the clergy of that body, amounting to many thousands, are men bound by the principles of their religion to palm falsehoods upon the world;-in one word, to enter into one vast conspiracy, deep, awful, and enormous as hell,- to deceive those millions of human beings. p. 9.

This sounds very well for an exordium, and is followed by more of the same declaratory stamp; the speaker taking care not to leave himself unpraised. For instance,

'I have from the church no honours to expect; nor are there any dignities that I can hope to attain to. I owe no gratitude for favours received, nor do I expect any. A mere pittance is given to me, and to eke out that pittance and enable me to present myself as a gentleman in the town in which I live, I am doomed to eight or ten hours daily study. I do not say with Mr. Venn, I am no scholar; I profess to be that-I tell you then there is no such secret system. Why should you not believe me? If there were any such doctrines as those which are imputed to us, I, at all events, should know it. I was educated at Rome,-the very centre of Catholicism. I came over to England and was appointed public professor of divinity in the college of Oscot, where I taught divinity for four years. If any one should know a time when this secret allowance of lying was instilled into the minds of the clergymen, I should know it; and it would be a part of my duty to do so;-now, in the presence of that God, who is hereafter to judge me, I say I am not guilty of it. Why, except for truth's sake, should I cling to a church which has nothing to give me beyond a mere pittance of £80, or £90 a year, and which compels me to labour and to strive, with my own hand and my own pen, to earn my bread as hard as any daily labourer?' p. 11.

We give this, as an example of that tone of confident assumption which Romish controversialists are in the habit of adopting when they stand before a Protestant audience. And if all men were as ignorant as the advocates of popery would wish them to be, it might pass current for something more than a mere attempt, at the commencement of the fray, to blind an opponent by throwing dust in his eyes. But who can be ignorant of the fact acknowledged, even by Popes themselves, that the society of Jesuits were, as a body, guilty of the most systematic fraud? And yet in the face of the best authenticated facts of history, the learned Priest of Newark travels as far as Hereford, to say that the church of Rome knows no such system! He professes to be learned; he still needs some one to teach him to be discreet. The manner in which the Popish Priest of Newark meets Mr. Venn's argument, must now be submitted to the reader. He begins by a broad assertion which stands in the place of valid proof.

I say that

ALL THAT IS IN THE GENERAL COUNCILS IS NOT OF FAITH.

I say

that eight parts out of ten, of their contents, are not of faith.' Yet it seems that Pope Pius IV. as quoted by Mr. Venn, thought and declared very differently; for in his creed, which Romish Priests are required to adopt, are these words, 'I also profess and undoubtedly receive all other things delivered, defined, and declared by the several canons and General Councils, and particularly by the Holy Council of Trent.' It is true that, when pressed by an opponent, a Romanist will shield himself under a distinction between matters delivered as articles of faith and others; but this is a mere subterfuge; The Romanist is bound by the decrees of Councils generally, whether relating to questions of faith or discipline. But supposing it to be otherwise; the Councils referred to by Mr. Venn are guilty of enjoining, as matters of faith, doctrines most repugnant to Holy Scripture and to the common sense of mankind; and for opposing these, it is well known that the holiest men have been committed to prison, to torture and to flames. To support his untenable position, Mr. Waterworth quotes such authorities as Bishops Baines and Troy, who, to serve a purpose, when the Romish claims were discussed, made statements at which they ought to have blushed as the Emperor Sigismond did, when he broke faith with John Huss, and violated the safe conduct he had given to that intrepid champion of truth. But such help avails him little. Nor will that of Lin

gard or of Butler serve any better purpose.

He meets the quotation made by Mr. Venn, in which oaths taken against the utility of the church are enjoined to be treated as perjuries, and therefore not to be kept, by attempting to shew that the expression was only applied to a particular case-namely that of Chapters, and therefore could not be intended for a general proposition."

To argue (he says) from a particular to a universal, is sophistry. To argue from a Chapter to a universal church-is sophistry. To argue that an incidental remark in a council is an article of our faith-is sophistry.' p. 15.

But is it quite so clear, that Mr. Venn is arguing from a particular to an universal? A careful reader of the passage quoted, will see that though the case alluded to was a particular one, yet a general rule was laid down by which it was to be judged. Nothing is more usual, when any particular course of conduct is enforced, to do it by the introduction of some general principle of action, which the writer applies to his particular case. So is it here. A certain line of conduct is prescribed for the government of churches, and this line is enforced by an argument put as generally as language can make it, without the slightest intimation that it was applicable only to the case in hand. "Those are not oaths but perjuries which are made against the utility of the Church.' Where then is the sophistry in the case? Is it not, where we might reasonably expect it, with the learned Advocate for the religion of Jesuits?

Mr. Waterworth has, however, still more trouble and still less success in his treatment of Mr. Venn's second reference to the doings of Romish Conncils. To get rid of the odium which naturally attaches itself to the Church in consequence of its decisions at the fourth Council of Lateran, he begins by stating that these were not meetings of Ecclesiastics only, but of the States-General. Now, it is not denied that

Kings and Princes were present at the Council: but it is denied that they were there to vote. The ecclesiastical power was there supreme; and temporal Princes were only present to grace the triumphs of the hierarchy.

Again, he contends, that the 'secular powers,' which in that Council are required to be coerced if needs be, are not Kings or Sovereigns, but only Magistrates. A mere paltry and contemptible subterfuge, of which every honest man ought to be ashamed. Were not our King John and Queen Elizabeth both dealt with as subject to the authority of Rome, in consequence of the very claim of authority over Sovereign Princes, which Mr. W. has the hardihood to deny ?

He then argues that these canons were really never passed, and thus contradicts his own most eminent doctors; and, to crown the whole, contends that the only persons aimed at in these canons were persecutors, who spared neither widows nor orphans, neither old nor young, neither age nor sex. Who, does the reader think were these outrageous persecutors ?—None other than the poor ALBIGENSES! If this is not the wolf charging the lamb with troubling the waters, we are greatly mistaken. Such statements as these are what Mr. W. calls answering the arguments of Protestants; but very different answers must be made before they will cease to urge their objections against the persecuting principles of Rome.

It is not necessary to pass through his vain attempt to bolster up the character of the Council of Constance. He argues that the Emperor had no power to grant a safe conduct which should exempt the heretic from the authority of the Church; that nothing more was meant by this document than protection from injury in going to the Council, and, if he was not condemned, in returning from it. It is enough to ask, 'Did Huss so understand it?' 'Does any one feel satisfied with such a Jesuitical solution?' If however, this reasoning be valid, then the Church, not the Emperor, was the Persecutor, and was guilty of the shedding of this innocent blood. But no, it is pleaded, the Church does nothing but leave the guilty to the secular power: it does not punish them. So then, neither Church nor Emperor have any power, yet between them the martyr dies! Both wash their hands of the charge of persecution, and yet both conspire to carry it into effect! Who can fail to admire the ingenuity or effrontery of the "MAN OF SIN?"

The Jesuitical reasoning by which the Papal advocate strives to evade the charge that the Church of Rome withholds the Scriptures from the laity, deserves something more than a passing notice. But our limits will not allow us to do any justice to the subject. It is the great sin of the Church of Rome that she presumes upon a right, given to no human beings whatever, of granting or withholding at pleasure, the power to read the Holy Scriptures. Mr. W. contends that the Scriptures are as free among the Romanists as the air they breathe. It is easy to utter the words, but not to prove them true. Where Protestantism prevails, his Church is shamed into a reluctant acquiescence with customs against which it is in vain for her to contend. She therefore makes a merit of necessity and professes to let the word of God have free course among her people. But is it, or is not true, that she claims the power to grant and recal the license to read them. Christ says, "Search the Scriptures." What right has she to add any command of her own to His?

Is her authority necessary to sanction his, or of sufficient force to set his aside ?

On the whole of Mr. Waterworth's reasoning in favour of Rome, two or three observations naturally present themselves,

First, notwithstanding his facility of language as a practised controversialist, it requires but a little close attention to his argument to perceive its radical unsoundness. He is always fencing, parrying and shifting his ground. He tries to present the most nefarious transactions in a favourable light. He has no scruples about the way of disposing of an adverse argument. If he cannot untie the knot, he has the courage to cut it; if he cannot surmount the difficulty, he will dash through it; and think nothing of the danger he incurs of being made to eat his own words, or of being convicted of the most palpable evasions. He presumes on the ignorance of his audience and his own address, in escaping detection. And not a little does he also presume on the gentle christian spirit of his forbearing antagonist.

Secondly, he boasts in strong language of his Church, as being infallible; and yet he has no difficulty in asserting that he is not bound by the authority of Councils, or Popes. The hearer might suppose, sometimes in the course of his speech, that the Church of Rome had never laid the minds of men under any kind of restraint, if they could but forget the records of her history, and blood-stained pages of Protestant Martyrology. But when we read such passages as he gives, to prove that he is free from the controul of Councils and decrees and doctors, we are naturally led to enquire, 'Where then does this vaunted infallibility reside?' And how can we know what is infallibly declared?' These questions have never been answered and never will.

Thirdly, it is impossible not to remark upon the want of urbanity and gentlemanly bearing on the part of Mr. W. towards his opponent. The meeting was at length roused to indignation at his insolence, and he was obliged to lower his tone. But we may say, that we could not wish any cause to be decided more absolutely by the spirit of its advocate than this. The meekness and gentleness of Christ was on one side, the proud over-bearing spirit of Antichrist on the other.

A few words on Mr. Venn's part of the debate, must conclude this article. He never attempts any thing beyond the most simple and straight-forward statement of his case; and the most frank and open adduction of evidence bearing upon it. He depends not on the force of declamation, but of truth. He reverts to no sinister methods of sustaining his cause, but lets it speak its own eulogium and plead its own defence. The consequence is, that while the cause of the Romanist puts on its best aspect at first, but afterwards appears with continually diminished power, the cause of the Protestant advocate perpetually strengthens, as it proceeds, and becomes, in the end, meekly yet firmly triumphant. Mr. Venn is, in truth, much more throughly informed than his modesty allowed him to think or to declare; and we suppose his antagonist would, after a little experience of his polemical qualities, wish he had been less rash in boasting of his own learning or in denouncing his opponent's ignorance.

A specimen or two of Mr. Venn's manner must be given for the reader's satisfaction.

'With regard to Jesuit writers, (who had pleaded for the lawfulness of

practising deceit,) Mr. Waterworth has said that a certain Pope objected to them, and that others had denounced them.' He then proceeds acutely and forcibly to assert. So much the more guilty then is the Church of Rome, in restoring the order after all these discoveries.' Oh! if Mr. Waterworth feels the indignation he expresses against such principles, and if others feel with him, why do they not all protest against them? Why do they not themselves petition Parliament to do away with these immoral books which are now used in Ireland, where the priests are instructed in those principles?' p. 42. Again, he asks,

'Has the Church of Rome ever put forth an authorised translation of the Bible in the vulgar tongue, giving her own authority to it? Again, she declares that she alone can judge of the sense, and she will not permit the people to exercise their own private judgment. Has she ever put forth any commentary? I will bring the whole thing to that test. I would put a Bible in Mr. Waterworth's hand, and ask him to find a single chapter which he can interpret according to the sense which the Church of Rome holds. Now if the Church of Rome has the right interpretation, how iniquitous not to furnish her people with it? If she cannot do it, how iniquitous to profess to be able to do it?' p. 42.

In another place he says,

66

'What was my object in bringing forward these charges: [viz. against the Church of Rome]. God knows it was not from any feeling of pique or resentment. God knows it was not from any desire to expose the infirmities of my fellow-creatures, or to wound the feelings of neighbours that I respect for their honourable and moral feeling-men, who in all the relations of life may be kind, and courteous, and upright, and honourable. But, Sir, in compassion to their souls I would do any violence to my own feelings, and to their feelings, to convince them that their Church is not infallible-to deliver them out of that bitter bondage and those fatal errors. And now, Sir, I know no way more calculated to produce this effect, then by bringing something startling before them. În talking with those who have been unhappily seduced into the communion of the Church of Rome, amongst my own parishioners or friends, I have found invariably this:-I come to the word of God; I say, try the doctrine by God's written word," and what is their answer? "The Church teaches me so-the Church is infallible." And they will not enter into the examination of the doctrines by God's word; or else I should soon bring them back. How then shall I convince them by practical and simple arguments?-how shall I convince those who have no knowledge and no learning, that their Church is not infallible? Why, Sir, there is the simplest of all means. I take their general councils, and show that in them, professing to be under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, there is a mass of error, a mass of absurdity, and a mass of falsehood; and that they lay down principles subversive of the interests of society, of truth and justice, such as those which I yesterday brought forward as shewing that they assume to themselves the power of absolving subjects from their allegiance, if it be to serve the interest of the Church. Can that Church be infallible which depends upon such means for its protection and propagation? But why (you ask) should I charge the members of the Church with practising falsehood? Why, granting the Church infallible, I wish to know what is the practical advantage of an infallible Church, if the teachers are fallible-and if the teachers in the matter of religion will not be honest men? Did I not quote the declaration of the Bishops? There is a solemn declaration signed by all the Roman Catholic Bishops of England and Ireland, and seventy influential laymen, and I trust I proved that that document was altogether calculated to convey a false impression-to represent the Church of Rome in a very different light from that in which she ought to be represented, in order that Protestants may be approached gradually. Why, every one knows that if the Church of Rome in all its naked deformity were put before any English congregation, they would start back from it, and there would be no hope of obtaining any converts. But approach them gradually-deny certain doctrines-give a false colour-say we abjure such notions imputed