is the declared head; except, indeed, that there is something approaching to a meaning in the Orange Societies, which is wanting in those of the Free

masons.

But has the whole of this laborious inquiry been thrown away, and is it true that, after all the pains that have been taken, nothing tangible can be deduced from this inquiry? No, by no means! Trust Mr. Hume and the Morning Chronicle for that.

The real gain to the faction is this, not that the Orangemen could be shewn to be disloyal, or to have offended against the laws (of that their bitterest foes knew, from the beginning, that there was no chance of convicting them), but that, from the mere circumstance of their having been put upon their trial-of their having been charged with disloyalty, and all kinds of offences, a presumption might be set up, by the aid of that audacity which is never wanting to the "Liberal" party, that these Orangemen were a set of disloyal and seditious men -the undoubted disturbers of the public peace!

And such has been the result of this inquiry. The utter failure of all attempts to criminate them, even in a committee constituted of fourteen Liberals to seven Conservatives, just goes for nothing. The Popish journals had been used, long before, to speak of Orangemen as of a species of ferocious animal, whom it was the duty of every patriot to endeavour to exterminate; and now, with the fact brought to their aid, of two committees of the House of Commons holding their solemn inquests on the crimes of these disturbers of the public peace, it was very natural that their tone should be emboldened, to demand nothing less than the political excommunication of the entire society. Yet the members of the Association in Ireland are stated, in Mr. Hume's Report, to amount to 220,000; a total which must exceed the half of the adult male Protestant population of that country. The greater part, therefore, of the Protestants of Ireland were sought, by this system of parliamentary "investigation," to be publicly dishonoured to be openly stigmatized as unworthy of employment or trust at the hands of the government!

And this, doubtless, was the real object of these mock-investigations. Neither Mr. Hume nor Mr. Finn could

have been so foolish as to imagine that there was the least chance of their detecting, in acts of sedition or disloyalty, men whose real crime it was that they were more loyal than any of their accusers. But it was hoped, that by the mere fact of such an investigation, a suspicion, at least, would be raised, upon which the government might be induced to found a general sentence of ignominy.

The

Nor has this scheme failed. For the last six months the tone in ministerial circles and in ministerial journals has been, that no Orangemen were to be tolerated, even in the most subordinate ranks of the public service. judges' return of sheriffs was scrutinised, the lists of assistant-barristers were re-examined, policemen were cross-examined, and no means left unturned to find out, and to exterminate whenever found out, these dreadful Orangemen ! It was forgotten all along, that the parties thus warred against were the majority of the Protestants of Ireland, the only class really attached to the British connexion. So slight a consideration as this was wholly cast out of view when so grand, so romantic an idea, was started, as that of "doing justice to Ireland."

Well, then, this is the present tone: "No Orangeman can be employed or trusted by the government." But may we not, before we sink down into silent and despairing submission, look a little at this sentence of excommunication, and ask, whether it is reconcileable with reason or common justice?

"No Orangeman can or will be trusted by the government!" Such is the rule of policy boldly and broadly promulgated. If we ask for a justification of it, can we meet with a more authorised defence than that which is to be found in the Reports of the Parliamentary Committees ? These we

have examined. In three folie volumes we find no summary, no general result; in the fourth, the English Report, we meet that brief and vague indictment which we have already quoted. As this is the only public and authoritative charge of which we are aware, we shall now examine it a little more closely.

The charges against the Orange Associations, then, are to this effect: That they "keep up an exclusive association in civil and military society;"

That they "excite one portion of the people against the other;"

That they "increase the rancour and animosity existing between persons of different religious persuasions;"

That they "make the Protestant the enemy of the Catholic, and the Catholic the enemy of the Protestant;"

That they "interrupt the course of justice;" and

That they "interfere with the discipline of the army."

Such are the charges against the Orange Associations; and upon these grounds, and these grounds alone, it is that the present government has proclaimed the most unrelenting war with Orangeism and Orangemen.

Now we have already said, at the commencement of the present article, that we believe this attack on the Orange Associations to be merely a feint, by which the public attention was hoped to be drawn from those enormities of Popery which have lately spread and expanded themselves in a remarkable degree, and on which it I would not have been convenient to have allowed the public eye to be too closely fixed. The trick has answered its end; and up to this moment Popery has grown and enlarged itself in a degree which, a dozen years back, would have been considered impossible, and that without exciting the smallest attention, so far as the government and the legislature are concerned.

And yet, while Orangeism is thus execrated and reviled, what are the greatest faults that can be charged against it, compared with those of that Romanism which is allowed to go scot-free? Admit, as we do, that Orange Associations must, as it is said, have a tendency to "keep up exclusive feelings," and to "excite one portion of the people against the other," still, are we to put out of view the fact that all this mischief was already done to their hands-that all these feelings were already excited, and had been long since powerfully called into operation, by that very Poper yagainst which these Associations were only designed to guard.

The wolves, in the fable, made bitter complaints of the dogs which were stationed about the sheepfold, as keeping up an "exclusive feeling," &c. Accordingly, these safeguards were removed; but the result was, that the

up by these "liberal" friends, who complained so much of the exclusiveness of the former system.

This comparison does no injustice to the Romanists of Ireland. Let the facts of the case be impartially considered.

Orangemen are now proscribed by the government of Ireland. Romanists, on the other hand, are especially patronized. When appointments were required to be made, very lately, of crown solicitors in Ireland, out of thirty-four nominations, thirty of the individuals were Romanists. And this in a profession of which three-fourths are Protestants!

What, then, are the comparative merits of Orangeman and Romanist? Let this point be fairly considered. We will take Mr. Hume's bill of indictment against the Orangemen, and examine, point by point, how far the Romanists have the better case.

I. His first allegation is as follows:

"The obvious tendency and effect," it is said, "of the Orange Institution is, te keep up an exclusive association in society; to increase the rancour and animosity too often existing between persons of different religious persuasions; and to make the Protestant the enemy of the Catholic, and the Catholic the enemy of the Protestant.”

This is the first and main allegation against Orangeism, and it is unsupported by any proof, inasmuch as it is said to be "obvious." In other words, that the mere banding men together under a distinctive name, although no anti-social doctrines are inculcated, must of necessity have this effect.

But may it not be most justly answered, that the separating and alienating dogmas and practices of the Romish church go far beyond any thing that ever was alleged, or even imagined, of either Orangemen or any other class of Protestants.

That Orangeism is anti-social is the point we are now considering. The charge is supported by no proof, save the one fact that Protestants have banded together in an exclusive association under this name; but whether for offensive or defensive purposes, is not stated.

S SS SS

quarters, and proving that, even if the contrary had been true, still nothing half so exclusive or anti-social could be alleged of any Protestant association, as might be clearly proved to be an essential and integral part of the principles of Romanism.

But how shall we learn the real principles of Romanism? By the evidence of the leading Protestant polemics? Surely not! By the declarations of Roman Catholic leaders? Equally fallacious would this be,-for how could it be supposed that men, who were in the very act of contending for social rights and privileges, would themselves admit the guilt of inculcating anti-social doctrines? How, then, shall we arrive at the truth?

The only course open to us, and a course which is perfectly unobjectionable, is that of taking the doctrines of the Romanists wholly from their own authorities. And to this line of proof we shall without further preface resort.

Are the doctrines of Rome, then, towards Protestants, those of peace and charity; or do they fall under the condemnation levelled by Mr. Hume against the Orange Associations, as "tending to excite one portion of the people against the other, to increase rancour and animosity, and to make the Catholic the enemy of the Protestant," &c. &c. To answer this question satisfactorily, we must resort, not to the assertions of their opponents, but to the authorised declarations of the Romanists themselves.

Where, then, do we find these declarations. We refer, first, to

"The Holy Bible, translated from the Latin Vulgate; diligently compared with the Hebrew, Greek, and other editions in divers languages; the Old Testament, first published by the English College at Douay, A.D. 1600. And the New Testament, first published by the English College at Rheims, A.D. 1582. With Annotations, and an Historical and Chronological Index. Revised and corrected according to the Clementin edition of the Scriptures; and approved of by the Most Rev. Dr. Troy, R.C.A.D. Dublin: printed and published by Richard Coyne, Parliament Street; and sold by Keating, Brown, and Keating, Duke Street, Grosvenor Square, London, 1816."

This, surely, is unexceptionable authority for pure, unadulterated Romanism. But what are the doctrines we find inculcated in this sacred volume? VOL. XIII. NO. LXXV.

Take a specimen or two of these notes, thus put forth under the highest ecclesiastical authority in all Popish Ireland :

"Romans, ix. 3. Anathema, by use of Scripture, is either that which, by separation from profane use, and by dedication to God, is holy, dreadful, and not vulgarly to be touched; or contrariwise, that which is rejected, severed, or abandoned by God, as cursed and detested, and therefore to be avoided; and in this latter sense, according as St. Paul taketh it, 1st Cor. xvi. 6., ' If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.' That is, away with him; accursed be he; beware you company not with him. The church and holy councils use the word for a curse and excommunication against heretics, and other notorious offenders and blasphemers. Again, in Galatians, i. 8, this curse or execration, pronounced by the apostle, toucheth not only the Galatians, or those of the apostle's time, that preached otherwise than they did, but it appertaineth to all times preachers and teachers unto the world's end."

"Acts, xx. 20. "6 'Ravening wolves." The governors of the church are foretold of the great danger that should befall the people by wolves, that is to say, heretics, whose cruelty towards the Catholics is noted by this term. They are known by the forsaking the unity of the church whereof they were before, by going out and drawing many disciples after them, and by their perverse doctrine. Such wolves came afterwards, indeed, in divers ages, Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius, Eutychus, Luther, Calvin, great blood-sucking wolves, and wasters of the flock of Christ "

"2 Cor. vii. 14. "What fellowship?" Generally here is forbidden conversation and dealings with all infidels, and consequently with heretics; but especially in prayers, or meeting at their schismatical service, preaching, and other divine office whatsoever, which the apostle here uttereth in more particular terms, that Christian folks may take the better heed of it. No society, saith he, or fellowship, no participation or agreement-no consent between light and darkness. Christ and Belial- the temple of God" and the temple of idols,-all service as pretended worship of God set up by heretics or schismatics, being nothing else but service of Belial and plain idolatry, and their conventicles nothing but conspirations against Christ. From such, therefore, especially, we must separate ourselves always in heart and mind, and touching any act of religion, in body also."

"St. Mark, xi. 16. "Vessel through the Temple." He could not abide to see the temple of God profaned; no, nor suffered those things to be done in it which otherwise were not unlawful, but honest, if they had been done in due place. How much less can he abide the profaning of churches now, with heretical service, and preaching of heresy, and blasphemy. Verse 17. "A den of thieves." If the temple was then a den of thieves, because of profane and secular merchandise, how much more now, when the house appointed for the holy sacrifices and sacrament of the body of Christ is made a den for the ministers of Calvin's breed."

"

Deuteronomy, xvii. 8. "If thou perceive," &c. Here we see what authority God was pleased to give to the churchguides of the Old Testament, in deciding without appeal all controversies relating to the law, promising that they should not err therein, and punishing with death such as proudly refused to obey their decisions; and surely he has not done less for the church-guides of the New Testament."

Such were the doctrines inculcated on the whole body of the Romanists of Ireland in the year 1816, under the highest episcopal sunctions, and as being the very word of God himself. It is true, and let them have all the benefit of it, that when a copy of this Bible found its way to the table of an English Protestant reviewer, and was by him noticed with just reprehension, the Romish archbishop sent for the bookseller, told him that " very bad consequences had followed" its publication, that it had " armed the enemies" of the Romish faith, and that it must be recalled! Again, we say, let the Romanists have all the benefits of this repentance; but let it also be remembered that these notes were genuine Romish notes,-put forth, not by an individual, but by a college, and recommended, not by a mere priest, but by the Popish archbishop of Dublin;

and that it was only on finding what indignation was caused, and, to use his own words, what "bad consequences" had followed, that they were recalled, and, for the nonce, disclaimed.

This, however, is but one branch of the evidence as to the anti-social character of Romanism. The next writers we shall call will be equally important and equally decisive.

When we speak of Dominic Dens, we may be sure of hearing a cry of, What, old Dens!-what, the musty tomes of old Dominic! Yet was there ever such folly as is comprised in these exclamations? Dens wrote no longer back, it is true, than the year 1776; so that the phrases of "musty and moth-eaten" smack somewhat of exaggeration. But what matters it whether the writer of this system of theology was of the seventeenth, eighteenth, or nineteenth centuries? Why do we speak of him at all at the present moment? Why is he brought into the present controversy? Not because he was a Roman Catholic priest and professor, and wrote a very bad book,-that, truly, is nothing so remarkable as to entitle him to any especial distinction. In fact, it is not we-it is not Protestants-that have "dug up old Dens" at all, or in any way interfered with his dust or his moth-eaten quietude. Who does not see, at a glance, that the one only reason why a single word is said about Dens is this, that the Romish bishops and clergy of Ireland have chosen to make him their standard of faith and practice. This, and this alone, is the sole reason why Dominic Dens has been brought before the public, in the years 1835 and 1836. But is the fact so? Here is the evidence:

There is an Ecclesiastical Almanack, or Kalendar, published in Dublin every year, for the use of the priests of the Romish church, of which the following is the title :

TRANSLATION.

THE ORDER

OF RECITING THE DIVINE OFFICE, AND OP THE CELEBRATION OF MASS;

Compiled for the use of

The Venerable the Secular Clergy
Of Ireland,

For the Year 1835.

By Command of the Most Illustrious and Most Reverend

ichon of Dublin,

TION AND APPROVAL OF HIS GRACE THE MOST REVEREND DR. MURRAY."

Now on this publication there appeared, for several successive years, the following advertisement:

"Just published,

DENS' COMPLETE BODY OF THEOLOGY, In 8 vols. 12mo, beautifully printed, price 21. 2s.

"At a Meeting of the Roman Catholic Prelates of Ireland, assembled in Dublin on the 14th day of September, 1808, they unanimously agreed, that Dens' Complete Body of Theology was the best book on the subject that could be republished, as containing the most secure guidance for such Ecclesiastics as may, by reason of the peculiar circumstances of this country, be deprived of the opportunity of referring to public libraries, or consulting those who may be placed in authority over them; in consequence, an edition of the work was ordered to be printed by the present Publisher, to the number of 3000 copies. The work is now very rare, and scarcely to be met with: and, inasmuch as his grace Dr. Murray, Dr. Doyle, Dr. Keating, and Dr. Kinsella, have made it the Conference-book for the Clergy of the province of Leinster, the Publisher (as well to obviate the difficulty experienced by them in procuring the work, as also to advance the cause of religion and morality in the other parts of the Irish Church) is induced to reprint a limited number of copies.

"An additional Volume, which is now for the first time added to the present edition, contains," &c. &c. Here follows a list of contents. The Advertisement concludes thus:

“ The Supplementary Matter above re

But further, in the pages of that same work, edited by the Rev. P. Woods, chaplain to the R. C. Archbishop of Dublin, there appeared in 1831 and 1832 the following notices :

TRANSLATION.

"To the Most Rev. Father and Master in God, DR. DANIEL MURRAY,

Archbishop of Dublin,

Primate of Ireland,