evidence proves several instances,) it is convenient to explain the oath of allegiance, and especially those clauses which relate to the power of dispensation claimed by the pope, and the overthrow of the Protestant church establishment. On these points the feelings of many Roman Catholics are directly at variance with the declaration contained in the oaths. It is, therefore, of some importance to argue them into taking these oaths without apparent reluctance, since to refuse them would be a too decided manifestation of opinion. We do not mean to say that this interpretation is always publicly given, or even given by a professor; but a monitor may convey to the junior students the wishes of the superiors as to the line of conduct they should pursue, and in some cases such an explanation may have been absolutely necessary. It does not appear, indeed, that these oaths have always been very strictly construed, or very faithfully obeyed; for in 1798, so much had the spirit of rebellion spread, that when Dr. Flood, then president of Maynooth, was directed to tender an oath, as a test to discover what united Irishmen were among the students, no less than eighteen out of, we believe, not quite two hundred, left the college to avoid taking it. What numbers remained, who did not scruple to deny their treasonable connections, it is, of course, impossible to say; but if we may judge from the conduct of some of their leaders at that time, who were all the most candid, the most open, the most patriotic, and the most worthy of men,' (vide evidence of Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Fox, and others, on the trial of Arthur O'Connor, at Maidstone,) it would seem they did not hesitate at perjury to cover their designs. We cannot but consider it as somewhat singular that, under the strict discipline maintained at Maynooth, with the privilege of inspecting correspondence, and with the still greater powers possessed by the superiors, as the religious guides and sole confessors of the students, that the president, the deans, and the professors, should all be so utterly ignorant of the treasonable feelings and proceedings in the college as not even to think it advisable to take some steps for the discovery and repression of them, till compelled to it by higher authority. In later times the same ignorance, or the same negligence, has prevailed; for even in Emmett's rebellion, when it might have been imagined the proceedings of 1798 would have awakened their attention, no notice was taken of a treasonable toast given publicly in the hall; nor was it till after the insurrection had been quelled, that it was generally known that several of the students had been acquainted with the intended rising some time before it actually occurred.

We now come to the consideration of the doctrines inculcated at Maynooth; but here we shall totally omit those of a purely theological

theological nature, and confine ourselves to those relating to the conduct of Roman Catholics towards their fellow-subjects and towards the state. The most important refer, first, to the infallibility and authority of the pope, and of general councils, embracing the question of the Gallican liberties; secondly, to the canon law of Rome, and how far that is of authority in Ireland; and, thirdly, to oaths and vows-when they are binding, and when they may be dispensed with.

With regard to the Maynooth doctrines touching the powers of the pope the result seems to be that even now, if he pronounces decrees ex cathedrâ, on questions relating to doctrine or to church discipline, as matters 'credenda ac tenenda,' he claims complete infallibility and expects implicit obedience. It would appear, however, that it is not matter of faith to believe in this infallibility: and the opponents of this claim assert, that before any dictum of the pope need be submitted to, it must be communicated to the whole Catholic church; but if no objection is made to it within a reasonable time by a majority of the bishops, such dictum must be received as matter of faith. But in points not pertaining to faith or morals, it is admitted that popes may possibly err. Such seems to be the doctrine which, it is said, is taught at Maynooth. We use this indefinite language, as we are really afraid of pronouncing with too great confidence on the belief held, or the tenets inculcated, by the professors. It is said by the Rev. Dr. Anglade, Professor of Moral Theology, that it is highly probable that the pope is infallible, but equally probable that he is not so. The same Dr. Anglade considers doubts on matters of probability so improper, that he declares he never will cast his eyes on a theologian who maintains a lax doctrine on that subject. The same Dr. Anglade moreover informs the commissioners he cannot say what is generally thought at Maynooth on the matter of the pope's infallibility, nor is he sure what is his own opinion on that subject. Dr. Slevin, Professor of Canon Law, Librarian, and Prefect of the Dunboyne Class, goes still a little further; he not only tells us that the students have not made up their minds on this question, but lets out the important fact, that he believes no Catholic bishop in Ireland has formed any opinion, still less delivered one, upon it.

The opinions given on the temporal authority of the pope are not much more decisively or satisfactorily expressed; on this head many of the answers appear to be studiously evasive. It is true, the witnesses declare they do not believe the pope now possesses the power of dethroning the king of England-(could they have owned the reverse?) nor do they think the Irish Catholics would obey a bull commanding them to rise in arms against their sovereign.

sovereign. This latter answer was, however, generally coupled with an expression of the witness's opinion that such a bull is not likely to be issued. It, moreover, deserves attention, that some, and only some, Irish priests abroad, seem to have felt any reluctance in reading the lessons for the day of St. Gregory VII., in which it is recited as a merit in him that he had deposed Henry IV. of Germany, and which are to this hour used in Rome. Two things are certain, that whatever may be the opinions now entertained or professed to be entertained by the clergy of Ireland on this subject, many popes have asserted the possession of this power, and no pope has ever, in express terms, relinquished the claim. It would be wasting the time of our readers, were we here to enumerate any considerable number of the cases commonly and unanswerably cited on this head. It is sufficient to notice the celebrated bull, Unam Sanctam,' issued by Boniface VIII., in which his temporal power is asserted in the plainest language, viz., Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omnem humanam creaturam, declaramus, dicimus, definimus, et pronuntiamus de necessitate salutis.' That of Pius V. deposing Queen Elizabeth, and calling on the Irish Roman Catholics to assist the rebel O'Neil against her, is also remarkable, not only for the country for whose benefit it was destined, but for the approbatur it received. It was approved of, in the fullest manner, by the Jesuits and the doctors of Salamanca and Valladolid, than whom no abler divines could at that time be found in Europe. Even subsequent to the declaration of the Gallican clergy in 1682, many instances might be adduced. In 1741 Benedict XIV., in the bull Pastoralis Romani,' excommunicates all magistrates who interpose in any capital or criminal cases against ecclesiastical persons. In 1756 he declared, that none could resist the bull Unigenitus,' and his when the question had become entirely temporal, a struggle between Louis XV. and his parliaments. In 1768, Clement XIII., being offended with the Duke of Parma for some alleged disobedience, in spite of the humble requests of the kings of France, Spain, and Portugal, threatened to excommunicate him and his adherents, and exempted all his clergy from laic jurisdiction.

No pope has ever renounced the powers thus assumed; no council has ever declared these pretensions to be unfounded. We think we are, therefore, fairly entitled to argue that, though permitted to be dormant, these powers are not, in the regions of the Vatican, considered as dead. It was unquestionably difficult for the witnesses examined before the commissioners to prove that the power thus exercised was not temporal. They evade the difficulty by saying, that in such cases the pope does not act jure divino,' but jure humano:' that is to say, he does not depose princes because

because he has received that power from God, but because he has a temporal authority over particular states, which at some time or another have been surrendered or given to his predecessors in the holy see. This distinction is nowhere, however, made by any pope: we say, and we say it advisedly, that in no bull, deposing a prince, does the pope, who publishes it, assume that power solely on account of the supposed claim he may have on that state, as having been once in his actual or implied possession. Dr. Slevin confesses, he cannot positively affirm that the popes have not asserted the deposing power, jure divino; he adds, that many of them, though conscious themselves they did not possess it by divine authority, wished the world to believe they did. We will leave it to Dr. Slevin to settle this point with his infallible popes, who, according to his own statement, assert, ex cathedrâ, that they are endowed with powers to which, they are well aware, they can lay no just claim. We further leave it to Dr. Slevin to explain, how he conceives that, jure humano, the popes could dispose of America, and give all countries discovered, or which might afterwards be discovered, on the east of an imaginary line, drawn from pole to pole, one hundred leagues westward of the Azores, to the Portuguese, and on the other side of this line, to the Spaniards. It is hardly possible to conceive that the holy father virtually possessed countries, of the very existence of which he was ignorant. But admitting that in all these cases the popes were acting 'jure humano,' the doctrine is almost equally dangerous: for there are few European and no American states over which some pope has not nominally been master, and of which, at some time or other, he has not granted investiture. Over these, it is admitted, that, jure humano, he has had temporal power, and therefore Pius V. did not err in deposing Elizabeth, he deriving his power, in that instance, from the surrender, by John, of England and Ireland. We beg our readers to remark, that no pope has avowed his relinquishment of this power of deposing jure divino, still less that of deposing jure humano; to this hour no pope has formally abandoned his claim to England and Ireland; and therefore, Scotland is the only part of the United Kingdom over which Leo XII. might not claim temporal jurisdiction-a position which, in substance, is asserted by Bellarmine, approved of by the Italian prelates, if not by many others, and not resisted by any who sustain the ultramontane doctrines.

These doctrines are, indeed, directly opposed by what are termed the Gallican Liberties, which are contained in four propositions drawn up by the French clergy in 1682. The first very clearly denies the temporal power of the church; the second insists on the supremacy of general councils over the pope; the

third affirms, that laws and usages in the Gallican church, and also in others, should subsist without variation; and the fourth, that the judgment of the pope is not above being reformed or revised, unless it has obtained the assent of the church. To these tenets all were obliged to subscribe who took degrees at the Sorbonne, and few, if any, of the French prelates ever disputed their justice and propriety. It has so often been said, that the Irish clergy also had agreed to them, that we really supposed this to be the case; and we have consequently been surprised to find that the policy of that church has uniformly tended to support the transalpine doctrines. We do not in the least doubt that such is the case-notwithstanding the equivocating answers of Dr. Slevin, who imagines that the Roman Catholic bishops do assent to them; for, when the only bishop* who appears as a witness is examined, (Dr. M'Hale, bishop of Maronia and coadjutor bishop of Killala,) he states, distinctly, that he does not approve of those doctrines; that when he was professor of dogmatic theology at Maynooth, he never taught them; and during his whole residence there, (seven years as student and eleven as lecturer,) he never heard them inculcated.+ In this he is supported by various other witnesses, who add, that even Dr. M'Hale's predecessor, Dr. Delahogue, an emigrant Frenchman and a doctor of the Sorbonne, where he must have subscribed them, did not attempt to urge these particular tenets. Who can doubt that this person's conduct in thus surrendering his own opinions was influenced by the knowledge he possessed of the secret, if not the avowed, wishes of the trustees?-particularly when it is observed that, for six years, Dr. M'Hale acted as Dr. Delahogue's assistant. No more then, we think, need be said to prove that the Irish church does not, as a body, admit these articles, or permit them to be taught.

Although these articles are thus hostile to the supremacy of the pope, they admit that great authority pertains to general councils; and as by them many important decrees have been promul

Dr. Murray was examined, but not on theological questions.

The passage in Dr. M'Hale's evidence on this subject is too long for insertion. Our readers will find it in p. 317. Two sentences, however, we must extract :-'I wish distinctly to declare, that we did not adopt what are generally called the opinions of the Gallican church, contained in the four propositions of 1682-which, if pressed to the consequences of which they are susceptible, would appear to be subversive of the due independence of the church. 'I may further state, as a fact, that

in the full sense of the term, they never were taught in the College of Maynooth. Nay, Dr. Delahogue himself, a native of France, showed one of those minds that are superior to prejudices of country or of education; and content to follow the defined line of Catholic doctrine, he did not obtrude particular opinions on the college. I should also say, that the introduction of all the propositions of the Gallican church would seem to me to lessen the salutary influence of the Roman pontiff, which we consider necessary for the interests of religion.' Dr. M'Hale is, at all events, fair and explicit.

gated