with all its notes and comments, is read, to the effectual exclusion of all children who are of a different persuasion; for it cannot be imagined that any Protestant would send his child to a school, where he should continually hear those notes read, in which Protestants are so pointedly and repeatedly charged with corrupting the sacred text."

Mr. O'Connell's motion was lost by the carrying of an amendment, by a majority of 80 votes against 19. Mr. O'Connell then declared, that he and his friends would be no longer members of the society.

Bishop Copinger lauds and praises him, in a high degree, for his exertions in the holy cause, as the reader may see in his letter to his clergy, which I gave at the end of Chap. XCV. "To Mr. O'Connell," says he, "for his spirited exertions on this occasion, the thanks of Catholic Ireland are eminently due; and surely, if confiding apathy had hitherto benumbed any individual among us, the present electrifying fact must restore his energies, and rouse him to a due sense of his danger." The "electrifying fact" is, that the society did, by a majority of 80 against 19, reject the motion of Mr. O'Connell, which was meant to prepare the way for the expulsion of the Bible from the schools. And Bishop Copinger considers this as having "evinced, beyond the powers of tergiversation, that the professions of the society were not intended to regulate its practice; but that, under the name of education, proselytism was the determined object."

I do not profess to be acquainted with the powers of tergiversation. I am not sure if ever I wrote the word before; but no doubt the right reverend bishop comprehends it in all its extent and power. He, very probably, knows from experience, what it can do, and what it cannot do. In the present instance, it seems, it cannot exculpate the society from the accusation, that its professions were not intended to regulate its practice. That is, in plain English, tergiversation cannot save the society from the charge of duplicity; but I hope the society will never ask the aid of such an agent to save them from any thing. Let them leave tergiversation (that is, shift, subterfuge, evasion) to the Papists; and they will find no difficulty in vindicating themselves by means of plain truth and common sense.

The accusation is, that proselytism, under the name of education, is the determined object. But the bishop has not adduced, or referred, to a single instance, in which the society, or its Protestant members, directly or indirectly, attempted to make proselytes of popish children to their own faith. They do, indeed, give them the Bible. They furnish them with means of learning to read it. This is all that can justly be laid to their charge; and it is not even insinuated that they do more. If proselytes are thus made, it is not they that make them, but the Bible. If children are won to the faith by this means, it is not to their faith, but to the faith of the Bible. Protestants do indeed believe that their faith is contained in the Bible; but when they give the book itself, without a word of their own, either oral or written, they leave it to speak for itself; and they are perfectly willing that the reader should embrace that which he finds in it, though it should be different from their own opinions. This is not proselytism to the tenets of a party. It is not a society seeking to gain persons to itself, for the purpose of increasing its own strength; and, therefore, it partakes nothing of the character which Bishop Copinger ascribes to the society in Dublin. Let it be

remembered, that the Papists themselves, at first, agreed to have the Bible, without note or comment, read in the schools. Now, had they found, by experience, that Protestant children were by this means induced to embrace the faith of Rome, we should not have heard a word from them of proselytism being intended, under the mask of education. They would gladly have received all the proselytes which the schools produced; and they would have raised a hue and cry against the Protestants, if they had attempted to prevent such proselytism, or to remove the Bible, which was the cause of it. But they will not allow to others what they claim for themselves. They know and feel by woful experience that the Bible is against them; that no man, woman, or child, will ever find the faith of Rome within its pages. Nay, they know, at least the learned among them know, that the Protestant faith, or something very like it, is to be found in the Bible; and this is virtually acknowledged by Bishop Copinger, and all those of his brethren, who publicly maintain, that simply to give the word of God, without note or comment, is the same as to attempt to make proselytes to the Protestant faith.

The " 'electrifying fact," that the society intend to proceed as they began; that is, to teach poor children to read the Bible, is calculated, says the bishop, to restore the energies of such of his brethren as have been benumbed by apathy, and to rouse them to a due sense of their danger. This danger proceeds from the Bible, and from the Bible alone. Will any man, after this explicit avowal, have the effrontery to maintain that the religion of Rome is Christianity? The word of Christ cannot possibly be dangerous to the religion of Christ. But we have the declaration of a Romish bishop, that it is dangerous to the religion of Rome; from which the inference is unavoidable, that the religion of Rome is not the religion of Christ. I might very properly close my argument here. With those who respect the word of God, it is enough to know that a thing is against that word; and knowing this, they are sure that it cannot be of God. This is the state in which the church of Rome stands convicted, and virtually admitted by Bishop Copinger, and all those clergy who, at his call, have been roused to a sense of the danger that arises from the reading of the Bible. And, as it is thus proved, that the religion of Rome is not of God, there is only one other author to whom it can be ascribed, it is the working of Satan, with all deceivableness of unrighteousness.

Yet, after all, the Papists are extremely desirous of having it believed, that the Bible is on their side. They are like certain litigants, who wish to retain the most respectable counsel; not that he may advocate their cause, which they suspect no honest man will do, but merely that he may not appear against them. Thus Papists express great reverence for the Bible. They will not even allow it to be thumbed by children, lest it should be profaned by the contact of their fingers with the paper on which it is printed, or the skin that covers it; though, I suppose, it will be found that he who thumbs his Bible most, pays the greatest respect to it, and makes the best use of it. If you will believe the Romish priests, it is from great veneration of the Bible that they cannot consent that children should read it; and because they fear they would misinterpret it to their own destruction. They profess to hold the key, that is, the power of rightly interpreting

it, in their own hands. Let us see, then, how they interpret some passages. And I venture to affirm, that there is not a child in any of the schools in Ireland, who would expound it so foolishly as popes and cardinals have done.

Moses saith, "God made man in his own image;" Pope Adrian interpreteth, "therefore images must be set up in churches." St. Peter saith, "Behold, here are two swords;" Pope Boniface concludes, "therefore the pope hath power over the spiritual and the temporal." St. Matthew saith, "Give not that which is holy unto dogs;" Mr. Harding expounds it, "therefore it is not lawful for the vulgar to read the scriptures." St. John saith, "There shall be one fold, and one Shepherd;" Johannes de Parisius tells us, this place cannot be expounded of Christ, but must be taken for some minister ruling in his stead." The prophet David saith, "Thou hast put all things under his feet;" Antoninus expounds it, "thou hast made all things subject to the pope: the cattle of the field, that is to say, men living in the earth; the fishes of the sea, that is to say, the souls in purgatory; the fowls in the air, that is to say, the souls of the blessed in heaven." And whereas, our Saviour witnesseth of himself, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth" Stephen, Archbishop of Patarca, applied it to Pope Leo the Tenth, in the council of Lateran, in the audience of the pope himself, who thankfully accepted it, and suffered it to be published and printed; and, as it is rightly observed by the learned Du Moulin, Pope Innocent the Third, in his book of the Mysteries of the Mass; the book of Sacred Ceremonies; Durant's Rationales; Tolet, and Titleman, and others, do most ridiculously wrest the scriptures, altogether different from their right meaning, and the expositions of the fathers: as for instance, the scripture saith, "The rock was Christ;" therefore, they say, "the altar must be of stone." It is written, "I am the light of the world;" therefore, "tapers must be set upon the altar." It is written, Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth;" therefore, "the priest must kiss the altar." It is written, "Thou shalt see my back parts," (Exod. xxxiii. 23.); therefore, "the priest must turn his back to the people." It is written, "Wash me again," (Lava me amplius, Ps. li.); therefore, "the priest must wash his hands twice." It is written, "Put off thy shoes, for this place is holy,” (Exod. iii. 5-); therefore, "the bishop at mass changeth his hose and shoes." The pope himself, at the time of his coronation, casteth certain copper money among the people, using the words of Peter, "Silver and gold have I none, but that which I have I give thee." See page 259, of Sir Humphrey Lynde's Via Tuta et Via Devia; a work which contains a great deal of information, in a small compass. The fourth edition, revised by the author, was published in 1630. The edition before me was published last year, by order of "The Society for the distribution of Tracts in defence of the United Church of England and Ireland, as by law established."

66

I question if there be a child in any school, in the three kingdoms, who would give such foolish comments upon passages of scripture as the grave doctors of Rheims have done. Every page of their New Testament is full of downright nonsense, as any one may see who will open the book. The following is the first of their annotations; it is on the name Thamar, as it occurs in the genealogy of our Saviour,

Matt. i. 3. "Christ abhorred not to take flesh of some that were ill, as he chose Judas among the apostles. Let us not disdain to receive our spiritual birth and sustenance of such as be not always good." This is an exhortation to submit to the priests, be they ever so wicked; than which, a more pernicious and dangerous doctrine was never taught by any perverter of the word of God.

66

Mr. O'Connell goes no farther than to make tradition equal to the scriptures, as being also the word of God; but some great doctors of the church of Rome go much farther, and declare tradition to be superior to the written word. Thus, Cardinal Baronius teaches: "Tradition is the foundation of scriptures, and excels them in this, that the scriptures cannot subsist unless they be strengthened by traditions; but traditions hath strength enough without scriptures." (Baron. An. lviii. n. 2.) Traditions," says Linden, "are the most certain foundations of faith, the most sure ground of the sacred scriptures, the impenetrable buckler of Ajax, the suppressor of all heresies. On the other side, the scripture is a nose of wax, a dead and killing letter without life, a mere shell without a kernel, a leaden rule, a wood of thieves, a shop of heretics." (Linden, Panopl. l. i. c. 22, &c.) Costerus, the Jesuit, assures us, 'It never was the mind of Christ, either to commit his mysteries to parchment, or that his church should depend upon paper writings." Again, "The excellence of the unwritten word doth far surpass the scriptures, which the apostles left us in parchment; the one is written by the finger of God, the other by the pen of the apostles. The scripture is a dead letter, written in paper or parchment, which may be razed or wrested at pleasure: but tradition is written in men's hearts, which cannot be altered. The scripture is like a scabbard that will receive any sword, either leaden, or wooden, or brazen; and suffereth itself to be drawn by any interpretation. Tradition retains the true sense in the scabbard; that is, the true sense of the scripture, in the sheath of the letter." (Coster. Eucharist. cap. i. p. 44.) From Andradius we learn, that "many points of (Roman) doctrine would reel and totter if they were not supported by the help of tradition." (Andrad. de Orth. expli. lib. 2.) "Many things," says Petrus de Sutor, "being taught by the Roman church, and not contained in the scriptures, would more easily draw the people from the traditions and observances of their church." And he shows that this is one special cause why the scriptures were denied to the lay people. (Sutor. de Translat. Bibl. c. 22.) Another reason why traditions are preferred before the Bible, is given by Bishop Canus. "Because tradition is not only of greater force against heretics than the scripture, but almost all disputation with heretics is to be referred to traditions." (Canus, Loc. Theol. lib. iii. cap. 3.) See a great deal more to the same purpose, in Via Tuta et Via Devia, edit. 1819, pp. 300-309.

Thus, it is plainly admitted that the church of Rome cannot stand upon the ground of scripture. She cannot contend with heretics on any other ground than that of tradition, which is, by these authors, exalted above the Bible. It is easy to see then, what sad work Mr. O'Connell and his brethren would make in the schools, if they had the command of them. The Bible would be expelled, and they would probably substitute St. Wenefride, and the "Life of St. Ann, the Mother

of the Mother of God, and the Grandmother of God himself." See an account of this blasphemous work, in vol. I. page 298.

Bishop Copinger himself deserves to be more particularly noticed. His address to his clergy is written in a very artful style. He endeavours to prepossess the reader, in favour of what he has to say, by complimenting the Protestant society in Ireland, who have opened schools for the education of the youth of the Roman communion, as humane and respectable. But the compliment seems intended to hold up the society to the greater detestation, whose professions, the bishop says, are not intended to regulate its practice; but that, under the name of education, proselytism is the determined object. This great evil, proselytism, is that which seems to have taken possession of the mind of this bishop, and which he would deprecate as more dangerous than the typhus fever, or the plague itself. Now, the more the popish clergy cry out against this evil, the more ought Protestants to labour to promote it. I have already said that I wish not to gain proselytes to Protestantism, considered merely as a sect or party; but I wish to gain men from error to truth; from the kingdom of Satan to the kingdom of Christ. If the bishop were a subject of the latter kingdom, he would be as glad to win them to it as any Protestant can be. That the church of Rome is not this kingdom, but the enemy of it, is what I have been endeavouring to prove; and no man has yet answered so much as one of the arguments by which I have attempted to establish the fact. The church of Rome is a confused mass of superstition, will-worship, idolatry, and all sorts of wickedness. Every benevolent man ought to endeavour to undeceive the miserable dupes of this mother of abominations. Call it proselytism, or what you will, he is engaged in a good work who is labouring to detach men from the religion of the pope, and to gain them to that of Christ; and I do not think the School Society in Dublin, or the Hibernian Society, or any other, has yet done what they ought to do for the attainment of such an object. Proselytism is not the professed object of these societies; and they have never, so far as I know, made it appear to be their object, in any shape whatever, further than giving the Bible, and teaching the people to read it; and if that be the thing that makes them vile, in the esteem of Bishop Copinger, I hope he will live to see them become yet more vile.

Popery being proved, and even admitted, by great authors of the Romish faith, to be not founded in scripture, or even defensible by scripture, but only by tradition, and that tradition as vague and intangible as the winds; it must appear to every serious reflecting person that the sooner it is overset the better. It is, in fact, a system of falsehood and delusion invented by the devil, and propagated by cunning and designing priests, to enslave the understanding, pick the pockets, and ruin the souls of men. The work of proselytism has never yet been seriously taken up by Protestants; but I am not ashamed to tell Bishop Copinger, that it is the duty of every Christian to gain as many proselytes as he can to the religion of the Bible; and as I understand my work is republishing in Cork, as well as in Dublin, I hope this will soon meet the eye of his reverence; and I will be glad if he shall attempt to show cause why the Bible should not be allowed to be read in the schools.

He does not expressly tell us what his sentiments are upon this sub