bound, by a regard to truth, and therefore to the God of truth, to decline taking an oath, which an obligation previously contracted may prevent them from observing? We might go farther, and remark on the inconsistency of making a solemn contract with the most high God (for such is the nature of an oath) give way before any other obligation; and on the little reliance which can be placed on any assurances of fidelity from persons whose consciences are already engaged in the service of so imperious and despotic a master. We shall, however, better perform our duty to our readers, by laying before them the conclusion drawn in the Speech which we have been examining.

"If this, my Lords, be a correct notion that I have formed, Dr. Doyle may fairly be considered, in this instance, as virtually speaking the general sentiments both of the clergy and laity of his communion, on every point of duty relative to the State, as well as this: and the State has only to view the matter in this light, and act accordingly. But can it be doubtful, what, in prudence and due regard to the public safety, ought to be the conduct of the Legislature towards persons whose upright, honourable, and conscientious adherence to their principles (for upright, honourable, and conscientious, I most willingly presume it to be) make it impossible for them to render more than such a conditional and imperfect submission to the government under which they live?" P. 28.

Such are the fair, candid, liberal sentiments of the speaker on a side from which the opponents would fain exclude all free and generous feeling. But let it be acknowledged, and let those who stand in the old paths bear it in their mind, and act agreeably to it, that candour towards an adversary is perfectly consistent with a sincere love of truth, and a tolerant spirit with a firm maintenance of our own principles. This we may learn from the Prelate, whose pages are now before us,-who thus sets an example to the great body of the clergy, and gives a tone to their feelings and language, which we cannot sufficiently admire.

"I can honour a Papist, who is a Papist indeed; I can honour dissenters of other denominations, who are dissenters indeed. But I cannot equally honour those who affect an approximation of sentiment to ourselves in matters even of essential importance, where there can be no real agreement. The best foundation of unaffected good-will between parties thus differing in religion, is, in my opinion, an honest and ingenuous avowal of such difference, without compromising our own principles, or being intolerant to those of others." P. 30.

It is highly necessary that both clergy and laity should labour at the present moment to entertain and encourage a mild and

generous, but at the same time a firm, uncompromising spirit; for there can scarcely fail, unhappily, to arise much of warm feeling and discussion. The clergy must be for the most part prominent in controversy, if it at all border upon matters of reli, gion; and the Romish Church has taken abundant care so to mix up religion and politics, that no mortal hand can separate them. We cannot but foresee, therefore, and we look forward to it with deep anxiety-a course of controversy and debate. It is this which the Bishop of Llandaff would avert, if possible; being persuaded, as he expresses himself in the conclusion of his Speech, that from this measure, if carried, must arise "a revival of those protracted and acrimonious controversies, which from the Restoration to the Revolution, so vehemently agitated the public mind." Such indeed, we fear, would be the consequence. Dii meliora! But controversy in a less degree must be expected; and therefore we would recommend the culti vating of such principles and such temper, and the holding of such a steady course of conduct, as are exhibited and inculcated in this Speech.

How far it obtained a hearing we are not able to say. We observed that the editor of a leading opposition paper said he could not hear the Bishop of Llandaff. We have no cause to regret the circumstance, if it have procured us the satisfaction of perusing the speech in a form better calculated to give effect to the sentiments. We have quoted very copiously, not merely in order to gratify our own wishes, or save ourselves trouble, but because, in so concise and pithy a style, it is scarcely possible to give the argument in other language, certainly not in better. Any remarks of our own are needless, and we will not. intrude them upon our readers. But as the Bishop has in one place referred to the Council of Trent as a proof of the immu tability of the Roman Catholic's faith, we may be indulged with one or two observations upon this point; which will form no improper supplement to his Lordship's reasoning.

We do not know if it appeared upon the late examination in what degree, Dr. Doyle and his brethren hold the decrees of the Council of Trent. It was, we believe, recognised in all Roman Catholic countries except in France, and (as Mosheim adds) in Hungary. In Spain, indeed, care was taken that no prejudice should be done to the ancient rights of the kings of Spain. But no such caution probably prevents its being fully received in Ireland. Now, to say nothing of many objectionable parts in the decrees of this Council; objectionable, we mean, not merely on account of doctrine, but as tending to prevent even a political union of Catholics with Protestants; we beg the

attention of our readers to the following passage from Monsieur Le Courayer's preface to his translation of Paolo Sarpi's history of that Council, and to the appendix which the same able and excellent man has attached to it.

"L'abus de la puissance spirituelle est encore un autre defaut qui se remarque dans ce Concile, et qui n'a pas peu contribué à en diminuer l'autorité. Il est certaine que Jesus Christ en etablissant des ministres dans son eglise les a revêtus de tout le pouvoir qui étoit nécessaire pour la sanctification de ceux qu'il a commis à leurs soins. Mais ce pouvoir est limité aux seules choses spirituelles, et tout ce qui va au delà ne peut être regardé que comme une concession des princes, ou une usurpation sur eux. Cependant le Concile sans aucun egard a cette distinction s'est attribué un pouvoir illimité sur les choses purement temporelles, et soumis en beaucoup d'occasions l'autorité des Princes et des Magistrats a celle du Clergé dans les choses mêmes, qui de leur nature sont uniquement du resort de la puissance seculiere. De là ces plaintes et ces protestations faites dans le Concile même contre de pareilles atteintes. De là ces restrictions et ces limitations que chaque païs a été obligé demettre à la plupart de ses decrets pour empêcher le prejudice qui en pouvoit resulter, et la confusion qui en seroit infailliblement née dans l'execution. De là ces oppositions si souvent reiterées en France à la reception de ce Concile, de peur, comme le dit le celebre Etiene Pasquier dans ses Recherches, qu'en admittant tous ses Decrets au lieu de moyenner un ordre en y apportat un desordre et une monarchie non jamais vue au milieu de la nostre. C'est pourquoi, ajoute t il, sagement nous ne l'avons voulu admettre en France, encore qu'à chaque occurrence d'affaires les courtisans de la cour de Rome nous couchent toujours de la publication de ce concile, par lequel en un trait de plume le Pape acquerroit plus d'autorite qu'il n'auroit pu faire des et depuis la fondation de notre Christianisme."

M. Le Courayer is perhaps a prejudiced authority. Be it so. Then look to facts. We pass by the several remonstrances made during the sitting of the Council; one of which, from the Parliament of Paris, complained of the ecclesiastical authority having been extended beyond its just bounds to the prejudice of the temporal power; which was occasioned by the decree which prohibited duels under pain of excommunication, confiscation of goods, and the right of Christian burial. We pass by also the saving clause which secured the authority of the papal chair. But we refer those who are curtous in such matters to the his tory of the proceedings in France relative to publishing the decrees of the council. This was pressed upon the French Kings in succession, from the year 1565, but could never be obtained. It was always met by some evasive answer, or some vain delusive promise, or perhaps a polite refusal; but the true reason always was, that which the President of the Tiers Etat gave in their

name, in the reign of Louis XIII." Que la compagnie ne pouvoit quant à present recevoir le dit concile: que neanmoins elle embrassoit la foy y contenuè; mais que pour la police on n'y pouvoit entendre, puis qu'elle etoit prejudiciable aux droits de l'Etat." The zeal of Charles IX., who ordered the massacre of St. Bartholomew, and received the congratulations of the Pope upon it, and the power of the house of Guise, could not extend to that which was declared to be prejudicial to the rights of the crown; and though, when Henry IV. was reconciled to the Church, this was one of the conditions prescribed, the two Cardinals who promised it, screened themselves under the restriction "nisi in iis quæ citra tranquillitatis publica perturbationem executioni demandari non potuerunt, et si quæ alia hujusmodi reperientur." The articles of this description are reckoned up in no less a number than twenty-three different heads, many of them referring not to one decree only, but to several decrees of the Council. And it is observed that there are many others which are contrary to the usages and liberties of the French Church. But, as Courayer justly remarks, what is of still greater importance, is, that the foundation of these liberties is entirely destroyed by the opinion so often insinuated of the superiority of the Pope over the Council; by the annihilation of the authority of the Bishops, who are reduced to the state of so many vicars of a Pope, having power to judge and depose them; and by a manifest usurpation of authority over Princes, which interferes with their temporal authority.

We offer these matters to our readers, requesting them to consider whether it be safe, prudent, consistent with the wisdom of statesmen, who must be expected to look beyond the merits of two or three individuals, and the events of as many years, to admit to places of influence and trust, under the most slender restrictions, such indeed as hardly deserve the name, those persons who are in subjection to a foreign power? If this Council never could gain admission into France, is it wise to receive those who acknowledge its authority, in this protestant country? One of the articles of our Church declares that "the Pope has no jurisdiction in this realm of England." The time may come when it may be deemed necessary to take a lesson from the Romish Church, and put some constructive interpretation upon this article as well as upon the oath required of Protestants, because the Pope may have an authority known and recognized by the law. We have already expressed our opinion of such a mode of interpretation, and for ourselves we must say again, Dii meliora!

'

Observations on the Doctrines of Christianity, in reference to Arianism, illustrating the moderation of the Established Church; and on the Athanasian Creed, purporting to prove that it is not damnatory, nor metaphysical, nor contradictory; with an Appendix, concerning the state of the Presbyterian Church of Ireland; occasioned by the Sermons of WILLIAM BRUCE, D. D. Senior Minister of the First Presbyterian congregation of Belfast. By GEORGE MILLER, D.D. M. R. I. A. and Hon. Assoc. of the Royal Society of Literature. 8vo. pp. 234. 7s. Rivingtons. 1825.

WITH the divisions in the Irish Presbyterian church, we have nothing to do further than to lament, that the controversies between Protestants should continue to furnish, to the advocates of the church of Rome, a plausible argument against the protestant religion. Suffice it to say, a volume of Sermons having been published by Dr. Bruce, censuring by implication some of the fundamental tenets of the Established Church, Dr. Miller has deemed it expedient to put out these "observations" on the doctrines denominated Arian, showing them to be unsound and unscriptural; lest any persons ignorant of the fact, that the arguments in favour of Arianism have already been repeatedly discussed, and as repeatedly refuted, should be led on the present occasion to suppose them unanswerable.

The idea of Christianity presented by Dr. Bruce, is very dissimilar from that adopted by the great majority of Presbyterians, and is thus stated towards the conclusion of the volume before us- we quote it in this place, that the errors well confuted by Dr. Miller may be brought under one view :

"We find in Heaven two created beings, as the agents of our redemption, one of them, the Holy Spirit, inferior to the other, and employed but for a temporary occasion, which is now long past: on the earth we are taught, contrary to all experience, and indeed to the acknowledgment of Dr. Bruce himself, to regard man as naturally adequate to the discharge of his duties; we are not encouraged to believe that any spiritual assistance shall be vouchsafed to him, as indeed it cannot be necessary if his moral strength be unimpaired, and sufficient for his support; and we are directed to regard the death of Jesus Christ as an event but indirectly and contingently connected with our salvation, being instrumental to it only as a part of the obedience of Christ, and not at all essential to the general plan of our redemption. With the existence and functions of the Holy Spirit, we have now, according to this doctrine, no concern; and being sufficient of ourselves for our moral direction, we should look to Jesus Christ only for his intercession on account of those offences which it is acknowledged that all, not