them?" Why did you not come? Why did you not send? detection here, Sir.

Who fled from

"Did I not address a letter to you, dated June 29th, before our second meeting of July 11th, apprising you of the intended meeting, referring you to the documents and proofs produced at the former meeting, and inviting you to send any of your clergy, or to commission Mr. O'Connell, or Mr. Sheil, to come forward and meet those statements, which should be repeated at Exeterhall on the 11th of July? Did I not send this letter to your own house? Was it not delivered to you by your own servant? And did not your servant inform my friend who took the letter, and called again, that there was no answer?

"Did I not publish a letter in the Times, dated July 17th, after our second meeting, challenging Mr. O'Connell to debate, if he could, the evidence of the case before a select number of the House of Lords and Commons, equally chosen by lawyers appointed by him and by us?

"Was this going to a distance, Sir? Was Mr. O'Connell at a distance from Exeter-hall? Who were the men that trembled at detection here?

46

Again, Sir, when Mr. Woods, in that valuable letter to the editor of the Evening Post, in which he so fully corroborated all the statements as to the facts against you, complained that we had gone to a distance that we did not choose the Rotundo instead of Exeter-hall-did I not write a letter to the editor of the Evening Mail, offering to meet Mr. Woods or any priests whom you choose to authorize, in the Rotundo, and to divide the tickets of admission with you for the benefit of my Roman Catholic friends and countrymen, who I trust will see, through this very means, the awful falsehood of that superstition which your church imposes on them for the Christian religion? Was this going to a distance, Sir? Who fled from detection here? If detection of our impostures was so easy at home, why did you not avail yourself

of this offer?

"Did I not in the same letter offer to give one hundred and fifty guineas to any three priests you chose to authorize, to come over to Exeter-hall, if you wished to counteract on the spot the statements made in London?

Finally Did I not offer Mr. Woods fifty guineas to bear his expenses, if he chose to come with any friend to attend the Hereford meeting?

Now, you did not dare to notice one of these offers, and yet you sit down and write to a gentleman at Worcester that your calumniators go to a distance, when we know in your own conscience that neither at a distance nor at home could you refute one of those facts which you call calumnies.

name.

"Now, Sir, as to being a calumniator; I trust I do not desire to merit the I have often written on the errors of the Church of Rome, and sometimes on the guilty exhibition of those errors in some of her members; but I never wrote a line in which I did not give a full and ample opportunity to meet the charge, had it been possible to do so. Now, Sir, I answer your

charge of calumny thus:

"I assert these following propositions:

:

"Ist-Not that you approved of the publication of Dens's Theology in 1808, with the bishops of the Church of Rome, as you were not then a bishop, but that while in your answers before the parliamentary committee, in 1825, you

gave Holden's Analysis and Verron's Rule of Faith as the standards of your doctrine; you, in that very year, and in the years 1826 and 1828, signed with your own name, and prescribed for your own diocese, the diocesan questions of conference for your clergy, taken from Dens's Theology. This I prove from the comparison of the conference questions with Dens, and you can refute it by producing any other author from whom you will say and prove you took the questions.

66

‘2nd.—That, in the year 1831, you, in conjunction with your three provin cial bishops, adopted Dens's as the conference book for your province, though you say in your letter to Lord Melbourne you "did not make it a conference book." This I state on the evidence of Coyne, the evidence of Mr. Woods, and the fact of the questions for your provincial conferences corresponding with Dens as published in your own Directory.

"3rd-I assert that you not only made it the conference book, but that you prescribed the very treatise and page where the questions were to be commenced, beginning in the middle of the first volume; thereby by your own direction omitting the doctrines contained in the first half of that volume, which are on the fundamental principles of Christianity. This I state on the evidence of Mr. Woods, who declares that you yourself announced to him the very treatises which you were to discuss from Dens.

"4th. I assert that, in consequence of you making it a conference book for your province in 1831, and the difficulty of procuring it, though three thousand copies had been printed in 1808, Coyne undertook, in 1832, a new edition with your express sanction and approbation, as is proved by the words of the dedication, which you confess is conspicuous in your own copy, and which, therefore, most conclusively proves the fact that you admitted and adopted it.

"5th. I assert that you sanctioned and approved an eighth volume to that edition, of which eighth volume you knew the contents, and approved of them, which are the selections from canons and constitutions of your popes, as well as bulls, and which are selected, as their own express references to the other seven volumes prove, to corroborate the principles of your church as laid down by Dens. This I state on the evidence both of Mr. Coyne and Mr. Woods, and the internal evidence of the eighth volume.

"6th-I assert, that while, as stated in No. 3, you expressly omitted in 1831 the fundamental principles of the Christian faith from your questions of conference, as contained in the first volume of Dens, you as expressly retained the whole code of persecuting doctrines in your conferences for 1832, as contained in the beginning of the second volume of Dens, which you pretend, in your letter to Lord Melbourne, are obsolete.

"7th. I assert, that in the eighth volume you have approved as selections from the infallible authorities of your popes, bulls and decrees of intolerance, persecution, and murder; that in the bull Unigenitus, which you proved yourself was in force in Ireland, you anathematise the very fundamental principles of our religion, and hold out not only the condemnation of our principles, but the coercion, compulsion, and persecution of our persons; you also lay it down as the duty of bishops to exterminate us from your diocese. This I prove by the words of the eighth volume.

"Lastly. I say the persecuting doctrines of your church, which you

and

pretend to abjure, so far from being obsolete, are embodied in canons, decrees, and bulls, which you call infallible, which you boast can never be changed, and which you have sworn on your oath as a bishop, and are pledged in Pope Pius's creed, to maintain to the latest hour of your existence. If your oath of abjuration to Lord Melbourne is true, you are guilty of an act of perjury to your church, and if you do not violate your oath as a bishop to your church, there is not a shadow of truth in your abjuration of these doctrines to Lord Melbourne.

"Now, Sir, these are eight plain, honest, intelligible propositions; you may call them calumnies—I assert they are truths—and now I challenge you before the whole nation to appoint one, two, three, four, or five priests, to meet one, two, three, four, or five of us who have spoken on this subject. We will meet you in Ireland or England-the Rotundo or Exeter-hall, and go seriatim through these propositions, and disprove one or all if you can. If you choose to try, the press will convey the result to the nation. If you do not choose to do so, I will take your letter addressed to the gentleman at Worcester, and take this letter if I am ever spared to go to another public meeting, and I will read them aloud, and show that what you complain of as calumnies you are forced by your silence to acknowledge as truths, and that the charges which you profess to cry out against as being carried to a distance, you dare not venture, when called upon, to meet in the midst of your own priests and people.

"And now, Sir, before I conclude I call on you, and charge you before that God, who shall judge the quick and the dead-before whom you and I are both so soon to stand in judgment-I charge you while He spares you, and while it is called to-day, to awaken to the study of His eternal word, and to come out from that anti-christian apostasy, which stands marked in that word for judgment and condemnation. How can you reconcile it to the belief of even a future state of retribution, to be secretly inculcating on others, and cherishing in your own heart, those vile principles which you are unable to defend or even to acknowledge? O! Sir, repent and turn from those vanities and refuges of lies, to serve the living God. I wish to conclude in saying to you, and to all my Roman Catholic friends, my heart's desire and prayer to God for you all is, that you may be saved; and I testify against your guilt and your superstitions, with the earnest hope and prayer that God will ultimately bless the testimony, however weak in itself, to be an instrument 'to open your eyes, to turn you from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that you may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them that are sanctified, through faith which is in Christ Jesus.'

"I am, Sir, an enemy to perjury and persecution, and a faithful friend to the best interests of my dear Roman Catholic countrymen.

"R. J. M'GHEE."

"Sept. 24, 1835." Mr. M'NEILE having concluded the letter, proceeded to say-Sir, we owe our reverend brother (Mr. M'Ghee) a debt of sincere gratitude for making these exposures, because the present policy of the Roman catholic hierarchy is denial in England of what they are at the same

time inculcating in Ireland. From the light of the Protestant community in Great Britain they would fain hide the hideous monsters which they exhibit in gigantic dimensions before the terrified and enslaved superstition of their deluded followers in Ireland. But it will not do. It lives in your recollection, that when Bishops Latimer and Ridley were led out to the stake at Oxford,-when the iron chains were girded about their middles, and fastened in the ground by a staple, when the kindled faggot was brought and laid down at Dr. Ridley's feet,-Latimer addressed his brother martyr in these words "Be of good comfort, Master Ridley, and play the man; we shall light such a candle by God's grace this day in England, as, I trust, shall never be put out." (Loud Cheers.) The confidence of this suffering servant of God was prophetic-there was, indeed, a period when appearances were against it. It seemed as if supposed security and consequent supineness on one hand, and artful and anti-christian liberalism on the other, had conspired to put an extinguisher upon the candle of scriptural protestantism. But that period has passed away; the generosity of a nation which knew the blessings of civil liberty, and knew not the evil genius of popery, conferred upon the Roman catholics such privileges as have led to aggression, provoking such a recoil as bids fair to rouse England from her lethargy, to snuff our candle, and while some persons were boasting that the no popery cry is dying away, ill-dissembling their fears that it may again come to life; behold, it is alive and shines, and brightens, and will go forth on the increased intelligence and education of a great protestant people, no longer as a candle, but as that brilliant gaslight in this amphitheatre, beaming across the length and breadth of our land; and the voice which goes forth from the prodigious assembly of this day, saying, "no popery," shall be responded to from city after city, and town after town, each and all answering, "no popery." The rev. gentleman concluded amid loud cheers.

MR. M'GHEE then resumed, and was received with continued cheering.-1 trust it does appear from the letter which my reverend brother has read, that it has been my desire to act honestly by Dr. Murray, and not to send forth any calumnies against him which I was not, to the best of my judgment, ready to establish in his presence. I can truly and conscientiously say that I have not, in any statement I have made, ever perverted or exaggerated one single fact that has

come to my knowledge; but I have endeavoured, in the plainest simplicity of truth, to state to others what plainly struck my own mind; and when we speak of the cry of "no popery," I can truly say—what I would say to the whole nation—what I would say to any individual Roman catholic-: My friend, I say, "no popery," not to injure, but to serve you-I would say no popery to your conscienceI would say no popery to you, as I would say no trial, no pain, no sorrow, no death to you-from which the hand of a friend and brother could rescue you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. That is the only no popery cry that I desire to raise to my Roman catholic friends -a cry of fidelity and a cry of christian love. For there is no ground on which men can stand before God in exposing the errors of any religion but the ground on which the apostles stood—that is, fidelity to their God and love to their fellow-men. And if we are called protestants, the only legitimate reason for the name is, that we protest against the errors, but that we love the men.

Now, to this letter Dr. Murray has made a reply in a letter which I suppose, you have all read, for it has been universally published in every paper on every side. That letter is addressed to the Protestants of Great Britain, and it becomes my duty to offer a few remarks on some of its passages which bear on the subject.

It commences

"Beloved fellow christians-my humble name has been traduced before you; and, what I feel more acutely, the divine religion which I profess has been held up to your view in colours so truly odious, that if they were a faithful representation of it, the disgusting picture would justly merit your execration. You are lovers of justice, you are slow to decide upon partial statements; I rely, therefore, with confidence, upon your patient attention, while I dissipate the illusion which has been practised upon you."

This is a most important admission from Dr. Murray. He states that if the representation made to you of his religion were true, the disgusting picture would justly merit your execration. Now, let me ask, whence have the colours been derived in which this picture has been drawn? What is the attitude in which it has been placed so as to merit the execrations of the public? The colours have been derived from that source which all the Irish bishops have declared to be the best for their priests to take their instructions from, and from which Dr. Murray and his provincial bishops have drawn the conferences for their respective dioceses. Let it be remembered, that the