marrying. Which is right, our priests and church, or St. Paul?" He concludes to read on. Coming to verse 4th, he meets with this qualification of the bishop: "One that ruleth well his own house," i. e. family. But how can he, if not permitted to have a house of his own? He proceeds: "Having his children in subjection." His children his children!!! What, a bishop having children of his own, and having them collected in a family too! And then there follows a most provoking parenthesis: "For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" His ruling his own house well is to be a criterion of his ability to take care of the church of God, and yet they say that he must not marry!

But the apostle passes on to speak of the deacons, and to say what they must be; and in verse 11th, he says what sort of wives they should have" even so must their wives be grave," &c. So far from encouraging a doubt whether they should marry or not, Paul gives them directions for choosing a wife.

Now, need any one wonder that the priests do not want to have the Bible read by the people; a Bible which contains such statements as these, and which moreover declares that marriage is honorable in all, without exception of clergy? I do not wonder at it. Who would put into the hands of his children and servants, and recommend to their perusal and belief, a book containing state

ments so much at variance with his oral communications to them?

"The

But there is a passage a little farther on, at the beginning of chapter iv., which, I suppose, constitutes with the priests a still stronger objection to the popular reading of this part of the Bible particularly. Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith forbidding to marry.” Now, they are afraid that if the people were to read this, they might say, "Why, St. Paul must mean our church; it forbids to marry." And as it might give the priests some trouble to show that He did not mean their church, the better way is not to let the people know that there is any such passage in the Bible.

A MISTAKE CORRECTED. IN an article entitled "Auricular Confession," the writer stated, that in looking into the Bible he discovered that all the penitents mentioned therein went directly to God to make their confessions of sin, and not to

the priests; and he spoke of David, Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah, as examples in point. He finds, however, that he was mistaken in saying that they all confessed to God instead of to the priests. There is one exception, and he is willing that the Catholics should have the advantage of it. It is the case of Judas Iscariot, recorded in Matthew xxvii. 3, 4. He did not go to God with his confession. He went to the chief priests, and it was to them he said, "I have sinned, in that I have betrayed the innocent blood." Here, we must confess, is an example of confession to a priest. But it is the only one, I believe, in the Bible. Judas also brought money (thirty pieces of silver) to the priests; so that the Catholics have authority (such as it is) for that part of their practice. Ì am determined I will do the Catholics justice. They shall have the advantage of every particle of Scripture which really makes in their favour. It is well known that they need it.

But, poor man! he got nothing by going to the priests. It was their cruel and contemptuous treatment of him, as much as anything else, that determined him to go and hang himself. How differently even Judas would have been treated, if he had gone with a broken heart to our great High Priest Jesus! Ah! it would have been better to go to Him whom he betrayed, than to them to whom he betrayed him. I think I shall always go to Him, notwithstanding the example of Judas.

"POPERY IN MAYNOOTH, AS SUPPORTED BY THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT." p. 2, 3.

"If our country be really a Protestant country, our constitution a Protestant constitution; if our beloved Queen is 'defender of the Faith'-and may God long preserve her as such to the British empire-if our Church is professedly a National Church

and if Christianity be part and parcel of the law of the land"-then, who can estimate the amount of cruelty and crime with which the nation is chargeable, for having for so many years, by its comparative silence, sanctioned the support of this pestilential seminary of Rome; a nation whose representatives in parliament, being Protestant, notwithstanding they have solemnly sworn they believe certain doctrines of that apostate Church, to be "superstitious and idolatrous," have (with the exception of a faithful few, and to their honour be it recorded) from the period of the establishment of May

nooth in 1798, voted between 400,0001. and 500,000l. of the public money for its maintenance; the natural, but bitter fruits, of which are exhibited in the fearful disorganisation of the benighted and deluded papal population of poor unhappy Ireland.

A Member of the Guildford

Protestant Association.

Guildford, Feb. 1845.

CABINET.

As we cannot live naturally without air, neither can we live spiritually without prayer. The latter is as necessary to the soul, as the former is to the body. A prayerless person, is a Christless person;-living without God in the world, he must die without hope.

INTELLIGENCE.

"PRAY WITHOUT CEASING."-1 Thess. v. 17.

City. The committee of this association held a crowded and respectable meeting on Monday evening, April 7th, in the Farringdon Hall, Holborn Bridge, when resolutions were passed, and petitions adopted, against the Maynooth Endowment Bill.

North Tower Hamlets.-During the past month, three crowded meetings against the proposed endowment of Popery at Maynooth, have been held in connection with this association. 1. On Friday evening, April 18, in the Eastern Literary Institution, Hackney-rd. The Rev. A. S. Thelwall was in the chair, and spoke at some length; the other speakers were, the Rev. - Carlile, T. Leonard, Esq., Mr. Theophilus A. Smith.-2. On Tuesday, April 22, in Hoxton Academy Chapel. The chair was taken by the Rev. Scott, and afterwards by E. Scobell, Esq. The speakers were the Revs. T. James, R. Jones, W. Roberts, and J. Sponge, and Messrs. Sibley and A. V. Allen.-3. On Wednesday, April 23, in the British School Room, Cowper-street, City Road, Sir Culling Eardley Smith, bart., in the chair. The speakers were, the Revs. A. S. Thelwall, H. Robbins, R. Thomas, W. M. Bunting, J. Blackburn, and W. Roberts, T. Leonard, Esq. and Mr. A. V. Allen.

Published under

THE PROTESTANT

At F. BAISLER'S

124, Oxford-street;

SIMPKIN, MARSHALL & Co.

W. DAVY & SON,]

Finsbury.-A lecture was delivered in the school-room, Northampton Tabernacle, Rosoman-street, Clerkenwell, on Thursday evening, 17th ult., to the members and friends of this association, on Maynooth College, its history, the nature of the instruction given to the students, its effects on the priesthood and people of Ireland, &c. by Mr. Theophilus A. Smith.

Lambeth.-The above lecture was delivered to the members of this association, on Monday evening, April 28, in the school room of St. Paul's Episcopal Chapel, Kennington-lane.

Southwark.-The annual festival of the

Southwark Operative Protestant Association, will be held (D. v.) on Whitmonday, May 12, in the National and Parochial Schoolroom, Borough-road. Tea on table at 5 o'clock precisely. Tickets 1s. each, to be had of Mr. J. S. Sykes, 3, Adams-place, High-street, Borough, and of Mr. Painter, at the school-house. The doors will be closed during tea, and re-opened at half-past 6 o'clock, chair taken at 7 o'clock precisely, when a lecture will be delivered by Mr. Theophilus A. Smith, on the history of the Popish College of Maynooth, the system of instruction pursued therein, &c.

NB.-The pictures presented to the association by the Rev. M. H. Seymour, M.A., will be exhibited.

Southwark.-A numerous and respect. ably attended Meeting of the Southwark Association was held in March last in the National School Room, Borough Road, for the purpose of protesting against the endowment of Maynooth College.

Prayer. The Quarterly Prayer Meeting of the Metropolitan Associations will be held (D. v.) at 11, Exeter Hall, on Friday evening, May 9, at 8 o'clock. Let our Operative friends read attentively the article "Important Heads for Prayer, suited to the Times." The present is a time for increased prayer.

The ANNUAL MEETING of the Protestant Association will be held on Wednesday, May 14th. in the large Hall, Exeter Hall. Chair to be taken at 12 o'clock.

[Gilbert-street.

time when the cry of Sodom reached the skies, and called for judgment on the devoted city. We know from the same sacred volume, that God is a righteous judge, strong and patient, and that (as we from our hearts believe now to be the case) He is provoked every day—yes, provoked every day, by the unhallowed attempt to make our country the nursing mother of the" mystical Babylon-the abomination of the earth, drunken with the blood of the saints, and the blood of the martyrs of Jesus." Let all then who are zealous for the cause of truth stand prepared for that time of trial which seems to be fast approaching-let them seek from the armoury of heaven strength for the conflict, be that conflict never so severe. The cause of Protestantism may for a time be brought low, and Popery may triumph as it has done in ages long past; but it shall not finally prevail the voice from heaven shall yet be heard, commanding the destruction of that great city, Babylon, when her sins shall have reached unto heaven; and God shall avenge the blood of the prophets and martyrs which she hath shed, thinking, in the blindness of her mind, she fulfilled the will of God.

THE REV. R. J. M'GHEE, after introductory remarks, proceeded-The prime minister proposes to endow the College of Maynooth, for the education of a certain class of men. Now it must strike every plain honest man, on the first blush of the thing, that the very first question is, What is this system of education which the prime minister proposes to endow? That is the question. Every other point is merely an accident of the question; but that is the question itself. Now what does the prime minister do? He comes down to the House of Commons, and he says “I propose to bring in a bill for the endowment of this College; but the grace of this act shall not be qualified by any inquiry into the principles of the College to be endowed!" Now we know that it is generally-universally the

case—that all institutions for public education are anxious to proclaim the system on which they instruct. Even a school-master, if he puts an advertisement in the paper, is anxious to proclaim the course of instruction he wishes to adopt in his seminary. It must be certainly, my lord, a very equivocal, or a very suspicious mode of training the mind of youth, which it is an act of grace to conceal from the public view. To whom is this act of grace? On whom is it conferred? Is it on the nation, or on the system? Perhaps upon the nation. Perhaps the minister considers that the illumination of Maynooth is too bright; that it would dazzle the empire; that,

"Its saintly visage is too bright,

To hit the sense of human sight."

Or is it an act of grace to the systemDoes the prime minister suspect-does the prime minister believe? does the prime minister know that that system will not bear the light; and therefore he will graciously conceal it from the view of the public? Does he mean to say to this great Protestant empire-" I choose to endow this College; it may sap your constitution, it may supersede your laws, it may supplant your religion, it may subvert your throne, but you shall not inquire into the nature of it?" In what school has the prime minister of England begun to learn such an un-statesmanlike, unconstitutional, unparliamentary, unEnglish, un-protestant mode of legislation? One would imagine that he had passed some part of the last recess from parliament in retreat in the College of Maynooth; that they had invested him with an honorary degree of Doctor of Canon Law; and that he had been studying Reiffenstuel or Devoti upon the subject. This doctrine of secrecy may do very well for the meridian of Italy, but, thank God, that as yet, neither in the Church, nor in the constitution, shall it find place within the atmosphere of England.

I admit, that because certain books are commanded or read in a certain college, or by a certain individual, you cannot justly, without other reasons, charge either the college or the individual who reads those books, with adopting all the principles contained in them. But if, as in this case, certain books are commanded to be read on certain specific points as contradistinguished from other authors who teach a different doctrine on these points—if a certain author is commanded to be taken as a "master and guide," on these specific points-and if the rulers of this college pledge themselves to take that author as their "master and their

guide" in these points; then I say, that common truth and common sense must both determine, that the doctrine of those authors on those points is the doctrine adopted in that college.

Now we have here, First, the command of Rome-Secondly, we have the works specified-Thirdly, we have the authors named Fourthly, we have the trustees pledged to those authors as their "guides and masters -Fifthly, we have one of the authors lauded by one of the professors in this very book; because he tells us in page 144, of that St. Thomas Aquinas, "of whose Secunda Secundæ, I have so often spoken in terms of the highest commendation, as being, in my opinion, one of the best books of ethics." We have this book lauded by the professor of ethics, as the best treatise on the subject, and returned as one of the standards of that College, the first on the list, by the professor of logic, physics, and moral philosophy. Now the only question is, what are the points so determined to be derived from these authors?

The first is, whether the Pope has, or has not, a right to interfere, directly or indirectly, with the temporal government of princes. The next is, whether the Pope is above a general council. The next is, whether the Pope is to rule the church according to the And the next is, whether the Pope is personally infallible or not. On these specific points the doctrine of Thomas Aquinas is commanded to be taught as the doctrine of Maynooth, in contradistinction to those who teach a different doctrine in the Gallican school.

canons.

Now I go directly to Thomas Aquinas. What is the doctrine taught by him on this very first point?

"We," he says, "holding the statutes of our sacred predecessors, absolve from their oath by our apostolical authority those who are bound by the sacrament of an oath or allegiance to those who are excommunicated; and we prohibit them by all means from observing fidelity to them until they make satisfaction. But apostates from the faith are also excommunicated, as also heretics, as the Decretal says, De Hæreticis, chap. Ad. Abolendam. And, therefore, we must not obey princes, who apostatize from the faith." Again; "as it does not belong to the church to punish infidelity or unbelief in those who have never received the faith, according to that word of the apostle, in 1 Cor. v. What have I to do to judge those that are without?' But it can punish by its sentence the unbelief of those who have received the faith;" ("those who have received the faith" are those that are bap

tized; all baptized persons are meant by that;)" and these are conveniently punished by this, that they cannot rule over faithful subjects. For this would tend to a great corruption of the faith, for as we said, the apostate man meditates evil in his corrupt heart, and sows strife; and therefore, as soon as any one is denounced by a sentence as excommunicated on account of his apostacy from the faith, ipso facto, his subjects are absolved from his dominion, and from the oath of allegiance by which they were bound." Now this, I say, is the doctrine of that book specified in this parliamentary document, as the author on this specific point, in which the trustees of Maynooth are pledged to train the pupils of that College.

I turn now to another part, in which this author and Augustine walk hand and hand. He says-" When the Lord therefore says, suffer that both grow together until the harvest,' (the wheat and the tares,) it is sufficiently apparent from what follows, how this is to be understood-' lest haply, collecting the tares, ye root out the wheat along with them;' where he sufficiently shows, as Augustine says against the epistle of Parmenianus," (here is Thomas quoting Augustine,) "When there is no fear, but when the crime of each is known to all, and appears execrable as it is, so that it may have no or few defenders, by which a schism may occur in the church, then let not severity of discipline sleep." "The severity of discipline!" "The mildness of evangelical charity" is not to be separated from the salutary" severity of discipline."

The subject of this chapter is" Whether unbelievers are to be compelled to receive the faith." "To the third we may say, since to vow is the part of the will, but to pay what you have vowed is of necessity; so, to receive the faith is the part of the will, but to hold to it when received is a part of necessity; and, therefore, heretics are to be compelled to hold the faith, as St. Augustine says in his letter to Boniface," quoting the passage. "Where is that," says he, "that they are accustomed to cry out, that it is free to believe or not to believe? to whom did Christ offer violence? Let them confess in the case of Paul, Christ first compelling him, and afterwards teaching him.

"To the fourth we may say, as Augustine says in the same epistle None of us wishes that a heretic should perish.'" Now I beg of you to consider in this, that the "evangelical charity and the salutary severity" are graciously blended together. "None of us wishes that a heretic should perish; but David could not otherwise have

66