from their efforts to undermine, or from abusive language, with a curious inconsistency, to resent and denounce the slightest hint of discourteous import from those they seek to victimize. Our statesmen, who, with a degree of ignorance of human nature not easily conceived, have adopted the untrue and nugatory principle of conciliation,* were also not pleased with language which was carefully seized upon as combustible matter, and made the most of for the purpose of agitation. But the archbishop was regardless, and followed the course which the time called for, and his duty enjoined. We may mention here, to avoid reverting to the subject, that a few years after, when a very great impression had been made by the perseverance of the clergy in the laudable work of propagating the truth, and many converts were gained; the archbishop came forward openly to countenance and sanction this result by a sermon in Christ-church Cathedral, on the occasion of a clergyman of the Papal church with several others appearing to renounce their errors. The cathedral was on this occasion crowded to excess, by members of both churches, and the discourse was in the 1 Cor. iii. 11., “Other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” In discussing the subject thus taken, he showed a discriminating and charitable sense of the mixed character of his congregation by the line he adopted; strongly vindicating the scriptures, and putting forward those views of doctrine and discipline in which the plainest points of transition might be found from the Romish errors to sound scriptural doctrine. He told his audience that day, that “the scripture alone is to constitute that rule whereby we are to walk-the scripture rightly, and soundly interpreted. This is to form the rule worthy of a rational being, subject to a providential government, inasmuch as it secures to us, at the same time, the guidance of those two great lights which our Heavenly Father has graciously placed in the moral firmament for our direction, the lights of revelation and of reason, of which neither was designed to supersede the other; much less was it ever intended by him who is the Father of these lights, that we should abdicate the benefits of both. We are neither with the Socinian to enslave Revelation to reason; nor yet with the enthusiast to reject reason in judging of Revelation; and least of all, are we with the followers of the Church of Rome, to close our eyes against the light, both of one and the other.

We beg to be fairly interpreted. We do not mean to object to the use of conciliation so far as it is possible and just; we simply mean to object to the ignorant effort to use it when it is not possible. We can easily admit that if all imaginable causes of discontent were removed, discontent might reasonably be expected to cease-not because of conciliation, but for want of matter. We need not discuss the causes of popular discontent, which, if just, ought to be removed: as the mistake we would point out is the absurd confusion of multitudes in their aggregate capacity, with individuals. A person may, in his individual character, be affected by numerous acts and feelings, which, as a member of society, or of a section of it, he does not feel. The sentiments of corporations, parties, or sects, though susceptible (we admit) of violent excitements, are wholly distinct, and act by a distinct law. Acts of beneficence have a permanent effect, when they are directed to individuals, and become by accumulation the real feeling of the aggregate; but concessions to crowds have not this effect; the effect is momentary, it evaporates in the cheer, it dissolves in their separation, and does not awaken real gratitude in a single breast. It will mostly be received as matter of right, or the result of fear.

But we are by the sober use of a cautious and well-informed reason, to authenticate and interpret the word of Revelation. We are, in truth, to govern ourselves by the principle on which our Reformed faith has been erected; we are to build on that foundation, which we are told is the only true foundation which can be laid the foundation of Jesus Christ." He then proceeded, in a clear and effective argument, to prove that this foundation is only to be found in the teaching of the scriptures. In the course of this argument, he strongly exposed the absurdities and inconsistencies of the doctrine of oral tradition; and of the fallacies by which it has been maintained. The main position he took, was the proposition, that the two only purposes for which the Church of Rome allowed authority to scripture, were points it does not contain, but actually excludes; and followed this argument by a searching exposure of the doctrine of Infallibility. We cannot devote space to a more full statement of his line of reasoning; we feel it to be a duty, however, to add a few observations on the aspect of importance which the discussion of the same points has recently attained. If we are not much mistaken, the improved information of our brethren of the Roman Church, has, since that time, very much modified their views of Christian doctrine and church authority; they have nearly abandoned their rejection of scripture. And with scripture in their hands, it is our trust that their primæval superstitions must pass away as night-fogs before the dawn. We are inclined to regard them as coming over to the protestant, a tendency which would quickly be apparent, but for the animosities kept up by political agitation. But we would here observe the importance, in this respect, of the argument as affecting the strange and melancholy retrogradation of human reason, which has been manifested in the Tractarian heresy; -a departure from the clearest truths, and simplest evidence of reason, which would at this time of social progress be unaccountable, did we not regard it as ordered for some wise end, to elicit perhaps from human error a broader manifestation of divine light, and to make the victory of truth more final and decisive in its results. Humanly speaking, it requires a stretch of conception, to see men like the Tractarian divinesmen of deep erudition and much logical expertness-falling into contradictions and inconsequences unworthy of junior Freshmen, and groping in the daylight like blind men. Having investigated their opinions with scrupulous care, we are forced to confess the perplexity we have experienced to find such men, so inconclusively raising points for which they can find no proof sufficient for a moment to impose upon a sound common judgment: and for which, if even in theory they could find proofs, it is quite plain, from the authorities to which they would refer (the only authorities), that they cannot substantiate a single application. They fail to prove the authority of tradition in the required sense, and if it were to be admitted in that sense, they can find no unquestionable instance of its application. the difficulty is somewhat diminished by the consideration, how much acquired knowledge-how much flow of language-cunning use of the forms of argument, can coexist with a low degree of judgment, a narrow conception, and limited scope of reason; and how liable the intellect is, when its range is confined and its vivacity great,

But

to be coloured, as it were, by strong habitual influences the tastes acquired in antiquated halls and in the atmosphere of old booksamong which the twilight of the thirteenth century appears to sit, and the shades of ancient schoolmen to flit through the gloom. But we trust that these worthy, and we believe estimable men, will awake from the strange nightmare in which they are bound; and that their errors will be only productive of a wider extension to the dominion of God's truth as revealed in his holy word. The world is deeply their debtor for some able and most conclusive writings on the subject in which they have been led into error; but the misfortune, and it is a great misfortune, that while the Tractarian writers have conveyed their pernicious sophisms and misstatements in the most popular and cheapest forms, their far abler opponents have chosen to publish in the most expensive volumes. We would here refer to the two volumes of Mr. Goode, which leave nothing to be wanted on the subject, and no dark recess of error and sophistry unexplored.*

We cannot enter upon many of the discussions and controversies concerning which the archbishop became much occupied: partly, because their interest having in a great measure passed away, we should be compelled to discuss them at a disproportionate length, to avoid leading to very considerable misapprehension. We should have to question the conduct and opinions of estimable individuals somewhat needlessly, and to assert opinions which the scope of this memoir does not permit us to maintain. As some persons may think that we have frequently transgressed in this respect, we must take leave to say that we do not admit such a transgression; we have selected such topics as we have seen reason for putting forward, in their bearing on the present state of opinion, on the character of the person commemorated, or for their permanent importance to mankind.

Among the incidents which occurred to give the archbishop much trouble in the early part of his administration, there was one, apparently trivial in its origin, which led to much calumnious animadversion; and which may be selected as very well illustrating the unfair spirit in which he was then assailed. A Mr. Taylor, one of the assistants in Mr. Jones's academy, being in holy orders, was engaged by the incumbent of Rathfarnham to officiate for him during his absence. It quickly became apparent to the congregation that Mr. Taylor's discourses were substantially inconsistent with a belief in revealed religion. Representations had been made in consequence to Dr. Magee, while yet bishop of Raphoe, to seek his interposition, by persons (we possess their names), not likely to be mistaken in such a matter. As the cause of complaint was renewed, at the period of his accession to the see, he immediately took steps to ascertain the fact, and was satisfied of the truth of the complaint. Mr. Taylor was instantly superseded and summoned before the archbishop. He attended; and a conversation ensued, which is strangely misrepresented by Mr. Taylor in his pamphlet,

"The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice," &c., by W. Goode, Rector of St. Antholins, London. Hatchard. Piccadilly. 1842. The Bishop of Ossory has produced in his primary charge some effective and valuable observations; and we perceive by an advertisement that Dr. O'Sullivan has turned his effectual hand to the subject.

published immediately after. Professing to give an accurate report of a dialogue, which, according to his statement, could not occupy thirty seconds, he afterwards states that it took up ten minutes. A statement, not only inconsistent with the tone of violent interruption ascribed to the archbishop, but with the actual matter of Taylor's circumstantial relation of minute particulars. That the archbishop appeared summary and authoritative on the occasion is very likely, he probably wished to avoid charging Taylor with Deism, and Taylor misconceived his motive; but this eccentric and wrongheaded young man also, perhaps unconsciously, used disrepectful language, and we know not why such conduct should be complacently taken by one who was in the actual exercise of a judicial function. And we must add, that the language ascribed by Mr. Taylor to the archbishop is wholly inconsistent with his mind and character, while, as quickly became apparent, misrepresentation was an essential of Mr. Taylor's. What we mean is, that it very remarkably appears from the substance of the same pamphlet, in which he professes to give a precise account of the entire transaction. Taking up the ground of a Christian minister, wrongfully interrupted in the lawful exercise of his calling, he concludes his statement of the circumstances, by a statement, in the broadest and most unequivocal language, of opinions which amounted to the plainest assertion of those tenets known under the name of Deism,―involving a denial of Christianity in any sense not wholly nugatory; thus fully vindicating in every respect the conduct against which his book was professedly published. This did not save the archbishop from the vituperation of the hostile portion of the press. His bigotry and persecuting temper were assailed, for excluding a professed infidel from the pulpit, of which it was his grace's most especial duty and essential obligation to guard the purity. Another point of Mr. Taylor's grievance, for a while fiercely clamoured about, was his exclusion from Nutgrove, in consequence of the previous proceeding.— On this point we have to mention, that the archbishop remonstrated with Mr. Jones, and in a letter expressed his opinion that Mr. T. ought not to be dismissed from the school simply because he thought fit to exclude him from the pulpit on grounds of diocesan regulation. The very humanity of the archbishop's line of conduct was seized on as a topic of abuse: unwilling to brand the unfortunate young man with the infamy of his real offence, he took the more questionable ground of jurisdiction. Had the matter gone no further, it would have left the question in an unfortunate position. Mr. Taylor's pamphlet, which contained the most plain self-exposure, did not circulate to the extent of the misrepresentations, which were put forward with industry. Besides a considerable section of the press, there was a noisy and querulous party then up in arms against the constraints and rebukes of authority. The archbishop was proclaimed as an austere disciplinarian, and this incident was trumpeted as a high act of arbitrary power. Mr. Taylor himself did not leave the matter long to the babble of paragraphs and tea-tables. Confident in the presumption and fallacy of his own self-confident temper and heated intellect, he resolved on a decided course; partly with a view to the assertion of his tenets, and more with a vindictive feeling, he engaged the theatre in Fish

amble street, and gave lectures to a motley concourse, attracted by curiosity, and perhaps in some degree by a love of fair play. In the disquisitions which he delivered, he took the ordinary wellknown ground of those Deists who endeavour to reduce Christianity into a system of moral philosophy, and denied the fact and necessity of Revelation. In the course of his lecture, he proceeded so far in the assertion of the pernicious and absurd dogmas of the several deistical schools, with so little regard to consequences, inconsistencies, and contradictions, that the surprise and indignation of his motley audience was excited, and the tumult grew until the proprietor of the theatre saw the necessity of interfering for the safety of his property. It is to be added, that this scandalous scene occurred upon a Sunday, and the interruption he met is the more indicative of the extreme character of his dogmas-the most exemplary Christians are not likely to have been there. During the whole of his outrageous proceedings, which continued for many months, Mr. Taylor continued writing letters and memorials to the archbishop; among these there is one in which he entirely retracts the statement of facts contained in his pamphlet, which he admits to be rash and unwarrantable, with a curious disregard to the utter want of truth he thus laid bare.-Meanwhile he continued with a perseverance that looks like insanity, to press his admission to the duties of his sacred profession; and what is equally strange, he composed a petition to the House of Commons, in which he at the same time insisted at some length on his infidel tenets, and complained of the grievous injury of being excluded from the functions of a Christian teacher. These facts might well be dismissed as the eccentricities of a madman, were it not that even this mingled tissue of blasphemy and folly did not fail to find its appropriate organs in parliament. An honourable member got up to read and back the prayer of a petition which denounced the Christian religion, spoke of its founder as an impostor, and abused its prelates under the appellation of muftis. The seasonable opportunity was thus afforded to stigmatize the cruelty and bigotry of a prelate who had dared to set up the narrow rules of his profession against those larger laws of universal toleration, which distinguish our illustrious legislature, and that justice to which even the Adversary of God would not have applied in vain.-In the meantime, Mr. Taylor, honourably desirous to justify his parliamentary advocates, and relying on the philosophic temper of London literature, began a course of lectures, in which he delivered large commentaries on the text of Toland and Chubb, and Tom Paine, &c., &c., divesting them of the thin disguises with which these more artful infidels had endeavoured to win souls from God. On three successive Sundays he was listened to by assemblies which were not unfriendly to his design, but were disgusted by the inadvertencies which disgraced the cause of deism, and the indecencies which outraged the conventions of decorum. He was found too indiscreet and daring even for the unchartered libertinism of the mighty Babel, and there was no one to stand up in his behalf when he was suppressed by the civil authorities. We trust this lengthened narration of an incident which may seem trifling, may be excused. It is here so far important as it fairly exemplifies the factious temper of which the archbishop was then the object.