do now? Could he have preached the lecture if he had anticipated such a result? What revealed truth ought he not to have suppressed, what lie ought he not to have clung to and vouched for, rather than give such a triumph to the enemy? When will he take a proper view of expediency? Suppose he thought it true, does he not see that it is unseasonable; and that even if the pope should be a Christian bishop, yet it is most desirable that he should be considered and treated as Antichrist? There is in this something so characteristic that it deserves most serious notice of all persons, Paleyites and others.

Secondly, the preacher is menaced with something "more weighty and powerful" than a newspaper article, "even in this world." This, coming from a party who have no belief in purgatory, seems as if it could mean nothing less than perdition; and it is most sad to see a newspaper theologian (for one is hardly able to believe the party who are supposed to support the "Record" can be so ignorant or shameless) setting forth the belief that the pope is Antichrist as a doctrine necessary to salvation. But what is the matter "more weighty and powerful" than a newspaper paragraph, which the preacher has, "even in this world," to fear? Why, that the students whom it is his business to lecture may pronounce an opinion on his divinity. What will he do then? One would hope, for their own sakes, that the “Dublin Record" is among the childish things which these young men have learned to put away; for surely a more childish threat was never uttered by impotent wrath. But suppose this or any other agitator should, either by newspaper paragraphs, or something either more or less "weighty and powerful," persuade some young men to expose themselves; what then?

Thirdly, supposing the students, who should of course be looked to in the first instance, do not take it up, surely the university will? If the university does not see fit to stigmatize the sermon preached in its own chapel, "PUBLIC OPINION" is to "FORCE" an inquiry. This is coming to the point; but the writer of these lines acknowledges that it carries the matter rather beyond his sphere of comprehension. When a corporation like Trinity College, Dublin, is to be "forced" into such measures with regard to one of its own fellows by "public opinion," whatever may be the plain English of such plain Irish, one gets fairly into politics; and the writer confesses that he has never so far understood Irish politics as to be able to decide whether certain emanations of opinion should be ascribed to Toryism, Conservatism, Whiggism, or Radicalism, so singularly do they seem to him to be mixed and coloured by Orangeism. But as to this threat of the " Dublin Record," it may perhaps mean that the same course, as far as practicable,

In order that the matter may be at all intelligible, the reader must consider (at least so the writer believes, but, being an Englishman, and, he confesses, very imperfectly understanding this point, he may be mistaken) that in Ireland "popery" and "radicalism" are pretty much convertible terms. Hence arises a most curious cross and puzzle in the newspaper view of the matter. The "Puseyites" are "papists," therefore they are "Radicals.' Mr. Todd denies that the pope is Antichrist, therefore he is a 66 papist," that is, a "Puseyite," that is, a "Radical." Dr. Sadleir says that Mr. Todd is right about the pope, and therefore he is shewn up as the "Puseyite Provost."

"

should be pursued as to the heads of the university as with regard to its member. In the very same column it says, with reference to Mr. Shaw :

"If we wish to have our business properly done, we must look after it ourselves. We must get up the steam out of doors. We must agitate for staunch-genuine Protestant measures-and insist upon them. Let our wishes on the subject of our grievances or our fears be made known, and particularly with regard to a base surrender, or transfer of the Corporations; and then, if Mr. SHAW and others will venture any longer to pursue their compromising, and conciliatory, and ratting system -we shall know how to deal with them. But a locus penitentia they are entitled to, and should certainly have at our hands."

To what species of politics does this belong?-but to keep more closely to what may perhaps by courtesy be called the religious treatment of the subject, it may be worth while to look at the letter of the minister of the Free Church in Swift's-alley, in whose hands the editor so contentedly leaves the university preacher. After some apologetic remarks, some reference to poor Mr. McGhee's blunder about the pope's letter, and the triumph which the papists had over him, Mr. Gregg comes to his subject, and quite coinciding, it would seem, with the editor, he places the sad inexpediency of the thing in the front of the battle. "I believe," he says, for Mr. Gregg is too modest a man to be positive, "that the Christian public thinks, and justly too, that in Mr. Todd's peculiar situation as lecturer to a set of young men," [the sermon was preached in the chapel before the provost and fellows,] "nothing could be more ill-judged than the adoption of the course indicated by the notice of his lecture." After pursuing this idea, and asking, "Was this the moment for Mr. Todd to speak as he has done with respect to popery?" Mr. Gregg proceeds in his next argument to take quite a different course; and, to borrow a familiar Irish phrase, fairly takes a rise" out of the Donellan lecturer. Indeed, if one had the wit, and could think it right to indulge in the laxity of expression which characterize the "Limerick Chronicle," one might say that in reading a good part of the paragraph one thought it had been written br Dr. Hooke, or at least (to borrow a phrase which the "Dublin Christian Record" culls from that "efficient contemporary") by one or other of the "cloistered knaves" at Oxford.* He says

66

"2dly. Mr. Todd's proceeding is at variance with his principles as a Churchman. "I would ask, is not the peculiar feature of the United Church of England and Ireland, considered as a Protestant Church-its distinctive feature in the Protestant world is it not a respect for authority? Mind I do not say a slavish submission to authority, but a reasonable and Christian respect for the voice of the church, and the

The "Dublin Record" for the 20th December contains the following paragraph; which is well worth preserving from its having been culled and adopted by the paper which is supposed to be the organ of what may be called the religious world in Ireland :

THE OXFORD HERESY.

"Our very efficient contemporary, the Limerick Chronicle, observes as follows, on the Puseyite school of divinity :

The doctrine of the Puseyites has received no countenance in Ireland, on the contrary, their absurd and preposterous views are repudiated by all who are eminent in the country for learning, piety, or discretion, with the solitary exception of the

opinions of the wise and good in it? It will not be denied. Should we not then expect to find one sitting in the seat of Moses' endeavouring to imbue the tender minds of his hearers with qualities accordant with this characteristic of our church? Should not the spirit of his addresses be, Hear the church-hesitate in differing from received opinions-doubt the first impulses of your judgment, and when you feel yourselves compelled to differ from the body, take care and do not let your dif. ferences break the peace of the church or rend the seamless robe of Christ.' I ask, should not this be the spirit of the conduct of a grave divine? no doubt-but how amazingly different from that of the Rev. Mr. Todd? His language is just this'Set at nought the fathers of the church! disregard its holy martyrs! have no respect for the prevalent opinion of the saints! in effect, be wise in your own conceits! it makes no matter what Cranmer, what Latimer, what Ridley, what Bradford, what Taylor, and Fox, and Tindale, and Bale, what Mede, and Ussher, and Newton, and Jewell-in effect, all the primitive witnesses of our holy church lived and died forset at nought the Scotts, and Milner, Faber, and Bickersteth-renounce the peculiar caution that should be connected with your profession of churchmanship, and give yourselves up to the most rash and hasty opinions.' I ask, is not this the very spirit of Mr. Todd's lecture? What, but this spirit, has produced all the absurdities of Sectarianism? Whence have these absurdities sprung?-Identically from that indifference to well grounded authority which must needs be engendered in the school of the Rev. Mr. Todd."

Surely the minister of Swift's-alley is rather outdoing the "cloistered knaves" in his doctrine of tradition; but the way in which he arranges his authorities in his second letter is still more instructive and amusing. After saying, "I beg here to be allowed to give some extracts, shewing the mind of our best divines on the subject of the apostate or antichristian character of Rome;" he proceeds to refer, in the following order, and in separate paragraphs, to "Bickersteth himself" the church of England-the church of Scotland-the church of Ireland private or individual testimony, including Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley, &c.-testimonies before the Reformation-testimony of foreign reformers. Having done this, he says, "These extracts shew the mind of THE CHURCH so completely, that another word need not be expended on the subject." What place in "the church" can this protestant writer be assigning to Mr. Bickersteth? But after these testimonies, he adds

"Upon the whole then, it appears, that to view popery as the foretold apostasy, is the old and the safe way of viewing it, and that there are no injurious consequences connected with it. Whereas, to give up this view, is a departure from sound example, opens a door to very weighty objections against the church of England, and affords countenance to schism without end."

It is by no means the intention of the writer here to enter into the question which Mr. Todd has undertaken, and is well qualified, to disThese facts are only noticed to shew the footing on which the controversy stands in Ireland, and the persons and methods

cuss.

Rev. Mr. Todd, a gentleman who has already earned for himself a very unenviable notoriety. Their published works, entitled, "Tracts for the Times," as literary productions, are below contempt, and the shallow sophistry exhibited throughout, evinces anything but honesty of purpose. There can be little doubt, therefore, that this spurious Oxford abortion, engendered by vanity, nurtured by hypocrisy, and presented to the world in its maturity, under the imposing garb of humility and piety, will soon terminate its short-lived career, leaving no other record of its existence, beyond the opprobrium it has brought on the place of its birth, and on the cloistered knaves to whom it owes its being.""

employed to carry it on; and in order to this, he would offer a few remarks on two points.

First, generally, as to all who join this outcry on what are called protestant grounds, whether they consider protestantism as a matter of religion, or politics, or business, or anything else. The general watch-word is, "THE BIBLE, AND THE BIBLE ONLY, IS THE RELIGION OF PROTESTANTS; they are not to be bound by talmuds, or bullied by priests; it is the boon of heaven, the birthright of man; he is to read for himself, and judge for himself," &c. Now, waiving any inquiry how far this can mean anything in the case of those who cannot read a word, or attach meaning to words which they can read, here is a man holding, according to Mr. Gregg's own account, "an eminent position in the church," and obviously a very high one in the university, one whose life has been passed in study, who is known out of his own country as (to say the least) one of the most learned men in it,— the person selected by the regius professor of divinity to fill his chair while himself disabled by illness, this man preaches a sermon in the college chapel, before his superiors and seniors, with which, if we may judge from the provost's account, they are all well pleased. And what do this protestant "bible-only" party do? They gnash upon him with their teeth. Take a specimen, not from the "Dublin Record." The article is headed, "Popery in Trinity College;" and in the course of it the writer says

"In Oxford College Popery, in a mitigated form, found an advocate in a fanatic named PUSEY-he would pair off the claws, but would allow the monster to retain all his strength and original magnitude. In Trinity College, too, we have Mr. TODD, who stands forth to contradict the united testimony of ages, by asserting that Popery is not the "Beast" described in Revelations. This abject tool of the Papacy, under the mask of a Protestant, wrote the "Encyclical letter" which he imposed on Mr. M'GHEE as genuine; and we all recollect when the error was discovered, what a howl the advocates of popery set up about the calumnies which were heaped on their religion. There was something base at the bottom of this forgery; but now that the real character and motives of Mr. TODD have been discovered, his efforts to poison the minds of the youth of Trinity College will prove unavailing. Mr. TODD had an eye on the Regius Professorship of Divinity in College; and well knowing that popery was dominant in the councils of the sovereign, he threw out a bait to attract the notice of Dr. MURRAY and the other disciples of PETER DENS. We therefore believe that it is a remarkable sign of the times, to find some unprincipled protestants boldly preaching Popery, and openly rewarded by the Government. Thus Popery, as remarked by BICKERSTETH, adapts itself to every change of circumstance."

This is given merely as illustrative of what is called "protestant" spirit, not as being in any way indicative of the permanent feelings of the journal from which it is quoted, as to the preacher or his opinions. Its name shall be omitted, for in less than a fortnight it found it had quite mistaken the character both of the sermon and the person who delivered it. What it was that operated such a great change so quickly the writer does not pretend to guess; but the fact is, that on the 26th of the same month the same paper published the following

Sic-this newspaper polemic was probably more familiar with the "pairing off" of "the tail" than the claws.

article, which certainly, whatever it may be, is not a libel-unless it be on the journal which contains it :

"DR. TODD'S LECTURES PUSEYISM.'

"From the reports which were in circulation a few weeks back, with reference to the Lectures of Dr. ToDD, we were induced to offer some observations on the subject, certainly much stronger than we were warranted by the premises, as we have learned since from those who were present when the Lecture so much spoken of was delivered, that in no part of the same did he mention the Scriptural character of the Papacy and that his commentary on the Epistle to Timothy, 4 chap., partook more of a speculative, than a dogmatic opinion. Much as we would regret that a Fellow of our University should entertain any sentiments that may lead to a suspicion of his being tainted with what is termed Puseyism,' nevertheless it is the duty of every Protestant to await the publication of those Lectures; and we regret that we, among others, should so far misrepresent the learned Doctor as to ascribe to him, in the maintenance of a peculiar tenet, other than the most pure and sincere motives; for, from what we have learned from those acquainted with his character, there is no more estimable man in private life, nor one less likely to be actuated by personal ambition; consequently the supposition that he was even remotely promoting the designs of Popery, was perfectly groundless. We make these observations from a desire to offer a just and honourable reparation to the feelings of a gentleman, whom we may have unintentionally misrepresented. It is a duty we owe ourselves and the cause we advocate: and although not aware that he knows of our existence, we think it right to set the matter fairly before the public; sincerely hoping, to borrow the language of his letter, 'that those who value truth will suspend their judgment until they shall be in the possession of the only fair and legitimate grounds upon which a correct judgment can be formed.' When the opportunity occurs we shall discuss the merits of the doctrines attributed to him, we trust with temper, and in a spirit of Christian charity."

The writer gladly concedes that "the cause we advocate" is not, as far as he knows, protestantism considered in a religious point of view; but even with regard to the professedly religious newspapers, nothing could be more comic, if anything could be more sad, than the bullying, bragging, self-conceited way in which they would wrest the key of knowledge from hands more fit to use it than their own ;* and therefore the writer would

• Take a specimen from the "Dublin Evening Mail." In what a singular state must polemical divinity, and especially the popish controversy, be when the editor of a newspaper steps forward to rebuke the locum tenens of the Regius Professor of Divinity. He assures us that it is an "ungrateful task;" but it may be presumed that he thinks, as people often do (one cannot imagine why), that he has a duty to perform; and then he says, with a mixture of patronage and rebuke, “besides being an ill-used man, Mr. Todd has been in many respects a highly deserving and useful man; and it is therefore with great pain that WE FEEL OURSELVES COMFELLED to notice the discourse stated to have been lately delivered by him from the University pulpit," &c.-" Evening Mail," December 14. The "Warder" has none of these qualms, and seems to anticipate the pleasure of throwing off all delicacy towards an opponent who does not choose to return his fire:

"From the announcement of our contemporary, the "Evening Mail," that Mr. Todd was about to publish his Puseyite lecture, we resolved to rest in some measure on our oars until the delectable production regularly saw the light. This, however, would, according to our contemporary, be to wait until the Anna Liffey shall have ceased to moisten its banks, Mr. Todd being resolved to maintain an unbroken silence. Under such circumstances, all anti-Puseyites, and ourselves among the number, need observe no further delicacy with the pro-popery lecturer."-" Warder," December 15.

Accordingly, in its number for December 22, it gives a piece of polite pleasantry,