As to theft.

The Divine Law.

that which to the christian mind is of the deepest concern, and far outweighs the importance of all other evils, and is the cause of them that it is an antiscriptural system, abounding with impiety and blasphemy, from which the clear deduction will be, that the course of education pursued at Maynooth is, indeed —

1. Immoral.

2. Anti-social.

3. Disloyal.

4. Anti-scriptural.

We proceed to illustrate these positions, more in sorrow than in anger, actuated by no malignant feeling towards any man, but impressed with a deep sense of the heinous wickedness of the system, and the great responsibility they incur, who, either nationally or individually, participate willingly in the support of it.

Take theft, for instance, a crime alike forbidden by laws human and divine, and see how far the instruction derived from the class-books and standards of Maynooth is consistent with either of them; or, indeed, with those opinions which prevail almost universally in those civilised countries where the contaminating influence of Popery is unknown; and the heart of man, though still corrupt, is free from that mental and moral obliquity which she inflicts upon her

votaries.

The Divine Law positively forbids all theft;

and so far from making those minute distinctions between venial and mortal sins, which the ingenuity of the Church of Rome has hit upon, condemns it alike, whether in a small or a large matter. Scripture, wherein the matter is viewed in the light which inspired wisdom sheds throughout every page, declares, that he who "offends in one point is guilty of all" - for the law is thereby broken, and the penalty of disobedience at once attaches.

But the following specimen of morality, from the Maynooth class-book, shall be at once given, without any further comment in reference to their absurdity or impiety.

In the second volume of Bailly's Moral Theology, which contains the treatise concerning the precepts of the Decalogue, and in chap. vii. p. 232., the question is proposed,

theology.

"How great must be the quantity of the thing Maynooth stolen, in order to constitute the theft a mortal sin?

"Answer. The quantity cannot easily be determined, since nothing has been decided on this point, either in natural, divine, or human law. Some are of opinion that a quantity necessary for the maintenance of an individual for one day, in a manner suitable to his station in this world, is sufficient to make the theft a mortal sin, Others think that it requires a quantity which, everything considered, inflicts a grievous injury on our neighbour, and deprives him of something

Theological distinctions.

particularly useful. A loss, however, which in respect of a rich man is slight, in respect of a poor man is considered heavy. The same quantity in all thefts cannot, therefore, be assigned as constituting the subject matter a mortal sin."

"Hence, theologians are accustomed to disFirst rank. tinguish men into four ranks. The first rank consists of the illustrious, who live in splendour; Second rank. the second, of those who live on their own estates, but not so splendidly such as are moderately Third rank. rich; the third, of artificers, who support themselves by their own labour and handicraft; the

Fourth rank. fourth, of the poor, who provide for themselves by begging. It is generally laid down, and it may be laid down as determined, that in order to a theft's being a mortal sin, when committed on persons of the first rank, fifty or sixty pence are sufficient. In fact, this appears to be a sufficent sum with reference to all men, even princes; because this sum of money is considerable in itself, and might be of service to princes, since it would be sufficient for the pay of several soldiers for one day. With respect to persons of the second rank, forty pence are enough. With respect to persons of the third rank, if their trade be a very lucrative one, twenty pence; if less lucrative, ten pence. With respect to persons of the fourth rank (i.e. paupers), four pence, or even one penny, if they have nothing else to live on.

This division inadequate.

"But there is no one who does not perceive that the division mentioned above is very inade

quate. How great a difference is there among artificers? How many live on their own estates who are more straitened than some merchants, and to whom a theft of the same sum would be a greater loss than to merchants, who are richer than they? Hence we do not give the aforesaid rule as a thing on which you can rely with certainty, but it is good, as being something to guide confessors, taking all circumstances prudently into consideration."

How execrable is the morality of these instructions! The great standard of righteousness is wholly excluded, and the wretched sophistry of the schools occupies its place.

and promises.

But, passing from this subject, which, in the As to oaths minds of some, may be thought utterly trifling and insignificant, the subject of oaths shall be considered, a subject which no man regarding the sanctity of an oath oftentimes the only guarantee for the faithful performance of a trust, and the confidence which it should at all times engender between man and man can view in any other light than that of paramount importance to the moral and social well-being of men, a right discharge of public and private duties, and the integrity of empires.

"An oath of confirmation" was intended to be The end for which oaths "an end of all strife." Its object was to give an are taken or additional security to him for whose benefit it

was taken; but in this, as in many other instances, the Church of Rome has woven such a

required is

thereby per

verted.

web of sophistries, has introduced such subtleties and refinements,

as to make it defeat

the very end for which it was called into use; and, instead of providing an additional security to him for whose benefit it may be imposed, has made it subservient to the grossest fraud, imposition, and impiety; an instrument whereby the artful and unprincipled, or those principled after Popish morality, may evade almost every engagement, and balk the confidence of their simple and confiding victims, who, intending no deception themselves, suspected it not in others. The history of the past is full of this while our own times supply but too abundant an illustration. It will be seen clearly, from the quotation given below, that in this Popish college, supported by Protestant gold, the candidates for the priesthood are trained in a system of awful perjury — a system that opens the door of escape from every obligation, however binding - from every oath, however sacred- and from every compact, however solemnly entered into, when taken or incurred for the benefit of a heretic or indeed on every occasion when the non-observance may minister to purposes of ecclesiastical utility. The whole system is corrupt: it is not only oaths made with heretics that are void; but a variety of causes may arise, even among the faithful, which may either prevent or remove the obligation of an oath. And here, again, the class-book of Maynooth is of direct authority.