indicate the precise passages in which these inaccuracies are noticeable; but we fancied that a review of O'Leary's writings theologically considered, as it was not our scope, would have very little interest for the general reader. Besides, our apprehensions on this subject are excited not so much by any particular passages in the writings of O'Leary, as by their whole tone and tenor. Theological truth is, in the mind of a Roman Catholic, so unerring a line, that the slightest deflection at either side startles and affrights him.
Father O'Leary's faith was as unswerving as that of his renowned papal contemporary, Ganganelli; but, yet, his eager desire to mitigate the sufferings of his fellow-countrymen caused by religious bigotry, seduced him into unwarrantable theological concessions-forced him to make rash admissions-to indulge in a freedom of expression unwise as it was unnecessary-and thus expose himself unconsciously to the DANGER of heterodoxical teaching.
It may be said that by this vague criticism we mar the general effect of Father O'Leary's writings, inasmuch as the reader is not forewarned of the several points which we regard as hurtful to theological truth. We reply, that, according to our lights, nothing exactly contrary to faith in the strict sense is discernible in these writings, while their tone is such as to make us apprehend danger where danger is not broadly visible. There are many shades of opinion between what is called, in the language of the schools,
temerarious," and what "heretical." We merely wish to guard ourselves against being supposed as unqualifiedly adopting ALL Father O'Leary's views. These remarks we think fit to make at the instance of more than one good theological critic.
But of the general soundness of O'Leary's views there can be little doubt. No passage of his writings, as such,