severe and scriptural rebuke; especially if we find in Protestant bishops (which is most unseemly) a disposition to lord it over God's heritage. Let us follow the example of the Bereans of old, and bring their sermons and their charges to the test of Scripture; let us compare their published works and public conduct, with the plain, unequivocal language of the vows which they have taken and require others to take, with the Articles to which they have subscribed, and which they call upon others to subscribe; and, on all these points, let the voice of God in the Scriptures be reverently and devoutly regarded, yea, and let the voice of common sense and common honesty be heard.

And, whenever any new appointment takes place,-whenever either public or private patronage is exercised in future, let the voice of English Protestants be heard, protesting against every flagrant and manifest abuse, in language so calm, so sober, so SCRIPTURAL, but, at the same time, so loud and earnest and decided, that even those who fear not God may be compelled to tremble, and be brought at length to understand, that the best interests of the Church of God shall no longer be trifled with, unregarded, or unrebuked; but that a shrill and piercing voice shall be raised from day to day, to warn men of the tremendous responsibility which rests upon those who administer the patronage of our Protestant Church.

In conclusion, let this, above all things, be kept in constant remembrance, that what we want is downright honesty. The ordination vows of clergymen are not expressed in equivocal language. The Articles of our Church have a plain and definite meaning, and in their "plain and full meaning," in their "literal and grammatical sense," as they are required to be signed, so they ought to be preached by every one who subscribes them. To equivocate in this matter,-to sign them in a non-natural sense is to lie to the Holy Ghost; and, whether a man has signed them in simplicity and godly sincerity, or as a dissembler with God and a hypocrite to the Church, must be judged by the faithfulness, the earnestness, and the unequivocal plainness with which he preaches the very doctrines which are so plainly and unequivocally set forth in the Articles which he has, ex animo," subscribed as being agreeable to the Word of God." We call upon all clergymen, and all Christians in this land, to consider, with fear and trembling, the deep condemnation of those who have subscribed one doctrine and who preach another, who have subscribed the Protestant Articles of a Protestant Church, and preach unprotestant doctrines.

66

V. D. M.

THE MINORITIES ON THE MAYNOOTH BILL OF LAST SESSION, AND THE CORN-LAW BILL OF THE PRESENT SESSION.

To the Editor of the Protestant Magazine.

SIR-It may be both interesting and instructive, at this season, to compare the minorities who have voted against Sir Robert Peel on the question of the Corn-laws, with the minorities who voted against him on the Maynooth Bill last year.

In the historical introduction to the proceedings of the Anti-Maynooth Conference, there will be found accurate lists of the various

divisions on the several readings of that Bill. It is therefore easy, by referring to that volume, to make the comparison; and it might be desirable to publish a list of those who voted against the recent measure, with a special notification of the manner in which each individual voted on the Maynooth question.

I know not how far it would be desirable to publish such a list in your pages. I am not yet fully prepared to offer you one; but having carefully compared the list of the division on the third reading of the Bill for the Repeal of the Corn-laws with that on the third reading of the Maynooth Bill, in the House of Commons, and the divisions on the second readings of the two Bills in the House of Lords, I have the following remarks to offer.

1. In the recent minority in the House of Commons, I find the names of 57 Members who voted for the third reading of the Maynooth Bill; or, in other words, who proved open and manifest traitors to the Protestant cause on that occasion. Had these 57 Members voted right on that question, it would have made a difference of 114 votes.

In addition to these, I find the names of 36 Members who, on that vital question, were absent, and did not vote at all. From some cause or other, they were wanting to themselves, to their country, to the Protestant religion, and to their God, on that momentous occasion. Had these 36 been present to vote against the Popish measure of last session, the whole difference would have been 114+36=150 votes ; and the majority, which was only 133 on the third reading, would have therefore been reduced to a minority of 17.

2. In the House of Lords, I find the names of 62 Peers who voted in the minority against the repeal of the Corn-laws, and who voted in the majority last year on the second reading of the Maynooth Bill, and the names of 38 more who did not vote at all. Had these 100 noble lords voted right on this occasion, it would have made a difference of (2×62=) 124+36=160 votes in that House; so that the majority of 157 would have been reduced to a minority of 3.

Thus, in either House, the Maynooth Bill would have been thrown out, if those who have now voted against Sir Robert Peel on a question of worldly policy and personal interest, had only voted against him, when the cause of true religion, and the honour of their God, were at stake.

Is it not desirable that these divisions should be examined, and would it not be well to publish at full length, and to hold up to merited shame, the names of those whose recent defeat-on a question which they needs must feel, and which touched themselves so nearly-may well be considered as a just rebuke for their unfaithfulness to the cause of Protestant truth last year.

With regard to our Protestant friends who formed the noble minorities of last year, it will be their strong consolation now, that they were enabled to do their duty then. They will have the strong support of an approving conscience, and they will be held in lasting respect and honour by all the true Protestants of these lands. And I trust that, at the next election, the Protestants of Great Britain will

take opportunity to testify the high esteem in which they hold them.

With regard to Sir Robert Peel, his character may be safely delivered over to the tender mercies of posterity. I remember the remark being made, long ago, respecting a public character whose abilities were unquestionable, that he might have been the greatest man in England if any one had ever suspected him of having principle. The remark may be a little varied in regard to Sir Robert Peel. If he had only been a man of principle, he might certainly have been the greatest man in his generation. But it was well said of him, that when he passed the Popish Bill in 1829, he took the bones and sinews out of the British Constitution, and left it but a sinking, tumbling mass; and it might have been fairly added, that, by the same act, he took the bones and sinews out of his own mental and moral constitution, and rendered himself, for ever after, incapable of acting like a man. I cannot conceive it possible that he should ever recover himself from this degraded position, unless God (with whom all things are possible) should give him true repentance. Then he would humble himself before God and man for the awful sin which he committed in making that fearful inroad upon our Protestant Constitution,—that awful sin into which also he betrayed his country. And from that profound humiliation he might rise, by the grace of God, more glorious and triumphant than ever he promised to be in his best days.

And O, what a glorious course would open before the man who was determined to govern this country upon truly Protestant principles ! He might put down systematic and legalized persecution throughout the whole world, so that every man should be free to have a Bible-to read the Bible-to believe and obey the Bible! I do not mean to say that he would be secure, or could, by any human measures, be secured from the sudden outbreak of popular persecution. A mad multitude might stone him as they did Stephen, and so he would receive the crown of martyrdom : this would be in violation and defiance of the law; but the influence of Great Britain might, if wielded by a truly Protestant statesman, put down all legal and systematic persecution throughout the habitable globe, and open every country to receive the Bible and the preachers of the Gospel! and would not such a man be truly great and glorious?

Believe me yours, &c.,

A MEMBER OF THE ANTI-MAYNOOTH COMMITTEE.

London, June 16, 1846.

THE CHURCH OF ROME AND MODERN SOCIETY. THE working of the Papacy is no where more visible than in Italy: it is there that we must study it in order to arrive at the secret of its power, since it is there that it possesses absolute control. This state of things is the result of a sanguine hope with which the people have for centuries deluded themselves.

From the commencement of the history of this nation, one perceives

An extraordinary

that its destiny will be different to that of others. expectation is the chief moving cause; after the invasions of the barbarians, it no sooner begins to assume a national form under the administration of the Lombards, than a strange agent is called in to assist in rearing the national superstructure, this is the Papacy. The stranger arrives, destroys the rough draft of the Italian empire, and from its wreck, as from the ruins of the shield of Minerva, forms a multitude of small states. They attempt a re-union, but the same agent re-appears, and, by its presence alone, again scatters them.

As this agent has not of itself any material force, it is ever constrained to call in a foreign power to its aid, in such a manner that it has not only prevented the development of the national power, but found itself incapable of filling its place. At length, when of all those small states there remained Florence only, Clement VII., to consummate this work, called in the strange agent against Florence, his country; then Italian nationality perished in this its last wreck ; the absolute power of the modern Papacy raised itself on its ruins.

How is it that there was not an indignant protest raised from the Alps even to Calabria against this strange agent which prevented Italy from assuming its proper position among the nations? Historians have not furnished an explanation; it is because a proper ambition was not nourished among the people. Even in the moment when they were struck down, this people thought, in immolating themselves, to revive in the power which sought to rule the world; and if the Papacy could have accomplished that at which it aimed-brought the whole world to the feet of the Vatican-this had been, perhaps, a sufficient recompense for the lost nationality of Italy.

Observe that, in requiring from an entire people the absolute sacrifice of their temporal existence, it was stipulated that they should reign spiritually over the whole world; this alone could justify the denationalization of a people. If a pedestal was to be created out of their ruins, it was on the condition that the whole family of man should form its base. This, then, is that which the Papacy pledged itself to accomplish, for every generation of Italy was dismissed one after the other with this promise.

Italy has fulfilled its part of the contract; she engaged to sacrifice herself she has kept her word. Has Rome held to hers?

What would be said by the various generations of the Guelphs, who in all the cities of Italy, in the middle ages, disappeared from the earth convinced that in abandoning their country to the Papacy, they gave it up to a power which held in its hands the destinies of the future? They would behold that power gradually confined within its own walls, which, instead of seizing on dissenting Greece, loses, one after the other,-Russia, Germany, Prussia, Sweden, the British isles, and, to a great extent, France ; in directing their attention to the new world, they would behold the best and most important portion of it elude the grasp of Rome; turning their eyes to Europe, they would find even Spain shaken. What, then, would those generations say ? It is easy to imagine.

Is this, then, they might say, the sacred policy for which an entire people have sacrificed their nationality? Italy has suffered a martyrVOL. VIII.-July, 1846. New Series, No. 7.

X

dom during eight centuries; she has been scourged by all who have passed. In return for all this, it was promised to her, that she should reign at the Vatican. In place of that we encounter a Church which we know not. Where you once were, other spiritual powers have arisen ; and you are even less advanced in your victory, than when we permitted you to tread our nationality under foot. We have sacrificed ourselves; but that has availed you nothing. Your hope has been a false one; in deceiving yourselves, we and our children are lost.

These sentiments were expressed with extraordinary force by the great writers of Italy in the middle age, who conserved the true national tradition. So much so, that there was some hope that the powerful voices which conjured her to pause, would have saved Italy from suicide. If the policy of the Popes is truly a sacred policy, a nation plunging itself into a gulf and denationalizing itself, is a sublime spectacle. But, on the contrary, if that policy has, similar to all others, only a precarious, temporal value, what an irremediable error has been committed !

Now, this doubt existed in the minds of many in the thirteenth century. Hence the mighty lamentations of Dante, which were echoed by Petrarch, Boccacio, and lastly by Machiavel. Dante especially made superhuman efforts to draw his country from this illusion. Neither Luther nor the Reformation spoke in more violent terms of the Papacy. In order to withdraw Italy from her delusion, Dante wished to throw her into the arms of the emperor. Machiavel formed a combination of all the barbarous vices and virtues to arouse her from her sleep. But Italy remained under the spell which had been wrought on her; she became more and more involved in the dream of the universal Papacy. She was no longer Italian; she became cosmopolitan. And when all this was consummated, towards the close of the fifteenth century, what was the language of the new generation of writers who spoke in the name of the Church? In place of the triumph which she had expected to share with the Papacy, Italy feels herself a prisoner of war. What say the most magnanimous writers, the Savanarolas, the Campanellos,-those who sincerely desired to behold her enfranchised? Do you know what new remedy they proposed for all these ills in the name of the Church that had caused them? Savanarola saw no other remedy than suffering still more. That Italy could hope for nothing, either from herself or from any other source! that she must plunge still deeper into suffering! that she should die, and descend to the grave without attempting to vindicate herself!

ADDRESS TO THE PROTESTANT AND ROMAN CATHOLIC PEOPLE OF IRELAND.

THE following was intended as the basis of an Address of the Protestant Anti-Maynooth Conference to the people of Ireland. (Pursuant to a Resolution of the Conference passed at the great Meeting held in Exeter Hall, on Thursday evening, May 1st, 1845.)