« ElőzőTovább »
rash within the bounds of prudence-urging and encouraging the timid to a bold, faithful discharge of their duties.
We have penned, these remarks with the special object of meeting objections which we have often found to prevail amongst. good men, to take what they term too bold and prominent a part in opposing Popery, or disseminating the truth; and yet more with reference to the exercise of the ritght and power of voting, whether it be in electing persons to discharge the duties of municipal offices, or to represent them in Parliament.
We feel that all those Protestants who have votes and influence. should record those votes, and exercise that influence, to oppose the downward progress of our country towards Popery, and to uphold our Protestant Institutions. We do not wish to interfere with their own convictions upon different topics, affecting local and party interests, as such; we do not strive, in this journal, to advocate Whiggism, as such, nor Toryism, as such. Mere party warfare is to us unknown; but this we desire to see accomplished, that whenever a general election shall take place, and wherever, from time to time, a new election may take place in any borough or county, occasioned by the retirement, elevation, acceptance of office, or death, of any one who may now represent them, that, in choosing their new representative, electors shall be guided by a fixed, resolute determination to have one who, whatever his other political opinions may be, shall be in heart, in word, in act, and in vote, a Protestant.
We do not herein require men to vote for those who, in matters of general policy, may be diametrically opposed to them; but this we desire to see done—that the Whig, in bringing forward his candidate, should be more anxious to see him the determined friend of Protestantism, and the avowed opponent of Popery, than he is the friend of liberal opinions. That the Conservative should act also upon the same principles with reference to Conservative candidates.
Thus, in every case, if two Whig candidates are started, prefer the one who will be the champion of Protestantism ; if two Conservatives, prefer the one who will defend the best and dearest interests of his country, and oppose all State endowment and advancement of the Church of Rome.
To this, we think, most of our friends and readers agree. Upon such a course we believe they are willing to enter. But why not then prepare for action? why not have plans now in progress, which, as they mature—and time must do that work-shall place them above the casualties which too often determine the choice or rejection of a candidate at a general election? Taken by surprise, there may not then be time to look around ; and, by being unprepared till the day of battle, you secure your own defeat, and the victory of your rivals.
But why not go one step beyond this? Are the interests of party so strong that they cannot be overcome? What is party? Wherein does it consist? Why was it established? Who are the leaders of it? Why repose confidence where it has been betrayed, and the purposes for which it was given exist no longer ?
The old parties are utterly broken up, nor do we know of any class of politicians who can point out a leader, or a Cabinet, in whom they could repose confidence as to the leading questions of the day.
The Corn-law question-protective duties--endowment of Popery—these are questions which have broken up Cabinets, and threaten yet longer to perplex statesmen, and involve the country in agitation and disorders of the worst description. All questions directly affecting Protestantism we feel it incumbent upon us to take up. Not so with other matters. Whatever may be our own private sentiments, we feel that we have no right to make the periodical confided to us the vehicle of party warfare, nor the arena on which shall be displayed the relative benefits and disadvantages of free trade, protective duties, and the Corn-laws.
But one opinion we have ever held on one point, and that is one which applies in its effects and operations to more measures than the present, extending to the matters of private as well as of public life. It is based upon a deep-rooted conviction of the overruling Providence of God, who can bring good out of evil,_order the unruly wills and affections of sinful men, as seemeth best to his godly wisdom,—and make even the wrath of man to praise him.
Infallibility is not an attribute of man. Neither individually or collectively may he boast possession of that prerogative and attribute of the Deity. Unerring wisdom, therefore, will not always characterize either the measures they adopt, nor the plans by which they would seek to carry them into effect.
But this we believe, that any nation or individual, reposing trust in God, and relying on his superintending Providenceexercising, with upright, honest integrity of purpose, the talents reposed in him, however varied in kind, or exalted in degree, for the honour and glory of Him by whom they have been bestowed will find that those evils which the craft of the devil or man would work against them, will be brought to nought; their malignant designs be dispersed, and the cloud which Iowered darkly upon the political horizon, shall become gilded with the effulgence of meridian splendour, and burst in showers of blessing—refreshing where it threatened to destroy
There are those, we know, who will contend that Corn-laws and protective duties are in themselves wrong,—the very blight of commercial enterprise,—the bane of national prosperity and that protective duties ought never to have existed.
Be it so,-for the sake of argument,--then, in spite of all such folly of human legislation, a greater blessing has still rested upon this country than any nation of Europe. The mislegislation, if such it be, has been overruled by a merciful Providence, and whilst our nation has been faithful to his truth, he has mercifully preserved us from the evils to be apprehended from an erroneous policy. . We say, therefore, do not suppose that the existence of protective duties of necessity cripples a nation, or if it cripple it, involves it in ruin, whilst Great Britain may be pointed out, not less marked for her national prosperity than for her protective duties. The like line of argument we would adopt to those who would imagine a country to be ruined by free trade.
When we sit down to guide ourselves by that probability, which Bishop Butler has assured us is the guide of life, we may feel constrained to admit that one or the other of these courses seems, in its own nature and consequences, far preferable to the other.
We might even say,–Well, were we the absolute monarch of the country, such a course should be adopted, and, at the same time, solace ourselves with the reflection, that if, by the voice of public opinion, things are carried against us, there is still one who may overrule for good. - But then, it will by some be contended, that the same argument applies to the late opposition to the Maynooth Endowment Bill, concessions to Popery, &c.
To a certain extent it may, but to a very small extent. There is a very material difference between the two cases; and we pray our readers to mark well wherein it lies.
The Almighty has denounced idolatry, and proclaimed his severest curses upon those who, as nations or individuals, are guilty of it, unless they repent. Now Popery is idolatry— idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians. In the endowment of Popery, therefore, there is a national insult offered to the Majesty of Heaven-a bold opposition to the revealed will of God—à rising up in rebellion against him-a determination not to acknowledge his attributes--but in the spirit of pride that threw the angels out of heaven, to say, “we will not have him to reign over us;" a state of mind utterly at variance with love and obedience to God, wherein alone consist the true dignity, glory, and happiness of man.
The other state of mind, however, is quite different from this, and is well consistent with love to God, and a desire to honour him. And notwithstanding that, in the complexities of political arrangements, the wisest course may not always be pursued, yet his overruling providence may cause a more abundant blessing to descend in other ways that shall compensate, and more than
compensate, to those nations who honour him, any evils which might be apprehended by some, as the results of such mislegislation.
But whilst the questions of opening the ports and removing the protecting duties thus occupy the public mind; whilst, on the one hand, the landed gentry see nought but ruin to the agricultural interest in such a course; and whilst some capitalists hail it as the greatest boon to the mercantile world, and a blessing to the country, we would draw the attention of our readers to other topics. We call on them to unite in opposing that Church and her missions, who would monopolize religion, take away the Word of God from the people, and produce a famine in the bread of life.
Of all the evils which at various times and in different ages have overrun and afflicted our fallen world, Popery appears to be the worst: more alluring in its approach-more tenacious in its hold-more deadly in its consequences.
The giant evil of the day is Popery ; politicians and theologians are bowing before it, siding with it, going over to it; whether influenced by motives of fear, or hope, interest, or apprehension, we presume not to say. We speak only of the fact. Popery is making new inroads upon us. Protestants must stand in the gap, protecting their country, their Church, their religion, and their Bibles, from the grasp of Popery.
What has the cause of Protestantism to hope for from the newly constructed Cabinet? Alas! but a repetition of those severe blows, and heavy discouragements which made the Whig Administration regarded as a scourge, and may make the newly constructed Cabinet to be regarded as a scorpion.
On what ground was the late Bill for Endowment of Maynooth College resisted by the more spiritually-minded portion of those who opposed it? because Popery is an idolatrous system, as well as the bane of social happiness and national prosperity.
Is it less so now? Was the passing of the Act to endow Maynooth an error,—a crime,-an offence,-a sin,-a national sin,-a national participation in the guilt of supporting idolatry? So is its continuance ;-continued idolatry will not change its nature, but serve as an aggravated and continued provocative to visit with punishment those who evince no disposition to national repentance. One line of duty, therefore, seems plain, one course clear : it is to petition for the repeal of the Maynooth Endowment Bill, and to require of those in Parliament, or now canvassing for seats there, to represent honestly the feelings of their constituents upon questions vitally affecting the best and dearest interests of the country.
nust stand.com, and their bof Protestant but a rep mad
“A voice as of the cherub choir,
65 And so you feel resolute and sincere on these matters ? " said Friar Campbell to his companion, in an inquiring tone; “ they are truly of momentous character, and a stumble in the dark hereabouts might bring awkward results.”
"A stumble in the dark would not overwhelm an honest man,” replied Patrick Hamilton— the darkness, remember, is not in his own mind, but altogether external. I do feel resolute and settled on the questions of reformed doctrine, and trust that, by God's grace, no gloom of threatened darkness and penalty, such as Satan is permitted to raise against the servants of Christ, shall ever cause me to stumble from the stedfastness of a sound faith.”
" Amen! if the faith be sound,” said Campbell, “it behoves us to be building on rock, not sand. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.”
- You can bear, then, a plain report of my case to those who inquire about it,” rejoined Hamilton; 6 and if I may judge from your own demeanour, my dear friend, you will not be withoutsympathy towards those views against which the bitter outcry is
arou Your case is God forbid thatittle too lurid. Itse
“ Your case is such as to demand serious thought,” replied the other, “ and God forbid that I should clap a bushel on the light, even though its glare be a little too lurid. Its extra intensity is attributable to the hot company you have been connected with while abroad. Strange would his nature be, who should escape from a lazar-house without a scar, and so, either very exalted or very debased must his character be who should breakfast with Melancthon, and sup with Carolstadt, and sing versicles with Luther himself, and this not for a few days merely,) and yet come back to his early haunts untainted with the last friendly compliment and shake of the hand.”
“ Very uncomplimentary are your parables," answered the Reformer; “I scarcely relish, as you may suppose, your classification of those lustrous names with the foul uncleanliness of a company of lepers. The lepers are your Gehazis, secular,