for his religion alone, actuated them to hazard their fortunes and their lives in this perilous undertaking. To any one who has viewed the case in all its bearings, with a single eye to come at the truth, it must appear evident that the unhappy persons who devised the plot acted under the conviction that there was no sin in it; that they were only the instruments of Divine wrath justly falling upon a guilty sect; that in thus seeking to kill their fellowmen they were doing GoD service. (JOHN xvi c. 2 v.) This view of the subject enables us indeed to pity those who planned the conspiracy; but oh! how manifestly anti-scriptural in its Principles-how cruelly ruinous in its Consequences must be that Religious system which could produce such feelings and such convictions as these upon the minds of its enlightened, devoted and conscientious adherents! And be it remembered, that what constituted the religious system of Popery in days of yore, constitutes the religious system of Popery now; for that system is believed and asserted to be infallible by those that adhere to it, and is regarded and defended in their view, as unchangeable in its principles and as universally binding upon all who profess to believe the Gospel.

It is true that many of those who in our days adhere to the Church of Rome openly and distinctly disclaim the principles we have been noticing. But it is equally true that, in days gone by, the adherents to Popery not only did not disclaim, but esteemed it their greatest glory and their highest privilege to avow these principles, and to act upon them whenever and wherever practicable. Did the time permit, this latter statement might be morally demonstrated by that most unexceptionable of all evidence -the evidence of facts. And what shall we say to these things? If Christian charity requires us to believe that the present members of the Church of Rome are sincere in disclaiming, does not the same charity constrain us to believe that our ancestors, who before us adhered to the Church of Rome, were likewise sincere in avowing the principles, in defending them, in bleeding for them, in acting upon them? Are we justified in involving so many thousands of our fellow-men, who have gone to their solemn account, in the guilt of the very worst crimes towards GoD and man which the human mind can well conceive, in order to acquit their posterity of insincerity? On the other hand, are we justified in doubting the sincerity of those who now disclaim the principles in question, for the purpose of shielding their ancestors from the charge of rebellion against their king and country? I honestly confess my conviction that we are not justified in thus acting. have not so learned Christ." We cannot believe that the charity of the Gospel is so partial, or one-sided, as this. That charity "thinketh no evil, rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;" but, it does not, it cannot justify us in acquitting one at

"We

the expense of another. Yet how are we to escape this dilemma; in comparing the present position of those who adhere to the Romish Communion with the position of their ancestors? How are we to reconcile the admission of truths, which facts compel us to admit, with the exercise of that charity which thinketh no evil? How are we to combine love to the Professor of the creed of Popery with uncompromising enmity to the creed itself? Trivial and unimportant as these questions may appear to the minds of others, they have long and painfully exercised my mind, from the circumstance of my having been called to labour in a portion of the LORD's vineyard where these questions are daily and hourly forced upon our notice. And I assure the reader, that after what my conscience tells me is a deliberate and prayerful consideration of the subject, I see no other way of escaping the difficulty than by removing the stigma from the Party espousing the religious system of Popery to the System itself. I believe that those who now disclaim the principles, which their religious ancestors undoubtedly professed and acted upon, are sincere and consistent in what they say. I also believe that those ancestors who said and did the contrary were also perfectly sincere and consistent. And that which enables me to hold this opinion is the conviction, deeply rooted and I trust dispassionately received into the mind, that there are incorporated into that religious system, which goes by the name of Popery, two doctrines that enable the one party to escape the charge of insincerity and hypocrisy, and the other the guilt of rebellion and treason. These are the doctrine of Expediency, and the doctrine that the End sanctifies the Means. By one or other of these doctrines may be unriddled those problems in the religious history of the Church of Rome, which otherwise cannot be solved upon any principle in accordance with fact, and at the same time consistent with the Spirit of Christian charity. But mark the consequence of the admission that these two doctrines are incorporated into the system of Popery. There is scarcely a crime against GoD and Man, scarcely an offence against the Sovereign, the Constitution or the Laws of Great Britain which might not be palliated-not to say excused-under such a system, For can we resist the conviction, that a Religious System, embracing the doctrines whereof we speak, has a direct and inevitable tendency to subvert practical Christianity-to overthrow vital godliness-to offer a premium for the violation of our duty to our earthly Sovereign-and to endanger, if not to destroy the liberty of every free citizen in whatever country it unhappily gains the ascendancy? Now, nationally, we were freed from this system. The British Constitution was based upon PROTESTANT PRINCIPLES. The Sovereign of England still swears that she will govern upon Protestant Principles; and I would boldly but affectionately ask my fellow-Protestants whether the liberty

wherewith Christ made us free in this respect was not a theme deserving our warmest praise; and whether the prayer that we should be not entangled again with that yoke of bondage from which we have been freed, was not one, which should have proceeded from every heart imbued with Christian faith and love of freedom. Marvel not that the system of Popery at present assumes so mild an aspect, and so tranquil a form. It is but the tranquillity of the fabled vampire, which is said to lull its victim to sleep in order that it may the more effectually pounce upon its prey. Remember that every religious system must emanate directly or indirectly from the spirit of evil, which either enjoins or allows its adherents to "do evil that good may come;" and remember, also, that no system can come from GOD, or be sanctioned by the "Author of every good and perfect gift," which does not teach us that "Denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world; looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great GoD and our SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST; who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify to himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works." (TITUs ii c. 12, 14 v.) Those days however are gone, and we now have chiefly to resist Popery's further encroachments.

THE DISSENTERS.

THE Eclectic Review, which is a chief organ of the Dissenters in England, contained in the number for October, an article on the state of Popery, which spoke most unfairly of the Protestant Association. We were therein accused of hypocrisy and many other evil proceedings, in a strain of uncharitable reviling which ill became men professing to be Christians, and conducting a religious periodical. But being reviled, we must not revile again. We have never accused any Dissenting committee or Society of hypocrisy, and certainly would not be justified in doing so on suspicion. In this publication we have endeavoured, looking up to the Almighty for assistance and a blessing, to speak in a manner becoming our Christian profession. We should deeply regret if this spirit had not been recognized; but we trust and believe it has; and we may add, that in the whole of the publications and proceedings of the Protestant Association an effort has (we hope successfully) been made to exhibit a Christian temper. To join in the strife of this world is to us at all times painful, and to our spiritual state we well know it is hazardous. "Who is sufficient for these things?" is oftentimes our feeling and our fear. But we have undertaken our task from a deep sense of duty, and we have reason to thank God and take courage, for we have found a

blessing in the work. We have no private end to gratify. The labors of the Protestant Association are not few, nor are they profitable, but they are constant, anxious, and unwearied; there are connected with it many men "whose praise is in all the Churches," and whose holiness, and liberality to Dissenters will not we think be denied by the Eclectic Review.* Why then are Protestants warned by that publication not to join the Protestant Association? Why are we branded with "hypocrisy ?" And why are other violent expressions, and disparaging remarks gratuitously levelled at a Society which has kept itself very free in all parts of the country (notwithstanding some provocation in many cases) from all contention with the Dissenters?

These however are not our only subjects of complaint against the Dissenters. We complain that they refuse to join us in petitioning against the grant to the Popish College of Maynooth, and that some of their organs in the House of Commons (in defiance of the voluntary principle) vote for that grant; we complain that they refuse to take any part in opposing the grants to Popery in the Colonies, and that on the contrary their leader, Mr. Baines, has voted for those grants, while their journals have defended them; we further complain that they sanction and utterly refuse to condemn the Papists for violating their oath in the Relief Act of 1829; and lastly, that they supported almost as one man (of course we are not referring to the Wesleyans) the Ministerial scheme of Education, which sanctioned the interpolated and annotated Popish translation of the Bible. We say these things more in sorrow than in anger. It grieves us to see the nonconformists, those who claim descent from the Puritans, (whose bond of union was hatred of Popery), who revere in common with ourselves the names of the martyrs and the blessings of the Reformation, tacitly looking on at Popish appointments to high places in the State, and the increase of Popery at Court. Let it not be thought we are speaking now without knowledge of all the facts we assert. Far from it. We have, for instance, over and over again in London and elsewhere, endeavoured to gain dissenting aid to petitions against Maynooth; but with the exception of the Rev. Mr. Irons, and a very few more, we have met none who will even fairly consider our proofs or candidly construe our motives. On one occasion we did indeed succeed in having a meeting against Maynooth at an Independent Chapel. A Dissenter was in the chair; a Dissenter moved the first resolution, which was seconded by a Churchman in a speech of the most temperate and conciliatory kind. After which a member of the congregation rose in the gallery and moved an amendment con

* We may instance the Rev. Mr. Bickersteth, the Rev. Dr. Marsh, of Birmingham, Mr. Hardy, President of the Leeds Bible Society the Rev. Hugh Stowell, the Rev. F. Trench, Reading, &c. &c.

demning all endowments whatever, and attacking the Church in no measured language. A sad scene followed, which ended in the petition against Maynooth being adopted, after many sneers and a great many declarations that it was a "trick," and so on.

We ask the Dissenters is this conduct decorous and becoming? The Protestant Association asks not for their subscriptions; it professes to regard the Church establishment in England, Scotland, and Ireland, as bulwarks of Protestantism; it therefore in its fundamental resolutions confines its members to those "who are members of or friendly to" those institutions. But it does expect from Dissenters some aid in petitioning against the endowment of Popery, and in preventing the use of mutilated bibles. It does expect from Dissenters no opposition and no false accusation when it provokes none; and certainly it does regret to see Dissenters and Papists on the same platform at public political meetings, and at the same public political dinners.*

The subject, however, is a painful one, and we will not enlarge on it. It remains only for us to state the strictures of the Eclectic Review were made to bear on the Reformation Society equally with the Protestant Association. We therefore think it right (knowing something more of that Society than the Eclectic Reviewer) to bear our humble but sincere testimony to the excellence of its design, to the purity of its chief supporters, and to the beneficial influance of its exertions.

ILLUSTRATIONS.

BY CHARLOTTE ELIZABETH.

NO. X.

THE days of chivalry have long been numbered. Its spirit is fled, and the recent well-meant attempt of an open-handed young nobleman to resuscitate the departed, was but as the play of the galvanic battery upon a corpse, producing some muscular startings, but far removed from the impulsive energy of life. Nor is this to be regretted; for undoubtedly the practice of arms, as carried on in the lists, was wanton, barbarous, unchristian: but he would deserve well of his country who should succeed in re

* This has not unfrequently been the case. In all such meetings the Papists are of course styled "Catholics." We may mention also that during last session Mr. O'Connell presented a petition from an Independent minister in Lincolnshire, praying that there might be no enquiry into the Popish College of Maynooth till the property of the Irish Church had been redistributed, &c. &c.! The petition was singularly bitter. But though Dissenters can petition this way, or against church rates, &c., they refused to assist in moving against the clause in the Prisons Bill which sanctioned the appointment of Popish chaplains to English Prisons. Nay, Dissenters in the House of Commons (again in defiance of the voluntary principle) spoke and voted for that clause.