employed against Protestantism, must be at least as great as if employed on its behalf. The papisticism of that Church would not only, therefore, remove a great obstacle to popery, but give to it an amazing force. So must the Protestant Association men think, and their thoughts are our justification. We believe that in the Church of England, in its principles, there are the seeds of popery, that these are being gradually developed, and that the likelihood is soon of a universal harvest of error; and we cannot become members of their Church or of their Associations, because we are Protestants. We dissent from them, because we dissent from Rome. It is the strength and simplicity of our love of Protestantism which both occasions, and sustains us under, the rude assaults and hard suspicions of our Protestant brethren. We esteem them as Paul esteemed the marks of the Lord Jesus, which he bore about. We 'rejoice' that we are counted worthy to suffer' for the sake of Protestantism. We only wish that they who accuse us would join us, not for the sake of sectarian littleness of soul, but for the sake of principles we hold in common, convinced that their movement against popery would be vastly more efficient if they were both 'almost ' and altogether' what we are. They are too near their adversary to strike well. They must step apart, and place themselves at a greater distance, and their blows, if strike they must, would come with a power that would be felt and feared.

Nor is the Church of England in the fittest position to attack popery, on another account. It is an established church, and whatever advantages may be derived from this circumstance, are more than counterbalanced by its inseparable disadvantages. In the capacity of an establishment it has done and must do things which greatly injure and weaken it and the cause it represents. It has a bad name. It is regarded by a large portion of the population of this country, and especially by Roman Catholics, as a persecuting church. Whether it ought or ought not to be so regarded, is nothing to the point now. We are speaking of the policy of a certain course, and this is affected by the views and feelings of those whose welfare is contemplated, independently of their propriety or impropriety. In England, and especially in Ireland, the Protestant Church is looked upon with no eyes of favor. It is esteemed unmerciful and unjust. Its possession of large property known to have been left to the very church which it is made to assail, is believed to be unrighteous. The imprisonments which refusal to meet its unscriptural demands has led to, are believed to be cruel. The slaughter which has taken place on its account, is believed to be murderous. It is useless to say that popery has persecuted. So it has, but have its persecutions done it any good? Are they not a strong and constant argument against

it to this day? Are they not the material of countless eloquent and impressive addresses to audiences of delighted Protestants? Are they not a more powerful impediment to the spread of popery than any philosophical revelations of the absurdity of transubstantiation, any generous, and indignant, and faithful exposures of the spiritual tyranny of the pope, any well reasoned refutations from Scripture and history of the theological dogmas of the infallible faith? Are they not the main stay of the horror of popery which fills the souls of vast masses of Protestants? It is not against the church of Rome as a false or a foul church, that Protestant zeal is chiefly directed, though it should be, but it is against it as a persecuting church. We dare not conceal it from ourselves or others, that it is the imagined bloodthirstiness, and not the blasphemy of the Romish church, which creates and nourishes a large portion of the Protestant spirit; many a 'Protestant demonstration' has been a grand display, not of faith but fear! It is the misfortune of the Church of England not only to be considered a persecuting church, but a persecuting church now. It is known to have the power, and it is believed to have the will, to treat with great severity those who resist its exactions. This belief is founded on facts which require but little learning and memory. It is not necessary for a man to read in large books or to conclude from deep study, that he must patiently submit to what he thinks injustice, or experience what he esteems still greater injustice. The thing is matter of common discourse, of universal faith. The argument, whatever its soundness or unsoundness, can be understood by any intellect. And the result is, that millions regard the Church of England with emotions of abhorrence and detestation. We simply state the fact, and ask, is it wise to treat that Church so regarded, as if it were not merely a true, but the main representation of Protestantism in the land? Regarded as it is, it does not convey an amiable idea of the Protestant faith and spirit. The associations which so use it impose on Protestantism too onerous a task; not only has it to defend its sentiments from the specious and plausible objections and arguments of a welltrained priesthood of a deeply-rooted and very ancient church, but it has also to vindicate and uphold doings which are opposed to the judgments and consciences of those whom it would reclaim. If the laboriousness of an assigned service, apart from its character, be a criterion of intended honor, Protestant Associations cannot be charged with despising Protestantism.

Protestant Associations are liable to the suspicion from which all profitable enterprises are incapable of being separated. Far be it from us to impute selfishness of motive or secularity of aim to any men or body of men. We are giving reasons why certain societies are not proper representatives and instruments of

Protestantism, and we remark that in this connexion their purpose to maintain and defend the emoluments of the Church is a great inconvenience. It has another stake besides the faith of its members, the property of its patrons and the assured livings of its priests. The wages of orthodoxy are sufficiently large to prevent some heretics from perceiving, as they should, the perfect disinterestedness of such advocacy of it. The zeal displayed, instead of being construed as the expression of an earnest love and firm belief, is in danger of being interpreted as a sign of great regard for tithes. We admit, however, the fervor and sincerity of many of the no-popery leaders and followers ;—our speech is of the awkwardness of their position. A man may easily so circumstanced as almost to necessitate a misconstruction of the aim and origin of his deeds, however pure and simple his soul may be, and such misconstruction may greatly retard and check, if it do not entirely prevent his success. We think the Protestant Associations are in such a case. It is a fact, that multitudes interpret them as mere instruments of civil privileges and secular wealth. It is greatly to be regretted that seeming sanction should have been so often given, not only to the views entertained of the sinister spirit and principle of those societies, but of the clerical character in general, by the manner of speech among their friends and advocates. How often the only sense that can be assigned to the term 'church,' in its stately or familiar use, is that of property. The respectability of the Church often means only the incomes of its officers; the ascendency of the Church, its support by the contributions of other, and unwilling, sects; the danger of the Church, the jeopardy of its endowments. It is for a lamentation, that 'the Church in "danger,' the expression of an idea, than which, scripturally viewed, none can be formed more awful, should be merely the sign of a conception among the most familiar of the marketplace and the exchange, should simply denote the transfer of certain funds from one party to another. How must men's minds be depraved by the secularizing influences of civil establishments of religion, when they can desecrate such solemn and sacred words by using them as vehicles for thoughts so mean and worldly, when they can identify the religion of a divine grace with any particular means of support, and especially a means in whose favor it says nothing, but to which its sayings, its sentiments, and its spirit are utterly opposed!

But it is not only as engines for the promotion of Protestantism that we object to Protestant Associations, thinking them but ill adapted to that end; we object to the cast and character of their politics. This must prove an insuperable impediment to the junction of dissenters as a body. Their orators are frequent and eloquent in their reproofs of political Dis

senters; an expression so used, and so often used, as to suggest the thought that it is believed to contain either the most pungent proof or condemnation, a regular Q. E. D., or such a saying as the Jews employed to describe the climax of depravity, Thou art a Samaritan and hast devil;' but it is not to be supposed that these gentlemen eschew politics. We question if ever a meeting is enlightened by them without the strongest references, not always in the best taste and temper, to the most exciting political themes and the most prominent political persons.* Yea, it often happens that the same speech is political, and denounces dissenters for being so, proving that it is not our meddling with politics,' but meddling on the 'wrong side,' that excites the indignation of our brethren. We are not going to deny that we are political, although we believe and know that we are not more so than those who make it a ground of accusation and complaint. We have yet to learn, that Christianity denudes us of our civil characters, or requires that the government of the world should be left entirely to sinners. Indeed, we are glad to have with us in this faith our very accusers. They maintain a union of religion and politics. the most complete and perfect that ever entered the heart of man, a union of a nature and extent greatly to distress and offend political Dissenters,' the union of Church and state. We have not the least objection to be, or to be considered and called, political.' It is not therefore the fact, that Protestant Associations are political; that they are supported by political speeches, that they publish political tracts, that they promote political petitions, that we dislike. We disapprove of the KIND of their politics. Why should men, who are not Tories, be blamed for refusing to hear and spread sentiments of the most essential toryism? Why should any men be blamed for re

* We must take this opportunity of stating our utter unbelief of a charge perseveringly brought against one of the most eminent Protestant advocates, the Rev. H. M'Neile. It is but bare justice to say, that when the reverend gentleman exclaimed, some twenty months ago, What peace so long as that woman Jezebel lives?' there is not the slightest reason for supposing that he meant it as an incitement to murder the queen!' That it should have been so considered or represented at all, and especially after the public and solemn disclaimer of the reverend gentleman, affords a melancholy illustration of the power of party spirit, religious and political. It is astonishing how soon men, otherwise honorable and just, will adopt, and how tardily they will resign, a calumny against an opponent, into the grounds of which they take no pains to inquire. In the second publication, at the head of this article, Mr. M'Neile repels the accusation, that he uttered (to use the reckless language of one political adversary) the most extraordinary and atrocious declaration, of the necessity of murdering the sovereign, that ever dropped from a traitor's lips.' He was not the first that thought or spoke of the wife of Ahab as a type of the church of Rome, and in this speech the parallel is drawn with much ingenuity and cleverness,

fusing to hear and spread statements which falsely impeach the truth and honesty of their principles, and ally them with everything that is selfish, gross, immoral, and infidel? The publica tions and proceedings of the Associations prove, that they are forms and means of the boldest, baldest conservatism. Unless, therefore, we are willing to lie to our own consciences, we must remain apart. The measures advocated are such as terrify, by their bitterness and frantic severity, the greater part of the representatives of even toryism in Parliament; and it is but a few, who have added no small theological to no small political folly, that are prepared to propose and promote them. We charge these measures with gross and palpable injustice to Catholics. They have in them the essence of persecution, the making men suffer for their faith. They are violations of every principle we should honor and respect. They are popish measures. We care not what may be the opinions of Catholics, they are their opinions, and that is enough for us. A Catholic conscience is as real and solemn a thing as a Protestant, and should be respected in its most erroneous workings: to him ' that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. What opinions must a man profess but his own? And if he profess his own, what right has any other man to make him suffer for it? This would be to assume the possession of some peculiar authority for his own opinions, which the suffering man has not; which is popery. To deprive a man, or keep a man deprived, of civil rights on account of his creed, is to resign and yield up the only principle by which it can be fairly proved wrong to persecute unto death. It is to abandon the secret strength of human right. There is no medium between perfect equality and persecution. He who takes away my vote or my money because I am a heretic (that is, differ from him) acts upon grounds which, if just, would warrant him in making me a prisoner or a martyr. He may not have the power or the will to treat me thus, but in that case his circumstances or his benevolence check and stay his principles. The hard cruelties of his creed are restrained and subdued by the unsophisticated feelings of his heart, or the merciful providence of God. With these opinions, we are compelled to resist every attempt to keep or get from our fellow-countrymen their political rights because they are Catholics or Jews, or anything else in matters of opinion. It is useless to allege that Catholics may possibly regain their ancient position and prerogatives in this country, that popery may be again established as the national religion. We cannot help it; we know nothing of expediency in this case. We take our stand upon principle. Our doctrine is this,— civil equality is a claim which cannot be destroyed by religious opinions, and we are not to be deterred from acting out this