Page images
PDF
EPUB

portion of the constituency from seeking out such men to represent them in Parliament.

If, then, you would desire to arrest the downward progress of the national character-if you would check Infidelity and vice, and seek to promote virtue, contentment, peace, and prosperity in the land, remember that much, humanly speaking, will depend upon the vote of every individual. Let not a vote be given for any man who dares to set aside the authority of God's Word as the rule of his own conduct. Rather let men be sought out, by every constituency, who will not be ashamed to own the Lord Jesus Christ as their Lord and Master, and to confess his name before rulers and kings. These are the men into whose hands you can safely commit the important trust of power as your representatives - men who will use that power for the glory of God, and the real good of their fellow-men. In a word, use your votes in defence of the liberties, the constitution, and the Protestantism of your country, and for the honour of that God, from whom alone we receive all our blessings, both for time and for eternity!

READING THE SCRIPTURES. THE work of Mr. Isaac Nevins, recently published by the Protestant Association, abounds with very sound arguments and remarks on most points of the Romish controversy. The style is pointed, interesting, and vigorous. His remarks as to the right of the laity to read the Scriptures, is a specimen of his common sense way of refuting the mystic and mystifying language of Rome and Romish writers on the use of the Holy Scriptures by the laity.

The little work is a very cheap one, and our friends would do good service to the cause by circulating copies amongst the operative classes.

ENCOURAGEMENT ΤΟ CON-
TINUED EFFORTS.
To the Editor of the Protestant
Magazine.

(From a Correspondent.) SIR,-It has always appeared to me, that our Protestant leaders, both in

Church and State, may be divided into two great classes, as the modus operandi. Both are, and must be, alarmists; for to be a Protestant, and not an alarmist, is a direct contradiction, so long as the error, against which they protest, is gaining ground. Of course, we speak not of nominal Protestants, i. e., members of a Protestant religious body simply as such; would that even they all felt as they ought the responsibility of their situation as arbiters of the fate of "liberty of conscience," our England's holiest boon!

[ocr errors]

But with the notes of alarm sounded, ever and anon, the one party mingle the sad sounds of lamentation and despair, in hope thus to rouse the dying ardour of their countrymen. The other class, while they take up the strains of alarm, blend with them sounds of joy; they confess themselves overborne, but not vanquished; cast down for a season, yet to rise; they will not doubt, but hope on and on-"hope against hope.' When the sun is set, they yet discern the stars-sometimes but few, at other times a countless multitude that break the otherwise undisturbed reign of night. They act as the man of God, who, amid the fearful crowd, could speak the startling word of his Master, "Speak unto the children of Israel that they go forward." These are the men whom we conceive the most suited for our emergencies. This is no common epoch in our Protestant annals. To retrace our downward steps is a prodigious task; but retrace them we must if we would not plunge deeper-aye, and faster too-down the dark and interminable abyss of concession.

Rome, like her type, the horseleech, will cry, “Give, give”—till, like it, she obtains blood- heretic blood. 'Tis only where she revels in the blood of the faithful that she is at ease and cries, I am full, I am full. Now, if ever, the effort must be made. Alas! we cannot say, "Obstemus mali principiis." We are already half down the inclined plane, and no small power will it need to begin once more the ascent; it must be a long pull, a hard pull, and above all, a pull all together. Every day

way

[blocks in formation]

So far the trumpet of alarm; but is there no faint echo from the lyre of hope and victory? Yes, we have good news to tell! The first, we trust, faint streaks of morning are appearing.

We all know that the Romish Relief Bill passed its second reading on the 24th ultimo, but not without a few tokens of good. It is a severer and a truer test of the reality of a man's Protestantism than the Maynooth Bill was, inasmuch as it is a question not of expediency-the blind leader of our blind statesmen now-adays-but of principle. Thus we find Mr. Watson, its mover, declaring it is "no concession to Catholics but to Protestants themselves:" it is a mournful truth that it is as much invited by nominal Protestants as called for by Romanists; but few have fallen at this test. Of the opponents of the Maynooth Bill we find the following Members classed now with the friends of the Papacy:Honourable E. P. Bouverie, John Bright, Jos. Brotherton, Wm. Sharman Crawford, George Duncan, John Fielden, Charles Hindley, John Pattison, Captain Pechell, W. D. Christie, T. Gisborne. At most of these we cannot wonder; the letters of two of them, Messrs. Bright and Brotherton, to the Rev. Hugh Stowell, which have recently appeared in the papers, sufficiently show the reason of their votes on both questions. Their vote against the Maynooth Bill was not given for principle's sake, but for expediency's; or rather, not for Protestant principle's sake, but for AntiState-Church principle's sake.

Against these, repeating our idea of the severity of the late test of principles, let us point out twenty upholders of the concession of last spring, who have recorded their votes against this new step in the same track:

Blackburne, J. J. Broadwood, H. Boldero, H. G. Carew, W. H. B. Bowles, Admiral. Chelsea, Viscount.

[blocks in formation]

Again, much as we have been taunted with the want of success of our Protestant candidates in many cases, I find the following thirteen new Members, elected since the passing of the Bill, voting against the second reading of the Romish Relief Bill:

-

Bennet, P., Suffolk.
Bunbury, W. M‘C.

Chandos, Marquis, Buckingham.
Chichester, Lord J. L. Belfast.
Duckworth, Sir J., Exeter.
Finch, G., Rutlandshire.
Hall, Col., Buckingham.
Hope, Sir J., Edinburghshire.
Lindsay, Hon. Captain, Wigan.
Rushout, Captain.
Stuart, J., Newark.

Vyse, R. H. R., South Northampton.
Walpole, S. H., Midhurst.

And only seven supported Mr. Watson's measure, viz. :

Brown, W., South Lancashire.
M'Donnell, J. M., Mayo County.
Moffatt, G., Dartmouth.
Molesworth, Sir W., Southwark.
Price, Sir R., Hereford.
Rich, H., Richmond.

Romilly, J., Bridport. I have been induced to copy these by looking over your account of the divisions on the Maynooth Bill.

[ocr errors]

It is a strange thing how thickly we find strewn amid the supporters of all such Bills, the titles of the heirs of nobility-the embryo Peers-too often in disgraceful opposition to the recorded opinions of their fathers; we may instance the sons of Earl Dungarvan, Earl Cadogan, and Earl Bradford the Viscounts Adare, Chelsea, and Newport-the fathers of all of whom are strenuously opposed to such measures, and, more especially, Earl Lincoln and Viscount Jocelyn-men whose fathers are beloved as the bold champions of all that is dearest to our Protestant hearts. At the same time, the complaint of the Record newspaper of

[blocks in formation]

"PEACE FOR IRELAND."

To the Editor of the Protestant
Magazine.

SIR, I beg to refer you to an article in the Spectator of the 6th February, entitled "Peace for Ireland,” and advocating the endowment of the Roman Catholic priesthood; and I trust that the following few remarks may not prove unacceptable to you.

The article I allude to, commences its argument by stating that religion is purely spontaneous, and no power on earth can make it otherwise; and that when religion, or moral conviction, attains to a determinate existence, it becomes one important means of moral culture and civil control; and hence the necessity of the State adoption of the Irish hierarchy-that is to say, that the priests are to be bribed to keep the peace!

That religion has its seat in the heart, no man among us denies, but to foster what any one chooses to call religion, is a principle which, if carried out (to be consistent with ourselves), obliges us to support every sect that acknowledges the rule of Great Britain; so that if we stop the factious clamours of the Irish priesthood by endowing their Church, to stop the clamours of Mahometansif ever they should begin to "agitate" -we must likewise endow the priests of Mahomet.

The writer proceeds to say, that, as a Roman Catholic subject is not to be swayed by exclusively Protestant in

fluences, he is to be swayed by Roman Catholic influences; and these ought to be employed.

Though a Catholic may not be swayed by Protestant "influences," yet surely before we use those by which alone he can be swayed, we ought to examine the nature of them, and try them by the only test, “To the law and to the testimony;" and what if they will not bear the examination? Shall we use our unrighteous "influences?" If it be replied that they are to be used in order to make Catholics good subjects, do the means sanctify the end? we rejoin. Shall we propagate error," and do evil that good may come?

66

At the close of the article the writer says, "Who dares to claim freedom for his own intellect and conscience, and to deny it to his brother man? Who dares to set himself in judgment over his fellow, and to say, I am the right, and thou art the wrong." Is it Protestants that arrogate a claim so presumptuous and absurd?

It is the custom of these liberal times to treat all religions alike, as though God had not spoken, and as if no light had been given to show man the way to everlasting joys. Is not the Bible the Word of God? Shall we not find the truth there, or shall we seek in vain for the expression of God's will? If we seek diligently we shall find him, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and if no doubt is implied in the if,-this be the case, how dare any man yield to the falsely liberal doctrine of treating all religions alike? Of course the advocate of Roman Catholic endowment can find no difference between the two faiths, but ask him why is it a sin to steal? Doubtless he will reply, because it is a breach of the commandment, and would think any man mad who proposed the "State adoption" of a school where thieving was taught. And if it be wrong to support so vile a school, is it not equally so, to support a system that inculcates the bowing down to an image? God said, "Thou shalt not steal;" he likewise said, "Thou shalt not bow down before a graven image." Surely such an advocate is guilty of gross inconsistency, and it is difficult to see

how any one can believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and yet vote for the support of that which clearly teaches the bowing down to images.

I remain, yours truly,
DELTA THETA.

Liverpool, March, 1847.

PROTESTANT CONSISTENCY.

To the Editor of the Protestant
Magazine.

SIR,-Having been from home the greater part of the month of February, I did not see the "Magazine" for that month, till towards its termination. I now beg to return my best thanks to your Correspondent "F. G." for his satisfactory information relative to the individuals in the Lower House who voted for or against the third reading of the Maynooth Endowment Bill in the session of 1845. The list I consider a most valuable and important one, not only as enabling electors to see which of their representatives discharged their duty at that important crisis, and which of them proved untrue, and thus guiding electors in the right exercise of the franchise; but I consider it valuable in another point of view, as showing to persons of true religion the danger of confiding implicitly in men who profess warm attachment to Bible Societies and Protestant Missionary Associations, while in Parliament they give every encouragement to that apostasy which is the deadly enemy of both the one and the other. In my humble judgment, no religious

Association should be suffered to retain on its Committee list the name of any individual belonging to either House of Parliament who voted for Maynooth.

A friend to religion would be, in my apprehension, fully justified in saying to the Secretary of a Bible or Missionary Association, "I must withhold all support of your Association if any friend to Maynooth is al

lowed to interfere in its direction."

I have only to add, that a list of the Peers who voted for or against Maynooth, would be as desirable as that which your Correspondent has

kindly furnished with regard to the House of Commons; and with thanks for what he has already done, and fervent prayer for the success of Divine truth in this country,

I remain, yours faithfully,
AN OLD PROTESTANT.

March 15, 1847.

A MODE OF INDUCING PRO-
TESTANTS TO FOREGO THEIR
RIGHTS.

To the Editor of the Protestant
Magazine.

SIR,-In the thirteenth chapter of the First Book of Samuel, we are informed tines in suffering no smith in Israel. of the policy practised by the PhilisWhat the effect of that policy was, we read in the twenty-second verse, "So it came to pass in the day of battle, that there was neither sword nor spear found in the hand of any of the people that were with Saul and Jonathan."

this is now adopted by the enemies A conduct precisely analogous to They are doing all they can to dissuade religious persons from exercising their electoral rights in support of their religion. Now is it not a Christian duty to employ our talents, whatever they may be, whether of a public or private kind, for the honour of God, and in defence of his truth? And is not the right of the elective franchise which we shall be held responsible, a public talent, for the exercise of seeing that we are invested with it by the representative form of Government under which we live ? If we do not avail ourselves of this right, our enemies will, as they do most unscrupulously. For instance, who are so active in contested elections as Papists and Infidels and Liberalists

of the Protestant cause.

and Dissenters? As for the Dissenters, they are always ready to support any candidate, whatever may be his religious character, only let him be, in their parlance, a Liberal, which in

spondent's letter should have been inserted in our preceding number, but want of space prevented.

*We intended our Reverend Corre

almost all cases means an ally of Popery, and an enemy of the Church. Yet these very people, who are so strongly and violently political themselves, would prevent others from exercising their public duties and their constitutional rights, because, forsooth, such conduct, they say, would be political. In the same way religious persons are prevented from joining Protestant Associations, or signing petitions against Popery. And thus the hands of many, who are good Protestants at heart, are, as it were, tied behind them, and they are deprived of the lawful means which the constitution has given them for the defence of their religion. So that if this artful method of neutral

izing Christian people, and so drawing them off from the conflict, is to be carried on to any large extent, it seems probable that the enemy will have little more to do than to walk in and take possession of the fortress of Christianity without resistance.

I am apprehensive that this artifice has been practised upon the Wesleyan body with some success. Whereas at the time of Mr. Wesley and Mr. Fletcher, in the midst of the French

Revolution, and throughout the whole of the last war, the Wesleyans were the most loyal portion of the community, and the best supporters of our institutions both in Church and State. The mischievous arguments which are now employed to draw them aside, were in those days never heard or thought of. But I would put this case to any Wesleyan or Dissenter. Suppose that any of their congregations were to be disturbed in the performance of Divine worship, would they not go to a magistrate, and very properly ask him to give them the benefit of any Act of Parliament passed for their protection? In like manner, we in this highly-favoured land live under a Protestant Government, and the established religion is Protestant. Are we then, being the party in possession, and having the law of the land in our favour, not to avail ourselves of the protection of

* We think our correspondent will find, on inquiry, that the Wesleyans are alive to the importance of the next election.-ED. P. M.

that law, when Popery and Infidelity come in upon us like a flood, to invade us, and to wrest our religion and liberties out of our hands? Z.

EXTENSION OF THE FRANCHISE
IN IRELAND.

To the Editor of the Protestant
Magazine.

SIR, This is one of the public meaMajesty's Ministers in the present sures to be brought forward by Her session, most likely according to their stipulations with Mr. O'Connell. Alas! that the Government of the country should be in such hands. When the fatal measure of 1829 was passed, it was understood to be part of the assented, that the freehold qualificacompact, to which the Romanists tion of 57. in Ireland should not be reduced. The Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel are responsible for the fulfilment of this part of the contract. It was held out by them as a kind of collateral security at the time, to induce this country to accept a measure which was so flagrant an infringement of the principles of the constitution. O'Connell, by means of the agitation which he has now been permitted to carry on so many years, has gained a control over the larger portion of the Irish constituencies. By the Municipal Act he has been enabled to convert the corporations, which were so many defences of the Protestant Establishment, into Normal Schools of Political Science, which he said he would make them, or rather of political agitation to the advantage of Popery. He now gives them directions like an absolute Dictator how they are to act. So that if the elective franchise is to be ex

tended, in obedience to the arrogant

demands of O'Connell, the whole representation of Ireland will be in danger of being brought under subjection to the Papacy, as the corporations are already.

AN ENGLISH FREEHOLDER.

EARL GREY AND THE IRISH
CHURCH.

NOT very long before Earl Grey was admitted to a seat in the present Cabinet, he expressed the following very unfriendly feelings to the Irish

« PreviousContinue »