foes, assuming every sort of shape, participating in every species of sedition, and constantly working against the Government, and undermining its authority by means of the ignorant and the weak. The British Roman Catholics, in a letter which is still extant, published these facts, and complained of them to the Pope, declaring that they personally were content with their national rulers, and feared not any persecution or intolerance if the Jesuits could be withdrawn from the island, or commanded to desist in their insidious or popular aggressions. It may be an unpalatable truth to the Dissenters, but a truth it undoubtedly is, that many, very many of their sects were of Jesuitical origin, and that all received, in the early periods of their existence, Jesuitical aid and sanction. In those days, as in the present, liberalism was the pretence of Popery; she had been disarmed and reduced, but a very large portion, if not the greater portion, of the people still clung to her creed, and she swayed them according to her arbitrary will, endeavouring to throw discredit on the Reformation by abusing the blessings it offered. In like manner, in the days of Charles I., no fantastic theory was deemed too wild for Jesuiti cal adoption; and while they were mixing, as they did, in the Parliamentary ranks, and particularly in Cromwell's army, they were conspiring against the Parliament's authority in Ireland, and signalized their hostility to the truth by goading on the wild population to the massacre of 1641-the most horrible event in all British history. Jesuits in England were new Jerusalem-men, and fifth monarchy-men, and millenarians, and anabaptists, while in Ireland, they were binding faster the fetters of superstition, and in France were trampling on the rights and the liberty of conscience. Subsequently in James II.'s time, they succeeded in prevailing on that monarch, and all the British Roman Catholics, to struggle for the re-establishment of Popery. And what were the memorable means? The same as had been tried before, the same that were ever ready, the same that are employed now. They tempted the Dissenters, and ensnared not a few of them -William Penn and John Howe among the number-with offers of toleration and promises of advantages; they induced a very large portion of this class of nonconformists to sink their hatred of Popery in their rancour against the Church of England, and they trusted by these means to uproot that establishment, and prepare the way for their old ascendency. But their liberalism then was duly appreciated by the greater part of the nation, because arbitrary power advanced step by step with Popery, notwithstanding her plausible professions. The only difference between the state of things now, and the state of things then, appears to be, that the people in those days understood their own interests, and were not deceived by men who endeavoured to delude or betray them. Every thing else now is a second representation of the same anomalies. We witness Popery assuming peculiar enlightenment, dealing in liberal promises, using the democracy for ultimately despotic objects, and allying herself with Dissenters, and infidels, and liberals of all other descriptions, in assaults against the religious institutions of the country which are our chief bulwarks and securities of Protestantism and religious freedom. Unhappily, however, we do not see, in these days of boastings and large pretences, the spirit that animated our fathers in 1688, that drove Popery from the throne, and despotism from the country, which breathed in a Burnett, a Locke, and a Somers; a spirit of manly, honest, and religious patriotism, offirm and unbending adherence to ancient principles. But if there still be any doubt on the subject, we may dispel it by soliciting a glance at the proceedings of Popery in the present age in surrounding countries, and in all parts of the globe. A lesson may be obtained from this view worth learning, and three things will be apparent from it; that where Popery is dominant, it employs a despotism to keep up its sway; that where Protestantism exists, it artfully adopts the revolutionary principle; that in all cases its liberalism is false and hollow. For proof of the first assertion, we refer to Austria, Italy, South America, and France. In all these countries Protestantism is proscribed, depressed, and persecuted. The Tyroleans under the dominion of Austria are openly coerced; the Bible is prohibited, and all who venture (except the powerful English in their chapel at Rome, which motives of policy allow to exist) to advocate Protestant doctrines are punished either for heresy or sedition; in South America the case is the same; and in France, the poor Wesleyans in many districts have been thwarted and opposed, their chapels have been closed, and their proselyting zeal and success have attracted severe threats and considerable danger. In other Popish countries the Protestants are more numerous, and it is not safe to touch them; but in these, and in all lands where Protestantism is not established, recognised, and supported, liberty is nothing but a phantom and a name, and the populations are notorious for comparative poverty and degradation. The Protestant and Roman Catholic cantons of Switzerland are marked by differences as broad and as favourable to Protestantism as those which distinguish the two creeds. The colonies of Spain or Portugal are as much below the colonies of England or Holland in wealth, industry, and enterprize, as these Popish and enslaved nations are below those Protestant countries in prosperity and happiness. The same remark may be applied to the colonies of France, as compared with the possessions of Great Britain; and a comparison might be instituted with the same creditable result, with reference to the German nations, and the other Popish and Protestant parts of Europe. Ireland and England, for instance, or Belgium and Holland; and with reference also to the two great continents of North and South America. In all cases it would be found, that to call a nation Protestant, was to denominate it contented, powerful, and flourishing; while to style it Popish, would be to mark it as degraded, fettered, and enthralled. How, then, we would fain ask the Liberals, does this happen, if Popery be as liberal as they pretend, and if Liberalism be as excellent as they think it? Surely either Liberalism has failed, or Popery has failed, (in those precise places where it could do best as it pleased), in displaying it? This is the dilemma to which the Liberals are reduced. It is impossible that any thing can be more fair, when we are told to entrust Popery with privileges and power, and to banish all our prejudices; it is impossible to argue more fairly than to refer to Popish countries for an exem plification of the effect of Popish government, and for a clear proof of Popish principles. But, alas! for Liberalism when we apply this honest and satisfactory test, there appears neither freedom nor toleration, nor enlightenment in any single country, where, according to Popery's professions, those characteristics should be found. Instead of them we see persecution, tyranny, bigotry, and ignorance, absolute governments, a fettered press, and religion used only as a means of blinding and binding the people. Strange! that Popery, so liberal, tolerant, and elevated as we are told it is, should signalise its supremacy by contradicting its professions, and throwing ridicule on the encomiums and promises of its friends. Yes! strange it is, yet true; and this fact we commend to the serious consideration of those who are so eager and so earnest in their praise of modern Popery. We commend it to them in support of our assertions with reference to the despotism of Popery in countries where it has dominion; and pass on to the second point, which concerns the revolutionary tendency of Popery in those places where any other government exists. It might be reasonably expected, if Popery were what is pretended, that its attachment to Liberalism would induce it to support rather than to destroy Protestant Government, based upon any free or tolerant principles. Its Liberalism itself might excuse its attacks on the Prussian Government, or any other partially absolute authority. But how happens it, that in lands where freedom is more generously given than in any Popish countries in the world, Popery is striving to overturn the very fabric of society, and to shatter the institutions that are the guarantees of liberty, and the restraints alike on the ambition of the powerful, and the excesses of the mob? How does it happen that Prussia is in fact assailed, not peculiarly, but merely as one among many governments, some of them based upon liberal, and others on narrow principles ? We do indeed marvel at the fact, but we do not, and cannot doubt its existence and its truth. We look at home, where personal liberty is secured to every man, and where social rights are granted to the utmost extent compatible with the maintenance of social order, and we see Popery, after a long acquiescence, and many declarations of allegiance and contentment, struggling with amazing ardour against every settled and single establishment, whether ecclesiastical or civil. We look at Ireland, and there we see crime stalking triumphantly through the land, and Popery resisting every check to it, as an infringement of civil privileges, as an insult to the majesty of the people. Nothing there seems safe; and no means, however bold, vicious, or perilous, are neglected to make that apparent danger real and imminent. In our colonies the same course is pursued. Canada and Newfoundland are embroiled in perpetual strife; the stream of emigration is dried up; trade is reduced or destroyed; property is insecure; the power of the mother country is subverted or shaken; and designs the most desperate, projects the most democratic are advocated with vigour and partially with success. In the United States, the only formidable and concentrated body threatening danger to the peace of the republic, is confessedly a Roman Catholic sect. They are taking possession of every wild to which the meagre voluntary principle is unable to penetrate, and are proselyting with astonishing success in other parts where the population is more numerous, and that same voluntary principle equally inefficient. But in that country it is necessary to assume the ultra-democratic form, in order to secure a victory; and without hesitation that appearance is put on, to subserve the artful purposes in view. On the continent of Europe the same policy is pursued. Every month in Prussia adds to the violent excitement of religious parties, and witnesses fresh aggressions, fresh revolutionary movements from the Roman Catholic population. In Hanover the same spirit has commenced working, and with much prospect of triumph. In Belgium it has already succeeded by the expulsion of the Dutch government, under pretences the most frivolous, and on account of grievances the most petty and insignificant; it has succeeded by the aid of foreign intrigue, and to the subversion, not only of Belgium's own freedom and toleration, but also of Europe's balance of power. In this revolutionary method is Popery contending for advancement. How far is it sincere in its profes sions? How far is it to be proved that it really intends ultimately to compass the democratic objects which it now affects to advocate? To these questions we have partly replied already, but something more remains to be said on them. We say its Liberalism is false in England, because it makes no concession to advance it; because its avowed principles of action with reference to the opinions of others are the same as ever; and because, above all, it has advocated all the democratic expedients it now sanctions before, and then with the purpose of imposing on the nation the rejected despotism of the Stuarts. Who can deny these statements? What single concession does Popery make? We have shown that in its support of the Ballot, the Voluntary principle and education, its purposes are directly contrary to its declaration; and we may add, that with reference to triennial Parliaments, an extension of the suffrage, and other reforms of that sort, Popery advocated them more than a century ago against the House of Hanover, (knowing the ignorance of the people) as a means of restoring the Stuarts' dynasty. Its object then was a tyranny, and it endeavoured to obtain it by the common and usual process of enabling the people to give it to themselves. Its object may be, and we assert is, a tyranny now, and the means are the same. Anarchy, it knows, must precede any such evil in this land, and anarchy it therefore desires. We repeat, then, what has it conceded? Its plans are the same as ever, and its principles too. For the latter, let Den's Theology, published for "the more sure guidance" of the Irish priesthood, under the sanction of the Popish Archbishops, and three thousand priests, emphatically answer; or let the revived Rhemish notes and the class books of Maynooth speak in confirmation of our statement. We, therefore, laugh to scorn Popery's Liberalism in Great Britain; and more particularly do we ridicule it in that part where Popery is best displayed-Ireland. Popery and Liberalism in Ireland! Who ever heard of an absurdity so ridiculous, a connexion more monstrous and preposterous? Is there Liberalism in Ireland, where toleration is so little understood that the profession of Protestantism is a crime, and where a vote against a Popish candidate is the sig nal for a whole district's execration, and the sufficient cause for a priestly curse? Is there Liberalism in Ireland, where the war whoop of extermination sounds through the land, and every criminal that perishes on the scaffold goes happy to his grave, if his knife drew the life-blood of "a Protestant parson?" Is it Liberalism to intimidate voters, to brave the law, to withhold legal dues, to extort promises of similar conduct, and to force Protes tant emigration? If this be Liberalism, it exists in Ireland, and we own it is allied, and closely too, with Popery. But if not, if even the Liberals disclaim principles that lead to these terrible and disastrous results, we know not where to find any thing but pure unadulterated Romanism in the Irish popular party. And if this be the case in Great Britain's domestic possessions, how much more clearly is it so in her colonial dependencies? The struggle in Lower Canada, the "Liberal" struggle, was for tenures suited to the old regime in France, and for the best mode of throwing off the dominion of Protestant England. The Liberalism of Monsieur Papineau and the other valourous rebels, amounted to no voluntary principle, for they had a Popish, and only a Popish establishment; to no educational system, for they left the people in ignorance; to no Ballot, for they preferred open suffrage. Yet they were for revolutionary measures; that is, for revolution ary measures as distinguished from "Liberal" ones. A party may be, as we contend the Papists are, revolutionists without being Liberals, or may profess liberalism, only as a means to Revolution, with no sort of ultimate view to a democratic constitution. So it was in Lower Canada, so it is at home. And again, in New. foundland, Popery is in the ascendant, and it is liberal. It is, in that country, so liberal, that a very liberal suffrage is adopted, and for the very good reason, that by means of it Popery returns her favourites and myrmidons to the House of Assembly. But here her Liberalism ends. We hear of Voluntary principle, of no education, while we meet with symptoms not a few, that the democratic House of Assembly, with all its fine and plausible professions, is nothing better than an instrument of despotism in the hands of the many for the oppression and the overwhelming of the few. In the like manner, Popery's Liberalism in America dictates a deep-laid conspiracy against a Republic which is the pride of the Liberals, and the one bright spot on the earth in which their callous hearts find pleasure. It has chosen that magnificent field of exertion, and already views it, in imagination, as the arena for a mighty struggle for ascendency, which must terminate in complete success. In Europe, hopes of restoration to ancient supremacy are equally inspiriting; and those hopes arise from the use of Liberalism. Popery indulges in Prussia in all sorts of democratic acts and liberal professions, yet the occasions of its chief struggles with the Protestant Government are its interdiction of the marriages of Papists with Protestants, and their common use of schools. So in Belgium, it revolutionized a nation with the declared intention of giving complete freedom to the people, but with success Liberalism vanished, and commenced a series of petty oppressions and serious annoyances to those who ventured to oppose its doctrines, and to throw light on its corruption, by circulating the Bible. Here then we rest, on this proof of what Popery's Liberalism really means, and has effected, and designs. But other material and interesting points arise, which must be considered, if this matter is really to be placed fairly before the public. It is said by some, and those not unimportant authorities, that the connexion for temporary political purposes between Popery and other Antichristian powers is a sign of the times, pregnant with meaning, and gloomy in its forebodings. For instance, Bishop Horsley, in a letter written forty years ago, which appears from some of its remarkable expressions almost prophetical, boldly speaks out, and very explicitly too, on this most singular question. We should not quote it if the name of the writer stood lower in the list of eminent churchmen, or if his mind were likely to have been easily warped by excitement, or deluded by visionary speculations. As, on the contrary, the authority of the author is of the first character, and as his words, however remarkable, are evidently the result of deep deliberation and thought, we feel it a duty to call attention to it. The passage is as follows: "The Church of God on earth will be greatly reduced, as we may well imagine, in its apparent numbers, in the times of Antichrist, by the open desertion of the powers of the world. This desertion will begin in a professed indifference to any particular form of Christianity, under the pretence of universal toleration; which toleration will proceed from no true spirit of charity and forbearance, but from a design to undermine Christianity, by multiplying and encouraging sectaries. The pretended toleration will go far beyond a just toleration, even as it regards the different sects of Christians. For govern ments will pretend an indifference to all, and will give a protection in preference to none. All establishments will be laid aside. From the toleration of the most pestilent heresies, they will proceed to the toleration of Mahometanism, Atheism, and at last to a positive persecution of the truth of Christianity. In these times the Temple of God will be reduced almost to the Holy Place, that is, to the small number of real Christians who worship the Father in spirit and in truth, and regulate their doctrine and their worship, and their whole conduct, strictly by the word of God. The merely nominal Christians will all desert the profession of the truth, when the powers of the world desert it. And this tragical event I take to be typified by the order to St John to measure the Temple and the Altar, and leave the outer court (national Churches) to be trodden under foot by the Gentiles. The property of the clergy will be pillaged, the public worship insulted and vilified by these deserters of the faith they once professed, who are not called apostates, because they never were in earnest in their profession. Their profession was nothing more than a compliance with fashion and public authority. In principle they were always, what they now appear to be, Gentiles. When this gen eral desertion of the faith takes place, then will commence the sackcloth ministry of the witnesses. . . . There will be nothing of splendour in the external appearance of these Churches; they will have no support from governments, no honours, no emoluments, no immunities, no authority, but that which no earthly power can take away, which they derive from Him who commissioned them to be His witnesses." Popery, in all times our enemy, often still more powerful than it is now, has always fallen before the determined resolution of the British people; she has failed in suppressing the Reformation, though the land rung with the cries of her victims, and the cities blazed with the fires her cruelty lighted; she failed when her proud Armada sailed to conquer our country, and itself was scattered to the winds; she failed in her political intrigues; she failed in her great effort under the last monarch of the Stuarts; she has been foiled in every conspiracy, disappointed in every insurrection, though assisted by foreign gold and foreign mercenaries, and therefore we may trust that she will once more be struck down and defeated, notwithstanding the treachery of our pretended friends, and the zealous co-operation of Infidelity, and Liberalism, and Dissent. We have triumphed ere this over greater danger, and over foes with whom it was far more worthy and far more perilous to contend; and regarding now the sturdy common sense, the experience, and the awakening spirit of the people, we hope that the day may not be distant when the motley combination of ambitious factions shall be foiled in their endeavours to impose on the country in which they enjoy greater blessings than any others can confer, the iron dominionof a persecuting and idolatrous system. |