Indeed! and by whom is this alleged? By the Protestants of England themselves! I ask: Is it possible to pronounce a more bitter and sarcastic self-satire-a more damnatory self-impeachment of imbecility and impotency, than is uttered by those who propound this allegation? Is it not voluntarily to invest one's own person with the proper badge and insignia of a professional fool, and to crown one's own head with a fool's cap? to cry out, not in Irish, but in grammatical English-" I will be drowned, and nobody shall help me."

No doubt, if the Protestant spirit, now at last roused from its thirty years' slumber, shall determine to nap again, and return into the unconscious lethargy out of which a strong smell of fire has forced it to start up into wakefulness; if it should go to sleep again—again leaving its candle burning too near the curtains,-all the consequences which scare it at its sudden waking must ensue. For, as its thirty years of somnolency have been the true cause of its actual predicament, by suffering the dreaded power to ripen, unrepressed, to its present vigour, so thirty years more of similar indulgence must enable that power to bind it in its sleep, hand and foot: but, would it then be the more or the less entitled to the costume and crown that I have just described?

What, then; are we to remain for ever awake?-may we never repose again?-must we henceforth exist always on the full stretch and on the alert? What an existence! In answer to such interrogatories I would make a few observations.

The zeal of Protestants, awakened since the 5th of February, 1829, loudly professes their anxiety for the "pure religion" and "glorious constitution" which they enjoy as Protestants;-religion and constitution. Our Protestant interest is, therefore, twofold-religious and secular.-Now, I am urged to ask, which of the two most powerfully spurs their zeal at the present conjuncture? They will, of course, and in all decency, say the first, their religion. I have, therefore, no difficulty in answering those interrogatories; because I believe that not one of them will venture to deny, that that object which they thus profess to be principal in their affection, demands, and ever has demanded from them, that continual wakefulness, watchfulness, exertion, and alacrity, which they have shewn to be so irksome to them, and by the remission of which they have so fearfully endangered that "pure religion",-aban→ doning it to the hazard to which it has been undeniably exposed for thirty years. Indeed, to keep them henceforth and for ever in that salutary state of sleeplessness and vigilance, seems to be a high purpose of the Master of that religion, in permitting the trial of fidelity which his drowsy Church is now destined to undergo. Many persons appear to have expected, on the present occasion, that securities were to be something on the principle of watch and ward; that the bill was to be a sort of second statute of Winchester, providing day and night guards for the security of Church and State; whilst we, the good Protestants of England, lay down again to our repose. But, no! that is not the case we must be our own watchmen,- -we ourselves must keep watch and ward. New, provident, and sufficient warnings are now put forward and posted; but we must, nevertheless, be prepared, ready, and united, should those warnings be slighted or assailed. On the perpe

tuity of our present wakefulness, or our relapse into our former slumber, depend absolutely the perpetuation or extinction of our "pure religion"; or, more properly, of the Establishment provided for its pepetuation amongst us.

But, in entering, as the ascendant party, into our new compact of mutual concession, let us not debase our precedency by evincing or admitting within ourselves a spirit hostile to the individuals whom we invite to union. If we lay claim to the name of Protestant, we claim to be Christians after the primitive model: in that quality, and with its genuine spirit, let us enter the compact, otherwise we shall disgrace the character of which we make our boast. Whatever be the measure. of our feelings towards the system of the Romish religion, we cannot, without the most narrow and despicable prejudice, direct any of those feelings towards the persons of the lay individuals to whom we tender an equal participation of civil immunities. They cannot harm us, unless we ourselves are accessories to our own harm. And if the equitable principle of our common law deems no man guilty till guilt is proved, how unworthy will it be not to hold those individuals to be honourable, upright, and faithful, until the contrary is shewn many such we shall find among them as among ourselves. Let us not be so unjust as to forget who those were who returned that patriotic reply to the See of Rome when in the meridian of its power, and which we so often recite," Nolumus leges Anglia mutare:" they were Englishmen in spiritual communion with that See. But, above all things, let us beware not to dishonour the sacred name of Protestant, from which we would derive to ourselves such pre-eminent honour; but let us faithfully exemplify its excellence in our national conduct and demeanour.' pp. 12-22.

Mr. Vever's object is to shew, first, that it is impossible for the members of the Romish Church to give any securities to a Protestant state; and secondly, that it is equally impossible for them to give any securities to a Roman Catholic state, or to any government whatever under the sun; therefore they ought not to be tolerated, and yet, they may not be persecuted. That is to say, their religion is to have all possible room and opportunity to extend itself in boundless freedom'; but the men who profess it are to be treated as culprits, out of the pale of civil society. And this is the Wesleyan theory of religious liberty! Mr. Vevers has 'the honour to belong to that sect, which glories ' (and no man,' he says, ' shall deprive' them of their subject of glorying'), not in the Divine Master of Christians, but in its illustrious founder, the venerated Wesley'; whose sentiments on popery, recorded in a newspaper fifty years ago, still bind the consciences of his devoted followers.

"With persecution", he says, "I have nothing to do. I persecute no man for his religious principles. Let there be as boundless a freedom in religion' as any man can conceive. But this does not touch the point: I will set religion, true or false, utterly out of the question. Therefore away with all your common place declamation

about intolerance and persecution for religion! Suppose every word of Pope Pius's Creed to be true: suppose the council of Trent to have been infallible yet I insist upon it, that no Government, not Roman Catholic, ought to tolerate men of the Roman Catholic persuasion. I prove this by a plain argument (let him answer it that can)-that nó Roman Catholic does or can give security for his allegiance or peaceable behaviour, I prove thus. It is a Roman Catholic maxim, established not by private men, but by a public council, that No faith is to be kept with heretics'; this has been openly avowed by the Council of Constance, but it never was openly disclaimed. Whether private persons avow or disavow it, it is a fixed maxim of the Church of Rome. But as long as it is so, it is plain, that the members of that Church can give no reasonable security to any Government, of their allegiance or peaceable behaviour. Therefore they ought not to be tolerated by any Government, Protestant, Mahometan, or Pagan. You may say nay, but they will take an oath of allegiance'. True, five hundred oaths, but the maxim, No faith is to be kept with heretics', sweeps them all away as a spider's web. So that still no Governors that are not Roman Catholics, can have any security for their allegiance. Again, those who acknowledge the spiritual power of the Pope can give no security of their allegiance to any government; but all Roman Catholics acknowledge this; therefore they can give no security for their allegiance." Such was the reasoning and the opinion of the FOUNDER OF METHODISM.' pp. 27, 28.

This passage will serve to account for the violent anti-catholic zeal which has manifested itself throughout that apocryphal body of Dissenters who go by the name of Wesleyan Methodists. And it will serve also to shew, how much less a religious hatred of the errors of Popery enters into that intolerant zeal, than a cowardly dread of the political evils which its ascendancy would entail. Fear is always cruel, and a moral cowardice like this is deaf to reasoning. But it is a singular fact, that the only converts to Popery that we have heard of, from among Protestant Dissenters, have been Wesleyan Methodists. And if Popery is likely to gain ground among us, we believe, that it is among the lower classes of that body, whose obscure and unscriptural notions of justification, together with their subjection to their spiritual leaders, would render the transition far less violent than might be supposed.

But be it so, that the Roman Catholics can give no securities: the only question is, whether we cannot and do not possess sufficient securities, independently of their power to give them. We admit, that oaths are very slender and doubtful securities; and whether the Church of Rome claims the power of absolving from oaths, or not, is of little practical consequence. What church was it that absolved the Duke of Marlborough from his oath of allegiance to James II.? The security which an oath affords, must depend altogether upon the character of the individual

whose sincerity it attests: it cannot make him sincere. The present sincere intention is what is sought to be ascertained: against future contingencies some better security than an oath must be provided. If, however, members of the Church of Rome are capable of military allegiance, it is wretched absurdity, to represent them as not trustworthy in a civil capacity. We should be glad to think that perjury and breach. of faith were crimes unknown among orthodox Protestants.

But here is the point. We have seven millions of British subjects who are represented as incapable of faith or fealty; they are not to be trusted! What are our securities against them now? Merely such as we have against a foreign enemy-the costly and dangerous securities of the sword! And can a kingdom thus divided against itself stand?

Art. IX. Lays of Leisure Hours. By Maria Jane Jewsbury. Author of "Letters to the Young", &c. f.cap 8vo. pp. 190. Price 5s. London. 1829.

THIS Volume of Poems is dedicated to Mrs. Hemans; and if

it were not, it were easy to detect the strong influence which admiration of her genius has had upon the tone and style of the Author's poetry. There is not much of palpable imitation, but there is that strong likeness which is often found amid much dissimilarity of feature. We must candidly confess that we prefer Miss Jewsbury's Letters to her Lays. Yet, with many pieces in the volume, we have been so much pleased as to regret that we cannot speak of its contents as uniformly marked by the highest qualities or the purest taste. Perhaps the Author's prose compositions had led us to form unreasonable expectations: but, had the poems been all of the same character as the following, they would not have been disappointed.

'TO A DYING friend.'

Go to thy glorious home, I would not stay thee,
Go to the land where only pleasures flow,

Might sorrowing love, and human prayers detain thee,

Friend of my spirit-I would bid thee go.

Go to thy glorious home, I would not stay thee;
Fade on,
fade on, as sweet day yields to night;
And if the darkness for awhile array thee,
"Tis but to clothe thee in a day more bright,

Yet blame not that my heart is wildly heaving,
Triumph and joy are in my tears for thee,
And if there mingle with them tears of grieving,
How should the living from life's pangs be free?

Light love may fade, and youthful zeal may perish,
As rainbows vanish, and as leaves decay;
But mine, born in the soul, my soul will cherish,
Flee as thou wilt beyond my reach away.

And thou art going-not as spring flowers wither
Soon to return-when may I look for thee?
Going so far-sight may not track thee thither,
Nor strong wings follow where thy flight will be.

To the bright stars in lofty myriads burning,

To the calm clouds piled in the summer air,

Oft shall I look with love's fond helpless yearning,
But none will tell me if thy home be there.

The haunts that knew thee, glade, and hearth and bower,
They will be silent when I bid them speak;

And living friends questioned till life's last hour,
They will but tell mie-" Gone is she you seek!"

Yet go, yet go, ev'n though I know not whither,
Save that where God is, will thy dwelling be,
Oft shall I feel thy spirit say-" Come hither;"
Oft will mine answer-" Soon I come to thee!"

We must take for our next specimen the pleasing stanzas entitled: Now mine Eye seeth Thee.'

Whom see I? Not the God I sought,
With vague imaginings of mind;

A Deity of formless thought,

A God no human heart can find.

Whom see I? Not the God of fire
Mosaic priest and prophet saw,
A Being of avenging ire,

The Father of a flaming law.

I see him not on wild and waste,

Where pilgrim patriarchs bent the knee,

Nor yet in Zion's temple, graced

As temple never more may be.

They heard from Sinai's steep his voice,
But I on Calvary view his face ;

I see him, and with right rejoice,

I see him full of truth and grace.

2