the Protestant Establishment, and putting weapons into the hands of the ignorant or bigotted schismatic or dissenter, with which to attack the great bulwark of National Christianity. We could narrate many startling anecdotes, which have been communicated to us by friends who have known the parties concerned in the transactions, illustrative of the various plots and intrigues of the Jesuits of the present day, in their assumption of different characters in society, from the Protestant Clergyman down to the bricklayer's labourer, which would fill our hearers with astonishment and no little indignation. They prove, incontestably, as must everybody's experience who have watched the workings of Popery narrowly, or been at all connected with the private or public exertions that are being made to stem the torrent of Popish leaven which is now deluging the land, that what Popery and Jesuitism ever have been throughout the entire period of their being, such are they now; they employ the same carnal weapons, use the same unsanctified means to the attainment of their end, and answer as literally and as truly to every feature in the graphic delineation of Popery sketched by the pen of inspiration, as they did at any former period of their hateful and pestilential existence. Amongst other artifices and ungodly manoeuvres of the Jesuits, there is none, perhaps, to which they have so constant reference, and of which they appear so fond, as the casting calumny and misrepresentation of every kind upon everything Protestant. It is useless to refute their base and groundless aspersions; they reiterate, a thousand times, statements and assertions repeatedly refuted in the most triumphant manner, and appear to imagine, that by incessant repetition, they will at least tire the patience of Protestants, and deter them from again exposing the fallacy of what has been so frequently proved to be false; and that thus falsehood and calumny will obtain entrance into the public mind, and settle down as undisputed and long-established truth in the creed of the unsuspicious and uninquiring million. The book before us exemplifies this trait in the character of Jesuitry, or rather, this characteristic of her unholy warfare in no small degree; and for a further and very palpable proof of the identity of Jesuitism in the present day with that of former times, we would refer our readers to a very valuable and triumphant refutation of the calumnies heaped by modern Jesuits (and Dr. Wiseman in particular) upon Protestant Missions, by the Rev. James Hough, for some time Chaplain to the East India Company, at Madras, and now officiating as Perpetual Curate of Ham, in Surry. The following description of a Jesuit is as graphic and true to nature now, as it was when first penned by the most elegant of Christian Poets "The Jesuit," writes Cowper, in the sixth book of his Task, "has shot his bolts away, Till his exhausted quiver yielding none, He gleans the blunted shafts that have recoiled, We will just illustrate this position, with regard to the Jesuits, by another recent fact, which, though of no very great moment, excepting to the parties concerned, yet is emblematic of the total disregard to truth and dishonest repetition of oft-repeated misrepresentations so common among Jesuits. On the 20th of July, this year, a lady of the name of Agnew was received as a recent convert to the Roman Catholic faith into the religious community of the Sisters of Mercy, at Cork; and the Popish organs, at the time, blazoned abroad the fact, with no slight indications of rejoicing, at having entangled in the meshes of their web so "distinguished a convert;' proclaiming to the world at large, that a near relative of Sir Andrew Agnew had abjured the religion of John Knox, and become a postulant for Papal reclusion from the world. A report thus confidently asserted and industriously circulated by the Roman Catholic Press in Ireland, found ready credence with the multitude, and became the topic of conversation, to a considerable extent, both in the Sister Island and in Scotland, occasioning much annoyance and serious uneasiness to the family and connections of Sir Andrew Agnew, who lost no time in wiping off the stigma thus sought to be cast upon his family, and refuting the calumny so shamefully set adrift by the members of the Church of Rome. Sir Andrew's denial that any member of his family had abjured the Protestant faith, and disclaiming the slightest connection, or even knowledge, of the Miss Agnew of Cork, appeared in all the leading papers of Ireland, Scotland, and London: but do the Roman Catholic authorities retract their slander, and confess their wilful error? By no means. The lie is too good a one to be lost-tells too practically to be abandoned by them. Their periodicals repeat the assertion, without taking the least notice of Sir Andrew's indignant denial of its truth; the Catholic Magazine for the month of September, for instance, devotes a column to "Miss Agnew, a near relative of Sir Andrew Agnew!" Akin to this, and of a far more important character and more dangerous in its effects, is the continual pollution of the fountain of English History by Popish historians. Mr. Lathbury has the following remarks on this impudent and infamous mode of warfare: "Most of my readers are aware of the attempts of Popish historians to palliate, if not to justify, the cruelties exercised against the Protestants during this bloody reign. Dr. Lingard gravely assures his readers, that the severities were revived by the excesses of the Gospellers, and by a new conspiracy.* And, elsewhere, he adds "If anything could be urged in extenuation, it must have been the provocation given by the Reformers.† "He insinuates that the grossest insults were offered to the Queen, and to the priests: but when he comes to proofs he can only adduce a few facts of a few individuals, and these forsooth are to be regarded as evidences of the general disaffection of her Protestant subjects. It would have been strange if the people had not manifested their disappointment at the breach of those promises made by the faithless Queen to the men of Kent (who seated her on the throne), that they should not be disturbed in the profession of their religion. As to outrages, however, there were none. But supposing some of the Protestants had been implicated in rebellion, why were they put to death as heretics, and not as traitors? The truth is, the Papists of the present day would gladly turn away the eyes of Protestants from the cruelties of this inglorious reign; but it behoves us, as Churchmen, to look back upon this period, in order that we may discover the true character of Popery. In the present day, it is restrained from committing excesses; but as its principles are unchanged, we have no reason to believe that its practices would be different, if the restrictions of law and public opinion were removed. At all events Popery cannot be trusted. Its promises may be specious, but what single principle or tenet have the Papists renounced? How, indeed, can they, so long as Lingard, Vol. VII. 266. + Lingard, Vol. VII. 285. Mr. Hallam remarks, "Dr. Lingard has softened and suppressed, till this Queen appears honest and even amiable. A man of sense should be ashamed of such partiality to his sect."-Hallam I. 144. We quote the following just remark in reference to Dr. Lingard's defence of Queen Mary: "But those who would diminish this aversion, will do better by avoiding, for the future, such panegyrics on Mary or her advisers, or such insidious extenuations of her persecution as we have lately read, and which do not raise a favourable impression of their sincerity in the principles of toleration to which they profess to have been converted."-Hallam, I. 145. they retain the monstrous doctrine of infallibility? It is the decision of their church, that all Protestants are heretics, and the doom of heretics is death; can we, then, with the utmost stretch of charity, believe that the flames of Smithfield would not be rekindled, if power was again possessed by the Papacy. As we have seen the fruit of their doctrines in past times, and as from the nature of things their tenets cannot be changed, they surely cannot deem us unreasonable or uncharitable in our belief, that the same principles would lead to the same results, if unrestrained by the authority of law or the force of public opinion. : "As the Princess Elizabeth was known to be attached to the Protestant faith, and as she was the hope of the Protestant party, several attempts were made by her enemies to remove her out of the way. Her preservation amid so many dangers was truly wonderful. At one time the Papists had resolved on her destruction, in order that the hopes of the Protestants might be extinguished the warrant for her execution was actually signed by many members of the council, and the signature of the Queen was alone wanting to give effect to the document. From some cause or other, Mary relented, and Elizabeth was spared. After the death of the Queen, Philip confessed that he had been instrumental in preserving Elizabeth's life, against the repeated solicitations of the crafty Gardiner: his interposition, however, did not spring from pity, but from motives of policy, for he hoped in the event of Mary's death, to secure his position in England by marrying Elizabeth. When Dr. Lingard arrives at this period of our history, he endeavours to make the merit of Philip more conspicuous, by telling his readers, that Elizabeth was concerned in a conspiracy against her sister, and that Philip spared her life in the hope of marrying her afterwards. That her life was spared at the intercession of Philip is certain; but that she was engaged in any conspiracy is false, and that Dr. Lingard should assert the contrary is surprising. Elizabeth's danger arose not from her politics, but from her religion. Elsewhere, the Romish historian observes that the emperor urged the execution of the princess, and that she was saved by the interference of Gardiner; but there is abundant evidence to prove, that the prelate was one of her bitterest enemies, and that he was closely connected with those plots whose aim was her destruction. Amidst all these dangers, Elizabeth was spared; she was under the Divine protection, and not a hair of her head was injured. Great and glorious deeds were to be accomplished, and Elizabeth was the destined instrument in their execution. In her case the words of Holy Writ were verified; He disappointeth the devices the crafty, so that their hands cannot perform their enterprise.' Her enemies were placed under restraint; and though they were daily plotting her ruin, yet they were not permitted to injure her person." Take the following brief sketch of Mary's reign in connection with the above :— "Mary's reign was short, inglorious, and bloody. It is a dark spot in our history, and furnishes a black page in our annals: yet it is a period pregnant with instruction. To it may the Protestant revert for evidence of the persecuting nature of Popery; and whatever may be alleged by spurious liberalism in proof that Popery is changed, or against the injustice of condemning the principles of Popery for the practices of three centuries ago, let not Protestants lose sight of one single fact, namely, that the Papists themselves have never asserted that their views on the subject of heresy and persecution have undergone any change. It is stated, and there appears to be no reason for questioning the statement, that Mary's last days were rendered miserable by the recollection of the blood that had been shed during her short reign. She had been taught by Gardiner and Bonner to believe that by putting heretics to death, she was doing God service; but when death appeared near, she began to view her actions in their proper light; and the remorse which she experienced was undoubtedly deepened by the review of those events which will cast a shade on her memory to the latest posterity." Well may Popery long to pervert and nullify the concurrent testimony of every nation's history. Well may she employ her most exalted powers, and pay her ablest men, to weaken or destroy the indelible blot fastened upon her escutcheon by the enormities of far-back ages; well may she strain every energy and descend to every mean and dishonest and contemptible trick, to erase from the tablet of time the damning proofs of her identity with the denounced and execrable Babylon of the Scriptures of inspiration. And mad beyond all computation should we be, if, even in the midst of the present restless and feverish anxiety for novelty, no matter of what kind-grossly insane should we be, if we believed for one instant, the monstrous dogma now sought to be promulgated amongst us by the emissaries of Rome, that the much-vaunted liberalism of the day has produced a change in the spirit of Rome. The liberalism of the day must indeed be possessed of gigantic influence, nay of power equal to omnipotence, if, as we are repeatedly told, she has actually effected a mutation for the better in that which ever was and still remains "infallible." Mad, and worse than mad, must the people of England be, if, with the broad blown banner of haughty Rome flaunting to their gaze, with the blood-dyed inscription "semper eadem" burning in characters of flame upon it, the |