following remark from Mr. Hallam: "The Dissenters have been a little ashamed of their compliance with the Declaration, and of their silence in the Popish controversy." Our deliverance from Popery at that time was entirely owing to the Church of England, while the conduct of Dissenters tended to encourage the court in prosecuting their schemes. At the present time the same party unite hand and heart with Papists against the English Church, which was the bulwark against Popery in 1688, but which the Dissenters hate with a bitterness not to be described. It is impossible not to perceive that the Dissenters of the present day are acting on the very same principles with their predecessors in the reign of James II. But for the exertions of the clergy and laity of the Church of England, Popery must at that time have overspread the land; and were the schemes of the Dissenters of the present day to succeed, Popery would effect a speedy triumph over Protestantism. We must still look to our Church as our defence against the encroachments of Rome and the efforts of her emissaries.

The writings of the divines of the Church of England became instrumental, in 1688, in opening the eyes of the people to the abominations of Popery, and in delivering the nation from arbitrary power. We have already seen that the Dissenters of that period were silent on the subject of Popery. We ask, do they now oppose Popery either from the pulpit or from the press? Do they not, on the contrary, act in concert with O'Connell? Their aim is the destruction of the Church of England; and to accomplish that object, they are perfectly indifferent as to the means to be employed. The object of the Papists is the same: hence the union of Popery and Dissent at the present moment. What a yell of discord would be raised from one end of the country to another if the members of the Church of England were to unite with Papists for the accomplishment of any object, however laudable! yet union has been cemented between Popery and Dissent. The Church of England never did, she never will, unite with Papists to effect any object but, alas! the same cannot be affirmed of Protestant Dissenters. Can these men be the friends of liberty? Impossible! In the year 1688 the Dissenters would have sacrificed every thing to their desire of vengeance against the Church of England; and the same spirit is still burning in the breasts of those who profess to be the followers of the Nonconformists.

The author admits that a vast number of clergymen were subjected to the scrutiny of the committees of sequestration, during the early period of the Long Parliament. p. 175. But

he endeavours, in a subsequent portion of his volume, to prove that the clergy who were actually sequestrated were removed for gross immoralities. He assures us that the grossest crimes were proved against them by the evidence of several witnesses. This heavy accusation he rests on the authority of the notorious White, who published what he termed " The First Centurie of Scandalous Ministers." Let us, however, quote his own

words:

"The disclosures made before the committee led to the ejectment of a large number of the Episcopal clergy. After all the deductions which a calm investigation of the case may warrant, an impartial mind is compelled to acquiese in the conviction, that the great body of the clergy at this time were notoriously disqualified for their high voca

tion.

Then speaking of White's Centurie, he adds :—

"It was the most effective course which could have been adopted, and must have served to refute a thousand calumnies that were in extensive circulation."

Still he is compelled to admit that some of the ejected clergy were pious men; though, as a body, he condemns them as immoral:

"Personal virtues may have been opposed to public delinquency; and an honest zeal on behalf of the popular cause have enforced a vigour which every humane and christian mind must have regretted. It is in vain to judge of the proceedings of such a period by the rules which are applicable to calmer and more ordinary times." pp. 273, 275.

Our readers will observe that his charge of immorality rests on the authority of White's Centurie, one of the most infamous publications by which the press was ever disgraced. It is a publication on which no respectable writer would build so heinous a charge even against the most worthless of the human race. But this very book, "The Centurie," proves that the charge of immorality was unfounded, and that the real crime of the clergy was malignancy; for it is remarkable that, though the charge of immorality is alleged in each of the hundred cases, the grievous crime of malignancy, or opposition to the Parliament, is in every instance specified. Undoubtedly the committees were anxious to receive charges affecting the morals of the clergy, knowing that by blackening their characters they should weaken their influence among the people; but it was for malignancy that the ejections actually took place. It is pretended by Dr. Price that witnesses were examined on both sides, and that the accused were permitted to defend themselves from the charges lodged against them. That the committees professed to act

B B

justly is not denied; but it is a fact, which admits not of contradiction, that the witnesses on behalf of the clergy were browbeaten, while those on the opposite side, who in most cases were common informers and men of notorious characters, were encouraged by all those means to which malice and interest lead men to resort. Dr. Price even, while alleging the charge of immorality, feels that it could not generally be substantiated, as is evident from his own words :

"The clergy, as a class of public officers deriving their maintenance from the State, were necessarily responsible to the legislature for the due discharge of their functions." p. 278.

It is evident from this passage, that Dr. Price was convinced that the crime for which the clergy were removed was malignancy. In a note, our author alludes to Hall, Chillingworth, Walton, and Hales,-men who could not be charged with immoral conduct. After pretending to censure the Parliament for casting out such men, he observes :

"Our sober judgment compels us to admit that even in the cases we have mentioned there are considerations which ought to modify, though they may not reverse, our decision. Let us be assured that the individuals named were free from the charge of aspersing the Parliament and of aiding the King, and we will consign their judges to unmitigated reprobation." p. 279.

This extract is conceived in the very spirit of White's Centurie. Dr. Price will not exculpate even these honoured names, unless they were "free from the charge of aspersing the Parliament and of aiding the King." It is tantamount to an admission that nothing could save a man if he was a Malignant, and that, consequently, malignancy was the cause of the numerous sequestrations of the Episcopal clergy. While on the one hand support of the Parliament was a virtue which “covered a multitude of sins," on the other, malignancy was a crime of so dark a hue that nothing could save the man who became obnoxious to that heavy charge.

In all the Parliamentary ordinances for the sequestration of the clergy, the term scandalous ministers is adopted, in order that the belief might be induced that the ejections took place for offences against morality. In every parish bribes were held out to the parishioners to give evidence against their ministers. It would have been strange, therefore, if numbers of witnesses had not in every case made their appearance, since most parishes must have contained individuals who were ready to come forward against men by whom, perhaps, their vices had been rebuked. Dr. Price, however, finds it impossible to sustain the

charges which from the days of White, have been so often repeated.

The writer experiences no difficulty in settling that muchdisputed point respecting the author of the civil war. According to his statement the odium of that transaction must rest on the head of Charles. He alludes to the royal proclamation in 1643, prohibiting the Parliamentary fasts, and commanding the second Friday in each month to be observed: and then adds, "but the royal cause was only slightly benefitted by the prayers of its supporters." p. 237. Does this gentleman believe that the justice of a cause is to be determined by ultimate success? If such is his opinion, then Charles I., in his judgment, was certainly the author of the civil war. A better judge than Dr. Price, and a more impartial writer, though his prejudices must naturally lead him to favour the cause of the Parliament, has declared that "war was inevitable when Hotham shut the gates of Hull against his sovereign."* Yet Dissenting writers, without any hesitation, charge the guilt of the war upon the king.

When Dr. Price approaches the Westminster Assembly, he labours hard to represent the Independents, who were termed the Dissenting Brethren, in as favourable a light as possible. Were it not for his hostility to the Church of England, we verily believe, from the manner in which he speaks of the Assembly, that its members would not find any favour in his sight. He cannot censure, nor can he applaud their proceedings; the former, because they assisted in pulling down the Church, the latter, because, being chiefly Presbyterians, they acted against his favourite notions of religious equality. But from this Assembly he ingeniously derives a profound argument against all ecclesiastical conventions. "The history of their transactions is the most conclusive argument which can be adduced against such clerical conventions acting on the command and restrained by the authority of the civil power." p. 262. We have been greatly amused by the difficulty which our author evidently experienced in this portion of his narrative. As a stern Independent he cannot approve of their constitution or of their proceedings, but as the enemy of the Church of England he cannot condemn the men who did so much towards her overthrow. Doubtless, in his estimation, their opposition to the Church of England is a redeeming feature in their character-that, indeed, which has prevented him from consigning them to the execration of his voluntary allies.

* Hallam.

tion, so obviously destitute of all foundation in truth, as that to which we have now directed the attention of our readers.*

One of the most remarkable features of this volume, like the preceding, is the author's bitter hostility to an established church. His indignation boils over in almost every chapter. One of the choicest morsels on this favourite topic is contained in the Preface, where it stands, we suppose, as an intimation of the kind of entertainment which the reader who accompanies the author through the volume may reasonably expect. We extract the following:

"The further he has looked into history, the deeper has become bis conviction that the alliance at present subsisting between the Church and the State is part of the grand apostacy-an unnatural and most pernicious association, which must be terminated before the ultimate triumphs of the Christian faith are achieved. The essential spirit of Popery has been retained under a Protestant name, and the consequence has been, distraction to the State, and formality and worldlymindedness to the Church. The author does not wish to be regarded as neutral on this cardinal point; his opinions have been maturely formed; they are the growth of years, have gathered strength with the increase of his knowledge, and are destined, in his judgment— slowly it may be, but still effectually-to remodel the institutions of society." Preface, p. iii.†

* Several catalogues of the works against Popery were published about the time of the Revolution. Three are now lying before usone from the pen of Dr. Claggest another by Wake, subsequently Archbishop of Canterbury, and a third by Peck. They bear the dates .1687, 1688, and 1689, and contain a list and description of all the works published against Popery during the reign of James II. and the last few years of that of Charles II. The number of works, and most of them of considerable size too, published by members of the Church of England, was, as has been stated already, nearly three hundred! There treatises only were written by Dissenters during the same period. One of the writers, in closing his list, says, " I need not here to beg our Nonconformist brethren's pardon for this slender account of their writings against Popery during the reign of King James the Second, because I have used great diligence to attain an exact account of them. However, if there be any discourses written by them, but omitted in this catalogue, or if any of those in the catalogue whose authors' names I could not recover do belong to them; if either the authors, or any friends for them, will be pleased to send the titles of the books, with the author's name, to Mr. R. Baldwin, the publisher of this catalogue, they shall be inserted in the next edition of this catalogue, if it have

one."

The Puritans are censured by this author for their attachment to a religious establishment. He tells us that had they taken another step,