Two views of it have alternately pervaded our legislation. One which, looking simply upon the Pope as a foreign sovereign, and upon his authority in England as a foreign jurisdiction, has-I might say from the first time when England became a nation, instead of a Norman army encamped in the midst of a hostile crowd of Saxons,-endeavoured to set bounds to that jurisdiction,* until, in the sixteenth century, it tried to extirpate it altogether. The other, whose triumph was achieved in the Emancipation Act of 1828, looks upon Romanism mainly as one theological system out of many entitled to equal toleration, and, within certain limits, equal protection. Now the difficulty of the question lies in this, that both these views are true. Forget the claims of Rome, as the exponent of a Christian theology, the full power of which has been realized by no other Christian Church, and you fall into that system of perfectly impotent persecution which our legislation sought to carry out during three centuries, only to fix onethird of the British Isles in a foreign religious allegiance, only to be at last buffeted in the face with the insult of a Clare election. Forget the organization of the Romish clergy as a disciplined army obeying the orders of a foreign prince, acting in concert with similar armies in all quarters of the globe, and you bring on that inevitable struggle for moral and intellectual mastery which has taken place and is taking place in every country where the Church of Rome has been treated as having free and equal rights of citizenship,- Belgium, Baden, France, Prussia, that struggle of which we see the fruits in the tract before us : -in the professed attempt to teach ignorant children What every Christian must know,' instructing them how to slip out of the most solemn oaths by not meaning to take them. Cool heads, firm hearts, strong faith, are needed for this struggle. Brawling anti-Maynoothians, Guy Faux-day rioters, paid chalkers of 'No Wafer-Gods' on walls already illustrated with Warren's Blacking,' will have to be swept out of the way as nuisances. Where is the idiot who can believe that a theology which in our days has won over to itself a Newman and a Manning, is to be put down by dollburnings, clamour, and street-puffs? or yet by the withdrawal of a few wretched yearly thousands of public money? To listen to the gabblegabble of the anti-popery men, is almost enough to make one sick of the noble name of Protestant itself. But we will not be sick of that name, my fellow-countrymen, so long as there is a violated Catholic faith, the groundwork of all truth and light and righteousness, to protest for, against its Romish or other counterfeits. J. M. L. * See, for instance, A.D. 1350, the Act 25 Edw. III., stat. 5, c. 22, declaring 'the king's enemies' all who should purchase English abbeys and priories at Rome. Adown the hills a festal throng came streaming, In front, were children, frolicsome and wild; They hailed the pilot- Wilt thou let us flee He bade them welcome to his bark: Has none 'Make sail!' they cried; we are all here, all here! Haste, haste!' and in the distance dark and drear, I saw Earth's Consolations disappear. II. TO A LADY. THE rose you sent, love's tale to tell, A blight upon its beauty fell, To that poor flower, my fancy saith, III. THE ROSE-GARDEN. I WILL sing you a song, and it shall be 'My lord is king of the land, but I 'Now lithe and listen, my wardens three- To all fair maids, this midsummer day, 'Lest they gather my roses, red and white, Before the gate, and solemn and slow, And the roses bloom'd, and their odours rare Three young maidens came up that way, As they plucked the roses, crimson and pied, Before the gate, and solemn and slow, And the roses bloomed, and their odours rare Then three proud knights rode up in state'Ho! ye wardens, throw wide the gate! Open, ye knaves, we would enter in!' 'Not so,' said the wardens, 'ye must win 'Our sharp swords first,—and beware, beware, Then the knights and wardens fought—ah me! TO A CRITIC, WHO HAD TAKEN TO WRITING SONNETS. THOU who, but lately from thy critic's chair, 3 B VOL. LIV. NO. CCCXXIV. THE DENISON SIR,-Will you allow a clergyman to express his opinions in your Magazine on a subject which concerns laymen as well as clergymen ? I am aware that you do not usually entertain the readers of Fraser with such topics; but the so-called religious journals are not open to me, as you will easily understand from this paper. I wish to say a word on the Trial and Deprivation of Archdeacon Denison. The consequences of these events are likely, it seems to me, to be very serious. I do not allude only or chiefly to the schism which they may possibly occasion in the Church. I should indeed count the loss of many of those High Churchmen with whom I have not the happiness to agree, a lamentable one, as I should have counted the loss of those of their opponents who might have deserted us if the decision on Mr. Gorham's case had been different, also a lamentable one. Each, I believe, supplies an important and precious element to the Church. Each party would be less faithful to its own convictions, would be more likely to twist the formularies of the Church to the narrow opinions which sometimes take the place of those convictions, if the other were crushed. We should in either case, I conceive, be deprived of a body of earnest, conscientious, faithful men, whose worst qualities appear when they are denouncing their brethren; whose best are shown forth when they are struggling manfully for that which they have themselves believed and realized. But yet, I say, this is not the effect which I dread most from the decision of the Court at Bath. It is well known that Archdeacon Denison besought that Court to test his opinions by Scripture. The demand was at once refused. I do not see how the Judges could have acted otherwise. Every one would have felt the absurdity of a scriptural argument carried on under such circumstances. It could have led to no result, only to much profane trifling. Morever, the lawyers said, very naturally, We suppose you have settled the meaning of Scripture in your Articles. Those are CASE. the documents which are before us. All you have to do, is to prove whether you are in agreement or disagreement with them.' It is quite right and fair that lawyers should speak thus. They have no business to save us from an inconsistency. But what an inconsistency we have put ourselves into ! What pains we have taken to make the framers of our Articles inconsistent with themselves! They say, 'Whatsoever is not read in Holy Scripture, or may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be received as an article of faith.' We say, 'When once we have signed the Articles, we practically confess that they ride over Scripture. We have received their interpretation of Scripture; and, in spite of their own apparent declaration to the contrary, that is conclusive.' Now, I am perfectly aware that some of the persons who will feel this difficulty the least, are those who are most inclined to agree with Archdeacon Denison. They have been used to declaim against private judgment, and to identify appeals to Scripture with appeals to private judgment. They have dwelt much upon the difficulties and contradictions of Scripture, and the impossibility of understanding it without an ecclesiastical interpretation. They are therefore estopped from pressing this objection. They may even be glad that their opponents have, for their own purposes, set it aside so peremptorily. As Mr. Pitt exclaimed triumphantly, when Mr. Fox brought forward his celebrated argument on the Regency Bill, 'Now I will unWhig the gentleman,' they may say, 'Now we have un-Protestantised these gentlemen! They have given up their own great argument; henceforth we may dispute what human traditions we are to follow; some tradition, by their own showing, we must follow.' But just in proportion as this party may feel itself disinclined or unable to dwell upon this contradiction, just in proportion as their opponents are obliged to hide it from themselves as well as they can, is it the duty of those who do not |