brethren. You will see this circumstance mentioned in the Memoirs of the Countess of Huntingdon. When Wesley expected two leading sectarian parties to lay aside their

peculiar denominational distinctions, we may say, contrary to much of his common discernment, he knew not what was in man!

THE PRESERVATION

OF THE

ESTABLISHED CHURCH IN IRELAND,

AND

ENDOWMENT OF THE CHURCH OF ROME.

"What say you at Oxford to the progress the Roman Catholics are so evidently making towards an equal participation of all privileges? Is it borne patiently, or will a great cry be raised? Not that I think the bill will pass this year; but the intellectual preponderance in its favour is so great in Parliament, that one can hardly conceive either that or some such measure being very long delayed. The tone of opposition to it is lowered to the utmost point. The anti-Catholics have but one advocate, and he so completely overmatched by his chief opponent, that hardly the appearance of a struggle is maintained. I wish you had heard Plunkett. He had made great speeches before: but in this he far surpassed them all. I have not for many years heard such an astonishing display of talent."-Letter LIX. p. 279; Letters of the Earl of Dudley to the Bishop of Llandaff.

PART I.

THERE is a passage in Sir Robert Peel's most memorable speech delivered during a late

debate on Irish affairs, which seems not to have been adequately commented on by the journals of the day, but which, nevertheless is of no mean importance in many respects, and especially as indicating the temperature of divers corp orations or societies of men. It appears that an address was presented to Sir Robert Peel from the Protestant Operative's Society in Cork, and in it this passage occurs, "If the Homilies are true, then are the priests of the Roman Catholic faith the priests of Antichrist, and then are they the special instruments of the devil!" This statement was received with loud laughter in the House of Commons. Sir Robert Peel goes on," Now," he says, "let me read to you my answer, 'Sir, I received your letter, accompanied by an address to me from the Protestant Operative's Society of Cork, and I regret exceedingly that they have felt themselves called on by their duty to themselves, to their country, and their God, to address to me sentiments so uncharitable, (cheers from both sides) and so offensive towards the Roman Catholics of Ireland."" (Loud cheers).

Now, here are two bodies of men at direct

variance, and although neither may be skilled in theological learning, yet it may be worth while to ask, which is in the right? Let us ask, first of all, whether the Homilies directly call Roman Catholic priests, the priests of Antichrist? We think not. The Homilies say many hard things in accordance with the temper of the times in which they were written; and they strongly assert the errors of the Roman Catholic creed, but they do not call its priests the priests of Antichrist, that Antichrist, (which we conclude is meant) spoken of in the New Testament. The Protestant Society is, therefore, in the wrong, and although we cannot justify the laughter' of the House, yet it is a pity to see any class of men lending themselves to gross exaggeration and unnecessary abuse. Sir Robert Peel rightly designates these as "sentiments so uncharitable, and so offensive towards the Roman Catholics of Ireland."

And yet we believe there are multitudes of men who will really assert that the Pope is Antichrist, and that the Roman Church is Babylon, the Harlot, &c., &c., and that among this multitude are very many excellent and well-meaning churchmen. But can it be proved

that the Pope, or the Roman Church is typified by the designation of Antichrist, or by the Man of Sin? Is not the passage in 2 Thess. ii. more plainly indicative, as Calvin held, of a very general defection from God by atheism, and does not the very word aroσтasia imply an abandonment rather than a corruption of religion? This, it is true, will ever be a difficult passage, because it is spoken to the Thessalonians only upon something St. Paul had enforced in them before, and of which enforcement we have no knowledge, and thus, even on the ground of obscurity alone, we ought not in common charity to affix it positively on any class of our fellow-religionists. Another passage in 1 Tim. iv. can also in nowise be applied to the Romanists. Let us ask, on the face of it, can we speak of Romanism in the seventh century, when her novelties began, as existing in the "latter times," or can we affix the words, "some shall depart from the faith," to upwards of two hundred millions of believers; or can we say, they "forbid to marry," when the Romanist clergy (although not marrying as regards themselves) seem to encourage it greatly in others; or will the "abstaining from meats" in any way apply to fasting? It is known that there was a sect