principles of the Protectorate taught at this moment among them, and brought into practice so far as they prudently can? Are not all their present writings and sermons, as bitter as in the days of yore, levelled against our Church Establishment? Take the Dissenters, as one compact body, for any other than our inveterate enemies, and you will wrong your own Church and your best efforts in behalf of her.

That these days of the Protectorate must shortly return-unless superseded by days still more dreadful-is, I think, certain, provided all things continue to run together in the manner they are now running. Of these times, Hume, in his History of this period, has observed, "No people could undergo a change more sudden and entire in their manners than did the English nation during this period. From tranquillity, concord, submission,

a Those who are disposed to think that these assertions require proofs, may be referred to the general mass of dissenting publications, speeches, and petitions. I would particularly, however, recommend them to Mr. Binney's Works, a Dissenter of some reputation; to the Protestant Dissenter's Catechism, by Dr. Newman; to a popular History of Priestcraft, by William Howitt, (a Quaker)—a most vile slander, unworthy even to be burnt by the common hangman; and to Dr. Pye Smith's Sermon and Correspondence-a Dissenter, hitherto had in veneration by many of the Clergy of the Church of England, but, as now appears, without at all deserving it. His "Letter to Dr. Lee," has, I believe, pretty well removed the mask of his pretended respect for us, or for our Hierarchy.

sobriety, they passed in an instant to faction, fanaticism, rebellion, and almost frenzy. The violence of the English parties exceeded any thing which we can now imagine: had they continued but a little longer, there was just reason to dread all the horrors of the ancient proscriptions and massacres." This was the state of the Cavaliers and Roundheads, at that season of tribulation; and, owing to the total corruption of manners produced among us by our Whigs and Dissenters, is, I fear, fast growing to be the state of contending parties now. "Your friends, the Cavaliers," said a Parliamentarian to a Royalist, "are very dissolute and debauched." "Yes," replied the Royalist, “ they have the infirmities of men; but your friends, the Roundheads, have the vices of devils, tyranny, rebellion, and spiritual pride." The distinction is, I doubt, but too just and natural; for the generosity of loyal principles naturally runs out into licentiousness; and the sourness of Dissent and Democracy engenders all the worst passions of the mind-all those passions calculated to take advantage of the infirmities of human nature in the party opposed to them.

66

And do we not see among us, Gentlemen, something further of this division of parties? Do we not see the greater part of our ancient Nobility and Gentry, of our Orthodox Clergy or Clergy of the Old School, and the far larger portion of the respectable part of the Laity, all cleaving to the cause of our Sovereign and the Established Church, every

man of polished manners, of sound education, of virtuous descent and disposition; while, on the other hand, almost every Dissenter, with his narrow and morose notions about him, with his mind less softened by liberal education and intercourse; every Whig, deserting his true constitutional colours, and joining that cry of agitation which he first set up; every lover of Democracy, feeling a Republican Government alone able to give proper play to his ambition, or to improve his low estate, or his ruined fortunes; every fanatic, making no other use of his religion than the disordering of his own mind, and the disturbing the minds of his neighbours; and every man of Infidel notions, hanging loose upon all professions of piety, and caring not a sixpence what creeds of christiany are established or rejected —almost every one of these, an exact revival of the scenes of the Protectorate, will be found flocking, with all their disaffections about them, to the "DESTRUCTIVE STANDARD.”a

a We see, in another respect, a strong and growing likeness between the times of the Protectorate and our own; and that is, in the shameful arts resorted to, to delude and set the people against those who are endeavouring to support the Established Religion and Government. Lord Clarendon, in remarking upon the Marquis of Hertford's conduct in Somersetshire, &c. observes, "Whilst his Lordship in this gentle way endeavoured to compose the fears and apprehensions of the people, and by doing all things in a peaceable way, and according to the rules of the known laws, to convince all men of the justice and integrity of his Majesty's proceedings and royal intentions; the other party, according to their usual confidence and activity, wrought under-hand to persuade the people that the Marquis was come down

But if we cannot trust, in any respect, either Whigs or Dissenters; if we cannot look upon them in any other light than as most deceitful and bitter adversaries; let us, Gentlemen, be persuaded to

to put the Commission of Array in execution, by which Commission a great part of the estate of every farmer or substantial yeoman should be taken from them; alledging, that some Lords had said, 'that twenty pounds by the year was enough for every peasant to live on ; and so, taking advantage of the Commission being in Latin, translated it into what English they pleased; persuading the substantial yeomen and freeholders, that, at least, two parts of their estates, would, by that Commission, be taken from them; and the meaner and poorer sort of people, that they were to pay a tax for one day's labour in the week to the King; and that all should be, upon the matter, no better than slaves to the Lords.'—It cannot easily be believed how these gross infusions generally prevailed.” In a note, too, to Butler's Hudibras, canto I., line 610—no mean authority in speaking of these disordered and despicably disgusting times—it is observed, “when the seditious members of the House of Commous wanted to have any thing pass the House which they feared would meet with opposition, they would draw up a petition to the Parliament, and send it to their friends in the country to get it signed, and brought it up to the Parliament by as many as could be prevailed on to do it. Their way of doing it, as Lord Clarendon observes in his History of the Rebellion, 'was to prepare a petition, very modest and dutiful for the form, and for the matter not very unreasonable; and to communicate it at some public meeting, where care was taken it should be received with approbation : the subscription of a very few hands filled the paper itself where the petition was written, and therefore many more sheets were annexed for the reception of the numbers, which gave all the credit, and procured all the countenance to the undertaking. When a multitude of hands were procured, the petition itself was cut off, and a new one framed, agreeable to the design in hand, and annexed to a long list of names which was subscribed to the former; by this means many men found their names subscribed to petitions of which they before had never heard'."

consider the Roman Catholics, now fast gaining ground upon our Protestant Government, as still more abhorrent to our Ecclesiastical Establishment, and, by consequence, as still more opposed to it. We are not blind to the voice of past history, nor to the touch of past experience. We know what these Catholics are doing, what they are capable of doing, what, when the time comes, they assuredly will do. They have no empty threats about them; they lift up neither voice nor arm in vain. They mean all they say, they say all they think, and they think the very worst of us, of our Religion, our Government, our Laws. The Orations of O'Connell will prove all this, and far more than all this. The conduct of their Catholic Priests will prove it tenfold.

Did

Consult, Gentlemen, the whole flow of History, sacred and prophane, and of English History in particular, from the first rise of the Papal power down to the present mournful period, and tell me, did the times ever serve their ambitious purposes and the Roman Catholics made no use of it? they ever serve their superstitious purposes, and they neglected to impose fresh superstitions? Did nation ever rise up against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and the Papal Hierarchy act as a Mediator between them? On the contrary, did these Catholics not oppose nation to nation, Sovereign to Sovereign, people to people, family to family, nay, even parent to child and child to