rich and powerful style, his moralising and religious tone, his deep insight into the human heart, and his sterling common-sense, make him a favourite with every person of taste and judgment. But he wanted that strong feeling, that fine sensibility, that lofty sentiment, that sublime imagination we find in Milton. Milton and Johnson were evidently made to move in two essentially different elements; and this explains, to a large extent, the great lexicographer's incapacity to appreciate the excellences of this the greatest of our poets.

We purposed at the commencement to treat of Milton intellectually, socially, morally, and religiously; but our remarks on the first particular have insensibly grown to a length which renders it impossible that we should supply more than a glimpse of the other features of his character. Milton socially is only inferior to Milton intellectually. He was not one of those who look on past times and usages with a blind reverence that makes them slaves to their defects. From his youth he saw that the ancients had no right to think and act for all subsequent times; and he began to effect reform with an earnestness that showed him to be one that not only knew but felt its importance. He lived in times when it was necessary to take a firm stand against corruption, and he let the world see that he was neither prepared to neglect his duty nor betray his convictions. His views on civil and religious freedom were a century or two in advance of the age, and he laboured with heart and soul to secure their practical development in the institutions of his country. He was a devout lover of freedom in all its forms, and his political and religious works evince not only strong attachments to popular theories but an enlightened sense of their vast importance to the welfare of the community. His work on the "Liberty of the Press " is a vigorous and magnanimous effort to emancipate the national intellect. He saw that social progress could only be secured where the mind was unshackled. Liberty of thought and liberty of utterance he deemed the great conditions of permanent social advancement. He spent his energies, he hazarded his liberty and his life, he lost his sight, in the work of popular progress. While he was anxious to secure popular political privileges, he was still more intent on breaking the chains which bound the minds of the people. While Milton was Latin Secretary to Cromwell, no one did so much in counteracting the reactionary tendencies of that great man. Milton lived in troublous times. The social fabric shook from its centre to its circumference. But amid all he stood firm. In adversity and in prosperity he remained loyal to the cause he had so nobly espoused. He proved himself to be a genuine patriot. He was not only prepared to plead the rights of the people, but to die for them. It is not our purpose here to commend or denounce his extreme political views; suffice it to say that there was sufficient in the times, and especially in the history of the Stuart family, not only to excuse but to render praiseworthy even the more exceptionable phases of his stern republicanism.

The morality of Milton was of the highest order. He possessed an abiding conviction of its intrinsic worth. His moral character was uniform and dignified, grounded on and regulated by Christian principle. He was educated for the Church, but chose to remain in silence rather than do violence to his moral nature by conformity to her usages. Conscience ruled as supreme monarch over his whole being. After the

Restoration, he manfully declined an offer to be Latin Secretary; and when pressed by his wife, who saw poverty in the distance, to accept of the office, he replied, "You are in the right! You, as other women, would ride in your coach; for me, my aim is to live and die an honest man." We delight to see Milton battling with poverty, and manfully defying its most ruthless threatenings. We delight to see him, after having been courted and visited by kings and their ministers, as well as by all the literati of the age, calmly submitting to the hard reverses of fortune; and we love to see him, when in the hands of the Government of Charles, fearlessly defending his powerful " Defence of the People of England."

The religion of Milton was such as he devoutly drew from the sacred records. He dispensed with many of the outward forms and external appendages of sects, under the impression not only of their uselessness, but of their mischievous tendency. He refused to associate himself with any Church, from the impression that all had more or less corrupted the simplicity of the Gospel. In this he may have erred, but his error was the result, not of contempt, but of genuine love of the truth as it is in Jesus. His religion was more a deep-rooted, inward conviction, than an attendance on outward forms and ceremonies. He was eminently but unobtrusively religious. The Gospel had laid hold of his heart, and it produced purity of life. His religion was a lofty and an holy sentiment influencing his whole mental and spiritual manhood. His life was a pious one, regulated by the precepts of the Bible. The Bible was his constant study, and no one rendered more willing homage to the authority of the sacred page. If he refused association with the members of the visible Church, he was nevertheless united to Christ, and held communion with the Father of spirits.

The chief literary works of Milton were, "Paradise Lost;" "Paradise Regained;" "Comus, a Mask;" "Samson Agonistes;" "L'Allegro;” "Il Penseroso;" and a number of smaller poetical pieces published at intervals. His prose writings were, a "History of England" down to the Norman Conquest; "Tractate on Education;""Institution of Logic;" "Areopagitica, or a Speech on the Liberty of the Press;" "Of Reformation in England;""Tenure of Kings and Magistrates;""Defence of the People of England;" "Second Defence, &c.;" "Ready and Easy Way to Establish a Free Commonwealth ;” Prelatical Episcopacy;" "Reasons of Church Government urged against Prelacy;" "Treatise of True Religion;" "Likeliest Way for Removing Hirelings out of the Church;" "Doctrine of Divorce;" and the posthumous work entitled "A Treatise on Christian Doctrine;" with several others which were written in the heat of controversy. His "State Letters" were printed after his decease.

66

It is remarkable that Milton received but the paltry sum of two five pounds for the copyright of his great work, "Paradise Lost." We have seen a fac-simile of his autograph receipting the first instalment. Thus the descendants of this great poet have been living in poverty, while the publishers have been fattening on the immense profits of "Paradise Lost." Milton received 107., his descendants little or nothing, the booksellers many thousands. We say this is in keeping with the publishing system of the present day. This system is anything but just to authors. We venture to affirm that a parallel is not to be found in any

other branch of the commercial world. We do not like to call it by its right name, or we should speak plainly. An author expends a large sum of money in printing his work, he undertakes the hazards of partial or entire failure-and, supposing the latter to ensue, he undertakes the hazards of being thrust into prison by the printer (for your loss seldom moves his pity)—in addition to which, he bears advertising and other incidental expenses, and, after all, when he has the good fortune to sell a copy of his book, the booksellers swallow nearly one-half of its cost. This may be genteelly termed a business usage, but we cannot afford it so soft a name. We hear much of the power of association. If the principle is efficient, it might worthily be tested in the form of an Associated Literary Establishment, to break up this monstrous bookselling monopoly.*

IGNORANCE AND PRIESTCRAFT EXPOSED.

THE priests of the Romish Church, in the present day, are men of activity and energy in their way. Like the Pharisees of old, they "compass sea and land to make a proselyte." As the sworn servants of Rome, they act their part with uncommon zeal and equal craftiness. Encouraged by the recent apostacies of weak-minded men and silly women in the upper circles of society, they think the time has come for plying their energies with the masses in the humbler walks of life. Who has not heard, of late, of various attempts to sophisticate and pervert the minds of the labouring classes, not only by the gay pageants displayed in the mass-house, but by the more direct means of bribes, papal books, and personal intercourse? It is high time the public mind should be fully awake to the snares which are artfully laid athwart every path of life, and the industrious efforts that are made to seduce our servants and the members of our families from the Protestant faith. The country swarms with Jesuits, many of them in disguise, whose ingenuity and energy are taxed to the utmost to undermine Protestant principles, and bring the population of this country again under the yoke of papal superstition and bondage. Every Christian parent ought to be on the alert-every lover of truth and holiness should exercise a sleepless vigilance, in guarding all within the sphere of his influence against the wiles of Popery.

A case has lately come under our notice of a promising young man, once connected with us as a member and a sabbath-school teacher, in a Circuit we forbear to name at present, who has been an object of special attention by a Romish priest, and to whom the most subtle arguments have been addressed to seduce him from the path of truth. A letter now lies before us, which has been sent to this young man by a Popish priest. It is closely written, and extends to eight quarto pages, filled with the most artful sophistry we ever read on the subject of the sacrifice of the mass. We could wish we had permission to publish the whole of this remarkable production, together with the name of its author. Special reasons, however, exist why this should not be done at

* Milton was born in Bread-street, London, on the 9th Dec., 1608, and died in Bunhill row, of the same place, Nov. 10th, 1674. A monument is erected to his memory in Westminster Abbey.

present; otherwise we would give our readers the benefit of a public view of a private snare, and take the opportunity of unravelling and exposing, piece by piece, the ingenious web which Papal cunning has woven for Protestant simplicity. We never read a production more feeble in argument, yet specious enough to a mind unaccustomed to the tricks of the sophist and prepared to accept assertion for evidence.

We cannot forego furnishing our readers with one or two specimens of the reasoning adopted. The subject of the letter is the sacrifice of the mass, and it appears to be written to remove some objections which had been started. The first pretended argument is designed to meet the objection, that the sacrifice of the mass is repugnant to “ common sense. The priest remarks in reply, "Your adversaries* object, 'the sacrifice has no ground in Holy Writ.' Here we stand opposed to each other. Who is to decide the controversy? Oh!' say your adversaries, common sense.' Pray, tell me, what is common sense?' Common, according to the dictionaries, signifies that which belongs to the generality, or at least the majority in this case, of Christians. Sense, is the feeling or conviction of a person on any subject. Common sense' is, therefore, the feeling or conviction of the generality of Christians. Let us test the question before us by this standard, and let us take the sense or feeling of all Christians in all ages on this subject, and let us see which of the two feelings, the Protestant or the Catholic, is entitled to the epithet common.' Your adversaries, if they will look beyond the limits of sea-girt England, and look back into the primitive ages of Christianity, will find that they would with greater propriety have used the phrase uncommon sense.'”

6

The sophism of this Jesuitical argument is very transparent. The priest knows that "common sense" is the unsophisticated decision of a sound judgment, after an honest and impartial examination. But instead of testing the doctrine by this standard, he at once perverts the meaning and application of the term "common sense," and seeks to decide truth by a majority. Let him test Christianity itself by this ordeal, and, finding it in a minority, he must, on his own principle, pronounce it an imposture, and proclaim Paganism the only true religion. If majority is to decide what is truth, it will follow that, as Pagans are vastly more numerous than Christians, their religion must be the true one, and the religion of the Bible be altogether false.

66

But taking 66 common sense' in its proper acceptation, it may be asked, Who among the Roman Catholics ever exercised "common sense respecting the sacrifice of the mass? To decide a doctrine by common sense," implies that "common sense" has examined the subject, and tested it by its proper evidence; but we ask, have Romanists ever thus exercised their common sense" on this doctrine? Have they submitted the doctrine of Transubstantiation and the sacrifice of the mass to this test? His argument assumes that they have; but he knows they have not. He knows they are forbidden to do so. He knows that Romanists are commanded to believe, not to examine; to rest on the so-called infallible decisions of the Church, not on the decisions of their own judgment and understanding. He knows that neither

Protestants are called the young man's "adversaries." Why? Because Popery regards all as adversaries who oppose her efforts to deceive and destroy the souls of men; and would fain persuade the young man they are his adversaries too.

common sense" nor logic is required in the belief of Papal dogmas, but that both are proscribed and condemned, and the people commanded to believe on pain of eternal damnation.

So far from Romanists receiving their doctrines as the result of inquiry, they receive them on the ground of a stern and menacing authority, and at the sacritice of both common sense and logic. The Papal Church tells her votaries that a bit of bread is changed into the flesh and blood, the soul and divinity, of the Lord Jesus Christ, and pronounces her anathemas upon all who disbelieve the dogma. Now, let us suppose a Papist testing this by the sense of sight; what does his sight say? "It is a bit of bread," is the answer. He tests it by the sense of feeling; what does the sense of feeling say?"It is a bit of bread." He tests it by the sense of smell, and the sense of smell says, "It is a bit of bread." He tests it by the sense of taste; and, lo! taste says, also, "It is a bit of bread, and nothing more." But all these decisions are heretical and blasphemous, says the Papal Church; and therefore he must either renounce the dictates of his senses or the dogmas of the Church. Suppose, now, he tries it by the standard of reason. Reason is the friend of truth, but it is the antagonist of Popery. Papists know this, and therefore cry her down. Reason confirms the decisions of sense, and pronounces the Papal doctrine to be the most palpable contradiction and absurdity ever examined. Thus both reason and sense repudiate the Papal doctrine; and there is no alternative but either to renounce sense and reason and receive the dogma, or exercise reason and common sense, and renounce the doctrine of Popery. So much for the priest's argument on common sense. Let men judge this doctrine by common sense and reason, and so far from Rome boasting a proud majority, she would not find a votary on the face of the earth.

6

6

But we must examine another argument which is professedly based on the Scriptures. This priest says, "Let us now consider whether the Catholic doctrine (respecting the sacrifice of the mass) accords with the 'common sense' of the sacred writers. In Acts xiii. 2. we read, And as they were ministering to the Lord, and fasting, the Holy Ghost said to them,' &c. Now, by reference to the original Greek, in which St. Luke wrote, we find that the word for ministering' is uTOUPYOUYTUV (leitourgounton), a word which was always applied to the offering of sacrifice; and hence some ancient translators, and among others the classical Erasmus, translate it whilst they were offering sacrifice. And what sacrifice? The sacrifices of the Old Law were abrogated, and it was sinful in the apostles to offer such; indeed, ingenuity will be at a loss to say what other sacrifice they could be offering, except the sacrifice of the mass."

Well done! This is altogether a remarkable argument. However much our " ingenuity may be at a loss to say what other sacrifice was offered here, except the sacrifice of the mass," we must confess we should not like our " ingenuity" to be taxed to prove that any sacrifice at all was offered in this instance by the apostles. But here is an appeal to Scripture! We always like to find Romanists appealing to Scripture. We wish for more of this; and we cannot but think that if their love to the Holy Scriptures were sincere, they would soon cease their opposition to their circulation, and encourage, not forbid, their people to read the oracles of God. They would soon convert their Inquisitions into Bible