work. The Catholic Bishop's consecration oath, Dr. Dromgole's speech, and the nonsense about indulgences, were catered for him by Mr. Croly; and, of course, he merits all the laurels which bigotry has woven for the Right Reverend Father in God.

Intolerance, being ejected from the public mind, has taken refuge in the sanctuary of the Church, where it has secured a momentary protection from the guardians of religious monopoly; but, if they cannot find better arguments in support of the exclusive system than those put forth by Mr. Croly and the Bishop of Chester, the sooner they abandon exploded opinions the better; for statements, which can be refuted by simple facts, will in this age of inquiry excite only contempt or ridicule.

Popery,' says Mr. Croly, stands up against the liberty of man. Its civil principles are despotic; its government is despotism; it has been habitually connected with despotic governments. In religion, it shuts scripture upon the people; it loads them with a yoke of ceremonies, contrary to the spirit and command of Scripture; it throws down the laity at the foot of the priest; it claims a haughty and unlimited dominion over every other faith; and it urges this monstrous claim by intolerance and sanguinary persecution:

'A sober inquirer should dare to ask, in that region of free discussion, what hindrance lies between the Papist and his full enjoyment of Protestant privilege; what rough and towering barrier rises between the luxurious possessor and the heroic and formidable outcast? Might he not be surprised to hear, that the single condition is that of paying the common allegiance of the realm to the king. The oath of supremacy is the general demand of the constitution. The Papist refuses this oath (which every other subject takes), and demands the unconditional surrender of the last security of the rights and lives of Protestantism. And he refuses this allegiance to his king, while he offers it to a foreigner, and that foreigner elected to his throne by the influence of foreign po tentates, who may be our enemies at any hour; himself the ancient disturber of England, and bound by the severest bonds

of his arrogant and unscriptural faith, to extirpate our religion, though it were in our ashes!'

In this extract you have the gist of the reverend gentleman's argument-the cream of his hundred and forty-seven pages; and what reply does he merit to this farrago of assertions devoid of proof, and charges which have been a thousand times repelled? A monosyllable, à la Benjamin Constant, might be a very proper answer; were it not necessary, for the sake of minds still under the influence of honest prejudice, and imposed on by similar accusations, to prove the whole devoid of truth, and thus leave illiberality without a shadow of support in its opposition to the Catholic claims.

Upwards of forty years have elapsed since Catholics swore that they neither pay nor owe civil allegiance* to any foreign prince, potentate, or pope; and yet, in this boasted age of knowledge, here is an A. M. and F. R. L. S. ignorant, or obstinate, enough to repeat the charge so long and so often denied. He endeavours, indeed, to justify himself by alleging, that 'civil allegiance is a dream where spiritual allegiance is not bound up with it.' When he made this notable assertion, I suppose, he forgot his theological studies; and this is not so surprising, since he is better known as a poet than a divine. I must, therefore, remind him, that there is an absolute, and very material, difference between civil and theological allegiance, as well as civil and theological toleration. The one belongs to the individual, the other to his God; and there never can be freedom where the government prescribes the religion of the subject. Experience, as well as common sense, confirms this; for the union of civil and temporal power has ever been destructive of national liberty. Catholicism, therefore, in a worldly point of view, is superior to most other religions; for it disclaims any control over the proper allegiance of the individual, and allows him to exercise his own judgment respecting the conduct and legality of his rulers; while it leaves him free to

liberality so ostentatiously proclaimed, while the eighteenth article, and the Athanasian Creed, form a part of the Book of Common Prayer. I care not for the casuistry that defends or extenuates these; they are there, and while they continue to be printed and sanctioned,let Protestants refrain from reproaching Catholics with their creed, or admit that the established Church is inconsistent, and that the doctrine she once taught is no longer true. Some minor sects may not have published these principles; their insolence may have been repressed by the paucity of their numbers, but their conduct announced what they had not courage to proclaim; for if the old religion was correct, what need of

a new one?

I am no theologian, nor am I reasoning on the abstract question of who is right, or who is wrong; all I mean to prove is, that the harsh doctrine, exclusive salvation, taken in its proper sense, is chargeable on every other church as well as the Church of Rome, and if I had not facts to support me, I would rely on common sense alone. The question as it respects Protestants and Catholics resolves itself into a very narrow compass. Are the Catholics of Ireland right or not, in adhering to the religion of their forefathers? If the Protestants say they are not, my assertion is proved; and if they are, why endeavour to bring them into the established Church, or why deny them the rights of fellow citizens? Who have persecuted them because they were Catholics? Protestants. Who have excluded and continue to exclude them? Protestants. And yet we hear nothing, in or out of parliament, but Protestant liberality.

I could quote a host of Protestant, and other authorities, to prove that Catholics are considered by them as not entitled to salvation. Not many days since, I heard Mr. Irving announce from the pulpit that Popery was the beast, the scarlet whore, &c. But what need of proofs? Protestants, on entering office, swear that the Catholic doctrines are damnable, and Mr. Croly has asserted over and over, in this stupid pamphlet, that

those who belong to the Church of Rome are Idolaters!

I shall pass over Mr. Croly's exposition of the opinions of O'Connell, &c. as individual inconsistency does not militate against general arguments; but I cannot omit correcting two mistatements of the worthy divine. First, he quotes from an edition of Mr. Gandolphy's book which was condemned, and then tells us the work was approved of by the Catholic Church, forgetting to say which edition. Secondly, he says, Dr. Dromgole's speech was hailed with eclat; whereas the board passed a resolution condemnatory of it. So much for Mr. Croly's accuracy; now for his logic and theological knowledge.

The pope calls the council and dissolves it at pleasure. So his will is the law after all.'

I shall show the absurdity of this reasoning by a parody-- The king calls the parliament and dissolves it at pleasure. So his will is the law after all.'

None of our Lord's miracles shock the human understanding.' Here is a notable discovery! Pray, Mr. Croly, did not our Lord himself, apparently man, and declaring himself the Messiah, shock the human understanding? Which is more repugnant to the human understanding,' God in the sacrament or God in a carpenter's son? Until you answer this I have no further question to ask you; though, had I more time, I should laugh at your contempt of penance, and your announcement of a prophetic war. Your comments on the sacrifice of the mass display your ignorance, and your knowledge of Irish history is as imperfect as your description of indulgences. There is not a barefooted brat in a hedgeschool in Munster who could not successfully repel your charges against his religion. I send you the pamphlet, my dear Editor, that you may see what fudge it contains; and believe me yours,

Bedford Square.

RORY, O'ROURKE.

THE life of this highly-gifted individual presents few incidents calculated to impart novelty to his 'Memoirs. Unlike many of his cotemporaries, there is nothing about him either eccentric or remarkable; and, after stating that he has always sustained the character of a private gentleman, his biographer has little more to do than specify the time of his birth, and record the periods and complexion of his works.

Thomas Campbell was born at Glasgow, in the year 1777. He was educated at the Grammar School of his native city; and such was his rapid progress in classical learning, that at the age of twelve he was entered a student of the University, where he distinguished himself the following year by gaining an exhibition, or (as it is called there) a bursary on the foundation, by a victory over a man then esteemed the first scholar in college, and who was, besides, twice the age of our poet. The career he so triumphantly began continued during his academical course, for he successively gained every prize for which he contended; and, though college fame is seldom a promise of future excellence, yet, in Mr. Campbell, more than the hopes he then excited has been fulfilled. His application was as unremitting as his genius was remarkable; and such was the merit of his translations from the Greek dramatists, that the last of them elicited a high eulogium from the Glasgow Professor, at the time of his awarding the prize.

Mr. Campbell, on quitting Glasgow, went to reside at Edinburgh, where he published his Pleasures of Hope;' a poem of such varied and characteristic excellence, that few in the English language are deservedly more popular. Critics, however, object to it, as exhibiting too much the appearance of labour: but, in this age of loose and irregular poetry, perhaps what some consider a fault is not undeserving of commendation. In 1800 Mr. Campbell visited the Continent, where he remained about a year; the greater part of which time he spent in Germany. On his

return he came to London, and turned his whole attention to literary pursuits. In 1803 he married, and went to reside at Sydenham, where, we believe, he still lives. In 1809 he gave the world Gertrude of Wyoming,' and other poems. This tale is written in the Spenserian stanza, and is too well known and appreciated to need any comment from us.

On becoming Professor of Poetry to the Royal Institution, Mr. Campbell delivered a course of lectures, since published in the New Monthly Magazine,' of which he is the nominal editor. He has also published A selection of the Beauties of the English Poets;' not very remarkable for the taste displayed in the selection; but, in the introduction, he has given the world a code of poetical criticism deserving a high place in English literature, not only for the justness of the remarks, but the elegance of the style in which it is written.

Early in the present year he published Theodric,' accompanied by several minor pieces collected from the New Monthly.' This last poem has disappointed even his friends; and, we trust, the failure will only stimulate him to some new exertion better calculated to sustain his popularity. Mr. Campbell, with pardonable fastidiousness, has not chosen to acknowledge any but his poetical works; but report says he is the author of a history of the late king's reign. Many of his lyric compositions and minor poems possess the highest merit; and none more than 'Erin go bragh' and

O'Connor's Child;' two pieces which declare his sympathy with the oppressed people of Ireland, and which eminently entitle him to their gratitude and favour. His portrait, therefore, must be acceptable to our readers; and we can assure them it is an exact likeness, being copied from a painting by the President of the Royal Academy. In private life Mr. Campbell is beloved by his friends, and in public he is esteerned for an inflexible attachment to the rights of man.