says he, "I here mean by conscience or religion, that full persuasion whereby we are assured that our belief and practice, as far as we are able to apprehend and probably make appear, is according to the will of God and his holy Spirit within us, which we ought to follow much rather than any law of man, as not only his word every where bids us, but the very dictate of reason tells us, Acts iv. 19: Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you, more than unto God, judge ye. That for belief or practice in religion according to this conscientious persuasion, no man ought to be punished or molested by any outward force on earth whatsoever, I distrust not, through God's implored assistance to make plain by these following arguments." Having thus stated his object, he argues in support of it, from the general principles of Protestantism, inferring that those who condemn the Papists are more guilty when they themselves believe only as the state believes. "It is the general consent," says he, "of all sound Protestant writers, that neither traditions, councils nor canons of any visible church, much less edicts of any magistrate or civil session, but the Scripture only, can be the final judge or rule in matters of religion, and that only in the conscience of every Christian to himself." In proving this by various arguments and quotations from Scripture, answering objections and explaining difficulties, the treatise is taken up, and the whole is so connected that it is not easy to make extracts, but it is hoped that many knowing the subject, and considering the character of the Author, will read and judge for themselves. We think there are parts which would not have been written by Milton had he lived in these days, but it would have been unwise in any Editor to have attempted to mutilate or change even a single word. There is annexed an extract from a later work of Milton, "A Treatise of true religion, heresy, schism, toleration, &c.," printed in the year before his death, 1673. Part of this extract, respecting heresy, has been often referred to, and we shall not repeat it now, but we consider it as deserving a place in the memory of every Christian, as a guide for his conduct towards those who differ from him. There are also two sonnets, bearing on the same subject, addressed to the Lord General Cromwell and Sir H. Vane. Another Tract, entitled "Areopagitica, a speech of Mr. John Milton for the liberty of unlicensed printing, to the Parliament of England," is the tenth of the Series. Our press is at present so free that the republication of this may appear unnecessary. When it was spoken, a license had been deemed necessary before a work could be printed, and we are in great measure indebted to it for our present freedom. Still as the

Editors justly observe, "the only security for this and all our liberties consists in the public mind being impregnated with the manly and generous sentiments which Milton inculcated for a time in vain, upon our English Areopagites." True it is that we live in times when there are many who would gladly abridge our liberty, and if the churches should succeed in their effort to get power into their hands, we shall feel that though our lives and even property might be spared, yet that some Sir Andrew Agnew or Sir Robert Inglis may think he is serving God, by introducing a law to forbid Unitarians to assemble for religious worship, or at least to print any work attacking the Trinity or any other doctrine received by the ruling party. A tribunal of justice may be influenced to take away our property, Houses of Parliament may be influenced to pass such laws, as well as Corporations to reject dissenters, as we have seen in Edinburgh, however respectable, merely because they are not with the ruling party. As observed in the preface to this little volume, "the battle of religious and Christian liberty (for the liberty is twofold) has yet to be fought," and it is only by inculcating again and again the doctrine of these Tracts, that it can be fought successfully. It is not for Unitarianism, or any other ism, but for the right of every man to form his own judgment on every religious subject, without being injured in his property or civil rights either by Acts of Parliament, as in former times, or by the influence of clerical or sectarian bigotry.

"When did ever our Blessed Saviour, who held all power in heaven and earth, and could command legions of angels, where or when did he, in the midst of dangers, opposition and abuses, ever oppress or punish even his unbelieving and implacable enemies? When did ever Paul, who had the power and assistance of the Holy Ghost, and the power and assistance of miracles, where and when did ever he show any resentment to his bitterest foes among the Jews, or his most idolatrous gainsayers among the Gentiles ?"

Yet both might have done so on the same plea of saving souls, had not the spirit of the Gospel been different from the spirit of the high-priests and their followers in all ages. The extract preceding the last sentence is from the second tract, "The Craftsmen, a Sermon, by Thomas Gordon, Esq.," Author of the Independent Whig, Cordial for Low Spirits, &c., and also the Translator of Sallust and Tacitus. The name of Gordon may not be familiar, like that of Milton, but though not to be compared with the latter, he was well known a century ago. He was by birth a Scotchman, and came to London in the reign of Queen Anne, with a view of supporting himself by literature. He was first a

teacher; but having made himself conspicuous in the Hoadleyan controversy, in which he took the side of religious liberty, Mr. Trenchard, a wealthy Whig member of Parliament, and also a writer, took him to his house, where he lived till Mr. Trenchard's death in 1723. They published in concert Cato's letters, and commenced the Independent Whig, which Mr. Gordon continued alone. Sir R. Walpole rewarded Mr. Gordon's exertions with a place, which he retained during the remainder of his life, which terminated in 1750. The Independent Whig was published weekly, and was so offensive to some of the bishops, that a prosecution was threatened to suppress it. This led to the publication of the Sermon now republished, which was written in the manner of Daniel Burgess, a popular but peculiar preacher of that day, and went through six editions. The greater part of the 19th chapter of the Acts was paraphrased and applied. The opposite conduct of Paul the persecutor and Paul the Christian preacher; the attempt of the sons of Sceva to cast out a demon in imitation of Paul and in the name of Jesus, with the words of the man having the evil spirit, "Jesus I know, and Paul I know, but who are ye?" and above all, the conduct of Demetrius and the craftsmen in his employ,-supply matter for cutting remarks on the high church party. Many of these remarks are just enough, and well deserved; but we do not admire the application of wit and sarcasm to such subjects. The concluding passage will, with that already quoted, give a fair specimen of what the reader has to expect, though not by any means amongst the severest pas

sages.

"Let us now view Paul, and see what terrible arms he bears, that are so frightful to the craftsmen. He was a stranger, he was a dissenter, he had no equipage to dazzle people's eyes, no pompous garments to win their reverence, nor wealth to bribe their affections; he sought no popularity by indulging men in their vices or encouraging them in their errors. In short, all the numerous advantages of his adversaries, the priests, were so many obstacles and disadvantages to him, the apostle. To conclude, he had only truth on his side, which rendered him an overmatch for all the priests then in the world. All the privilege, all the advantage which he desired, was a fair hearing. This it seems he had obtained of the town, and it had its effect: here was his crime, and here began the priestly fury, the fiercest, the most brutish of all others. Shameless men! was it not enough that reason and religion were both against you, and that you would neither be proselytes to them yourselves, nor suffer with your wills that others should; but must you likewise be proclaiming their invincible power, and your own imbecility and nakedness, by virulently using direct, undisguised force to stop their mouths? What impudence! what folly! what, you that

boasted your conformity to the law, and your establishment by the law! you that were the possessors of all scholarship! that were proprietors of the arts and sciences and of the great endowments given for their support! you that instructed the young and the old, and controlled the consciences of both! you that were the sacred administrators of religion! you that shut and opened heaven and hell! you that were the privy counsellors of the Gods! in the name of amazement what could undermine you, what could annoy you? or if you are not hurt yourselves, why do you oppress others? by this method you do but show your cloven feet. 'Jesus we know, and Paul we know, but who are ye e?'"

The third Tract, and the last which can be noticed at present, consists of "Sketches of the characters of Charles I. and II. and Oliver Cromwell, contained in the introductory chapter to the history of the early part of the reign of James the Second, by the late Right Hon. C. J. Fox." The work from which these sketches were taken was the production of one who was for a long period the Whig leader of parliamentary opposition, and with scarcely any exception, indeed we do not recollect one, the able and consistent advocate of liberty and peace. During the short period of his influence as a Minister of the Crown, he showed that in office he was still the friend of man, and almost in his dying moments achieved the abolition of the slave-trade, which his great rival had also advocated, but failed in accomplishing. It was the will of the great Being who directs all things, that he should be removed from this scene at the time when short-sighted mortals thought that he was most wanted, and it was not till more than twenty years after that a decided advance was made in the attainment of civil and religious liberty. His nephew, Lord Holland, adopted his principles, and faithfully adhered to them, and now that he too has closed his mortal career, let it not be forgotten, that he was ever ready to advocate his principles both in his scene of action, the House of Lords, where few have the resolution to support such opinions against overwhelming numbers, and also at public meetings.

Mr. Fox's work was a fragment only of what had been projected, but his nephew and other friends justly thought that it was too valuable to be suppressed, and it was accordingly published. The introductory chapter was devoted to a cursory review of preceding events, especially of the great struggle between Charles the First and the Parliament; the civil war which ensued, with the termination of it in the sway of a military despot; and the restoration and reign of Charles the Second, eldest son of the king, who had been beheaded. The se

lection from it is well made, and those who have not read the work itself, will do well to peruse it, as it will materially assist them in forming a judgment respecting that important portion of English history. We shall only quote the concluding paragraph for the sake of making a few observations in explanation :

"Whoever reviews the interesting period which we have been discussing, upon the principle recommended in the outset of this chapter, will find that from the consideration of the past to prognosticate the future, would, at the moment of Charles's (II.) demise, be no easy task. Between two persons, one of whom should expect that the country would remain sunk in slavery, the other that the cause of freedom would revive and triumph, it would be difficult to decide whose reasons were better supported, whose speculations the more probable. I should guess that he who desponded, had looked more at the state of the public; while he who was sanguine had fixed his eyes more attentively upon the person who was about to mount the throne. Upon reviewing the two great parties of the nation, one observation occurs very forcibly, and that is, that the great strength of the Whigs consisted in their being able to brand their adversaries as favourers of Popery; that of the Tories (as far as their strength depended upon opinion, and not merely upon the power of the Crown) in their finding colour to represent the Whigs as republicans. From this observation we may draw a further inference, that in proportion to the rashness of the Crown in avowing and pressing forward the cause of Popery, and to the moderation and steadiness of the Whigs in adhering to the form of monarchy, would be the chance of the people of England for changing an ignominious deзpotism for glory, liberty and happiness."

Now if in this description of the parties, we understand by popery the sect of adherents of the Pope, i. e., the Romanists, the parties have so far changed; for the Tories of the present day have a peculiar abhorrence of popery, whilst the modern Whigs are favourable to the Romanists being admitted to the fullest participation of all civil rights and privileges; but if by popery we more correctly understand the spirit of popery, i. e., of slavish submission to human authority in religion, then the Tories and Whigs will hold the same position now which they did at the time of the Revolution; though uneducated or prejudiced men may regard the Whigs as encouragers of Popery, and the Tories as its opponents, so much are we swayed by mere names. The charge of leaning to republicanism is also brought against modern Whigs, and it were to be wished that some of those opposed to Toryism did not give too much cause for it; however, this is a subject foreign to our purpose, which