the grant be withheld, and trust there will be one firm unanimous protest against the proposed measure.

We call, therefore, upon all to oppose it, for all are interested in opposing it. Of the great number of religious Societies established amongst us, for the purpose of promoting the kingdom of Christ, whether by missionaries to the heathen abroad, or by efforts amongst portions of our own benighted population at home, there is not one whose agents are not continually opposed by Roman Catholics, and whose operations are not impeded by Popery?

The proceedings of the Church Pastoral-Aid Society at home, the Church Missionary Society, the Colonial Church Society, the British and Foreign Bible Society abroad, not to mention others, in their Reports and Occasional Papers, give abundant evidence of this. And the Society for Promoting Christianity amongst the Jews finds it one of the greatest hindrances to their work, that those who have seen Christianity chiefly, perhaps only, as deformed and perverted by Popery, cannot but recoil from it, as from a system of manifest idolatry. Knowing Christianity only from the misrepresentations of the Church of Rome, and that the Scriptures bear the strongest testimony against idolatry, they cannot be induced to embrace that system as Divine, which they see to be contrary to the Word of God.

The persecution of Dr. Kalley, and other Protestants, by the Popish Portuguese authorities at Madeira, what is it but a practical development of the principles of Popery.

The proceedings at Tahiti reiterate the charge, that Popery, alike the enemy of civil and religious liberty, will trample under foot the rights of conscience.

Those who had been sent over to Tahiti as Christian missionaries from England, to carry abroad to Heathen lands the blessed tidings of salvation have, in consequence of the late persecution carried on there, and the consequent scattering of their flocks, and impeding their own labour, recently returned here, and what do they find? They, alas! like Dr. Kalley and his friends at Madeira, though they meet here with Christian sympathy from some, yet behold us, in a national point of view, upholding Popery, the author of their sufferings, cherishing her as a friend, and giving to her fresh endowments. Thus truth is betrayed, thus its friends and laborers are disheartened and discouraged.

All the concessions made in favour of Popery will not change her nature, though they may extend her sway, and give her advantages over Protestantism, which she ought not to possess.

We may be called alarmists; whether we are such or not, events will shew. Let our readers but look to the manner in which, whilst Protestants are divided amongst themselves, Popery gains fresh power. The Charitable Bequests' Act, amongst

others, contains in it the seeds of many evils; especially those provisions recognising the titles of Archbishops and Bishops assumed by Roman Catholics. The principle involved in that may be found to lead to a more dangerous extent, than is now imagined, thus legalizing, and sanctioning an imperium in imperio, and acknowledging that the Pope has some power and jurisdiction within the realm of England.

Has it been sufficiently considered in what position the Crown itself may be placed by such measures? and how the allegiance of Her Majesty's subjects may be tampered with? In the present times it is not so much by standing armies as by public opinion things are to be governed. In a free country, that will not stand long which stands without the approval of the public voice. Cabinets have of late acted upon this principle, and both Whig and Conservative Administrations have conceded to the clamour of Roman Catholics, what they have denied to the quiet Protestants of Ireland. Nay, we might almost say, have robbed the Protestant Church, and decked Popery with its spoils. Whilst then, Cabinets thus act upon expediency, and that is conceded to clamour which is denied to justice, we wish to see the Protestants of England and Ireland raise their voice as one man in defence of the truth; and to shew to those whose course is steered by expediency, that it is expedient for them to conciliate the Protestants.

Since the Charitable Bequests Act, there are two Archbishops of Dublin, two Primates of Ireland, &c. It is true, the Act does not recognise the Romish Archbishops, &c., as of any provinces or dioceses in Ireland. But it does recognise them as ecclesiastical dignitaries of the Church of Rome, appointed by the Pope. Who then is the real Archbishop of Dublin? Protestants reply, Dr. Whately. But the majority of Roman Catholics in Ireland-rejecting him as heretical-look to Dr. Murray, as both de jure and de facto, Archbishop of Dublin.

The principle is now conceded; a few years may see the practice extended into England. We may then hear also openly acknowledged, a Roman Catholic as well as a Protestant Bishop of London. And we may, without any great stretch of imagination, expect to have also two Archbishops of Canterbury, and two Archbishops of York. One step more may then be taken-what could prevent them going so far as to have a King or Queen, appointed by the Pope-merely titular, of course and, if possible, descended from the House of Stuart. (Roman Catholic Magazines have told us there are descendants of that house in existence, and now in Scotland.) And what but the Act of Settlement, in the estimate of Roman Catholics, keeps them from the throne and titles of their ancestors?

Can there be any doubt as to whom the Roman Catholics

might regard as the Archbishops and Bishops, to whom they would in spiritual matters defer? Would they receive a single religious rite at the hands of the Protestant? And is there not reason to fear that they might equally in such circumstances reject the government and laws of an heretical sovereign.

Then when there shall be rival archbishops in each province, rival bishops in every see, and rival sovereigns seeking for the crown, in what an inextricable state of confusion may we not be placed? And what a deep debt of gratitude shall we not then owe to those whose policy may have accelerated or produced it! We see how the power at present possessed by Roman Catholics gives them an almost preponderating weight and influence in matters where the interests of the Church of Rome are concerned. It is to their seditious agitation alone they owe their present position. They will continue that agitation. It pays too well to be dropped."

And when the day comes, in which they can more safely throw off the mask; when they shall insist on having a Popish sovereign on the throne, surrounded by Popish counsellors, there may be little or no more power, indeed, not so much, to withstand that last and fatal concession, than there was to resist those already made, or than there is to resist those at the present time demanded. We already know, from their too early boast, what is the number of Roman Catholics in the army, and that they are required to have their consciences under the guidance of the priesthood, and that under penalty of eternal perdition, they may be called upon to lay down their arms, and fight against their sovereign, and military officer's commands, at the dictation of a priesthood. We do not here blame them for preferring the soul's safety before that of the body—the interest of time to eternity-but we pity their delusion, and transfer the blame to those who having the national interest to provide for needlessly give power to such a system. Wiser far was the language and policy of King James.

"For the part of the Romanist priest," he says in his first speech from the throne, "I must directly say, that as long as they maintain one special point in their doctrine, and another point in their practice, they are no way sufferable to remain in this kingdom. Their point of doctrine is that arrogant and ambitious supremacy of their head the Pope, whereby he not only claims to be the spiritual head of all Christians, but also to have an imperial civil power over all kings and empires: dethroning and decrowning princes, and dispensing and deposing kingdoms. Their point of practice is, the assassination of princes, thinking it no sin, but rather a matter of salvation, to do all actions of rebellion and hostility against their natural sovereign, if he be once cursed, his subjects discharged of their

fidelity, and his kingdom given a prey by that three-crowned monarch their head."*

We do not, however, ask for the exclusion of the Romish priests from Great Britain, but we do demand their exclusion from that supremacy after which they seek. We do not wish to persecute them, but we must resist their encroachments. We do not oppose toleration, but we are bound to resist the endowment of Popery.

ON THE POLITICAL PRINCIPLES OF POPERY.

THE learned Editors of the "Digest of the Evidence taken before Select Committees of the two Houses of Parliament, appointed to inquire into the state of Ireland, 1824-1825," after citing the Oath of Feudal Allegiance to the Pope, which is taken by Roman Catholic Bishops, give the following heads of the outline of the Papal scheme of universal dominion.

"1. The Pope claims to be the supreme feudal lord, wherever he has a hierarchy of bishops, or vicars apostolic. This is obvious from the oath.

"2. All bishops and vicars apostolic are feudal barons under him; they derive titles of temporal dignity directly from the Court of Rome, and are peers of the creation of the Sovereign Pontiff.”

"This assumption of temporal state is enjoined by a decree of the Council of Trent, which runs as follows:- The Holy Synod cannot but deeply grieve to hear, that some bishops, forgetful of their rank, do not a little dishonour the Episcopal dignity, by conducting themselves with an indecent lowliness in their intercourse with the ministers of kings, with princes, and barons; and, like the inferior priesthood, not only yield precedency to them, but do them personal service. Wherefore the Holy Synod, detesting these and all such practices, renews all the sacred canons, general councils, and other apostolical sanctions relating to the grave and seemly dignity of the Episcopal station, and commands the bishops, that, keeping continually before their eyes their rank and order, they remember themselves to be fathers and pastors. It also enjoins the laity, both princes and others, that they pay to bishops the honour and reverence due to fathers."-Session 25, cap. 17.

"3. The priesthood of a diocese, and the youth intended for holy orders, are called subjects of the bishop." "This expression has the authority of the Council of Trent, as appears from the following decree. In order that the bishops may the better maintain the people whom they govern (populum quem regunt) in their duty and obedience, they are to have the authority of delegates of the Apostolic See, in all matters relative to the visitation and reformation of their subjects, so that they may decree, order, punish, and execute, according to the canonical sanctions, whatever shall appear to them necessary for the reformation of their subjects, and the improvement of the diocese.'

"4. The tenants of a see are called vassals of the bishop, although the see lands may have been alienated by the civil power."

"5. Heretics, schismatics, and all others who may reject the Papal authority, are called 'rebels to our Lord the Pope.' The clause to that effect is still retained in the oath of the Continental bishops.'

"In the same spirit it is taught that 'the Church retains its rights over

See "Townsend's Accusations of History against the Church of Rome." Edited by the Rev. J. E. Cox, and recently puplished by the Protestant Association, pp. 274-5.

heretics and schismatics, as a general retains the right of punishing deserters, although their names may not be on the muster roll of his army.' "This right of the Church extends not merely to those who have voluntarily left it, but to all persons whatsoever who have received Christian baptism.” Thus, then, the holy Sacrament of Baptism,-which our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ instituted, as a sign and pledge of the admission of believers into all the privileges of the Christian Church,--is perverted into a sign and pledge of our subjection and slavery to the Church of Rome! And, for the purpose of enforcing this claim of absolute authority over all baptized persons, it establishes as a principle, that "the baptism of a minister of the Church of England is as good as that of the Pope." This may seem to be very liberal: but the intention of the Romish Church is thus accurately stated in the following extract from the Rev. Blanco White.

"By one of the Trent canons, every member of the Church of Rome is bound to believe that all baptized persons are liable to be compelled, by punishment, to be Christians, or, what is the same in Roman Catholic divinity, spiritual subjects of the Pope. It is, indeed, curious to see the Council of Trent, who passed that law, prepare the free and extended action of its claims, by an unexpected stroke of liberality. In the session on baptism, the Trent Fathers are observed anxiously securing to Protestants the privilege of true baptism. The fourth canon of that session fulminates an anathema or curse against any one who should say that baptism, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, conferred by a heretic, with an intention to do that which the Church intends in that sacrament, is not true baptism. Observe, now, the consequence of this enlarged spirit of concession in the two subjoined canons. 'If any one should say those who have been baptized are free from all the precepts of the holy Church, either written or delivered by tradition, so that they are not obliged to observe them, unless they will submit to them of their own accord, LET HIM BE ACCURSED.' Having soon after declared the lawfulness of infant baptism, they proceed to lay down the fourteenth canon: 'If any one should say that these baptized children, when they grow up, are to be asked, whether they will confirm what their godfathers promised in their name; and that if they say they will not, they are to be left to their own discretion, and not to be forced, in the meantime, into the observance of a Christian life by any other punishment than that of keeping them from the reception of the Eucharist and the other sacraments till they repent, LET HIM BE ACCURSED.' Now, it is most true,' says the author of the Book of the Roman Catholic Church,' that the Roman Catholics believe the doctrines of their Church to be unchangeable; and that it is a tenet of their creed, that what their faith ever has been, such it was from the beginning, such it now is, and such it will ever be."

་

She

"Let him, therefore, choose between this boasted consistency of doctrine, and the curse of his Church. The Council of Trent, that council whose decrees are, by the Creed of Pius IV., declared to be obligatory above all others; that council has converted the Sacrament of Baptism into an indelible brand of slavery. Whoever has received the waters of regeneration, is the thrall of her, who declares that there is no other Church of Christ. claims her slaves wherever they may be found, declares them subject to her laws, both written and traditional; and, by her infallible sanction, dooms them to indefinite punishment, till they shall acknowledge her authority, and bend their necks to her yoke. Such is, has been, and will ever be, the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church; such is the belief of her true and sincere members; such the spirit that actuates her views, and which, by every possible means, she has always spread among her children. Him that denies