days, or in Elizabeth's, or the First James's, or the First Charles's? Was it at the Restoration and just before or after the passing of the Act of Uniformity? Was it in Queen Anne's days, or when Oxford expelled the six praying Students? Or in Romaine's days, when half a dozen of like-minded men could hardly be found in the Episcopal church?"

This appeal to experience," must rest on something besides the mere opinion of the writer. If worth any thing, he ought to have referred to some fact, as a matter of history, known to the readers of the Christian Observer. I confess that I am unable to fix on any such sunny spot, in the dark history of a secular church. It would indeed be an oasis in the desert.

The writer, after stating his reasons for his conduct, with reference to the new Society, gives his panacea for removing the moral desolations of London. He appears an apt disciple of Dr. Chalmers, and something more. At the close of his paper, he thus writes:

"After much experience, and long observation of our dense population, I see no other mode of reclaiming them to

Christianity but this. Dissent, in all its manifold variety, is utterly unequal to this work. It may unsystematize system, and interrupt order; and by partial good blind the eye to the extensive mischief it is committing. Never, perhaps, was Dissent more prominent, and more busy, than at this day; yet what man of observation can reasonably expect the supply of our spiritual deficiencies from Dissent? Separation is its very soul and spirit; and how can the same thing at once separate and unite? It is our parochial system, carried out into all the comprehensive utility and charity for which the State has designed it-each parish being placed under a really independent minister-that God has

honoured, and does honour, by the confirmation of his Spirit; and I have heard more than one Dissenting minister confess, if one Evangelical minister were

placed in every parish, Dissent would cease. Let us be true to our Established for she is God's own instrument, and has Church then, and she will be true to us; His blessing accordingly.

"But who is to wait till this desirable state of the Established Church arrives? Certainly not those whose faithless impatience will not give God credit for the efficacy of His own appointed means. But what is wanting to give efficacy to

these means? A combination of the Evangelical influence of the Church, acting with resolute energy on a given principle, by given means, to a given end. Such a combination, under God, would be irresistible: it would enforce reform

both in Statesmen and Churchmen. The people would hear its voice as the 'vox Ecclesiæ,' and as such, The times are peculiarly favourable_for

vox Dei.'

the exercise of such an influence. Respectable Dissenters under such an influence would be un-dissented, and support the Church; the refuse of Dissent would sink down into Radicalism and its native odiousness; and sound Evangelism would sound reform. But for the Church to be blest in producing and maintaining join Dissent as Dissent, in effecting the spiritual regeneration of the people, is, I apprehend-if the principles of our Establishment are just, if the Reformers were wise in instituting it, or the Puritans commendable in enduring the trials they did endure rather than violate its principle by dissent-to attenuate its own efficacy, to dissipate its own resources, and to employ its own energies to its own destruction; and hence defeat the very purpose, the maintenance of the church of Christ, for which it has pleased God

to establish it."

Is it possible that any man with his eyes open, to the past or present condition of thousands of parishes in England and Wales, under the desolating and antichristian system of patronage, with only one sixth part of the clergy evangelical preachers; with a Bench of Bishops raised to their high station by political means, and only two or three of them acknowledged to be spiritual, enlightened men; is it possible, we ask, to mark these things, and yet

see in such a state religion, the maintainer of the Church of Christ nay, "the leading church of Christ in the land."

But it may be said these are the views of a correspondent, not of the Editor, unless the insertion of the letter is to be viewed as sanctioning its general principles, if not its details. Be this as it may, the same number has an Editorial article, which contains a passage that ought not to have been penned, without distinct and conclusive evidence. The article referred to is in the form of a brief controversy between the Editor and a Conservative paper, called the "Durham Advertiser." The newspaper in question, in order, it is supposed, to propitiate the new Bishop, inserted the letter of a correspondent, who referred to the pages of the Christian Observer, as praising Dr. Maltby. This was disowned by the Editor, and the quotation which was given from the Magazine, was shown to be garbled and to be designedly employed to impose on the public. After animadverting in a severe but apparently just manner upon the conduct of the paper referred to, the following paragraph closes the reproof.

"It is the singular fortune of Bishop Maltby, in the strange amalgamations of modern Liberal politics, to be embraced warmly not only by Socinians, but by Evangelical Dissenters,' of whom he has often spoken in terms of scorn, which they are contented to forget now that so

many of them prefer liberal' clergymen to what used to be styled 'evangelical' ones. If they wish to know his Lordship's opinion of what he is pleased to call 'itinerant preachers and haranguers in private houses,' and of people who pray extempore, they may consult with advantage our Volume for 1831, p. 572. Will his Lordship say that he has altered those opinions; or that political amities have made him lenient to what he then consi

dered the absurdities of Dissenting fanaticism?"

All this is in very bad taste, and displays any thing but a kind and candid spirit. I certainly did not expect such sneering remarks from the Editor. An assertion is made, that " Evangelical Dissenters," along with Socinians, warmly embrace Bishop Maltby. Where is the evidence of this? We have a right to enquire, has any address been presented to him by the Evangelical Dissenters, as such, of his old diocese, similar to the one presented by the Established clergy and laity, lamenting his leaving them-or have any of the Evangelical Dissenters of his new diocese presented an address of congratulation on his recent appointment? Does not the Editor know, that we repudiate the whole system of appointing Political or Socinian Bishops? Is he not aware that the "Evangelical Dissenters" consider the readiness with which ungodly men, of all shades of religious belief, can enter into the church, and rise even to the highest offices, as one of the great evils resulting from a State connexion? Does he not know that "Evangelical Dissenters" are not favourable to Socinians, whether in or out of the Establish

ment; and that at this very time an attempt is made to cast odium on them, for their decision on this very subject? I should have deemed it more worthy of the Editor's character and respectability, instead of this attack on us, to have protested against yielding canonical obedience to a man, who was, according to his own showing, heterodox in sentiment. He should have openly and boldly declared, that he could hold no communion with one, who held the deadly errors ascribed to him, till he had disavowed them publicly. But no,

he rests satisfied with referring to the past, and allows things to go on as usual. He in fact acknowledges him as a Christian Bishop, a Right Reverend Father in God, a dispenser of the benefits of apostolic succession, a ruler in his oron church, and yet, if he be a Socinian he must be a perjured man. Which party then embraces the Bishop? Who kneels at the same communion table with him? Who admits him into his pulpit? Who yields to his claim of being a successor of the apostles, authorized to give official and indelible character to men, appointed to administer the ordinances of religion? Who must yield to his authority as his diocesan, if he should be made Bishop of London? Is it the "Evangelical Dissenter?" No, but the very writer of the paragraph in question! We are clear from these fearful inconsistencies.If it had so happened that some individual Dissenter had observed the common courtesies of society, when the Bishop was leaving his former residence, without having any reference to his religious

character at all, is this to be construed into a warm embrace?" If so, I should like to know, what the union of the Editor with such a person, in all religious and ecclesiastical matters, should be called? Something, I opine, stronger, more emphatic, than the "warm embrace" of " of "Evangelical Dissenters."

I sincerely regret this attempt to produce alienated feelings among Christians, on political grounds. Least of all should I have expected any thing of the kind in the pages of the "Christian Observer." If the Bishop of Durham has found out, from his intercourse with Dissenters, that they are not such fanatics as he had once supposed, it is honourable to show this by different conduct. It would be well if there was as much candour among those who boast of a purer creed. In that case " Evangelical Dissenters" would not have needed to complain of the editorial remarks of the Christian Observer. Yours, &c.

I. The Ancient Catholic Faith defended against Romish Novelties; being a Reply to a Pamphlet, entitled "Imposture Exposed, and a Letter addressed to the Inhabitants of Achill, by the Rev. John Keaveny, Roman Catholic Priest." By the Rev. Edward Nungle, A.B. Minister of that Portion of the Catholic Church called the Established Church of Ireland. 18mo. pp. 100. Dublin: John Robertson and Co. London: Hamilton and

Adams. 1835.

Is there a place called purgatory? Is transubstantiation a doctrine of revealed religion? Are angels, saints, and images to be worshipped? Will priestly absolution avail to pardon sin? Is the Roman Catholic Church so ancient, supreme, united, and infallible as it professes to be? If we must, on a careful examination of the reasonings on which the advocate of the papal church answers these questions in the affirmative, pronounce them altogether inconclusive, we must give to them a strong negative; and protest against the doctrines they involve as a most awful misrepresentation of Christian truths, and a most dangerous corruption of its most holy and valuable principles. The space allotted will not allow us to enter

into a complete examination of all the errors and absurdities of Romanism; nor, if it could be granted, would a review be the most appropriate place to discuss a series of polemical positions. Most of our readers are well informed on all the leading topics so long and so satisfactorily discussed between the Papists and the Protestants: and the admiration of many is doubtless excited that the Roman Catholic should continue to adhere to his errors, and that it should be incumbent on the Protestant to refute

But

again that which has been refuted ten thousand times before. error is a vivacious weed-its seeds are so minute, so widely scattered, and so deeply imbedded in the human heart, that careful attention, much labour, and no inconsiderable sacrifice of time will always be required, to prevent some of the plants which spring from them from becoming excessively rank and disgustingly luxuriant, to arrest others in their progress, and here and there successfully to eradicate a few. "The truth is," indeed, great, and must" eventually "prevail." But He who possesses infinite wisdom and unbounded power was pleased of old to disclose it only gradually: and in the history of his providence we learn, that it had not long shone forth in the full splendour of its unclouded majesty, when its glorious orb became partially obscured by the mists of error, and the benefit of its cheering and lifegiving beams were partially cut off from our sinful and miserable race.

Error, like sin, is indigenous to our world; truth and purity are exotics. Beautiful and valuable as they are, they are yet in an unfriendly soil, and in an uncongenial climate. He who tends them with care, and has them refreshed with the dews of heaven, may preserve them with life and vigour; but the negligent will never pluck their flowers, nor taste of their delicious fruit. They are to be sought for as silver, and searched for as hid treasure. They are better than rubies, and all that can be presented to us as an object of desire is not to be compared to them. The intelligent reader will be aware that our observations relate not to political, philosophical, or scientific truth, but to that which is divine. Of the three former kinds of truth mere indolence, or a want of time or opportunity, may keep men in ignorance; but to the last they are decidedly averse. It is not, however, when this truth is perverted, or blended with error, that it is offensive. It is so when seen in its native simplicity, unsophisticated and unadorned.

In accommodation, therefore, to the depraved taste of man, the Roman Catholic Church has distinguished herself by perverting some truths, by loading with a vast pomp of superfluous appendages others, and by dogmatically announcing as the veritable injunctions of Heaven, absurdities the most glaring, and idolatries the most hateful. What a horrible perversion of the Lord's Supper is the sacrifice of the mass: and how is that simple, sublime, and most affecting institute bedizened by that church with meretricious adornment. And as to absurdity and idolatry a piece of flour paste is worshipped as God, and declared in its every separated particle to be thew hole body, blood, and divinity

of the Lord Jesus Christ. And can we believe that the great Mediator has neither human thought, feeling, shape, nor motion; that he exists in the hand of the priest and on the tongue of the communicant, without the accompaniment of any one of his perfections? What is this but affirming a thing may exist without any of its essential attributes; that it is without the very things that concur to make up its being, and to constitute it what it is. We do not read that our Lord, as respects his human nature, was ever in more than one place at one and the same time while he was on earth. It has not been affirmed by his disciples that he was at one and the same moment on the lake and on the shore, or in Judea and in Galilee, or at Bethlehem and in Jerusalem. But the doctrine of transubstantiation teaches us that the human body of Jesus Christ may be on ten thousand altars, and in ten times ten thousand hands, and at places distant from each other hundreds of leagues, at one and the same moment. Reason instantly decides, and the most accurate logic serves but to confirm its decisions, that a part is not the whole but what does the mass teach us? Let us hear the decision of the Council of Trent. "The body of Jesus Christ is entirely contained in the sacramental eucharist, under either species (bread or wine), and after separation, under every part of these species!" Let the prepared flour paste, then, in five hundred Roman Catholic chapels, be in each divided into one hundred parts, and distributed to the communicants, and there will be, according to this doctrine, fifty thousand human bodies of Jesus Christ. Add to this mass of absurdities the belief of the good Catholic, that the priest, by the mummery of cer