and patrons; while by refusing to publish it, they probably gained papal, and lost no protestant patronage. Here lies the radical difference between the policy of these parties, and as long as things stand so, every man that prefers his interest to his duty and his principles, will either openly oppose protestantism-or stand neutral in the struggle.

"At one of the celebrations of the fourth of July in the city of Charleston" some one gave as a toast, "the health of Bishop England" with the usual addition of blarney-which as usual was, vox et præteria nihil. It is not stated at what celebration, this occurred; and for aught that appears, it may have been one got up by the papists, or even the priests of that city. It cannot be denied however that not only Charleston, but all South Carolina is much indebted to Mr. England. In that whole state, we have his own word for saying, there are only about five thousand papists; of whom nearly half are black, and there are not less than a dozen priests, besides nuns-to give spiritual instruction to this handful of the faithful. It is clear therefore, that the Bishop and his helpers, have directed their principal efforts to the work of proselyting the poor deluded protestants of his diocese;-and for this surely they ought to be abundantly grateful. And for our parts, we are not able to see that Mr. England is not just as much bound to eat and drink to the conversion of heretics in Carolina, and to give toasts and make speeches in aid of his mission; as Mr. Eccleston is, to undertake the same severe and painful labours at Georgetown. Nor do we perceive any more reason why the one rather than the other should be restricted of his liberty to say one thing at a feast when full, and quite another thing, in conclave when empty. In our attempt therefore to elucidate the sentiments of Bishop England of Charleston's dinner and speech, by his previous and official oaths—we assure him we do not consider his conduct at all uncanonical-or even peculiar in his sect; but on the contrary we fully admit that a papal Bishop, is no more bound to exhibit his true principles, in his public speeches-then a sober German was bound by his drunken judgments. The ancients had a God, that was blessed with two faces; he was a sort of God of time, and stood at the point where their years began and ended, with one face looking back into the past, and another gazing before him into futurity. On one countenance age was depicted with gravity, solemnity, and thoughtfulness-a3 if the closing year had not been lost in its many lessons of wisdom; -on the other was painted youth full of watchfulness, alacrity, and decision, showing how the future must be encountered. As it regards the duplicity of this figure, we have mused on it as a most striking emblem of Rome: an emblem on whose brows the faithful chronicle rshould write,-on the one JANUS-and turning the head about, on the other also JANUS-with ineffaceable characters.

But let us do the Bishop full justice, and hear him state his own sentiments and principles. We give in full, both the speech and the toast which called it into being.

The health of Bishop England. In the state a patriot-In the Church a living evidence of the wisdom of those institutions which tolerate all religions and legalize none.

This toast having been received with acclamations, Bishop ENGLAND addressed the President substantially thus:

SIR-I acknowledge myself to be very deeply affected by the very kind and unexpected manner in which my name has been introduced to this company, by a friend, to whom I owe very many obligations for repeated acts of friendship, and several manifestations of esteem; but sir, the favour has been greatly enhanced by the more than flattering way in which his proposition has been received by so highly respectable a society of my fellow citizens, upon whose bounty I cannot pretend to any claim.

Allow me, whilst I express my gratitude, to assure them that I at least respond to their sentiment. My kind friend has said that I was a patriot in the State. I should be one-I came to South Carolina a stranger, unknown, unproved-she took me to her bosom, she enrolled me amongst her sons, she protected me. I pledged to her my allegiance-I could not be recreant nor ungrateful. From many of her children in various parts of the State, under a variety of circumstances, I have received strong proofs of respect and of attachment; from her legislators, I have, on various occasions, experienced flattering attention and ample justice. I have no merit, therefore, in striving to cherish within me that love for Carolina which has been inspired by her own kindness in my regard.

I came to Carolina to promulgate a religion of which she had but little knowledge; I should more properly say, concerning which she made great mistakes. She had little opportunity of knowing what it is-that is no fault of hers; she was not to be blamed for not being acquainted with tenets which she had no opportunity of learning. She had been told, and led to believe that they were what they are not; but though labouring under this serious disadvantage, she extended to me her indulgence. I obtained every common right for which I found it necessary to ask-I was entitled to no privilege, and did not look for any. And when I draw the contrast between the conduct of this State and that of others upon this topic, I am more strongly impelled to the love of our southern section. We stand here in glorious relief as contrasted with others.

I believe that my friend used one expression which I would correct. Did he not speak of religious toleration, or toleration of religion? The meaning of that phrase cannot be his sentiment; I know him too well to suspect such to be the case. I am a Carolinian. I grant no. toleration to him who differs from me, because he possesses the right as fully as I do. It would not only be treason to our Constitution, but a traitorous folly in our own regard to talk of toleration!

And whilst I am prepared to defend my own right to the profession and the practice of the religion to which I adhere, I am ready to protect the religious opponent who differs most widely from me in the same enjoyment; for if I permit his right to be infringed, I undermine my own. Thus as

the sentiment of my kind friend expresses, it is wisdom for our state to sus tain our perfect religious freedom, and it would be a suicidal fanaticism for any religious body in this republic to aid in procuring any diminution of the civil rights of any other.

These, Sir,have always been my convictions-I have so proclaimed them as I felt them, strongly and without restriction. Once I did fear that the same bad spirit, which elsewhere has overshadowed some of our legislative halls, was about to spread its sable wings over our own. I did believe that its influence was about to be manifested in a reference to the church over which I preside, of an indulgence which is granted to every other. I proclaimed what I feared. I showed the legislators that even without their aid I could attain my object, by using my private right as a citizen; but I had another, and I trust a nobler motive, for the anxiety which I felt-I was proud of Carolina-I loved the untarnished honor of the south-and I trembled lest I should see our, State placed by the side of others in the degradation of bigotry. But they showed me that I was deceived,and their

vote of the next day proved to me, that in place of having any well-fonnded apprehension, I was only troubled by a nervousjsensibility-and the enactments of our State prove her wisdom, whilst they show her to be just and generous, as she will always continue to be, by protecting all her children in their religious rights, whilst she gives no preference to any one above another.

Allow me, Sir, to repeat my thanks for the manner in which so humble a name has been introduced and received by your Society.

It will be perceived that Mr. England avows in the most unqualified terms that the object of his settlement in Carolina was "to promulgate"-the papal system; a system which he admits the people knew little of-had not enjoyed many opportunities of learning -and had made great mistakes about.--This admission at once puts to silence all the outcry which this individual and his friends have set up about the intolerance of protestants, in their oposition to the papacy. Here are people who avow their object to be, the promulgation of a religion-as to us, new, misunderstood, and mistaken. They come as apostles of a better system, and demand its examination and adoption. We have examined it; we discover it, to be one great mass of lies, folly and corruption; we find its aim to be universal domination, and its past history to be written in blood. We are resolved not to embrace it; nor to permit our countrymen to be deceived into the fatal error of so doing, if we can possibly prevent them. And now when we tell Mr. England all this to his teeth,-he "promulgates" his creed, by secret devices rather than open and manly exposition,-by dinner harangues over the bottle, rather than fair controversy on the rostrum or thro' the press. Nay he throws off, when occasion requires it, his character of an apostle, coming to enlighten and convert a whole people; and raising the silly cry of intolerance and persecution, on the part of those who refuse to be converted by him-sneaks ingloriously off, or defends his system only when his courage is warmed over his potations. Said we not truly-that a double faced God, is their just emblem? Pity that the face of the lion should conceal the heart of the stag.

But our principal object with regard to Mr. Bishop England at this time is to point but the flat, positive, and repeated contradictions, between this dinner speech, and the plain and repeated oaths, taken by this same individual, on the most solemn occasions; oaths by virtue of which he is and continues to be a papist-a Jesuit-a Bishop-and an Inquisitor, or as many of those notable characters as he may confess that he sustains. In the speech, the author declares himself, to be thoroughly and on principle and conviction, devoted to the most absolute religious liberty, for all mankind. He declares that it would be treason to the constitution, traitorous folly on the part of papists,-suicidal fanaticism,-degradation and bigotry, unwise, unjust and ungenerous, to trespass in the smallest degree, or to connive at it on the part of others, even the state itself, or restrict in the least, the most absolute equality of religious liberty as between one person and another, and the most unlimited freedom to all! Well done Bishop England! We venture to predict that this prelate will make himself scarce at Rome, from the moment that this speech falls

under the eyes, of the congregation of the Index,-or those of that for Inquisition into heretical pravity. Or has he a dispensation to speak the truth? Well done Bishop England -full! Oh! that his sentiments and oaths when empty, accorded with these just and true statements.-That they do not-that they are directly at variance with them; and that Bishop England himself is solemnly sworn to diametrically opposite and irreconcileable statements-we shall now poceed to show in the clearest possible light.

In the 13th article of the creed of Pope Pius IV.-every time Bishop England has repeated it, he has said "I acknowledge the holy Catholic and Apostolical Roman church, the mother and mistress of all churches; and I promise and swEAR, true obedience to the Roman Bishop, the successor of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, and vicar of Jesus Christ."-and as often as he repeated the same universal standard of his church he said in the words of the 15th article; "this true Catholic faith, out of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess, and truly hold, I JOHN ENGLAND, promise, row, and SWEAR, most constantly to hold and profess the same, whole and entire, with God's assistance, to the end of my life; and to procure, as far as lies in my power; that the same shall be held, taught and preached, by all who are under me, or are entrusted to my care, by virtue of my office. So help me God, and these holy gospels of God."—

Now the Chatechism of the Council of Trent declares it to be of faith in this holy church, to which the Bishop has bound his soul "that hereticks and schismatics, are still subject to the jurisdiction of the church, and liable to be anathematised and PUNISHED BY IT." (see Cat. Council, Trent, page 94.)

The papal church has put translations of the Scriptures into all vulgar languages, when not accompanied by authorised notes,into the Index of prohibited books; that is, they are prohibited. The church has reserved to herself the right to give a version with proper notes. And it has done so. In 1582 the Jesuits at Rheims published an English version of the New Testament, with authorised notes; and both the version and the notes, have been repeatedly printed by competent papal authority in various countries, and both are in circulation amongst papists to this hour. In a note on Matthew, xiii. 29, it is taught "that where bad men, whether malefactors of HERETICKS can be punished or suppressed, without disturbance and hazard of the good, they may and ought by public authority, either spiritual or temporal, to be chastised or EXECUTED." In a comment on luke ix. 55, the infallible church teaches "that rigorous punishment of sinners is not forbidden-Nor the church nor Christian princes blamed, For putting heRETICKS TO DEATH."

In the usual forms of papal excommunication, the heretick is not only "excommunicated, anathematised, cursed, and separated from the threshold of the church:" but with a minuteness almost as ridiculous and indecent, as it is horribly blasphemous, he is cursed in every part of his body-every act of his being, every spot where he reposes; and then all who favour, countenance, or in any way protect, comfort or even converse or deal with him, are cursed with the same bitterness. Nor is the case only with gross heretics, and on spe

cial occasions: but annually on the 16th day of April, when that day is Thursday, or otherwise on the Thursday nearest thereto,-all the "Hussites, Wickliffites, Lutherans, Zuinglians, Calvinists, Huganots, Anabaptists, Trinitarians, and other apostates from the faith” -with all their "adherents, receivers, favourers and defenders;and all other heretics by whatsoever name they are called, or of whatsoever sect they be, together with all who, without authority -read, or even retain their books, and together with all Schismatics -and such as obsitnately recede from their obedience to the Roman pontiff:"-in short, every protestant on earth-is thus largely and fully damned for time and eternity. And so sacred a duty is this, on the part of Bishop England himself, and every other papal prelate; that the day is called in their calendar "HOLY THURSDAY." The "Laity's Directory, or Catholic Almanac for 1836"-published at the Baltimore Cathedral, by archiepiscopal authority-informs us, that the IV. Council of Lateran was the 12th General Council; and of course, that its decrees, were irrevocable and infallible. Now we are furnished in the Annals of Cardinal Barronius, continued by Bzovius, vol XIII. pages 226-7, with a full decree of that holy council, as to the mode of judging and punishing hereticks. In that decree the secular power is directed, and the spiritual is commanded to teach and aid the secular in its duty,-to exterminate hereticks—but if the secular power refuses, it is to be excommunicated and exterminated itself; and the country given to any Catholicks who are able to conquer it. And to induce them to undertake it, all are promised the same favours and indulgences in killing hereticks, as in killing Turks or Saracens. Let it be remembered that Bishop England has very often asserted in the words of the 14th article of the creed of Pius IV. that "he undoubtedly receives all things delivered, defined and declared, by all General Councils," of course therefore by the IV. General Council of Lateran! Still further in the same article, he proceeds to say, and has doubtless said many thousands of times,-"that he condemns, rejects and anathematises, all heresies whatever, condemned, rejected and anathematised by the church:" of course then; all the real protestantism on earth! Now let any candid man compare Mr. England full, with Mr. England empty, and say is he not worthy to have JANUS, written both on the back and front of his head?

Thus far we have only considered our table orator, in the light of a private member of the papal community; and have shown 1st from the creed of the church; 2nd from the standard chatechism of the church; 3d from the authorised notes, to the authorised version of their New Testament; 4th from the uniform and yearly practice of all their Bishops as well as the common forms of their excommunication; and 5th from the decision of a holy General Council, that every word uttered by the full orator,-the empty papist has sworn to be false, heretical and abominable! But unhappily for our orator, we have other and still more conclusive evidence of the discrepancy between his words when full, and his oaths when empty, furnished by still more solemn, and awful oaths which, we presume he dare not deny that he has sworn.