gain converts to their pro-slavery principles; and let them at the same time be no less assured, that neither we, nor any European nation, join the clamour of the Federals now raised for instant emancipation. We know that it must be the work of time; but why should it not be immediately begun? Does the loyalty of the slave, so signally displayed, deserve no kind return? Could there be a fitter moment for rewarding him with immediate protection from the cruelty of the lash, and from the liability to have his wife and children torn from him? And how wonderfully would even these two concessions, which the most niggardly humanity demands, affect his happiness.

But, whatever be the decision of the Confederate rulers, they may rest assured that slavery is doomed; five millions of white men cannot always continue to govern four millions of black men by brute force. They must soon come to the conclusion, either to exterminate the blacks, or to give them liberty. Let them now prepare the way, and the civilized world will applaud their conduct, and He who reigns in righteousness will bless them; let them obstinately pursue the infatuated course on which even the ministers of Christ amongst them, blind leaders of the blind, are encouraging them to venture all they have to lose-character, independence, safety; and they will find at last, that God's moral government of the world admits of no exception on behalf of a nation of slave-holders, but that, on the other hand, "the way of transgressors is hard."

CORRESPONDENCE.

FURTHER REMARKS ON THE EARL OF DERBY'S SPEECH ON THE CHRISTIAN CHARACTER OF THE CHURCH OF ROME.

'Idolatry is an error in fundamentals."-Bishop Burgess.
'Nothing can be more anti-christian than idolatry."-Ibid.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

DEAR SIR, AS my former letter, which appeared in the August number of the Christian Observer, was brought to a close somewhat abruptly, I venture to solicit a place for some additional remarks on the Earl of Derby's speech in the House of Lords, on the Prison Ministers' Bill.

I alluded to Bishop Mant's Letter to Lord Melbourne in reply to his Lordship's speech, in which he affirmed that "the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church were fundamentally the same with those of the Church of England," but I omitted to bring forward extracts from the Bishop's Letter. I now proceed to supply this deficiency, and also to add further evidence. Bishop Mant says,-"If the sentiments

ascribed to your Lordship be correct, the reformation of religion in this kingdom is justly chargeable with folly and impiety; our reformers have shed their blood for a chimera; and our Church has been guilty of establishing, and is at this time guilty of maintaining, an unchristian schism which it would be her duty to acknowledge and to repair. But if those sentiments be incorrect, it behoves us all, whether clerical or lay members, my Lord, of our reformed Church, to cherish the memory of the Reformation as a signal blessing from the good providence of God; to hallow our reformers in our remembrance as martyrs to the truth of God's Holy Word; and to be ready, on all fit occasions, with Christian moderation and charity, but nevertheless with Christian simplicity and firmness, to plead and contend earnestly for the faith of the Church transmitted to us from our forefathers; and to set forth the true character of that from which they were, and still are, constrained to live in a state of separation."

This learned prelate selects passages from the authoritative documents of both Churches, and arranges them in parallel columns, in order to show, by juxta-position, how diametrically opposed the two Churches are to each other on the fundamental doctrines of Christianity:-1. On the Rule of Faith; 2. On the meritorious Cause of our Acceptance with God; 3. On the Sacraments; 4. On Transubstantiation; 2. On Purgatory; 6. On Indulgences; 7. On the Invocation of Saints; 8. On Adoration of Images; 9. On the Celibacy of the Clergy; 10. On Infallibility and Dominion." Bishop Mant adds:-"To those members of our Church who are not duly aware of the difference between the fundamental doctrines of the two Churches, and who may be indisposed to examine fuller evidence of such difference, I would take the liberty of recommending a perusal of Pope Pius the Fourth's Creed; and I would then put to them the question, Such being the creed of the Church of Rome, can her fundamental doctrines be properly considered the same as those of the Church of England? "Does the Church of Rome agree with the Church of England in all the fundamentals of Christianity? Answered by the authoritative declarations of the two Churches in a Letter to the Right Hon. Lord Viscount Melbourne, by the Bishop of Down and Connor. 1836."

Bishop Marsh, in his "Comparative View of the Churches of England and Rome," demonstrates that "the two Churches, in respect of doctrines, are fundamentally distinct; for they differ, not only in many single articles of faith, but the faith of the one is founded on a different basis from the faith of the other."

The Rev. Prebendary Townsend, in his "Accusations of History against the Church of Rome," says,- "You (Mr. Charles Butler) wish that Protestants and Romanists would abstain from contention, and unite in defence of our common Christianity.' We dare not abstain from the contention. The tares are mingled with the wheat, and though both must grow together until the harvest, the Protestant labourer must encourage the one, and guard against the other. Scarcely is our Christianity common. The Scriptures which teach us are different, for you receive as inspired the apocryphal books. Our objects of worship are different, for you place on the throne of God the Virgin, the saints, and the angels. Our seals of faith are

different, for you have elevated useful or doubtful institutions to the rank of sacraments. Our modes of discipline are different, for we reject the arbitrary fastings, the priest-inflicted penance, the private confession, and the capricious absolution. The essentials and the non-essentials of our faith, all, all are different."

It thus appears evident that the clergy of the Church of England and the leading statesmen of our country are entirely at issue, as it respects the real character of the Church of Rome, the purity of her doctrines, and the foundation on which she rests.

The late Earl Grey, like the present Earl of Derby, laboured hard to whitewash the Church of Rome, and screen her from the charge of idolatry, the blackest of all sins, and which more than any other sin unchristianizes a Church. There can be no such thing as an idolatrous Christian Church, for it is a contradiction in terms. Nominally Christian a Church may be; but if idolatrous, it can no more be a legitimate Church of Christ, than a counterfeit sovereign can be the legitimate coin of the realm. The following extract from a speech delivered by Earl Grey in the House of Lords in 1818, will show how lightly he thought of the fundamental errors of the Church of Rome, and how little he regarded the solemnity of an oath. His Lordship observed:-" But, my Lords, on a due examination of these declarations, are you ready to say that the doctrines thus reviled are idolatrous and superstitious? Do you know what is meant in the Church of Rome by the invocation of saints, or the adoration of the Virgin Mary? Are noble Lords ready to point out those decisive reasons which led them to look on the sacrifice of the mass, and the doctrine of Transubstantiation, as worthy of the vile epithets of idolatrous and superstitious? Can the doctrine of Transubstantiation be in any sense idolatrous? What does the Roman Catholic believe -what does he adore? He believes the Deity to be transferred to the sacrament-and he adores, not an image, but what he believes to be the real presence of that Deity to whom all adoration is due. Can this worship be described as idolatrous? Or is it so widely different from the principles of our own Church, that it must be condemned ? Or is the text of Scripture on which it is founded so clear, that we must censure it as wrong? We may believe it wrong, but we ought to recollect, that the faith of the Roman Catholic is derived from the same source from which we have drawn our own, and its truth or error only one Being, all wise and all perfect, can decide. . . . . It is surely most improper in us to use terms of reproach to the Roman Catholics with respect to a point on which a great diversity of opinion prevails among Christians.'

Dr., now Bishop, Phillpotts, in his "Letter to Earl Grey," animadverting upon his Lordship's speech, observes," One of the most striking characteristics of your speech is a readiness to inculcate the notion, that there is in reality very little difference of doctrine between the Churches of England and Rome. The attempt is not a new one.... If no political bias had influenced your judgment, it would have been impossible for you to overlook the wide and irremovable barrier which separates the tenets of your own Church from the corruptions of Rome. You could not have forgotten that the majority of our Articles are framed in direct opposition to those corruptions."

Other noble Lords besides the late Earl Grey have betrayed the same ignorance and presumption when defending the corruptions and idolatry of the Church of Rome. Lord Holland had the temerity to ask the Archbishop of Dublin (Dr. Magee) if his Grace actually believed the doctrines of the Romish Church to be "damnable and idolatrous ?" The Archbishop gravely and with much dignity replied," My Lord, it cannot be of much importance to your Lordship to know my opinion on this subject, since your Lordship has yourself solemnly sworn that such is your own belief."

In a sermon preached by Archbishop Magee, his Grace observes,Christianity and Popery are in many points at fatal variance. The Papal Church consists of all who hold communion with the Pope. The Christian Church consists of all who hold communion with Christ. The rule of faith for the members of the former is the decrees of man; the rule of faith for the members of the latter is the Word of God. The means whereby the former would guide its followers are the closing up of Scripture, and shutting out the light of reason; the means employed by the latter, the unfolding of the sacred Volume to our daily and hourly meditation, and the inviting us to the exercise of our best powers in deriving from it a knowledge of the Divine will; earnestly encouraging us to try the spirits, whether they be of God, and to be careful to prove all things, and hold fast that which is good."

It is a striking fact, that three individuals who have filled the office of Prime Minister in this Protestant country, have thrown the weight of their influence into the wrong scale, and sided with Romanism against Protestantism. They have professed great attachment to the Church of England, but they have professed one thing and practised another.

Our leading statesmen take high ground, and set up their judgment above the clergy. They vainly imagine that they know better than the clergy what constitutes idolatry; so that if any of our bishops venture, in their place in Parliament, to speak of the religion of the Church of Rome as "superstitious and idolatrous," their Lordships meet with nothing but rebuffs from our scoffing statesmen, and are tauntingly asked,-"Is this fit language for a bench of right reverend prelates to use ?" forgetting that it is the "language of truth and of Parliamentary authority," as Bishop Burgess said in his reply to Lord Melbourne.

If Mr. Birks is right, there must be a great deal of infidelity among our Parliamentary leaders. This able writer observes:-"The creed of Pilate and Gallio has become triumphant among Christian statesmen. . . . To promote the truth of God is scouted as an absurdity.... Henceforth, in the policy of the state, all religious questions are to be decided on purely political grounds. In other words, numbers are to be everything, and truth is to be nothing. . . . With a calm and wise philosophy, the statesman will now endow, side by side, the grossest idolatry and the creed which proclaims it to be a hateful abomination. . . . A cool contempt for Divine truth, an entire blindness to the moral dominion of God, a conscience seared to the guilt of propagating falsehood, an expediency which cares not to insult God in the vain hope of pleasing man, will become the dark

features of the national policy." (The Christian State, by the Rev. T. R. Birks.) In another place the same writer observes,-"Modern statesmen have outgrown, in their own conceit, the authority of the Word of God."

Our leading statesmen have been accused of truckling to Popery for the sake of place. They indignantly disclaim the charge, as though they were incapable of such baseness; but upon what other principle can we account for their perpetual concessions to Romanists? This was evidently the Bishop of London's opinion, as appears from his Lordship's speech on the Prison Ministers' Bill. The notorious Lichfield House treaty is not the only compact entered into with Romanists by British statesmen for the sake of place. These statesmen show no disposition to treat the clergy with respect, or to pay the slightest attention to their remonstrances against a Bible-excluding system of education, or of paying for the maintenance and propagation of a blasphemous* and idolatrous religion. Such disagreement in matters relating to the soul and eternity leads to alienation and estrangement. Nothing can be worse than the feelings which subsist between the clergy of the Established Church and our leading statesmen. The following extracts will show something of this alienation. It was not without good reason that the Bishop of Cashel said,— "Protestant principle was violated, and Protestant feeling insulted, and Popish principle sanctioned, when successive governments interdicted the free introduction of the Holy Scriptures into the national schools, and set the whole weight of their influence against those clergymen of the Established Church who thought themselves bound by the duty they owed to their God to have God's Word read by the rising generation." On the same subject the Archdeacon of Waterford said, "The ministers of the Irish branch of the National Church felt that it was most painful for them to occupy a position of alienation from the authorities of the country in reference to the education of the young.... The State had long been granting aid to scriptural schools, but at last it was decided to withdraw that aid as an avowed concession to the Church of Rome. . . . It was not the Protestants of Ireland who had changed their principles; the change had been on the side of the State, which had been making concession after concession to the Church of Rome."

All this serves to show that our public men, in spite of their disclaimer, truckle to Popery for the sake of place.

The following protest, which carries conviction along with it, was placed on the records of the House of Lords about eighteen years ago:— Dissentient

"1. Because I hold it to be contradictory to the first principles of the Reformation to provide for the establishment of an order of men to be educated for the express purpose of resisting and defeating that Reformation-men whose office and main duty it will be to disseminate and perpetuate those very corruptions of the Christian faith which the Church of England has solemnly abjured, and some of which the whole legislature of England has declared to be 'superstitious and idolatrous.'

Nothing can surpass the horrible blasphemy of the language addressed to the Virgin Mary in the accredited formularies of the Church of Rome, the religion of which ought to be called Mariolatry, not Christianity.