ing the morals, of the poor in that quarter of the Metropolis, had excited the indignation of an active Romish Priest, who publicly preached against the School, from his pulpit; immediately after which, the School was attacked by the Catholics, and a child of the Master was finally made a cripple for life. Not contented with the personal visits and preachings of London Priests against this School, one or two of the Clergy from Ireland have been lately engaged in the same pious cause! and, in order to produce the greater effect, a Dublin Preacher addressed the people at St. Patrick's Chapel in the Irish language!!!

"Let it now be fairly considered by Mr. Canning, and the other enlightened advocates of the Catholic Claims,' whether facts of this description, attested by the evidence of the Catholics themselves, before one branch of the Legislature, tend to encourage any reasonable hope, that if the Religion of Popery were to be strengthened with POWER, the Religion of Protestantism would be tolerated, or the free use of the Bible be endured; whether, in fact, the spiritual tyranny from which the Reformation delivered us, would not again revive in all its force, and the blood of CRANMER, of HOOPER, of LATIMER, and of RIDLEY, be found to have flowed in vain ?

"It is generally admitted that Bishop Poynter and Mr. Butler (whose examination is here detailed) are among the most enlightened, candid, and moderate men of their religious persuasion; and that, if it were possible, they would readily concede something to oblige and conciliate their Parliamentary friends: but even these Gentlemen cannot depart from their fundamental principles, whenever they are put to the test: and, therefore, in a moment of conflict or severe trial, it will be seen that no approximation whatever can be made towards the sentiments and feelings of Protestants. Under such discordant circumstances, how is a political

union to be effected? and what stability can they possibly give to a Protestant Constitution?”

KING JAMES'S Translators of our Bible (first published in 1611) tell us in the Preface, that "the Church of Rome would seem at length to bear a motherly affection towards her children, and to allow them the Scriptures in their mo ther tongue: but indeed, it is a gift not deserving to be called a gift, an unprofitable gift: they must first get a license in writing before they may use them; and to get that, they must approve themselves to their confessor,that is, to be such as they are, if not frozen in the dregs, yet soured with the leaven of their superstition. Howbeit, it seems too much to Clement the Eighth, that there should be any license granted to have them in the vulgar tongue; and therefore, he overruleth and frustrateth the grant of Pius the Fourth! So much are they afraid of the light of Scripture, that they will not trust the people with it; no, not as it is set forth by their own sworn men; no, not with the license of their own Bishops and Inquisitors. Yea, so unwilling are they to communicate the Scriptures to the people's understanding, in any sort, that they are not ashamed to confess that we forced them to translate it into English against their wills. This seemeth to argue a bad cause, or a bad conscience, or both."

In their Epistle Dedicatory, the Translators again allude to "Popish persons at home or abroad, who therefore malign us, because we are poor instruments to make God's holy truth to be yet more and more known unto the people, whom they desire still to keep in ignorance and darkness."

If any one fancies that English or Irish Papists may without such permission freely peruse the Bibles as translated by their own Bishops; let him see the injunctions prefixed to their late editions, expressly to prevent this liberty among both "learned" and unlearned Roman Catholics. So far from approving of the pious scriptural example

given to us in the conduct of Timothy's Grandmother and Mother, who "from a Child" instructed him in " the Holy Scriptures, which were able to make him wise unto salvation" (2 Tim. iii. 15); the modern, revised Catholic translation of the New Testament has a formal "ADMONITION prefixed to it, putting the English reader on his guard; and telling him, "IT WAS JUDGED NECESSARY TO FORBID THE READING OF THE SCRIPTURES IN THE VULGAR LANGUAGES, WITHOUT THE ADVICE AND PERMISSION OF THE PASTORS AND SPIRITUAL GUIDES WHOM GOD HAS APPOINTED TO GOVERN HIS CHURCH-NOR IS THIS DUE SUBMISSION TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TO BE UNDERSTOOD OF THE IGNORANT AND UNLEARNED ONLY, BUT ALSO OF MEN ACCOMPLISHED IN ALL

KINDS OF LEARNING."-" From this high authority," says Bishop Poynter, in his New Year's Gift for 1813, “ you: have received the Scriptures, and the true sense of the Scriptures: from the same you learn, with absolute certainty, what Christ really taught, instituted, and commanded. By this authority, rising errors have been condemned in all ages, and unity of faith has been preserved. This authority": OF THE PRIESTHOOD" is the pillar and ground of truth." (See pp. 50 and 75 of a Correspondence on the Roman Cátholic Bible Society, 1813.)*

Such is the present practice of the Romish Church: to which, I may add, that endless testimonies might be easily produced, to show the activity of Bishops and Priests, in Ireland, England, and even in this very metropolis, to prevent the people from reading their own authorized version.

The late GENERAL MATHEW (on supporting an Irish/ Petition, presented by Sir Henry Parnell, said, in the House of Commons, "He trusted His Majesty's Ministers would remember, that the eyes of the country were upon. them, and that they were expected to make themselves completely masters of the tenets and faith of the Roman Catho li religion." One of these tenets, perhaps then unknown to

General Mathew, is, that the Sovereign Pontiff must be considered as "God's Vicar on earth, the Supreme Head of the whole Church, the Representative of God made man, before whom Kings are but dust and ashes." Abbé La Trappe tells us so!

I cannot conclude this Letter in more forcible language than the words of Lord Colchester afford me: "Their Prelates will still inculcate the same doctrine, and bow with the same implicit obedience to the Papal authority: § and this SPIRITUAL JURISDICTION, we have been distinctly told by the highest Roman Catholic authority in England, can be completely exercised, if necessary, by mere personal AGENCY ; utterly passing by all ostensible securities, and without the formal intervention of any WRITTEN INSTRUMENT, OR DOCUMENT, OR ANY STATE-CONTROL WHATEVER. This spiritual supremacy of the Sovereign Pontiff, however exercised, is incompatible with the Protestant constitution of these realms and this usurped dominion, although it be subdued and eclipsed for a time in France" [i. e. during 1813], "has recently blazed forth in Spain; and we may be well assured it never can be a harmless guest, much less a safe co-estate, with the government of any country under heaven. I feel it incumbent on me to repeat that, in my opinion, the great stand to be made for the preservation of our Constitution in Church and State, must be against the admission of Roman Catholics to seats in Parliament: a concession which would virtually accomplish, at no distant period, THeir ad

MISSION INTO EVERY OTHER BRANCH OF POLITICAL POWER;

and an event which I dread and deprecate, and shall think it my duty to resist to the uttermost."

§ Lord Castlereagh, in a Parliamentary debate on the VETO, stated, that the Apostolic Vicars were mere Missionaries, removable at pleasure, and obliged implicitly to obey all orders from Rome."-Are these agents, therefore, fit persons to direct the consciences of British subjects?

SIR,

LETTER XVIII.

In the 8th and 9th chapters of the Koran, you may see that the Impostor MAHOMET gave express precepts and authority to propagate his religion by the sword. He tells his disciples "to strike off the ends of their enemies? fingers, and to kill idolaters wherever they are found;" and he says, "Ye Christian Dogs, you know your option-the Koran, the Tribute, or the Sword:" but, such precepts and injunctions form part of the Mahomedans' RELIGION, and they too might petition any Christian Legislature with which such men could live, to admit them into the supreme national council. They might urge: "We are subject to privations and restrictions, most unjustly, for no cause but our adherence to an ancient and pure RELIGION; which forbids us to take your common Test, Oath, or Declaration of loyalty; and it is solely owing to our conscientious attachment to principles of a religious nature, that we cannot do so; which principles, WE PETITIONERS AFFIRM, do not interfere or conflict with any of the moral, civil, or political duties we owe to your present Establishment."-Now, I ask, if this be not the exact prayer of a new Petition from English Roman Catholics, signed by more than 10,300 of them?

"They remain subject to penal laws, merely on account of their refusal of certain Religious Tests, Oaths, and Declarations that they refuse these, is solely owing to their conscientious adherence to principles merely of a Religious nature, and not conflicting with any moral, civil, or political duty: that the Petitioners have, at different times, presented Petitions to the House for relief from the laws remaining in force against them; and they now again approach the House, with the most perfect reliance on its wisdom and