things contrary thereto, and all heresies which the Church has condemned, rejected, and anathematized."

You will observe, that the Bishop of Rome is called the "vicar of Jesus Christ;" a very awful, and as he shows himself, a blasphemous assumption. He is also called "prince of apostles," and "successor of St. Peter." Now it does so happen, just as it does with what is called apostolical succession, that the very link that is absolutely vital in this chain is altogether wanting. In the first place, there is no indisputable evidence, at least in Scripture, that the apostle Peter ever was at Rome at all. In the course of a discussion which I had with a distinguished advocate of the Roman Catholic Church, his argument was, that it was perfectly clear that Peter was at Rome, because at the close of his First Epistle he says, "The Church that is at Babylon saluteth you." "What, then," said I, "do you admit that Babylon is the Scriptural designation of your Church?" He replied, "Certainly it is." "Then," I said, "turn with me to the eighteenth of Revelation, and read the description of your church as it is stereotyped there; and I am sure, if there be a possibility of shame in your mind, your countenance must blush as you hear the enormities by which it is defiled." Here, however, let me state, that what are called postscripts at the close of the Epistles, "Written from" so and so, are no part of the word of God; they are additions not of the least value, and occasionally historically inaccurate. At all events, there is no scripture evidence that Peter ever was at Rome. But, in the second place, if he ever was, there is no record of his being Pope, and appointing a successor; and we know that, in certain points, the present Pope does not look like his successor. The apostle Peter was a married man; the Scriptures speak of his "wife's mother" being ill; to be a complete successor of St. Peter, you must have every jot and tittle of St. Peter's character, and circumstances, and position; but by a law of the

Church of Rome, (a law, I admit, belonging to its discipline,) celibacy is enforced upon its clergy; and, therefore, in one point at least, the Pope of Rome cannot be the successor of Peter. Certainly in one respect the Popes may be called his successors: Peter denied his Lord and Master, and confirmed the denial with an oath; and this succession the Church of Rome has sacredly cherished and fearfully developed, in every age of the existence of that deep and dark "mystery of iniquity." Would to God that she may one day succeed Peter in his repentance, and return to Christ, to faithfulness, to suffering for the truth!

I have thus laid before you what may be called the most prominent points of Popery-or, if that expression is objected to, Roman Catholicism-in its articles of faith, as these are embodied in the Creed of Pope Pius IX.

I Now proceed to discharge what I feel to be a far more painful portion of my duty. I grieve that I should be constrained to make one single remark upon those we would otherwise rejoice to hail as Christian brethren; but I feel that truth is even more precious than friendship, and that the purity of our most holy faith is far dearer than even the most unbroken and uninterrupted peace. If the alternative be whether we shall sacrifice peace or truth, both precious and inestimable in their proper places, we must have not one moment's hesitation in sacrificing peace, rather than let go truth. Truth is the root or stem; peace is but the blossom that waves upon the branch; let the blossom be torn off, and the stem will hear the accents of returning spring, and give forth other and no less beautiful blossoms; but if the stem be cut down, and the roots torn up, no revisit of a quickening spring will make blossom or fruit appear again.

You have heard what Popery is, as stereotyped by the Roman Catholic Church; I must now lay before you what is the Popery disseminated, I grieve to say, by men that wear the robes and eat the bread of a Protestant Church; men distinguished for their talents, and some of them for their erudition—and heretofore no less distinguished for the consistency of their outward walk in the world — but branded and chargeable, I solemnly believe, with the most desperate and decided effort ever recorded in the annals of the Church, to extinguish the principles which have been

sealed with the blood of martyrs, and to bring in a deluge of soul-destroying errors, for the designation of which guilt no language is sufficiently strong. I have carefully selected, from the writings and other documents of these individuals, their leading sentiments; and as you have heard pure Popery, as it is taught and practised under the auspices of the Church of Rome, you will see now, by the following quotations, that the whole difference between what are called the Tractarians of England and the Papists of the Vatican, is solely in the matter of consistency. The Roman Catholics consistently carry out their principles to their full extent. Drs. Pusey, Hook,* and others, keep their principles in reserve, waiting for the occasion when they may be developed with impunity, and taught beneath the auspices of authority and influence, at present not fully upon their side.

I will take, first, their views of the Rule of Faith. With Protestants, the Bible alone is the rule of faith; and I may observe, that much of the safety of the Protestant Church lies, under God, in the unimpaired maintenance of this cardinal principle. Within the boards of the Bible, you are on a Protestant and impregnable foundation; but go beyond them, for one single article of your creed, and you are on Popish ground-aye, it may be on an inclined plane, and you need not be surprised if you soon find yourself in the gulf of the great Western Apostasy. The rule of faith given by Dr. Newman while in the Protestant Church† is in these words, in his Lectures on Romanism, pp. 327, 343: "These two, the Bible and tradition together, make up a joint rule of faith" again, "Where the sense of Sacred Scripture, as interpreted by reason, is contrary to the sense given to it by Catholic antiquity, we ought to side with the latter," p. 160.

See his Church Dictionary.

Mr. Newman has consistently of late passed into the Romish Church. So too have Messrs. Ward, Faber, and others. Soo too will many of those who hold their views, but are deficient in their courage and consistency.

Professor Keble, in his Sermons, third edition, p. 82, says, "The rule of faith is made up of Sacred Script are and tradition together. The British Critic,* once the great organ of the party, speaks thus: "The Bible is in the hands of the Church, to be dealt with in such a way as the Church shall consider best for the expression of her own mind at the time. (British Critic, No. LX. p. 453.) In other words, the Bible is a mere nose of wax, to be shaped, and moulded, and directed, by a convenient phantom that has never yet been defined or condensed, called the Church, as may be most palatable to her taste, and best suit the expediency of the moment. And again says The British Critic, "There is altogether sufficient evidence, independent of the Sacred Scriptures, that the apostles taught as divine and necessary certain doctrines, and inculcated as essential certain practices." I say, There is not; and we defy them to produce evidence, and to prove any such thing.

"Dur

The following extract of a letter is interesting: ing Lent, it is the custom for the best preachers at Rome to preach every day in the week, except Saturday. On one occasion, the last season of Lent, the Padre Grossie, who was remarkable for his eloquence, was preaching in the Jesuits' Church. His sermon was on the advantages of the Roman Church, and the danger of schism. After a passionate appeal to the Greeks, urging them without delay to enter into the sanctuary of the Papal Church, he concluded with the following appeal to the Puseyites: "There is yet a class of persons, very numerous, whom I would wish to address, although I fear that there may be none here; still, perchance should there be any, to them I turn: 0 Puseyites! what shall I say to you? You know that you are not Protestants, and we know you

are not Catholics: you are

much nearer to us than them. Why will you not come

This Review became so purely Popish, that it was suppressed for the sake of appearances.