// 
 
 m 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 f UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 deceived September.* i885. 
 
 Accessions No. ^7 ^^ 4^ Shelf No. 
 
 5fr •» 
 
jrT 
 
 
 
^^^^^3 
 
i$y tfje aamr &utf)or. 
 
 ON SALE. 
 
 FOUR SERMONS on the PARABLE OF 
 THE SOWER, chiefly for the Young. Preached 
 before the University of Cambridge. Cloth, 2s. 6d. 
 
 LECTURES on the DECALOGUE. Cloth, 
 2s. Qd. , 
 
 SERMON on the FIFTH OF NOVEMBER. 
 
 with copious Notes. Is. 
 
 MARIOLATRY of the CHURCH OF ROME ; 
 a LECTURE. Is. 
 
 ETHIOPIAN EUNUCH ; a SERMON. Qd. 
 
 VISITATION SERMON, is. 
 
 FOR EVER, and other DEVOTIONAL 
 POEMS, Silk, 2s. 6d. 
 
ROMANISM 
 
 •UNKNOWN TO PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 THE SUBSTANCE OF 
 
 -LECTURES DELIVERED IN THE PARISH CHURCH 
 OF 
 
 THE REV 
 
 .L.S. 
 
 CANON OF LINCOLN. 
 
 VICAR OF GAINSBOROUGH, AND LATE FELLOW OF TRINITY 
 COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE. 
 
 AUTHOR OF " PLEA FOR THE REFORMED CHT3ROH, AND " DEFENCE 
 OF THE ENGLISH: REFORMATION." 
 
 HATCHARD, PICCADILLY J SEELEYS, FLEET-STREET . 
 GR00MBRIDGE8, PATERNOSTER ROW : LONDON. 
 
 MDCCCLT. 
 

 Q^fW 
 
PREFACE 
 
 The following Lectures are not submitted to 
 the public without having undergone a careful 
 revision. The first two are the enlargement of a 
 single one. Extensive Notes have been added, to 
 prove or illustrate what is affirmed in the Lectures, 
 and to guide to the best books connected with the 
 present Controversy. If the reader is possessed 
 of the Works of our great elder Divines, — such as 
 Jewel's Apology and the Defence, Stillingfleet's 
 Works, Jeremy Taylor's Dissuasive, Bishop Hall's 
 No Peace with Rome, Barrow on the Supremacy, 
 Jsher's Answer to a Jesuit, Chillingworth s Religion 
 of Protestants a Safe Way, and Bishop Gibson's 
 Preservative, — he has a library ready made. If not, 
 let him procure such of these as he can ; and add 
 to them, Bishop Marsh's Comparative View of the 
 Churches of England and Rome, — all or any of 
 
IV 
 
 the Works drawn forth by Southey's Book of the 
 English Church and Butler's Book of the Catholic 
 Church ; particularly Blanco White's Internal 
 Evidence of Catholicism, (or at least his Preserva- 
 tive, published by the Christian Knowledge Society,) 
 — Bishop Turton's Work on the Eucharist, in 
 answer to Dr. Wiseman, — Bishop Kaye's Letters 
 of Philalethes Cantabrigiensis, — Faber's Difficulties 
 of Romanism,— Tyler on the Worship of the Virgin, 
 and Tracts on Romanism (published by the Society), 
 — Bishop Bull on the Corruptions of Rome, — any of 
 Mr. Mendham's Works, — Dr. Wordsworth's Letters 
 to M. Gondon, and the Sequel, — Mr. Seeley's Essays 
 on Romanism, — Mr. Hobart Seymour's Pilgrimage 
 to Rome, and Mornings with the Jesuits, — and Mr. 
 Whiteside's Italy, for the effects of Romanism on 
 the social state. Foye's Early Irish Church, and 
 Layard's account of the Chaldean Christians in his 
 Researches at Nineveh, should be read. Professor 
 Blunt' s History of the English Reformation is a va- 
 luable book. The Hammersmith Discussion will give 
 a practical view of the chief points in dispute, — 
 Finch's Sketch of the Romish Controversy will 
 present authorities, — and the Tracts of the Christ- 
 ian Knowledge Society, the Bristol Tract Society, 
 or the Reformation Society, will furnish popular ar- 
 guments, well fitted for common use. The Book of 
 
Homilies is a storehouse of excellent matter, of a 
 positive as well as negative kind. The Homilies 
 are too much neglected. They are spoken of as 
 unsuited to the times, hut this is by no means the 
 case. The truths they contain are suited to all 
 times, and they came from hearts and minds such 
 as few have ever been blest with. 
 
 To know the distinctive tenets of the Church of 
 Home, — the decrees of the Council of Trent, the 
 Catechism of Trent, and the Creed of Pope Pius the 
 Fourth, should be possessed. The Pope's Creed is 
 printed in the following pages, immediately before 
 the Lectures, that the reader may consult it with 
 ease ; and that those who feel any inclination to- 
 wards Romanism may see what the tenets really are, 
 which all must profess on oath, who enter the 
 Church of Rome. Many are seduced to join that 
 Church, who are scarcely aware of her peculiar 
 doctrines, till it is too late for them to draw back. 
 
 The twelve new Articles of Faith, which con- 
 stitute the Pope's Creed, put forth at the Council 
 of Trent, are not only such as are not to be found in 
 the Scriptures, but also such as the Greek and other 
 Eastern Churches never held, nor the Waldensian, 
 nor the ancient British and Irish. They are the 
 distinctive tenets rejected by all the Reformed 
 
Churches ; which went back to the Written Word\ 
 and to Primitive Christianity, to guide them in 
 purifying themselves. 
 
 The Church of Eome is an old Church — but 
 Romanism, which distinguishes her from other 
 Churches, is not so old. The evil spirit of Ambi- 
 tion entered her, at the conversion of the Emperor 
 Constantine. From that time, which was three 
 hundred years after Christ, she went on adding 
 one error to another, and consolidating her power, 
 through long ages of barbarism and ignorance, till 
 the sixteenth century; when the Revival of Learning, 
 and the Art of Printing, enabled men in general to 
 read the Scriptures, and thus opened their eyes to the 
 enormous mass of corruptions and superstitions 
 which had accumulated during more than a thousand 
 years, as well as to the unchristian bondage under 
 which they were suffering. The Reformation en- 
 sued, on the one hand, — which delivered this and 
 other countries from mental and spiritual bondage, 
 and was to them the commencement of a new career 
 of happiness and prosperity, under the blessing of 
 God, whose Written Word was restored as the law 
 both of faith and morals. On the other hand, the 
 Council of Trent was the consequence — which 
 adopted the fatal policy of binding and riveting on 
 
Vll 
 
 the Church of Rome, and on all other churches and 
 countries which continue to submit to her usurped 
 dominion, a code of religion and morality derived 
 from the dark ages, and consisting of each and all 
 of the false and oppressive doctrines and practices, 
 which were the fruit of those dreary times. The 
 chain of Infallibility is now self-twined around the 
 Church of Rome, and there can be no hope of her 
 ever freeing and reforming herself. She missed 
 the single opportunity. Her evil spirit tempted her 
 at that critical moment, and prevailed. 
 
 The reader's attention is particularly called to 
 the interesting Protest, or Pastoral Letter, recently 
 sent forth by the four Patriarchs of the Greek 
 Church. It occurs at the end of the Notes attached 
 to the Second Lecture. 
 
 That protest of the Greek Patriarchs reveals the 
 fact, that " the lust of power,'' as they express it, 
 which possesses the Roman Hierarchy, has for some 
 time been goading the present Pope to an extra- 
 ordinary effort over the whole Christian world. 
 The restoration of the Hierarchy and the Canon Law 
 among us is part of this systematic effort. At such a 
 crisis, then, when Romanism has entered on a de- 
 termined design to uproot Truth and Liberty in 
 every land. — and above all in this, which is the 
 
 I 
 
Vlll 
 
 asylum of both, — no apology can be needed from 
 any one, much less from a minister of Christ, for 
 doing his utmost to expose the true character of 
 the power, which summons the people of England 
 to surrender. This is what is aimed at by the writer 
 of the following pages. The means he employs for 
 effecting his purpose, are Scripture and History. 
 He appeals to the Reason of his readers, exercised on 
 these in an honest, prayerful spirit. He wars not 
 with persons, — but with a system. He would not 
 willingly hurt the feelings of any, — but the Gospel 
 must be defended. " The wisdom which is from 
 above is first pure, — then peaceable." As Gregory 
 Nazianaen said : * even war is better than peace 
 without God." However unpleasant and unedi- 
 fying controversy in general may be, no one can 
 blame him who uses it on this occasion. It is but the 
 watchman, giving the alarm. It is but the shep- 
 herd, keeping back his flock from poisonous 
 pastures. His solemn ordination vow binds him 
 to "be ready with all faithful diligence to banish 
 " and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines 
 " contrary to God's word, within his Cure/' His 
 zeal for the honour of Christ would stimulate him to 
 fulfil this vow, — were his solicitude for the safety of 
 the souls committed to him less constraining than 
 it is. His love of his country — his attachment 
 
IX 
 
 to rational and regulated liberty — his sense of the 
 blessings due to the Reformation — all these furnish 
 fresh incitements. And if anything more be needed 
 to justify the step which the writer has taken in 
 preaching and printing the following Lectures, it 
 may be found in his Diocesan's suggestion, con- 
 tained in the answer given by that distinguished 
 Prelate to his Clergy, when they sought his fatherly 
 advice in the present crisis : 
 
 "I would hold up to you, for your guidance at this 
 " juncture, the conduct of the able and learned and 
 " pious men, who in the reign of the second James, 
 " when the Bishop of Rome entertained the hope 
 " which he now appears to entertain of speedily sub- 
 " jecting this realm to his spiritual dominion, fear- 
 lessly maintained the cause of the Church of Eng- 
 " land. They, in their discourses from the puljnt, 
 " and in their writings, drew the attention of 
 " the people committed to their charge, to the 
 " points in dispute between the two Churches ; and 
 "satisfied them, by sound argument, that the 
 " Church of England is in possession of the truth. 
 " They appealed, and appealed successfully, to the 
 <; understandings of the people. Let us not doubt 
 " that the same success will, by the blessing of 
 " God, attend our labours, if we give them the same 
 
" direction ; if from time to time we make the dis- 
 " puted points the subject of our discourses ; if we 
 " temperately, and without exaggeration, expose the 
 " erroneousness of the Romish tenets, and call 
 " upon our congregations to join us in protesting 
 " against them. Let it not be objected to me that 
 " I am counselling you, instead of preaching that 
 " which will conduce to the spiritual edification of 
 : ' your flocks, and their growth in personal holiness, 
 " to lead them into the barren and intricate paths 
 " of controversy. The blame must rest with him 
 " who imposes this necessity upon us. The Bishop 
 " of Home leaves us no alternative. He compels us 
 11 to be controversial." 
 
 Under such a sanction— in defence of what is 
 most dear to Englishmen — and with prayers for the 
 Divine blessing, the writer puts forth these Volumes. 
 He trusts that they will be found, by those who 
 honour them by a careful perusal — whether Pro- 
 testants or Romanists — to contain a calm and truth- 
 ful, though earnest, discussion of the great subjects 
 of which they treat. He has not consciously used 
 one word, or indulged one feeling, which might 
 injure the Cause of Religion. But " humanum est 
 errare" If he has unwittingly erred, let him, and 
 not that Cause, be the sufferer. 
 
XI 
 
 <£ree& of ©ope $iu0 tb. 
 
 The original, which is in Latin, commences by 
 reciting the Nicene Creed. It then proceeds to 
 give twelve new articles of faith — the profession of 
 which it declares to be necessary to Salvation. 
 Charles Butler, Esq., an eminent Romish barrister 
 of the last generation, translated it as follows ; 
 prefacing his translation with a few observations : 
 
 " This Symbol of Faith" (the expression used by 
 the Fathers for The Creed) " was published by his 
 " holiness in the year 1564, in the form of a Bull, 
 " addressed to all the faithful in Christ. It was 
 u immediately received throughout the • universal 
 " church, and since that time has ever been con- 
 " sidered as an accurate and explicit summary of 
 °the Boman Catholic Faith. Non-catholics, on 
 " their admission into the Church of Rome, publicly 
 ' ; repeat and testify their assent to it, without res- 
 " triction or qualification. 
 
 t, "I most firmly admit and embrace the apostol- 
 " ical and ecclesiastical Traditions, and all other 
 " constitutions and observances of the church." 
 
 iU "I also admit the sacred Scriptures, accord- 
 " ing to the sense which the holy mother Church 
 " has held, and does hold, to whom it belongs to 
 
Xll 
 
 "judge of the true sense and interpretation of the 
 " holy Scriptures ; nor will I ever take or interpret 
 " them otherwise, than according to the unanimous 
 " consent of the Fathers. 
 
 tit. " I profess, also, that there are truly and 
 " properly Seven Sacraments of the new law, insti- 
 " tuted by Jesus Christ our Lord, and for the sal- 
 " vation of mankind, though all are not necessary 
 * for every one ; viz. — Baptism, Confirmation, Eu- 
 " charist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Orders, and 
 "Matrimony, and that they confer grace; and of 
 " these baptism, confirmation, and orders, cannot 
 " be reiterated without sacrilege. 
 
 iC I also receive and admit the Ceremonies of 
 "the catholic church, received and approved, in 
 " the solemn administration of all the above-said 
 " sacraments. 
 
 ib* "I receive and embrace all and every one of 
 " the things, which have been defined and declared in 
 " the holy council of Trent, concerning Original Sin 
 " and Justification. 
 
 fc, " I profess likewise, that in the Mass is offered 
 " to God a true, proper, and propitiatory Sacrifice 
 " for the living and the dead ; and that in the most 
 "holy sacrifice of the Eucharist there is truly, really 
 " and substantially, the body and blood, together 
 
Xlll 
 
 " with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus 
 '« Christ ; and that there is made a conversion of 
 " the whole substance of the bread into the body, 
 " and of the whole substance of the wine into the 
 " blood, which conversion the catholic church calls 
 " Transubstantiation. 
 
 fcl t "I confess also, that under either kind alone, 
 11 whole and entire Christ and a true sacrament is 
 " received. 
 
 fo it , "I constantly hold, that there is a Purgatory, 
 " and that the souls detained therein are helped by 
 " the suffrages of the faithful. 
 
 1) til. "Likewise that the Saints, reigning together 
 " with Christ, are to be honoured and invocated, 
 " that they offer prayers to God for us, and that 
 i( their Relics are to be venerated. 
 
 iX< " I most firmly assert, that the Images of 
 " Christ, and the Mother of God ever virgin, and 
 "also of the other Saints, are to be had and retained; 
 '* and that due honour and veneration are to be 
 " given them. 
 
 X* " I also affirm that the power of Indulgences 
 " was left by Christ in the church, and that the 
 " use of them is most wholesome to christian people. 
 
 Xi* " I acknowledge the holy catholic and apo- 
 " stolical Roman Church, the Mother and Mistress 
 
XIV 
 
 " of all churches, and I promise and swear true 
 " obedience to the Roman Bishop, the successor of 
 " St. Peter, the prince of the apostles, and Vicar of 
 '• Jesus Christ. 
 
 XiU * I also profess and undoubtedly receive all 
 " other things delivered, defined, and declared by 
 "the sacred Canons, and general Councils, and par- 
 " ticularly by the holy council of Trent ; and like- 
 " wise I also condemn, reject, and anathematize all 
 " things contrary thereto, and all heresies whatso- 
 " ever, condemned and anathematized by the Church. 
 
 " This true Catholic faith, out of which none can 
 " be saved, which I now freely profess and truly 
 " hold, I promise, vow, and swear, most constantly 
 " to hold, and profess the same whole and entire, 
 f* with God's assistance, to the end of my life." 
 
 The conclusion of the above translation of the 
 Pope's Creed by Mr. Butler, is deficient. The 
 words, " And I will take care, that, as far as in me 
 " lies, the same shall be held, taught, and preached, 
 ° by all who are subject to my control, or who are 
 " connected with my charge," were omitted by him. 
 They are in the original Latin. 
 
 It is also there added : "So help me God, and 
 these holy Gospels /" — on which the priest, or convert, 
 is sworn. 
 
LECTUK 
 
 THE POPE'S SUPREMACY,* 
 
 EXAMINED BY SCRIPTURE. 
 
 Jeremiah vi. 16. 
 " Thus saith the Lord: Stand ye in the ways, and 
 see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good 
 way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest 
 for your souls. 1 ' 
 
 In ordinary and peaceful times, it is not well to 
 sound the trumpet for war. When there is no gene- 
 ral invasion, then to call a whole community from 
 their pleasant and profitable occupations, and bid 
 them buckle on their armour, would be inexcusable. 
 But when a formidable enemy is at their gates, the 
 case is different. Then the call to arms, in defence 
 of their habitations and lives, must rise above every 
 other sound, and will be cheerfully heard by all 
 who are right-hearted. 
 
 * The single Lecture on this subject, originally delivered, 
 has been enlarged into two. 
 
Brethren, we who are your Ministers, are watch- 
 men, as well as shepherds. We watch for souls, 
 as they who must give account. Generally, we 
 would rather act the part of shepherds only. We 
 would rather feed you in the green pastures of truth, 
 than lead you forth to contend with falsehood in the 
 barren field of battle. It is far better for you, as 
 well as more delightful to us, that we should talk to 
 you about the love of Christ, should fill you with 
 the knowledge of the great doctrines of the Gospel, 
 should animate you with the desire to live to your 
 Saviour's glory and to do good in your generation. 
 The clearest perception of error would be a poor 
 thing, without the positive love of the truth. But 
 there are times, when we must do our duty as watch- 
 men. One of these times has arrived. 
 
 The Church of Rome has renewed her pretensions 
 to spiritual dominion over this Land. She is 
 resolved to gain, if possible, what she lost at the 
 Ee formation and vainly endeavoured to recover in the 
 reign of James the Second. For a century and a 
 half, exhausted by the struggle in that reign, she 
 has been lying prostrate. But now she has arisen, 
 and defies Protestantism to a fresh contest. This 
 is the real meaning of the recent act of Pope Pius the 
 Ninth. He has sent one of his Cardinals, that is, 
 
one of his privy-counsellors, to live among us. He 
 has made him Archbishop of Westminster — the City 
 where our Parliament meets. He has parcelled out 
 England into Dioceses for twelve new Bishops. All 
 this is meant as a defiance. It is a challenge to us 
 to contend for the mastery. It is the natural 
 conclusion of what was begun some time ago. Fif- 
 teen years ago, this very Cardinal, then the 
 Superior of the English College at Rome, was sent 
 from Rome to England, to revive the whole Contro- 
 versy between Romanism and Protestantism. He 
 preached and printed a Course of Sermons to that 
 effect, in the Metropolis. They were not allowed 
 to go unanswered, by those among us who are fitted 
 to be the champions of the Protestant cause. They 
 were answered from the press. But it was not 
 thought necessary to draw the attention of Christian 
 Congregations in general to them. The pulpit was 
 suffered to remain at peace. But time has rolled 
 on ; and the leaven, it appears, has been working. 
 Other agencies have contributed to the present re- 
 sult. From various causes, Romanism has advanced, 
 till it is no longer to be neglected. It is at the door 
 of every one of us. Such is the will of God ! — we 
 are called to the strife which our forefathers endured 
 — a painful but necessary strife, in defence of the 
 Faith. We must not shrink from it, we must enter 
 
it in a Christian spirit. He who fifteen years ago, 
 as I said, sounded the note of challenge, has now 
 sounded a note of triumph. He thinks that the 
 work he hegan is on the eve of consummation. 
 He has persuaded his Master, the Pope, to proclaim 
 to the world that England is about to return to the 
 false religion, which she cast off at the Reformation. 
 Is it so, my Brethren ? You will all say, No ! for 
 yourselves and for your Country. You will give the 
 foul slander an indignant denial. But you must 
 do more. You must know the reasons, why your 
 forefathers cast off the Pope's authority and the 
 Pope's religion. You must not think it enough to 
 have right feelings; you must have right convic- 
 tions. Your constancy will be put to the proof. 
 You must be armed against the sophistries with 
 which you will be assailed, and by which too many 
 have been seduced. 
 
 Bomanism is not without its attractions. It is 
 not wholly false — it has retained some Christian 
 truths. These it will bring forward at first, as if 
 there was no vital difference between itself and the 
 Reformed Religion. It will keep out of sight the 
 additions it has made to Christianity — by which 
 additions it has practically "changed the truth of 
 God into a lie" This makes it necessary that you 
 
should learn what- those additi 
 may know the real character of 
 apparently one thing in England, and another 
 in Italy. But if England should ever be ensnared 
 to embrace it, then it would throw off the mask, and 
 be the same here that it is elsewhere. Then the 
 Bible, in the language of the people, would be pro- 
 scribed. Then the exercise of your private judg- 
 ment, which is now appealed to in its own behalf, 
 would be strictly forbidden. Then we should see 
 images set up all around us ; and we might come 
 to bow down as they are doing at Rimini, before a 
 winking picture of the Virgin Mary ! (a). Brethren, 
 you must be made acquainted with these things 
 beforehand, lest you be beguiled. The Romanists 
 will tell you that theirs is the old Religion. They 
 will present it to you in the venerable garb of 
 Antiquity. This is one of its attractions. But you 
 must learn how to withstand this temptation. The 
 Religion is old — but how old ? Is it the oldest of 
 all ? Is it the primitive Religion ? Is it that which 
 Christ established? These are proper questions 
 to ask, before the plea of age is allowed. In the 
 language of the text, we your Ministers must bid 
 you " stand in the ivays, and seek for the old paths, 
 which is the good way, and walk therein, and find 
 rest for your souls." This is what the Reformers 
 
6 
 
 did; and what we must do, if we would not throw 
 away the blessings they bequeathed us. Romanism 
 pays court to the senses. This is another of its 
 attractions. It loves pomp and ceremony — they 
 are the trappings of power. It pleases the eye — 
 the ear — the fancy — and all the natural faculties 
 of its enslaved victims. You must be reminded, 
 again and again, that " God is a Spirit, and they 
 who worship Him, must worship Him in spirit and in 
 truth." Outward religion must not swallow up in- 
 ward. Moreover, Romanism has an ally in the 
 human heart. It has been well called "the religion 
 of human nature." It relieves men of the trouble 
 of thinking, and understanding what they believe. 
 It transfers their obedience from Christ, who will be 
 content with no obedience but that of the heart, 
 to the Church, which is content with a formal 
 obedience. For all these causes, my Brethren, it 
 is absolutely necessary, that you should know well 
 the real character of this Religion. Your salvation 
 is at stake. *' And what shall it profit a man, if he 
 gain the whole world, and lose his own soul V 
 
 I have said enough to justify me in commen- 
 cing a short course of Controversial Sermons, on the 
 subject of Romanism. God give me grace to speak, 
 and you to hear, without any anger against the Pope 
 
or those who support him, as individuals ; but with 
 the determination calmly yet fearlessly to judge of 
 their System, by the light of Scripture, and in the fair 
 exercise of that Reason which God has given us. 
 
 Who is the Pope $ What is the extent of power 
 which he claims ? And on what title does he claim 
 it? 
 
 The Pope is the Bishop of Rome. He is the 
 Bishop of a City which was once the Capital of 
 Italy, and the Metropolis of the World, — but which 
 is now reduced to a low and miserable state, under 
 the rule of Popes. 
 
 As to the extent of power claimed for him, let the 
 Church of Rome herself answer the question. I shall 
 always produce her own language on all the ques- 
 tions, which will be brought before you in the 
 course of this Controversy. 
 
 The Creed of Pope Pius the Fourth, put forth by 
 the Council of Trent, and implicitly received by the 
 Romanists, styles the Pope <: The Vicegerent of Jesus 
 Christ." The Council of Florence says: "To him 
 in Peter was delegated by our Lord Jesus Christ 
 full power to feed, rule, and govern the Universal 
 
8 
 
 Church.'" The Canon Law declares: (b). "He is 
 the Successor of the Blessed Apostle Peter by the Lord's 
 appointment, and holds the place of the Eedeemer upon 
 Earth" Again it says : "The Roman Pontiff (i. e. 
 the Pope) bears the authority, not of a mere man, 
 but of the true God upon the Earth": (c). The 
 Catechism of the Council of Trent affirms : " The 
 Pope as the true and legitimate Vicar of Jesus 
 Christ, presides over the Universal Church, the 
 Father and Governor of all the faithful, whether 
 Bishops dc." 
 
 Brethren, you hear with your own ears the extent 
 of the power ascribed to the Pope. He claims to be, 
 not the Bishop of Rome only, but of the whole 
 Christian world. He claims to stand in the place of 
 Christ upon Earth. He confesses, no doubt, that 
 Christ is the Invisible Head ; but he assumes to be 
 the Visible. If such pretensions can be made good, 
 by evidence from God's Word, so as to show God's 
 sanction, then we ought at once to fall down at the 
 Pope's feet, and accept our Faith at his hands, (d). 
 But if they cannot be made good by such evidence, 
 can we possibly be expected to acknowledge preten- 
 sions so monstrous, merely because they are confi- 
 dently put forth ? 
 
9 
 
 Now the word of God seems very strikingly to 
 present a bar to this very claim. Our blessed Lord 
 said: "Be 7iot ye called Masters, for One is your 
 Master, even Christ." Does not this seem to be a 
 solemn warning to all individuals, not to aspire to 
 exercise such authority as belongs to Christ ? Again 
 our Lord said : " Call no man Father upon earth, 
 for One is your Father, ivhich is in heaven". Does 
 not this seem an equally solemn warning to all men, 
 not to acknowledge the right of any individuals to 
 exercise such authority, if they attempt it ? These 
 two passages of scripture form an almost insuper- 
 able objection to the doctrine of the Pope's supremacy, 
 before we examine its evidence. I am aware that 
 there are senses, in which we may lawfully call our 
 fellow-creatures masters or fathers; but these pas- 
 sages forbid us to do it in the sense, in which we 
 call Christ our Master, and God our Father. They 
 forbid us therefore, to recognise any mortal as " hold- 
 ing the place of the Redeemer,'" or as ''hearing the 
 authority of the true God upon earth" 
 
 On the strength of these general warnings from 
 the word of God, we should be justified, if we 
 refused to enter into a particular examination of 
 the Pope's claim. 
 
 But lest we should be charged with not doing 
 justice to his cause, or being afraid to hear all that 
 
10 
 
 that can be said in its support, let us proceed to 
 ask: 
 
 What is the title to his alleged supremacy? Sup- 
 posing there was to be a "vicegerent of Jesus 
 Christ upon earth," why should^ the Pope, (e) 
 rather than any other man, hold the office ? 
 
 His title is this, — that as Bishop of Rome, he is 
 the successor and heir of St. Peter, and that St. 
 Peter had a supremacy to bequeath. 
 
 This is the whole title, on which the Pope's de- 
 mand of universal obedience is founded. It is ex- 
 pressed at the commencement of the brief or bull, 
 (f) by which the present Pope has demanded the 
 renewed obedience of this realm. The opening 
 words of that important document are these : 
 
 "The power of governing the Universal Church 
 teas entrusted to the Roman Pontiffs, in the person 
 of St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles." 
 
 Here is a statement of the Pope's title. He 
 professes to derive his power to govern the universal 
 church from St. Peter. He considers St. Peter 
 to have been the first Pope or bishop of Rome, and 
 to have had a supremacy, which has been inherited 
 from him by all the bishops of Rome. 
 
 Three separate points present themselves in this 
 statement, each of which the Pope is bound to prove 
 beyond all doubt and dispute, since he builds such 
 
11 
 
 a mighty structure upon them. The foundation 
 ought to have nothing weak in it, which has to bear 
 such a tremendous weight. The points are these : 
 
 1st. It must be shown that St. Peter had a pre- 
 eminence over the other apostles : 
 
 2dly. It must be shown also, that he was bishop 
 of Rome : 
 
 3dly. It will still remain to be shown, that he 
 could bequeath his own authority to other persons. 
 
 It is clear, that if St. Peter had no supremacy to 
 bequeath — or if he was never bishop of Home — or 
 if he could not bequeath his supremacy, supposing 
 him to have been bishop, and to have had a su- 
 premacy — in any of these three cases, (and they are 
 perfectly distinct and unconnected), the Pope's 
 claim is groundless. Well might the reigning Pope 
 at the time of the Council of Trent interdict all 
 discussion of the question of his supremacy in that 
 council ! He was conscious of the weakness of his 
 title, and would not allow even his own subjects to 
 look into it. 
 
 I. The first question to be examined is, whether 
 St. Peter had a pre-eminence over the other 
 apostles. To determine this, we must consult the 
 Scriptural history. 
 
 The Romanists appeal principally to our Lord's 
 
12 
 
 celebrated speech to Peter : " Thou art Peter, and 
 upon this Rock I will build My Church" (Matt. 
 xvi. 18). Under what circumstances was this 
 spoken ? 
 
 Jesus asked His disciples : " Whom do men say 
 that I the Son of Man, am If 1 They told him. 
 Then said He : " But whom say ye that I am V 
 Peter, always ready to be the spokesman, said: 
 *J Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God!" 
 that is to say : Thou art not only the Son of man, 
 but also the Son of God. No doubt, our Lord 
 intended to draw forth this answer and express 
 his commendation of it. " Blessed art thou, Simon 
 Bar- J ona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it 
 unto thee, but my Father, which is in heaven." 
 Then he added : " And I say unto thee, that thou 
 art Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, 
 and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." 
 
 The Romanists interpret " this rock" to be Peter, 
 as if Christ had said, " on thee". 
 
 We may grant this, as many of our most 
 eminent divines do, but it will not follow, that Peter 
 was to be more than the first stone in the founda- 
 tion. We can see no connection between his being 
 this, and his being the " prince of the apostles". 
 
 Our Lord had given Simon the surname "Peter" 
 long before, perhaps with a view to this occasion. 
 
13 
 
 On this occasion, He says that Peter showed him- 
 self worthy of the name. To understand this, we 
 must know, that in the Greek, Peter (Petrus) means 
 a stone. The Greek word for rock is Petra — the 
 aggregate mass, of which a stone is a part. Keeping 
 this in mind, many of the greatest Fathers, and 
 even a Pope, Felix the third, together with the ma- 
 jority of modern divines, prefer thinking, that the 
 words " this rock" did not mean Peter alone, but 
 only included him, as one of the apostles who con- 
 fessed Jesus to be the Christ. Upon the whole 
 company of the apostles, — and on all the faithful 
 confessors of Christ's divinity to the end of time 
 — or as we may represent it to the same effect, on the 
 faith and confession which would be theirs, similar 
 to that of Peter, — would the church be immutably 
 built, (g). This is the more probable, inasmuch 
 as in no subsequent passage of scripture is the 
 church said to be built on Peter. Whereas we 
 do find it said, that it is built " on the foundation 
 of tlie Apostles and prophets'' (the prophets having 
 testified beforehand to the same glorious truth). 
 
 But since the whole body of believers are one in 
 Christ, Christ himself may be considered" tJierock". 
 In another passage it is said, u Other foundation can 
 no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ.' 1 
 Many of the Fathers took this view, as do many of 
 
u 
 
 the moderns. It is but identifying Christ with his 
 people ; — the Rock of Ages, with the living stones 
 hewn out of it, — of whom Peter was one. 
 
 That there was nothing special intended in the 
 address to Peter, — except in his being the first in 
 order of time(h) to whom the promise was addressed, 
 because he was the first who made the confession, 
 — is rendered still more probable, by what fol- 
 lows : " And I will give unto thee the keys of 
 the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt 
 bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven ; and what- 
 soever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in 
 heaven". Now in this promise we are sure that 
 there was nothing peculiar to Peter, except a pre- 
 cedence in order of time as to his receiving it. (i) 
 For when the promise was fulfilled, the keys were 
 given to all, and no special mention made of him. 
 He received the keys, merely as one of the apostles. 
 After our Lord had risen from the dead, and was now 
 about to ascend to heaven, "He breathed on them, 
 and said, receive ye the Holy Ghost ; whosesoever sins 
 ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and whosesoever 
 sins ye retain, they are retained.' 1 Here Peter is 
 not specially mentioned. Nay at an earlier period, 
 while yet alive, and after the speech was uttered 
 concerning the rock, our Lord said to all the dis- 
 ciples : " Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall 
 
15 
 
 bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and what- 
 soever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in 
 heaven". (Matt. xvii. 18). 
 
 Now as there was nothing that was confined to 
 Peter, in the promise of the keys, we may conclude 
 that there was nothing confined to him in the pre- 
 ceding words concerning the rock, on which the 
 church was to be built. The keys spoken of, were 
 those of knowledge. They were those instructions, 
 delivered by divine inspiration, whereby we know 
 how we may obtain heaven and how we may lose 
 it. They released us from Jewish bondage, and 
 they bestowed on us the liberty of the children of 
 God. But Peter was by no means the only, or the 
 most faithful, holder of those keys. 
 
 There is another reason for not interpreting the 
 words "this rock" to mean Peter especially. For 
 if you read on, my brethren, you will find the fol- 
 lowing passage in the chapter. " From that time 
 forth began Jesus to show unto his disciples, how 
 that he must go unto Jerusalem and suffer many things 
 of the elders, and chief %>riests, and scribes, and be 
 killed, and be raised the third day. Then Peter 
 took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it 
 far from thee, Lord ! this shall not be unto thee. 
 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee be- 
 hind me, Satan! thou art an offence unto me, for 
 
16 
 
 thou savourest not the things that he of God, hut 
 those that he of men." 
 
 Can this be the same Peter, who just before was 
 so warmly commended for confessing our Lord ? 
 How weak is man ! How unstable the best ! Who 
 can take pleasure, after this, in thinking that the 
 church is particularly built on Peter ? Was he 
 particularly fit to be the foundation ? — he, who not 
 only here tempted our Lord to shrink from that death, 
 which He took flesh in order to suffer and which 
 was necessary for our salvation, but also soon 
 afterwards denied Him, even with oaths and curses ! 
 — he, to whom it was a special mercy, after he had 
 severed himself from Christ, that he was again ad- 
 mitted to be a living stone in the divine Rock ! Is 
 it quite consistent with the glory and purity 
 of the immoveable Church, the communion of 
 Saints, that it should be said to be peculiarly 
 founded on Peter's person? — on him who, if at 
 times the boldest, was at other times the weakest, 
 of all the disciples ? I cannot help thinking that 
 you will feel reluctant to admit the idea. 
 
 Thus, my brethren, we have examined this im- 
 portant passage. If we grant the Romish interpreta- 
 tion, and make Peter's person the rock, it will not 
 help the Pope's cause. It will not favour the notion 
 of a succession. Can the Pope be a successor to a 
 
17 
 
 foundation-stone ? Who ever heard of a series of 
 foundations'? What building could endure the 
 process of such a succession — such a continued change 
 of its foundation ? No ! if Peter's person was 
 meant ill particular, then the honour remains with 
 Peter's person in particular. No one can be his 
 successor, in being the first stone that was laid at 
 the base of that glorious building. 
 
 If Peter had been addressed as the intended top- 
 stone, he might more reasonably have been supposed 
 to have successors. A building may endure a 
 change of its top-stone, but it cannot endure to 
 have fresh foundations. Neither Peter, however, 
 nor any other mere man, is ever spoken of as the 
 top-stone. Christ alone is said to be " the chief 
 corner-stone" (1 Pet. ii. 6). 
 
 Altogether, my brethren, you will perceive, that 
 the passage we have considered is one, which, when 
 examined, lends no support to the Pope's title. 
 There is nothing in it which is heritable. In the 
 Dark Ages, it might carry a look favourable to his 
 claim ; but light and learning dispel the illusion. 
 
 What other passages do the Romanists produce 
 from Scripture, to favour the Pope's title ? 
 
 They produce the following : " Simon, Simon, 
 Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you 
 as wheat ; but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith 
 
18 
 
 fail not ; and when thou art converted, strengthen 
 thy brethren" . (Luke xxii. 31,32.) The Romanists, 
 you will think, must have been greatly in want of sup- 
 port, before they went to this passage. It is a pre- 
 diction of Peter's fall. The verymode of address must 
 have prepared him for something humiliating — " Si- 
 mon" — not "JPeter"l The address itself revealed his 
 approaching crime — and his danger. The crime he 
 committed, as Christ predicted ; the danger, that of 
 everlasting death, was averted by Christ's prayers. In 
 consequence of these prayers, Peter's faith did not 
 utterly fail — as that of Judas did. Our Lord ac- 
 companied the prediction of his fall and the pro- 
 mise of his restoration with an affectionate command, 
 that he should, when restored, " strengthen his 
 brethren*, — by warning them against self-confidence, 
 and teaching them never to despair of the divine for- 
 giveness. No one, whose mind is not pre-occupied 
 with a certain notion, can see in this passage an 
 intimation, that Peter's faith was stronger than that 
 of all other men; — or that he was selectedtobe exalted 
 to a pre-eminence over his brother apostles, when 
 he was about to sink to a depth below any of them, 
 except Judas. 
 
 If you were surprised that recourse was had to 
 the last-mentioned passage, still more will you be 
 surprised that the Romanists should produce that 
 
19 
 
 which I am about to mention. 
 
 It is the speech which Christ made to Peter, when 
 He restored him to his office of pastor, which he 
 might be supposed to have forfeited by his fall. (Joh 
 xxi. 1 5 . &c ) As he had thrice denied Christ, Christ 
 thrice repeated the words of restoration. Each time he 
 asked Peter, whether he loved Him more than the 
 others did. Before his fall, Peter would have pro- 
 tested that he did ; but he had learnt not to arrog- 
 ate to himself more than he allowed to others. 
 He simply replied each time ; "Lord, Thou knotti- 
 est that I love thee". The trial was painful, but it 
 was necessary. Our Lord, having made Peter's 
 humility manifest to all by this severe scrutiny, bade 
 him "feed His sheep and His lanibs". What was 
 there implied in this, beyond that which every 
 christian Pastor is commanded and commissioned 
 to do ? St. Peter himself in his epistles says to the 
 elders : " Feed the flock of God which is among 
 yon." St. Paul bade the elders assembled at 
 Miletus " take heed to feed the church of God". 
 But the Eomanists interpret the " sheep" in our 
 Lord's speech to be the clergy, and the '' lambs" to 
 be the laity — thus converting the sheep into the 
 shepherds ! (k) They wish to represent it as a 
 grant of pre-eminence to Peter, by making the sheep 
 and lambs together to be the whole Church, 
 
20 
 
 " whether bishops dc" You will, I think, be of 
 opinion, that the Pope's advocates -were driven to 
 hard straits, before they had recourse to this exer- 
 cise of ingenuity. 
 
 T have now given you all the passages of any 
 value, on which the advocates of the Pope's claim 
 rely for proof, that Peter was the " prince of the 
 apostles." 
 
 Let us see, on the other hand, what an array of 
 disproofs Scripture furnishes. 
 
 After our Lords celebrated speech to Peter con- 
 cerning " the rock" on which, as I said before, the 
 Romanists principally rely for evidence that Peter 
 was the " prince of the apostles," we are told in 
 the inspired narrative, that the apostles more than 
 once "disputed among themselves, which of them 
 should he the greatest." On each occasion, our 
 blessed Lord decided the dispute, by forbidding 
 them to entertain the idea, that any of them should 
 be greater than the others. This proves two things ; 
 first, that the apostles had not understood the 
 speech to Peter concerning "the rock" as conveying 
 any peculiar power or even honour to him; and 
 secondly, that our Lord did not tell them, that they 
 ought to have understood it in that light. Is not 
 this conclusive against its being meant to be so 
 understood ? 
 
SI 
 
 When Philip the evangelist had converted the 
 Samaritans, "the apostles at Jerusalem", we are told, 
 ** sent Peter and John" (Acts. viii. 14), to lay 
 hands on the converts, and convey the extraordinary 
 gifts of the Holy Spirit. Does this show any su- 
 premacy in Peter? Would the Pope of the present 
 day submit to be sent, wherever the college of Car- 
 dinals might please ? (k) 
 
 At the general assembly of the apostles and 
 elders at Jerusalem (Acts, xv.), Peter spoke, — but 
 he did not speak first (though Romanists, ignorant 
 of the bible, often assert that he did). It is said : 
 "And when there had been much disputing, Peter 
 rose up". Neither was it Peter who decided 
 the matter in debate, — for James spoke last, and 
 ended his speech by saying, " Wherefore my sentence 
 is, dc." To his sentence they all agreed. And the 
 letter they wrote to all the churches went forth, — 
 not in the name of Peter, prince of the apostles, — 
 but in that of "the apostles, and elders and brethren". 
 If then, there was any one pre-eminent at that 
 time, it was not Peter, but James. And if there 
 ever was any church which deserved the title of 
 " mistress and mother of all the churches", it was 
 that of Jerusalem. Yet where is it now ? 
 
 Had Peter any pre-eminence over Paul, when 
 Paul had been miraculously made an 'apostle ? This 
 
is a question to which we are enabled to give a 
 complete answer. 
 
 St. Paul affirms anxiously, that he was "an apos- 
 tle, not of men. neither by man., but by Jesus Christ." 
 (Gal. i.) He received his apostleship from the 
 hands of Christ, whom he saw personally, (] Cor. 
 ix), either at his conversion, or in the third 
 heaven. When he had thus received it, " imme- 
 diately he conferred not with flesh and blood" (i. e. 
 his fellow-men), " neither went up to Jerusalem to 
 them who were apostles before him" (Gal. i). He 
 laboured in Arabia and Syria by himself. " Then 
 after three gears, lie went up to Jerusalem to see 
 Peter", and also " James." " Fourteen years after" 
 (i. e. from his conversion) "he went again to Jerusa- 
 lem'' (Gal i). On this occasion, he saw more apos- 
 tles than the two just mentioned. But he repudi- 
 ates all idea of his receiving anything from them 
 which he had not before. " They who seemed to be 
 somewhat, in conference added nothing to me," and 
 he specifies those to whom he chiefly alludes, as 
 " James, Cephas (Peter) and John, who seemed to 
 be pillars". What can be more distinct ? Paul af- 
 firms, "I am not a whit behind the very chief est 
 apostles." And when, after the assembly had been 
 held at Jerusalem, Peter came down to Antioch, 
 Paul " withstood him to the face, because he was to 
 
23 
 
 be blamed". I need not remind you why Peter, 
 the supposed "prince of the apostles", the sup- 
 posed " head of the church", was to be blamed. 
 He had fallen into error in doctrine, and into schism 
 in practice ! He had corrupted the fundamental 
 tenet of justification by faith, St. Paul's grand 
 tenet ; and he had separated himself from the 
 brethren (Gal. ii). Paul boldly and unsparingly 
 rebuked him " before them all". To his great credit, 
 Peter bore the rebuke humbly ; and doubtless, never 
 repeated his offence. But where was his pre-emi- 
 nence on this occasion ? Who can ever imagine St. 
 Peter to have been St. Paul's superior ? 
 
 It is well for the world, that the Popes do not 
 claim their Supremacy as a bequest from Paul 
 (whom, as well as Peter, they call bishop of Rome). 
 They might with some shew of justice have as- 
 cribed a supremacy to him. For he says, that he 
 had " the care of all the churches" (2 Cor. xi). He 
 says also : "So ordain I in all the churches". (1 Cor. 
 vii), To Peter he behaved like a superior, in re- 
 buking and teaching him. Happy it is, that the 
 advocates of papal power have not rested their 
 cause on the great " apostle of the Gentiles', rather 
 than on the "apostle of the Circumcision-" The Gen- 
 tile churches remain — but where are those of the 
 Circumcision ? 
 
u 
 
 I am almost weary of producing disproofs of the 
 notion, that Peter had any pre-eminence over the 
 other apostles. Yet in so important a matter, 
 affecting the religious liberty and faith of millions, 
 we ought not to feel weariness. One argument may 
 convince one person ; and another, another. Let me, 
 therefore, just mention the argument/row omissions. 
 In many cases, it is a very strong argument. Silence, 
 in a case like the present, speaks volumes (1). 
 
 If Peter was "prince of the apostles", why 
 is not a matter of such magnitude plainly stated in 
 the Apostolic history ? Why does it not appear 
 on the face of it, standing out to view ? Who will 
 believe that it could be left to be gathered obscurely 
 from disputable passages, such as that of "the rock", 
 and " the keys'', the "feeding of the sheep and 
 lambs'", and the " conversion" of the fallen Peter ? 
 Why do we know so little of the sapposed visible 
 head of the church, after St. Paul's conversion ? 
 From the 15 th chapter of the Acts to the 28th 
 the last, we never meet with the name of Peter. 
 (m) Why is this, if he was the Chief Ruler ? All 
 that we know of his proceedings is, that he wrote 
 two Epistles. They seem to be addressed to the 
 dispersed Israelites alone. Why did he not address 
 the Romans, if he was their Bishop ? Why did he 
 leave that to Paul ? Why did he write only two 
 
35 
 
 epistles, and those, short ones, if he was the 
 Universal Bishop ? Lastly, why did he conceal his 
 dignity in his epistles ? If God gave it him, He 
 gave it, not to gratify his personal feelings, but for 
 the good of the church at large. Why, then, should 
 he have omitted to avail himself of the mention of 
 it, in order to add weight to his instructions ? Or 
 if we can suppose Peter guilty of false modesty, why 
 do we never meet with the mention of his dignity 
 in the epistles of Paul, James, Jude, and John ? 
 Can we suppose those great apostles jealous ? They 
 wrote by inspiration, so that they spoke all which 
 God thought it good and necessary for us to hear. 
 Can we imagine that a duty so essential, as that of 
 looking up to one invested with Christ's authority, 
 would have been omitted ? Can we suppose that 
 Paul, in writing to the Corinthians, would not have 
 called in the aid of Peter, to put down the false 
 teachers, if Peter's authority had been greater 
 than his own ? And when he had enumerated the 
 various offices held in the church, would he not 
 have taken that opportunity to mention the highest ? 
 Christ, he says (Eph. iv. 11) " gave some Apostles, 
 and some, Prophets; and borne, Evangelists; and 
 some, Pastors and Teachers". But where is the 
 "Prince of the Apostles 1 '? He is not mentioned, 
 — he upon whose voice* everything was to depend, 
 
£6 
 
 who might have stilled the angry winds of contro- 
 versy which raged in Corinth, and have put an 
 end to the schisms, which [St. Paul so severely re- 
 buked in his epistle to the church in that city. 
 What shall we conclude ? What, but that there 
 was no such Potentate known ? You see, my breth- 
 ren, how strong the argument from omissions is, in 
 the case before us. You see how impossible it is 
 to account for such omissions, if the hypothesis of 
 the Ptomanists be considered true. 
 
 After the examination we have thus bestowed on 
 the point, whether St. Peter enjoyed a pre-eminence 
 over his brother apostles, — which has led us to the 
 conclusion, that he did not ; — let us proceed to ex- 
 amine the two remaining points, involved in the 
 Pope's title to supremacy. The time will not allow 
 a long enquiry, and happily they do not need it. 
 
 II. The second point was, that the Pope is St. 
 Peter's successor in the bishopric of Home. 
 
 Now it is doubtful, whether St. Peter ever was at 
 Home. I have read a Work (m) containing a care- 
 ful discussion of this subject — a subject which has 
 attracted considerable attention in France and Ger- 
 many. The learned writer clearly proves, that, if St. 
 Peter ever was there, it was only in his latter days. 
 The Romanists say, that he was bishop of Rome 
 
27 
 
 for a space of twenty-five years. Indeed, Eusebius^ 
 the ecclesiastical historian of the fourth century, 
 says this. But it only serves to show, how little 
 weight mere traditions have. The scriptural history 
 shows it to be incredible. I cannot enter into all the 
 particulars, but it is enough to say, that St. Peter 
 could not have been at Rome previously to St. 
 Paul's writing his epistle to the Romans. For St. 
 Paul in that epistle expresses his desire to visit 
 them, that he might labour where no other apostle 
 had laboured before him (Rom. i. 11 — 15 and xv. 15 
 — 24). This is decisive. Neither could Peter have 
 been at Rome, when Paul actually visited the city, 
 in consequence of his appeal to Caesar. Peter's 
 name is never mentioned in the accounts given us 
 of Paul's arrival and of what befel him. The belief 
 of Peter's being there, would be most injurious to 
 Peter's reputation. But the Romanists are willing 
 to sacrifice Peter's reputation to the Pope's aggran- 
 disement. We, however, must protect St. Peter. 
 We reverence him truly and affectionately, in spite 
 of his falls and weaknesses. We will not imagine 
 him to have been at Rome, even at St. Paul's second 
 visit, when, as he tells Timothy in his second 
 epistle, he was about to be martyred. "At my first 
 answer" he says " no man stood withmebut, all men 
 forsook me ; I pray God that it may not be laid to 
 
28 
 
 their charge". Could Peter possibly have been 
 among the number ? We will not be the persons 
 to slander his memory by imagining the possibility. 
 Moreover, the Church of Rome was wholly a Gen- 
 tile church. St. Pew" calls it such in his epistle. 
 " I write to you Gentiles", he says, " inasmuch as I 
 am the apostle of the Gentiles". What had St. Peter 
 to do with such a Church ? Even if St. Peter was 
 there in his last days (which rests only on the 
 tradition put forth one hundred years afterwards by 
 Papias, the most credulous of the Fathers, (p) but 
 which we may grant in the absence of any other 
 tradition) there is no proof whatever, that he occu- 
 pied the place of bishop. St. Chrysostom says, that 
 it was inconsistent with the apostolic office to hold 
 the episcopal. The only shadow of proof which 
 the Romanists give from Scripture, that St. Peter 
 was ever at Rome, is derived from his first epistle 
 which he dates from "Babylon" (1 Pet. v. 13). They 
 say, that Borne is meant by " Babylon". On what 
 ground? Because they find Rome meant by 
 " Babylon" in the Revelation of St. John. We 
 accept the concession, as regards the Book of the 
 Revelation. But St. John wrote that Book about 
 thirty years after St. Peter wrote his epistle, so 
 that there is no reason why St. Peter should have 
 used the same figurative term. St. Paul never 
 
39 
 
 uses it — why should St. Peter ? His epistle is 
 not a prophetic vision. There were several real 
 Babylons at that time — one in Egypt, another near 
 the ruins of the old Babylon, as Josephus tells us. 
 Why should we doubt that one of these was meant, 
 in a matter of-fact statement like that which is 
 made by St. Peter ? 
 
 So much for the second point regarding St. 
 Peter's bishopric, — which cannot be proved. At the 
 utmost, it is a mere probability, — or possibility. 
 But suppose that St. Peter was bishop of Piome, we 
 come to enquire : 
 
 III. Had lie power to bequeath his supremacy, 
 if he himself possessed any, to the Pope, or any 
 other person ? 
 
 The Piomanists have no proof to bring. They 
 simply assert that he had. But we require more 
 than assertion. He could not bequeath his apostle- 
 ship. Why should he be able to bequeath his sup- 
 posed supremacy ? We ask for proof, but we re- 
 ceive none. 
 
 A convincing disproof arises from considering the 
 consequence, which must necessarily have ensued 
 during the apostolic age, if Peter had left a supre- 
 macy over the whole Church to his supposed succes- 
 sors in the bishopric of Rome. Then Linus, 
 
30 
 
 Anacletus, and Clement, the three earliest bishops*, 
 must have been lords over all the Christians of that 
 day. Consequently they must have been lords over 
 the venerable apostle St. John, who survived St. 
 Peter for the space of thirty years. 
 
 Is this consequence to be supposed possible ? Is 
 the thought to be endured, that John, " the disciple 
 whom Jesus loved" — the disciple who "lay in his 
 bosom" at the last supper — -he who alone could 
 venture to ask his Lord concerning the traitor, 
 11 Lord, who is it"? — he to whom alone Jesus entrus- 
 ted the dreadful secret — he who stood beneath the 
 cross, when Peter and the rest stood afar off — he 
 who received from the dying Saviour that precious 
 deposit, the care of His Mother — he who was to 
 supply to her, as far as a mere mortal could, the 
 place of her adorable Son — lie who was gifted with 
 the vision in Patmos, and carried in the Spirit into 
 the invisible kingdom, and allowed not only to see, 
 but to tell, the things concerning the state of 
 Christ's church to the end of time — is it to be en- 
 dured that he should be thought inferior to Linus 
 and his brother-bishops, uninspired and fallible men, 
 — merely because they were bishops of Rome, and 
 because it suits the present church of Rome to claim 
 for them unlimited power ? Far be the thought 
 from any of us, my brethren. We will not do such 
 
31 
 
 dishonour to the great apostle St. John, and in his 
 person to the whole company of the apostles. 
 
 Finally, I ask you, in the sight of God : has not 
 the Pope's title, — resting on an imaginary su- 
 premacy of St. Peter, and the doubtful tradition of 
 his having been at Rome and held the office of 
 bishop, and the mere assertion that the supremacy 
 was capable of being bequeathed — has it not, I say, 
 been fully discussed, and entirely overthrown ? 
 
 A weaker title can scarcely be conceived, and 
 yet the Pope's case is one in which the very 
 strongest was required. When such a demand as 
 his is made upon us, the proof of his right to make 
 it should be as clear as the noon-day. 
 
 We have done, therefore, more than was abso- 
 lutely required of us. We have brought evidence 
 against him. It would have been enough to show, 
 that he brings little or none in his own favour. 
 The "onus probandi" lies upon the claimant in such 
 a case. 
 
 Would such a title be accepted in any of our 
 English courts of law, guided by the statutes of the 
 land, if it were produced in favour of some petty 
 privilege or possession ? And shall the English 
 nation, guided by God's Statute Book, accept the 
 
32 
 
 Pope's title, on such grounds as these on which he 
 rests it — when their best and dearest liberties 
 are the possession which he claims ? 
 
 What — I ask again, in the sight of God — what 
 shall we call this defeated but imperious claimant, 
 who from the shores of Italy, and the half-ruined 
 walls of the city of Rome, makes a demand on our 
 obedience, — merely because our forefathers were 
 once so foolish as to yield it ? 
 
 What is he, as regards men, but a Tyrant? 
 What is he, as regards Christ, but an Usurper ? 
 
 It is impossible to come to any other conclusion. 
 If we fairly arrive at this, it would be improper 
 to conceal it, out of any feeling of charity 
 towards the offender. The present Pope, or any 
 individual Pope, may be unconsious of the awful 
 position he occupies. But if we are convinced that 
 he occupies it, we ought to proclaim our conviction, 
 out of jealousy for the honour of Christ, and from 
 the desire to protect ourselves, our children, and 
 our country, from the greatest calamity which could 
 happen to them, the restoration of his dominion. 
 
 It is the grand principle of Protestantism, that 
 nothing merely human — no pope, no priest, — shall 
 come between the soul and its God. " Being justi- 
 
33 
 
 fied by faith, we have peace with God, through our 
 Lord Jesus Christ : by whom also we have access by 
 faith into this grace wherein we stand.'" The veil of 
 the temple has been rent — the holy of holies ha3 
 been opened — we have no high priest but One, 
 who has entered heaven, and who is at the right 
 hand of God, interceding for us. Judaism is dissol- 
 ved. Were St. Peter to be sent from the place of 
 his rest to this troublesome world, what would be 
 his testimony ? Would he once more fall into the 
 error he committed at Antioch ? Would he again 
 exhibit a Judaizing spirit ? Would he own the 
 Pope as his legitimate successor — the heir of his 
 principles — the representative of his feelings? 
 Nothing would fill him with such amazement and 
 grief, as to see one who calls himself a Christian 
 bishop, using his name to take away the freedom of 
 the everlasting Gospel, and to bring men back to a 
 Jewish bondage. He would bid us resist with all 
 our might. He would bid us go to Jesus alone — 
 to His Word, and His Spirit — for all saving truth, 
 all comforting light, all infallible guidance. He 
 would remind us of the language he had grace given 
 him to utter in the days of old, and he would exhort us 
 to make that language our own in these days, from 
 the depths of our heart : "Lord, to whom shall we 
 go ? Thou hast the words of eternal life /" 
 
 E 
 
<^&"Et.^ 
 
 LSIT7 
 
 NOTES TO LECTURE I. 
 
 (a), p. 5. The attention of all Europe has been 
 called to the accounts given of this picture of the 
 Virgin Mary, which has eyes that wink ! Thousands 
 and thousands have made a pilgrimage to Rimini in 
 Italy, to see the winking picture — as thousands did 
 four years ago to Treves in Germany, to see the 
 Holy Coat, said to have been worn by our Lord. 
 The Pope, we are assured, has decided that the 
 miracle of the winking picture is true. 
 
 (b). p. 8. See Corp. Jur. Can. Io. Gibert. T. ii. 
 p. 6. 
 
 (c). p. 8. lb. p. 9. N.B. The 12th Article of 
 the Creed of Pope Pius iv. says : " I do without 
 doubt receive all things declared by the Sacred 
 Canons". 
 
 (d). p. 8. The Church of Rome looks on all 
 baptized persons as belonging to her. She regards 
 schismatics as baptized with lay-baptism — admit- 
 ting, as she does, the validity of lay-baptism. Protes- 
 tants, there fore, are rebels, and liable to be dealt with 
 as such, when she may have the power. The Trent 
 Catechism says : " Heretics and Schismatics, be- 
 " cause they have separated from the Church, belong 
 
36 
 
 •" to her, only as Deserters belong to the army from 
 " which they have separated. They are still sub- 
 " ject to her jurisdiction, and are liable to be visited 
 " with spiritual punishments, and to be denounced 
 ** with Anathema." (Maynooth Transl. p. 96). The 
 original word is " damnari", which includes handing 
 them over to the secular arm. 
 
 (e). p. 10. This title " Pope'', which the Bishop 
 of Rome now bears exclusively, was originally borne 
 by all chief Bishops. See "Bingham's Chr. Antiq. 
 B. 2. c. 2. §. 7. The Romish Bishop Milner, in his 
 " End of Controversy" (vain hope !) defines it : 
 " Pope, Papa, Father of the faithful," 
 
 (f). p. 10. We are told by Card. Wiseman, that 
 it is a Brief, not a Bull, Whatever it be called, it 
 is intended to operate as a Bull. For what says 
 the leading journal of Romanism on the Continent? 
 " Pius ix." says the 'Univers', "transfers to-day the 
 " Primacy of Canterbury to the new Archiepiscopal 
 " See of Westminster. From the promulgation of 
 " this Brief, there exists neither See of Canterbury, 
 " nor of York, nor of London. The personages who 
 " for the future assume the titles of Archbishop of 
 " Canterbury, and Bishop of London, will be mere 
 " intruders, schismatic prelates, without any 
 " spiritual authority. The act of Supremacy just 
 " exercised by Pius ix. denies the existence in En- 
 " gland of any other spiritual authority but his own." 
 And what says the leading journal of Romanism 
 among ourselves ? " Rome has spoken", says the 
 ' Tablet', " England is parcelled out into dioceses, 
 " and in future there will be a Bishop in every 
 " parish. The whole community of baptized persons 
 " in the kingdom of England will owe obedience to 
 
or 
 
 " the Church of Rome, under pain of eternal damna- 
 " Hon", 
 
 fg). p. 13. Origen says : " If you think that the 
 * whole Church was built on Peter only, what will 
 " you say of John and of each one of the Apostles ? 
 "(Com. in Matth. c. 1G). 
 
 Hilary says: "The building of the Church is 
 " upon the rock of his confession. This Faith is 
 " the foundation of the Church". (De Trin. xlvi. 6). 
 
 Cyril of Alexandria says : " When Christ said 
 •' this, he called, I think, the immovable and firm 
 " Faith of the disciple the Rock". (Dial, de Trin.) 
 
 Ambrose says : " Faith is the foundation of the 
 " Church; for it was not said of the flesh of Peter, but 
 "of his Faith". (De. Incar. Dom. i. 5.) 
 
 Chrysostom says : " Christ did not say, upon 
 "Peter — for He did not found His Church upon a 
 "man, but upon faith." " What, then, means 'upon 
 " this rock' ? — upon his confession". (Lat. Ed. Ser. 
 de Pent. T. hi. p. 748. Paris 1614. and Horn. 55. in 
 Matt. xxvi). 
 
 Though Chrysostom often speaks in high lan- 
 guage of Peter, he does the same of Paul. In his 
 oration concerning these two, whom he expressly 
 calls " principes Apostolorum", he uses the follow- 
 ing words : "Quid Petro majus ? quid par Paulo?" 
 " What greater than Peter ? ahat equal to Faul /" 
 
 Augustine at one time speaks of Peter as the 
 rock. At another, of Peter's faith as such. At 
 another, of Christ. In his " Ptetractations", at the 
 end of his life, he fairly says, he could not make up 
 his mind, and leaves the question an open one ! 
 
 He distinguishes between Peter or Petrus, and 
 
38 
 
 the rock, Petra. " Christ said : 'lam the rock, 
 "(Petra), thou art Peter, (Petrus)'; for the rock is 
 " not from Peter, but Peter from the rock; as Christ 
 "is not from Christian, but Christian from Christ. 
 " 'And upon this rock I will build my Church' ; not 
 " upon Peter (the stone) which thou art, but upon 
 " the Rock which thou hast confessed." 
 
 Hilary says : " This is to be considered in 
 " Peter, that he preceded the others in faith." This 
 shews the meainng of "prificeps," the "first in order 
 of time'", which is the most classical meaning — not 
 " a prince", which is the modern but least classical 
 meaning. (Com. in Mat. p. 565. Par.) Hence 
 Hilary says : " He first believed, and was the begin- 
 ning of the Apustolate," "princeps Apostolatus" 
 (which the Romanists have translated, the " prince 
 of the apostles") (ibid. 524. D.) 
 
 In like manner Basil says : " Peter, because he 
 " preceded the rest in faith, received to himself the 
 ! ' building of the Church, in which things there is 
 " nothing concerning his essence or substance ; for 
 " the uame of Peter signifies his character." Here 
 there is nothing about the government of the Church, 
 but simply that Peter was the first stone which was 
 laid. (Op. i. p. 240. Par). 
 
 Some of the Popes were so ignorant as to derive 
 an argument for their own headship from the word 
 " Cephas", supposing it to be a Greek word, con- 
 nected with '-Cephale", a head. (Vigilius to Eleu- 
 therius, Mansi Concil. T. i. p. 617.) 
 
 Let me conclude this long note with a few obser- 
 vations, as to our citing the Fathers. 
 
 We Protestants do not cite the Fathers, as if wo 
 
S9 
 
 needed them — we derive all our faith from the Scrip- 
 tures alone. We thank the Fathers, when they lead us 
 to see the meaning of Scripture, but we receive 
 that meaning, not because they lead us to it, but 
 because, when led, we see it with our own eyes. 
 Thus in studying the Book of Revelation, we act as 
 we do in studying the Book of Nature. We use our 
 reason, — but we use also all the helps we can, to 
 facilitate and shorten the investigation which reason 
 has to make. Above all, we pray for the help of God's 
 Holy Spirit, to deliver our reason from the influence 
 of our passions, and to bring our mind and heart into 
 harmony with the minds and hearts of the Sacred 
 Writers. 
 
 But the Romanists regard the Fathers, as pos- 
 sessing intrinsic authority. The Canon Law 
 gives us a List of those whose writings carry this 
 authority, as containing the Oral Traditions, sup- 
 posed to be left by the apostles, and which the 
 Church of Rome exalts into a rule of faith. We 
 therefore cite the Fathers, because the Romanists 
 are bound to submit to them, and because they 
 prove the novelty of the distinctive Romish doc- 
 trines. 
 
 The 2nd Article of the Creed of Pope Pius iv. 
 says : "I will never receive or interpret the Scrip- 
 " tures, otherwise than according to the unanimous 
 " consent of the Fathers." 
 
 How then can Romanists interpret the passage con • 
 cerning Peter and the rock in a manner favourable 
 to themselves, since this would be to interpret it 
 " otherwise than according to the unanimous con- 
 sent of the Fathers" — seeing the Fathers have no 
 unanimous consent in this case, but quite the con- 
 
40 
 
 trary? To interpret it, as the Romanists do, 
 in their own favour, is to interpret it according 
 to some other rule of interpretation, 
 
 (h). p. 14. Cyprian has a peculiar theory; 
 perhaps fanciful, but not suitable to the Romish 
 view of a succession. He gives & personal interpre- 
 tation to the passage ; but considers Peter merely as 
 the intended type of unity. " The other apostles' 1 , 
 he says, "were what Peter was; they were endowed 
 " with an equal share both of honour and power; but 
 " the beginning was from unity", (i. e from one per- 
 son) " that the Church might be exhibited as one 
 " Church." (De Unit. Eccl.) This view was used 
 by Cyprian and Firmilian expressly to oppose Pope 
 Stephen, by destroying the idea of a succession to 
 Peter> which would be a change of the unity of the 
 Church by a change in the unity of the person. 
 
 It may be well here to observe, that we hold the 
 Article of the Nicene Creed, that there is " One 
 Catholic and Apostolic Church", as firmly as the 
 Romanists. We hold it, because it may be proved 
 "byjcertain warrants from Scripture ("Church Art. 
 8). By " Catholic" we mean universal, in distinction 
 from the Jewish Qmrch, which was confined to one 
 nation. And by " Apostolic", we mean, holding the 
 truth in every respect as it was delivered by the 
 Apostles, and committed by them to writing This 
 One Church is defined in the Creed called the 
 Apostles Creed as "the Communion of Saints" — of 
 of all the holy, faithful men, past, present, and to 
 come. See Bishop Ridley. And see Bishop Jeremy 
 Taylor. 
 
 (i). p. 14. Augustine says : " Did Peter receive 
 these keys, and did John and James and the other 
 
il 
 
 apostles not receive them ?" (Serm. 149, Act x)« 
 
 Hilary says : " Faith has the keys of the king- 
 dom of heaven". (De Trin.) " The apostles shared 
 the keys of heaven" (In Ps. 52). * Confessing the 
 Son of God, Peter was blest. This is the revela- 
 tion of the Father, this is the foundation of the 
 church — -from this are the keys of heaven", "Let 
 there be another Faith, if there are any other keys 
 — let there be another Faith, if there is to be 
 another Apostolate, able to bind and loose in heaven 
 what had been bound and loosed on earth". (De 
 Trin.) 
 
 Origen says: " If this saying, 'To thee will I 
 " give the keys', is common to all the rest, why not 
 " that which went before" (concerning the rock)? 
 (Comm. in Matt ) He has a fine passage on the 
 keys, in his Comments on the Psalms. "Onac- 
 " count of its difficulty, Scripture is like to a house 
 " with many chambers ; the key appropriate to each 
 "chamber not being next to it; and so the 
 "keys are scattered through the chambers, not 
 " answering to those chambers to which they arc 
 " nearest; and it is truly a difficult work to find the 
 "keys, and adapt them to the locks which they are 
 " fitted to open ; thus it is that the more abstruse 
 " Scriptures are to be understood, the argument of 
 " our knowledge being taken no otherwise than from 
 " the Scriptures themselves, which have dispersed 
 "among them the reasons of their exposition". 
 What is this but the doctrine of our Church Homi- 
 lies, — opening one part of Scripture by another, the 
 keys being supplied by comparison of the Scriptures ? 
 Bishop Horsley has an excellent passage to the 
 same effect. 
 
42 
 
 Tertullian says: -'What Key had the Doctors of 
 "the Law, but the interpretation of the Law". 
 (Adv. Marc.) "What key had Peter? 'Yemen 
 "of Israel, hear these words : Jesus of Nazareth &c'." 
 
 Again: " By the grace of God we believe even as 
 " they" (i. e. the Gentiles whom the council of apostles 
 bound and loosed, as regarded the Law of Moses), 
 " so that the power of loosing and binding, confer- 
 red on Peter, has nothing to do with the mortal 
 sins of believers." (De Pud.) 
 
 See "Bishop Hopkins on the Church of Rome," 
 p. 86. 
 
 (k). p. 19. Augustine says : " When it was said 
 " to Peter, 'Feed my sheep, it was said to all." (De 
 Agon. Chr. c. 30.) 
 
 Cyril says : " In that speech, ' Feed my sheep', 
 there was a kind of renewal of the apostleship for- 
 merly given to Peter ; doing away the infamy of 
 his fall, and blotting out the cowardice of human 
 infirmity" — (but conferring no power above that of 
 the other Apostles). (L. xii. in Joh.) 
 
 Yet Cardinal Bellarmine infers from these words, 
 " feed my sheep", a power conferred on the Pope 
 of deposing Kings, as well as removing bishops ! 
 The words prove, he says, that " the Pope may not 
 " only excommunicate Kings, but command the people 
 " not to obey them, and therefore may deprive them 
 "of their dominion" (L. iv. de Pontif. Rom). Mar- 
 vellous inference ! 
 
 Some indiscreet Romanists have asked, — If the 
 lambs be the people, and the sheep the clergy, and 
 the Pope the ruler of both, where are the rams ? If 
 they are Kings, then they are not included under 
 his rule — as Card. Tolet says. But Maldonatus, a 
 
43 
 
 learned man amongst them, bids them beware, lest 
 by subtilly enquiring into these matters concerning 
 this text, they expose themselves to the laughter of 
 all men. 
 
 (k). p. 21. The Canon Law says : " It was be- 
 " coming, since the Chief Pontiff represents the 
 " person of Christ, that as during Christ's earthly 
 i '- Ministry the Apostles stood around Him, so the 
 " Assembly of the Cardinals should stand before 
 the Pope." (Corp. I. C. T. ii. p. 19.) 
 
 (1). p. 24. The Pere Mabillon, in his " Traite 
 des Etudes Monastiques", says of this argument 
 from silence : 
 
 " It is very important in criticism to make a good 
 " use of the negative argument. This is absolutely 
 " necessary in certain positions, in order to destroy 
 " mere tales and fables, which Impostors forge at 
 " their pleasure 'to surprise us". 
 
 (m). p. 24. From the 12th Chapter of the Acts, 
 the name of Peter occurs only 6 times in the New 
 Testament, whilst that of Paul occurs no less than 
 156 times. 
 
 (n). p. 26. The work I allude to, is one written 
 by Dr. Augustus Scheler, translated by a Clergyman, 
 Lond. 1846, entitled " Was Peter ever at Rome ?" 
 Spanheim long ago shewed reason to doubt the fact. 
 M. Ellendorf and others have ably discussed the 
 subject recently. M. Scheler mentions a multitude 
 of foolish and inconsistent traditions concerning 
 Peter. He proves, beyond all doubt, that Peter could 
 not have been living in Rome for 25 years before his 
 death, — supposing him to have died there. St. Paul's 
 conversion, he thinks on good grounds, took place 
 later than is usually thought — he says A. D. 39. 
 
44 
 
 Three years after, Paul visited Jerusalem (Gal. i.) 
 Again, he visited it with alms for the brethren (Acts 
 xi. xii.), during Peter's imprisonment by Herod. 
 This, M. Scheler says, was certainly in the year 44, 
 or 45. Again he visited it, to settle the question 
 concerning the circumcision of the Gentiles (Acts 
 xv. Gal. ii. 1). This. M. Scheler says, was most 
 probably, in the year 53, fourteen years after his 
 conversion. He found Peter there at that time. 
 Peter accompanied him on his return to Antioch 
 (Gal. ii.) Whither Peter went from Antioch, we 
 know not. Probably to those of the circumcision 
 in Pontus, Galatia &c, to whom he afterwards ad- 
 dressed his Epistles. Peter could not' possibly 
 have been at Rome, before Paul wrote his Epistle 
 to the Romans — by the internal evidence of that 
 Epistle. Now Paul wrote that Epistle about the 
 year 58. Afterwards, Paul dwelt at Rome from 61 
 to 63. He wrote many Epistles from Rome, and 
 in none of them does he speak of Peter, as being 
 there or ever having been. This brings us to 63. 
 and the Romanists place Peter's death in 67. So 
 that, if ever he was at Rome, he could not have 
 been there twenty five years before he died* What 
 becomes of that tradition ? 
 
 (o).p. 28. The celebrated Romanist Tillemont 
 does not hesitate to suppose that Peter ivas at Rome, 
 when Paul made his first answer before the Emperor 
 and " all men forsook hilt*" " This crime can only," 
 he says, "be charged on those who having some credit 
 " at Court could have aided him, if they had mani- 
 fested the courage they ought to have shewn." 
 (Memoires I. p. 689). So deliberately is Peter's 
 character sacrificed, for the sake of a theory, favour- 
 able to the Pope. 
 
45 
 
 (p). p. 28 Papias was the Instructor of Irenseus, 
 as Eusebius tells us. From Papias Irenaeus re- 
 ceived the tradition that Peter was at Rome ; and 
 from Irenseus Eusebius handed it down in his Ec- 
 clesiastical History. " This Papias," says Eusebius, 
 " left behind him several things, which bear too 
 " much of the character of the fabulous." " He 
 " was a man of weak intellect.'' Such is the ac- 
 count of the first person who brought forward the 
 tradition. He lived in the third generation from 
 the Apostles. By that time many absurd tales 
 were current. For instance, this very Papias be- 
 believed aud affirmed, that the four virgin daughters 
 of Philip the Evangelist, mentioned in Acts xii, 
 were alive in his own day, that is, a hundred years 
 afterwards. Greater Fathers than Papias made 
 strange mistakes by trusting too much to tradition, 
 even in matters of fact. Clement of Alexandria in 
 his " Stromata" says, that Christ preached but one 
 year. He also says, that St. Matthew is the same 
 as Zaccheus. Irenoeus affirms that Christ was fifty 
 years old at his death. Tertullian tells us, that 
 Peter was baptized in the Tiber. 
 
 How then can we be sure, that St. Peter was ever 
 at Rome ? 
 
 An elaborate inquiry is to be found in a Book 
 published in London, licensed by the Archbishop 
 of Canterbury, in 1687. The Book, like M. 
 Scheler's, is entitled " A modest Enquiry, whether 
 St. Peter were ever at Rome, and Bishop of that 
 Church." Chancellor Geddes says of this English 
 Book, that if it be read with any measure of judg- 
 ment and impartiality, the reader will not find it 
 easy to deny the Author's conclusion : " That from 
 
46 
 
 11 Scripture and History, and a due comparison of 
 " all circumstances, it is in the highest degree im- 
 ''■probable, that Peter ever was at Rome ; the story 
 " of his being Bishop depending on counterfeit Au- 
 " thors, or such as justly are of little credit, and 
 " abundance of shameful forgeries having been in- 
 " vented and made use of, to support it." Not 
 having seen the Book myself, I am obliged to take 
 this account of it from another. 
 
LECTURE II. 
 
 THE POPE'S SUPREMACY. 
 
 EXAMINED BY HISTORY. 
 
 Jeremiah vi. 16, 
 ''Thus saith the Lord : Stand ye in the ways, and 
 see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good 
 way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for 
 your souls" 
 
 We obeyed this command, my brethren, when 
 ■we examined the doctrine of the Pope's supremacy 
 in my last Discourse, by the light of Scripture. To 
 go back to the Fountain of Truth, in order to know 
 of any doctrine, whether it be of God or whether 
 men have invented it, is to " ask for the old paths 
 " and the good way, and to walk therein, that we 
 " may find rest for our souls." When we did this 
 in the case I mention, we found that the doctrine 
 of the Pope's Supremacy had no warrant of Holy 
 Scripture. The Pope himself submitted his case 
 
4a 
 
 to us, by declaring himself to be the heir of an au- 
 thority exercised by St. Peter. He did not ground 
 his title on prescription or long possession — he did 
 not appeal to arguments of expediency — he made 
 it a simple question of truth or falsehood, to be de- 
 termined by investigation. We investigated, and 
 found the title false. To say nothing of the doubt 
 whether St. Peter ever was at Kome — to say no- 
 thing of the difficulty of believing that the Apostle 
 John was ever subject to three uninspired men, 
 bishops of Kome, in succession — we found that 
 Peter had no authority, to bequeath. Honour he 
 had, — because he was always forward, and ready to 
 speak ; though not always steadfast. He was the 
 first fully to confess Christ — and he first received the 
 promise. In like manner on other occasions he 
 was most prominent. But authority he had none. 
 No fact can be clearer. Even his honour was 
 eclipsed, when St. Paul came upon the scene. Paul 
 declares plainly, that he was not in any respect in- 
 ferior to Peter or any of the Apostles. This positive 
 evidence by itself is decisive, had we no other. 
 And the negative evidence, arising from the silence 
 of Scripture on so important a point, is equally de- 
 cisive. Where is Peter spoken of as the "Prince 
 of the Apostles ?" Where are Christians told that 
 he would have heirs in future times, to whom they 
 
49 
 
 must look up, even in matters of faith, as to God 
 Himself ? Would such a thing have been omitted ? 
 What idea does Scripture give of a Spiritual 
 Monarchy, to be established on the earth ? If there 
 was to be a Visible Head or Monarch, where was 
 he to hold his seat ? Rome is nowhere mentioned 
 as the seat of any thing glorious. Neither St. Peter 
 nor St. Paul predict anything of the kind in their 
 Epistles. If Rome be meant by the word 
 " Babylon" in the Book of the Revelations (as the 
 Romanists say it is) — if Rome be " the city of the 
 " seven hills' 1 there mentioned — then indeed, there 
 was to be a power established at Rome — but of what 
 kind ? In short, there never was a title submitted 
 to men, that could so little bear examination as that 
 of the Pope. His present power rests on a base- 
 less assumption. Can it possibly be of God ? 
 
 Clear, however, as this is, to all who are guided 
 by Scripture, yet the fact that he has established 
 such a power is very dazzling. Men are apt to be 
 much impressed by facts — " facts in providence," 
 as they are sometimes called. They often mistake 
 a matter of fact for a matter of right. They forget 
 that God suffers many things to exist, for a very 
 long time and on a very large scale, without ever 
 sanctioning them. Mahometanism is an instance. 
 Its rise in the seventh century was coeval with that of 
 
50 
 
 the Pope's assumption to be the " Universal Bishop. 11 
 It still subsists, yet God never sanctioned it. In 
 His time, he will certainly overthrow it. I men- 
 tion this to show, that we must not mistake the 
 divine sufferance for the divine approbation. But 
 further than this, in the} case before us Scrip- 
 ture gives us reason to expect the establishment of 
 an unlawful power, quite as great as the Pope's — if 
 not identical with it. A person or power, called by 
 St. Paul " the man of sin" is spoken of as destined 
 to " sit in the temple of God" the Christian Church, 
 exalting himself above all human powers, and " shew- 
 ing himself that he is God* — which is paralleled by 
 the claim made by the Pope that " he bears the 
 place of the true God,'* the words used in the Ca- 
 non Law. We ought not, therefore, to be " shaken 
 in mind or troubled" as if success justified the Pope's 
 assumption. The spectacle should rather confirm 
 our faith in the Scriptures — and thus we should be 
 led to look forward to the final triumph of pure 
 Christianity. Nevertheless, it will be well to show, 
 that the rise and continuance of the Pope's extra- 
 ordinary power is not inexplicable ; but on the con- 
 trary, that every step may be distinctly traced. 
 
 The whole explanation lies in this simple circum- 
 stance, that the Pope, as one of the early Christian 
 bishops, happened to be the bishop of the greatest 
 
51 
 
 City of the time. Thus it came to pass, that he 
 aspired to be the greatest bishop of his day, and his 
 successors have done the same. The locality gave 
 him all his importance. And if that importance 
 had been one of mere rank, it might not have been 
 so necessary to question it — but when it became 
 one of jurisdiction, when the Pope affected to be the 
 source of Episcopacy, and what is still more, to be 
 the dictator of the Faith to Christendom, then it 
 amounted to an usurpation not to be endured. 
 
 Home, in the age when our Saviour appeared, 
 and for many ages before and after, was the mistress 
 of the known world. All nations owned the abso- 
 lute sway of the Roman Empire. The Emperor, 
 whose palace was at Rome, was the Lord of the 
 whole earth. He received a divine worship. The 
 city was familiarly and fondly called •' The Eternal 
 City." Into it flowed every thing that was great 
 and precious. It was the centre of unity to the 
 Empire. It was the focus of wealth, and arts, and 
 philosophy. To share the Roman citizenship was 
 a high honour, and a sure protection in the most 
 remote countries. We see this exemplified in St. 
 Paul's history on several occasions. In short there 
 was no city in the history of mankind, that ever sat 
 so like a queen, and received such universal 
 homage, as Rome. 
 
52 
 
 Considering the weakness of human nature, it is 
 no wonder that the greatness and power of his See 
 kindled ambition in the breast of the Bishop of 
 Rome. The Emperor exercised a temporal supremacy 
 over the whole earth ; in due time, the Bishop en- 
 deavoured to exercise a spiritual supremacy to the 
 same extent. 
 
 So long, however, as the Emperor lived at Rome, 
 and the City was still pagan, as regards the majority 
 of its inhabitants and the Imperial Government, the 
 temptation did not work its full effect. To be a 
 bishop in a heathen city was to occupy the post of 
 danger and suffering. It was to attract the light- 
 ning stroke of persecution. The bolt descended on 
 the loftiest head. So long, therefore, the bishops 
 of Rome, generally speaking, were pious and 
 humble. They bore no resemblance to modern 
 Popes. Yet even then, in one or two instances, we 
 see the stirrings and strivings of human ambition 
 in their breasts, taking advantage of their locality, 
 and disturbing the peace of Christ's Church by an 
 assumption of superiority. 
 
 The City remained heathen for the space of three 
 centuries. Let us take a glance at what history 
 reveals during that time. 
 
 There are some writings extant, called the 
 " Apostolical Canons," which, though not really apo- 
 
53 
 
 stolical, are very ancient. They show a state of 
 things quite different from that which Popes desire. 
 They recognize national independence in all the 
 Churches. " It is necessary," they say, *' that the 
 " bishops in each nation should know him who is 
 " first among them, and esteem him as their head." 
 (a) It is plain that the bishops of Rome had not 
 at that time put forth any pretensions to rule over 
 other bishops. 
 
 Clement, one of the first three bishops of Rome, 
 wrote an excellent letter to he Corinthians, still 
 extant. They had deposed some of their ministers ; 
 in a factious spirit, as Clement thought. This had 
 produced violent dissensions in Corinth, which he 
 wrote to appease. He used none but christian rea- 
 sonings and persuasions. He advises the restora- 
 tion of the ministers, (b) but he says nothing of re- 
 instating them by his own power. He seems not 
 to have dreamt of his possessing any such power. 
 His breast was free from ambition. He had con- 
 versed with the Apostles. 
 
 We now come to the second century. Irenaus 
 was a most distinguished writer, or Father, of that 
 century. He had to contend against Heretics, who, 
 he says, were " introducing traditions" — oral tradi- 
 tions. He appeals to the Church of Rome, as pos- 
 sessing " the Apostolical Traditions," which he 
 
54 
 
 defines to be " the Holy Scriptures, the pillar and 
 " ground of the truth." He says that good christ- 
 ians resorted to Rome for these " because of its 
 preferable principality'' — which plainly means, " be- 
 " cause of its more favourable situation,orlocality." As 
 every thing most precious flowed into the city of 
 Rome, there would be the best and most abundant 
 manuscripts of the Gospels and Epistles to be found 
 there. He appeals to those authentic manuscripts* 
 in order to confound the Heretics and expose their 
 unauthenticated traditions. 
 
 That Irenaeus did not mean by the word " prin- 
 cipality" any thing but " superior locality," is proved 
 by what he did, when Victor, bishop of Rome, as- 
 sumed something like power to decide disputes in 
 the Church at large. A dispute existed between 
 the Eastern christians and the Western, as to the ob- 
 servance of Easter. Anicetus, a predecessor of 
 Victor, had an interview with Polycarp ; and when 
 they could not agree on the subject, Anicetus al- 
 lowed the Eastern christians, even whilst living at 
 Rome, to follow their own custom. But not so 
 Victor. He tried to produce a general uniformity. 
 To this end he spoke in a domineering tone. Iren- 
 aeus immediately lifted up his voice to rebuke him. 
 He pointed out the example of Anicetus as that 
 which Victor ought to imitate, (c) A council on 
 
55 
 
 this occasion was called at Ephesus. By It the 
 Pope was severely reproved for his attempt at dicta- 
 tion. The Pope ventured to cut off the bishop3 of 
 the Council, from communion with his Church. He 
 wrote to other bishops to do the same. Not one of 
 them assented. On the contrary, they all joined 
 in condemning his arrogance. Victor's immediate 
 successors did not tread in his steps. Communion 
 was restored, without insisting on uniformity. 
 
 In the middle of the third century, a second in- 
 stance occurred of Roman assumption. The cele- 
 brated Cyprian differed from the bishop of Rome, 
 Stephen, as to the propriety of re-baptizing those 
 who had been baptized by heretics. Two Councils 
 held at Carthage took Cyprian's view. Several 
 which were held in Asia did the same. The 
 Bishops wrote from Carthage to inform Stephen 
 of their decision. Cyprian wrote a separate letter, 
 one of the most beautiful of all antiquity, full of 
 gentleness and charity. But nothing could move 
 the haughty Stephen. He replied with a threat of 
 cutting off Cyprian and his brethren from com- 
 munion with the Church of Rome. Cyprian con- 
 descended to call another Council at Carthage, 
 larger than before. He read the threatening letter 
 of Stephen. He exhorted them to speak their 
 minds freely. (t Let none of us", he said, " set up 
 
56 
 
 " for Bishop of Bishops ; let none of us presume 
 to reduce our Colleagues by tyrannical threats to 
 " the necessity of obeying." He then gave his own 
 opinion, which remained unaltered— confirming 
 it by arguments from Scripture. Each bishop 
 delivered his opinion, — and they unanimously 
 opposed Stephen's. When informed of this, 
 Stephen issued the excommunication he had 
 threatened. But what force had it ? None, be- 
 yond the limits of his own diocese, and those of the 
 European Bishops who courted his favour. Augus- 
 tine, looking back on this transaction, tells us that 
 the African Bishops happily smiled at Stephen's 
 vain wrath, and forebore to excommunicate him in 
 their turn. " Thus," he says, " the peace of Christ 
 " triumphed in their hearts, and a Schism was pre- 
 " vented." What was the view, which a contem- 
 poraneous Asiatic Bishop, of great eminence and 
 piety, took of the Pope's conduct ? He pronounced 
 it full of pride and arrogance. " He is a true Sohis- 
 " matic," said Firmiliauus, " who departs from the 
 " Unity of the Church, which thou hast done, 
 " Stephen ; for by attempting to separate others 
 " from thee, thou hast separated thyself from all 
 " other Churches." Stephen died soon afterwards, 
 and the storm he had raised subsided; his successors 
 wisely avoiding his error, (d) 
 
57 
 
 You see, brethren, what is the picture presented 
 by the history of the first three centuries — history, 
 the truth of which the Romanists acknowledge. 
 You see, that whilst the Roman Empire was pagan, 
 there was nothing like power or jurisdiction ex- 
 ercised, or claimed, by the Church of Rome. It was 
 but one among the many Christian Churches; 
 having only respect paid it from its being the 
 Church of the chief City. The moment that even 
 auy extraordinary degree of respect was demanded, 
 the demand called forth general indignation and 
 resistance. Let any one read the Ecclesiastical His- 
 torian, Eusebius, who lived at the close of that period, 
 and he will be as unable to find in his pages a counter- 
 part to the present Church of Rome, as in the pages 
 of Holy Scripture. He will find, that far from over- 
 stating the case, I have understated it, and that 
 there is much positive and negative testimony which 
 the time does not allow me to transcribe, utterly 
 irreconcileable with the doctrine of the Pope's su- 
 premacy. There is no fact in history, of which we 
 may speak more confidently, than that this doctrine 
 was unknown to men, perhaps unthought of by 
 Popes themselves, in the first three hundred years 
 of the Christian Era. 
 
 But the time arrived, when the Empire ceased 
 to be pagan. The Emperor Constantine, whether 
 
58 
 
 from conviction or policy, announced his conversion. 
 The world smiled upon the Church — and alas ! 
 more effectually injured it by its smiles, than it had 
 done by its persecution. In Rome itself, this effect 
 was strikingly produced. 
 
 The See of Rome became a prize, for which 
 fierce contentions were now carried on. Constan- 
 tine, from the year a.d. 321, allowed the churches to 
 acquire landed property, and to be enriched by 
 legacies. From that moment, wealth and import- 
 ance attended the successful candidate for the 
 bishopric. A writer of that day, distinguished in 
 war and literature, AmmianusMarcellinus, describes 
 the scenes he witnessed during one of the contests. 
 The streets, he says, were converted into a battld 
 field — the Christian temples flowed with blood, (e) 
 The pagan inhabitants looked on with astonishment; 
 and, like the historian himself, were repelled by 
 what they saw, from enquiring into Christianity and 
 embracing it. The writer distinctly ascribes this 
 unseemly spectacle to the pomp and luxury which 
 were now the portion of the Pope. He at the same 
 time draws a very different picture of the simple 
 and pious bishops of the Country around Rome — 
 quite a contrast to those of the City itself. When 
 we read his account, we lament that he did not take 
 his idea of Christianity from the Country bishops, 
 
59 
 
 whom he paints in such pleasing colours, rather 
 than from the worldly bishops of Rome, (f) But 
 men are apt to be most affected by that which is 
 most before their eyes. I would not have you 
 imagine, my brethren, that such a spectacle as that 
 which Marcellinus beheld, in the election of Pope 
 Damasus, was one of constant occurrence. I men- 
 tion it, to shew the rapidity with which the corrupt- 
 ing influence of worldly prosperity acted upon the 
 bishops and the church of Rome. 
 
 Constantine removed the Imperial Court from 
 Rome to Byzantium, which after his own name he 
 called Constantinople. It might have been hastily 
 supposed, that this would have diminished the local 
 importance of the bishop of Rome ; but the reverse 
 was its effect. It increased his importance. It left 
 him without a rival. He grew to be the chief 
 personage in the still mighty City — the City rich 
 in the recollections of a thousand years, — with which 
 no new City could soon be compared. The Pope 
 was relieved from the presence of the only man 
 who could eclipse him — the Emperor. 
 
 But it was still a long time — three hundred 
 years more, in fact — before the world heard dis- 
 tinctly the startling claim of the Popes to a su- 
 premacy ; such as the troublous state of Europe, 
 and the arrival of the Bark Ages, enabled them 
 afterwards to put forth boldly and openly. 
 
60 
 
 The first General Council was called — that of 
 Nice, from which we derive the Nicene Creed. 
 Who called that Council? Was it the Pope? 
 No, it was the Emperor Constantine — who thus set 
 an example which was followed by succeeding 
 Emperors. Who presided ? Was it the Pope or 
 his Legates ? No, the Emperor himself was present 
 in a Chair of State ; and the bishop who presided 
 over the Clergy, was Hosius, the occupant of a poor 
 See. Was the Pope asked to confirm the decrees 
 of the Council ? No, it was not then thought in the 
 least degree necessary. How different in all these 
 respects was the ancient Council of Nice, from the 
 modern Council of Trent ! In what way is this 
 difference to be explained by the advocates of the 
 Pope's claim, consistently with their pretensions 
 that he has antiquity in his favour ? 
 
 In the course of the fifth century, history brings 
 us acquainted with a Pope whose name was Celes- 
 tine. This Pope provoked the determined opposi- 
 tion of the gentle and saint-like Augustine. Such 
 was the overbearing temper of the Pope, that the 
 bishops present at the Sixth Council of Carthage, 
 of whom Augustine was one, sent him a message, 
 that they would not receive his representatives, 
 " lest," as they forcibly express it, " they should 
 " introduce the pride of the world into the Church 
 
& o ^^ 
 
 6L 
 
 of Christ.'' This led to a formal separaroitS^wgfifi?^^ 
 the African Churches and the Church of Rome — 
 a separation which lasted a hundred years. A 
 formal reconciliation was, at the end of that time, 
 effected between Pope Boniface II. and Eulalius, 
 bishop of Carthage. But the great Augustine died in 
 a separated state. The world had not yet heard the 
 doctrine, that it is of salvation to die in communion 
 with the Church of Home, (f) 
 
 If you ask me, why the pretensions of the Popes 
 to the exercise of a power like that which they now 
 claim, were not yet formally put forth, — I answer ; 
 Because they were kept in check by those of a for- 
 midable rival, till the beginning of the seventh 
 Century. This rival of the Popes was the patriarch 
 of Constantinople. He, too, had a great City for 
 his episcopal See. His ambition, like that of the 
 bishop of Rome, was kindled by this circumstance. 
 In opposing his pretensions, the Pope had to rein 
 in his own, 
 
 Constantinople had speedily advanced in wealth 
 and power, from the moment that Constantine made 
 it the Imperial City. It aspired to equal the 
 City of Rome. It was often called "New Rome/' 
 It is so entitled by one of the first four General 
 Councils, that of Chaleedon, in a decree which re- 
 gulates the order of precedence in point of dignity 
 
63 
 
 (not power) among the leading bishops. The Pa- 
 triarch is put on a footing with the Pope, expressly 
 on the ground that he was bishop of " New Ronie."(g) 
 This must have been sufficiently galling to the 
 Popes. But the Patriarchs themselves were not 
 content with this. They were resolved, if possible, 
 to be supreme — the very thing which in their 
 hearts the Popes resolved to be. Thus arose a 
 deadly strife between these aspirants for the same 
 unlawful power. What a spectacle for mankind to 
 behold — a fierce contest between the bishops of the 
 two first Cities of Christendom ! Only six hundred 
 years had now elapsed since Christ came, and 
 Christianity was corrupted to this extraordinary 
 degree. The bishop of the old Capital of the Em- 
 pire contending in the West, the bishop of the new 
 Capital in the East — not which could be most like 
 Christ in lowliness and meekness, in purity and 
 goodness, in love and beneficence — but which could 
 stand first in human rank, and worldly dominion. 
 Providence so ordered it, that the Eastern Empire 
 gradually sank ; and with it, as might be anticipated, 
 sank the pretensions of the Eastern candidate for 
 the prize. But whilst the scales were yet evenly 
 balanced, a singular and striking testimony to the 
 unlawful nature of the claim to superiority on the 
 part of either candidate, was rendered to the world. 
 
63 
 
 Pope and Patriarch were equally ambitious — but 
 the Patriarch was the boldest of the two — he was 
 the first to use the title of " Universal Bishop." 
 The moment he committed this audacious act, the 
 Pope of the day, Gregory the Great, ealled him the 
 forerunner of Antichrist. " Whosoever," he said, 
 " shall style himself Universal Bishop will proclaim 
 " that he is the forerunner of Antichrist V* (h) 
 This we have in a letter yet extant, the authenti- 
 city of which is not denied by Romanists, In such 
 a way did the Pope at that time protest against the 
 act of his ambitious rival. But no sooner were they 
 both dead, and the danger seemed small of any 
 future Patriarch's succeeding in establishing his 
 claim, than Pope Boniface hi., within twelve 
 years from the writing of Gregory's Letter, and by 
 the sanction of the new Emperor Phocas, who 
 murdered the previous one and bears an execrable 
 character, assumed the very title of " Universal 
 " Bishop," which was so fearfully denounced by 
 Gregory himself — setting at naught the conclusion, 
 which it is so natural to draw from Gregory's 
 Caiaphas-like words, that the Patriarch of Constan- 
 tinople, when breaking through all bounds of truth 
 and modesty, was indeed the forerunner of Anti- 
 christ, and that the Antichrist had now appeared, (i) 
 But what considerations of shame have ever with. 
 
64 
 
 held men from grasping despotic power, when it was 
 within their reach, and retaining it so long as their 
 slavish fellow-creatures will allow them ? The 
 Popes, from the days of Boniface to the present, 
 have never relinquished the title thus portentously 
 assumed. And doubtless, they never will relinquish 
 it, till Christendom shall awake to a full sense of 
 the degradation and injury inflicted on it by this 
 usurpation, the origin of which it has been so easy 
 a task to point out ; and which, if ever it incidentally 
 served some useful purposes in barbarous and 
 troubled times, has long ceased to produce anything 
 but unmingled mischief. 
 
 The nature and limits of a discourse will not 
 allow us to trace at any length, historically, the 
 growth of the Temporal power, which the Popes 
 added to their spiritual; — by which their su- 
 premacy has been, and is still, mainly supported. 
 We can but touch on it. 
 
 The invasion of Italy, by the Goths and Lombards 
 in succession, contributed to render the bishop of 
 Eome a more important and independent political 
 personage. The Emperor having left the City, the 
 Citizens, when they all became christians, looked 
 up to the Bishop as their chief ruler and protector. 
 He occupied the high place which the Pontifex 
 Maximus had done, whilst the city was pagan, In 
 
65 
 
 imitation of the Chief Pontiff, he surrounded himself 
 with a College of Cardinals, who filled the place 
 which the college of inferior Pontiffs and that of 
 Flamens had done in the days of Heathenism, (k) 
 Fully aware of the advantages he enjoyed, he 
 struggled to deliver himself altogether from the 
 power of his lawful Sovereign, the Emperor, — 
 more especially because he and the Emperor were 
 continually at variance respecting image-worship, 
 which the bishop, T blush to say, was the party 
 to advocate. This deliverance was not a very diffi- 
 cult achievement. The Emperor's power in Italy 
 was broken by the Barbarians, who, after they were 
 converted to Christianity, began to regard the Pope 
 with great veneration. Pepin, Mayor of the palace 
 to the King of the Franks, put a question to Pope 
 Zachary, as a case of conscience. He asked him, 
 whether he might depose the King on the ground 
 of imbecility, and take the throne to himself. The 
 Pope's principles did not stand the trial. He 
 answered, that Pepin might ! — and from that mo- 
 ment, the new race of kings in France were the 
 political friends and protectors of the Popes. Here 
 began the claim of the bishops of Rome to dispose 
 of kingdoms. (1) Pepin was solemnly anointed king. 
 He repeatedly entered Italy, and saved the Pope 
 from the Lombards. A large territory, called the 
 
(36 
 
 Exarchate of Ravenna, was bestowed on him by 
 the grateful monarch, under the title of the Patri- 
 mony of St. Peter. Here began the temporal 
 dominion of the bishops of Rome. The Emperor, to 
 whom the Exarchate really belonged, remonstrated 
 in vain. His authority was thrown off, and never 
 again acknowledged. Charlemagne, the successor 
 of King Pepin, increased the Pope's power and 
 territory. He came to Rome, and was there 
 sacrilegiously crowned Emperor of the West — the 
 reigning bishop of Rome, Leo iv., thus taking upon 
 himself to wrest the whole Western Empire from 
 its rightful owner. This was in the year of our Lord 
 800, — and from that time the bishops of Rome 
 have occupied a high temporal position in Europe, 
 assuming the privilege not only of crowning Em- 
 perors, but discrowning them also, when it could 
 be asserted that the interests of the church required 
 such an exercise of Divine authority. Such, my 
 brethren, is a slight sketch of the rise and establish- 
 ment of the temporal power of the Popes. It was 
 the fruit of perfidy, (m) No wonder that Popes 
 have assumed to absolve subjects from their allegi- 
 ance to lawful sovereigns, (n) since they thus first 
 absolved themselves. 
 
 I grieve to say, the Popes did not hesitate to 
 support their cause by means of frauds and forgeries. 
 
C7 
 
 This is an accusation which the Romanists do not 
 deny. 
 
 I have already alluded to the formal separation 
 or mutual excommunication, which took place be- 
 tween the Roman and the African churches, in the 
 time of the great Augustine. I did not mention 
 the cause. It was this : — the bishop of Rome pro- 
 duced what he called Canons of the first Council of 
 Nice, which canons gave him authority over other 
 churches. The African bishops sent to the East 
 for authentic copies of all the canons made at that 
 •council. They fouud, as they expected, that those 
 which the Pope produced were forgeries. In the 
 separation that ensued, I leave you to judge, on 
 which party the blame rested — Augustine or the 
 Pope — the African church or the Roman. 
 
 The next notorious instance is that of the false 
 " Decretal Epistles." These pretended to be epistles 
 giving the decrees of early bishops of Rome, sup- 
 porting the pretensions of the later ones, by de- 
 scribing a state of things in the early church 
 similar to that which the Popes had now introduced. 
 There was nothing more advantageous to the 
 Pope's supremacy, than these epistles. They were 
 thought to be genuine, and were appealed to as de- 
 cisive evidence. The times were growing dark. 
 Trouble and disorder reigned through Europe, and 
 
63 
 
 learning decayed. The forgery answered its 
 purpose at the time, though it has since been 
 fully exposed, as the Romanists themselves ac- 
 knowledge (o) 
 
 But the most remarkable and shameless forgery 
 was that of the " Donation of Co-nstantine" This 
 document pretended to be a deed of gift, by which 
 that Emperor, when he was converted to Christ- 
 ianity and removed his Court to Constantinople, 
 delivered up the whole Western empire to the 
 bishop of Rome and his successors. It runs thus : 
 — 4< As ours is the Imperial power, so we hereby 
 " decree that the holy Roman church and the See 
 " of St. Peter, shall be exalted henceforth above 
 " our throne and empire. We ascribe to it Im- 
 " perial Dignity. We declare it superior to the 
 « four Sees of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and 
 " Constantinople. And we confess the Roman 
 " Pontiff to be the prince of all the bishops upon 
 " earth." I am translating to you the words of this 
 celebrated " Donation," as it is contained in a letter 
 from Pope Leo ix. to one of the Eastern Emperors, 
 where the Pope does not scruple to make solemn 
 asseverations of its truth, (p) 
 
 It is certain that the support rendered to the 
 cause of the Pope's supremacy by the frauds and 
 forgeries, of which I have given you a specimen, 
 
69 
 
 •was of the most valuable kind at the time. It is 
 true they are thrown aside at present, — like the scaf- 
 folding of a building, the erection of which has been 
 completed. But what ought we to think of a spirit- 
 ual structure, which needed a scaffolding of such a 
 nature — not merely worldly, but such as the wrorld 
 itself scorns to use ? 
 
 I have omitted the mention of the corruptions, 
 both by way of addition and of mutilation, which 
 the Pope's advocates did not hesitate to introduce 
 into the manuscript copies of the Fathers and other 
 ancient writers. I am afraid of wearying you. Neither 
 is it a pleasing task to make these exposures. 
 
 The establishment of the Monastic and the Men- 
 dicant Orders, though it destroyed the unity of the 
 church, and introduced the most furious divisions, 
 was favourably regarded and cherished by the 
 Popes, for their own ambitious purposes. Desiring 
 to be bishop of bishops, the Pope was the enemy of 
 all other bishops, till he had subdued them. The 
 episcopal order suffered as much injury at his hands 
 as any other. He used the Monks and Friars to 
 do them this injury, and to bring them and their 
 clergy into contempt, so long as they offered a re- 
 sistance. These were his religious militia in every 
 christian country. He gave them immunity from 
 the control and authority of the bishops. He made 
 
70 
 
 them dependent on himself alone. Abbots were 
 thrust into councils to sit with bishops, whom in 
 many councils they outnumbered. Thus the oppo- 
 sition of the episcopal order to the Pope's supremacy 
 was neutralized. He triumphed — but the triumph 
 was purchased at the expence of the peace and 
 unity of the chnrch. From one end to the other, 
 Europe was filled with the stormy, and often worse 
 than stormy, contentions between the secular clergy, 
 as they were called, and the regulars ; in other words, 
 between those who were subject to the bishops, and 
 those who, by the Pope's arbitrary interference, were 
 independent of them, (q) 
 
 Another mode "adopted by the Popes to strength- 
 en and increase their authority, was that of making 
 themselves a Court of appeal. After the eighth 
 century, they carried this to a still greater extent, 
 and became the Fountain of Justice, in a multitude 
 of cases. These cases were called " reserved cases," 
 which none could decide but the " Chief Judge." To 
 extend this power, by facilitating its exercise, they 
 had legates in the different countries, to whom they 
 delegated their authority. And they introduced, 
 where it was possible (though in our own country it 
 met with a steady resistance), the odious and oppres- 
 sive canon law — which Cardinal Wiseman has very 
 gravely assured us, it was the present Pope's pur- 
 
pose to restore in England, by the creation of the 
 new Hierarchy. It is well, that he has spoken out 
 so unguardedly. To be forewarned is to be fore- 
 armed. 
 
 Need I relate to you the political history of the 
 Popes ? It would be long and painful — I can but 
 allude to it. 
 
 Having by all the various means already men- 
 tioned obtained territorial and temporal power, the 
 Popes, under pretence of consulting the interests 
 of the church, began to take an active part in the 
 affairs of Europe. They lost no opportunity of ag- 
 grandizing and enriching themselves, by interfering 
 in the quarrels of Princes. In such quarrels, they 
 were courted by both sides ; and sovereigns, like 
 our own King John, often basely sold the liberties 
 and interests of their subjects, as the price of the 
 Pope's favour. Need I remind you of the terrible 
 weapons, which it was in the power of the Pope to 
 use ? Need I speak of the thunder of Inter diets, 
 by which whole nations were cut off from the offices 
 and consolations of religion ? Need I mention the 
 lightnings of Excommunication, by which monarchs 
 were struck from their thrones, and the ties of 
 society dissolved, at the will of the Pope, as if 
 he were God ? The fiction of the Two Sword&, 
 said to be committed to him, (r) in addition to the 
 
72 
 
 Keys of St. Peter, did him great service in those 
 disturbed and gloomy times, when men were almost 
 glad to have a Despot, who might overawe both 
 princes and prelates. Need I allude to the pride 
 which this despotic power produced in its possessors? 
 Need I tell you of Hildebrand, Pope Gregory vii., 
 at whose palace gates an Emperor of Germany was 
 made to wait in the open air, in the depth of winter, 
 bare-footed and bare-headed, for three days from 
 dawn to sunset, till the Pope deigned to admit him, 
 and restore to him his kingdom ? Need I mention 
 Pope Innocent iii., the instigator of the horrible 
 Crusades, as they were impiously called, against the 
 unhappy Albigenses ? Need I name the Inquisi 
 tion — that secret and dreadful tribunal, by which 
 thousands have been put to death; for questioning the 
 Pope's authority — that tribunal which still exists in 
 the city of Rome ? 
 
 What was theprivate character of Popes, previously 
 to the Reformation — that is, before an ameliorating 
 influence from without was brought to bear upon 
 them ? Was it such as became those, who professed 
 to be the vicegerents and representatives of Christ ? 
 Far, very far, from it ! On the contrary, it was 
 such as to bring Christianity into discredit, and to 
 engender Infidelity. But I cannot go into this ex- 
 tensive subject— iaowever lawful it would be to do 
 
T3 
 
 so, did the time allow it ; for our blessed Lord has 
 said " By their fruits shall ye know them." I must 
 refer you to the pages of history. You must con- 
 sult them for yourselves. You may read history 
 composed by Romanists, to satisfy your minds on 
 this point. No varnish, spread over the vices and 
 crimes of Popes, can hide their real features. 
 
 I have now laid before you, my brethren, suffi- 
 cient evidence, gathered from sources which are of 
 acknowledged purity and authenticity, of the mere 
 earthly origin of the Pope's power. You must by 
 this time be convinced, that the rise and progress 
 of this great Usurpation admit of easy explanation. 
 Every step is painfully plain. There is no need to 
 suppose that it ever had the divine assistance, in 
 order to account for its success. 
 
 And let me call your attention to the important 
 fact, that the doctrine of the Pope's supremacy is 
 one, which has never at any time been universally 
 acknowledged. 
 
 You have already seen, that in the first three cen- 
 turies it was not heard of. In the next three, it 
 was kept in check by the rivalry of the patriarchs 
 of Constantinople, who set up a similar doctrine for 
 themselves. This check being removed when the 
 Emperor Phocas took from the patriarch the title of 
 
74 
 
 '•universal bishop/' and conferred it on Pope Boniface, 
 the Pope's pretensions speedily grew to their full 
 height ; hut never without opposition. A protest 
 from one quarter or another against them, was never 
 wanting. The bishops of our own British church 
 opposed them, at the close of the sixth century* (t) 
 The church of Spain was independent at a still later 
 period. The church of France long maintained 
 what were called " the Gallican Liberties." The 
 Pope had no footing in Ireland, till Henry ii. with 
 Pope Adrian's Brief in his hand invaded it, and 
 subjected it not only to English rule, but to the pay- 
 ment of" Peter's pence." (u) The Waldenses, now 
 called the Vaudois, have never ceased, in the heart 
 of Europe, to " ivitness in sackcloth" against this 
 great usurper, who has taken the place of Christ. 
 And if we look from Europe to the Continent of Asia, 
 there we see the Eastern churches, — the Greek, 
 the Armenian, the Syrian, — maintaining from the> 
 earliest days to our own, an attitude of uncom 
 promising resistance to the claim of the Pope, (x) 
 And returning again to Europe, we behold nearly 
 half of it, in the days of our forefathers at the Re- 
 formation, renouncing with indignation his un- 
 scriptural claim. It is clear, then, that this claim 
 has at no time been an undisputed one. The 
 doctrine of his supremacy is thus demonstrably as 
 uncatholic, as it is unscriptural. 
 
75 
 
 What degree of excuse there might be, for main- 
 taining this doctrine in the miserable times of old, 
 it is not for ns to determine. Those were times 
 when learning was nearly lost — when the Scriptures 
 were in few hands — when barbarism threatened to 
 engulf civilization — and kingly and baronial power 
 seemed incapable of being restrained by the " still, 
 small voice" of the Truth, persuading to meekness 
 and gentleness, to purity and temperance. It may 
 be that God winked at the exercise of a spiritual 
 power, useful for the times, though wanting lawful 
 authority ; — the fact of its wanting such authority 
 not being, perhaps, in all. cases, known to those who 
 wielded it. Let us console ourselves with such a 
 pleasing hope. But what shall we say of the mainte- 
 nance of this unlawful power, since the Reformation? 
 The plea of ignorance can scarcely now be advanced. 
 Who can tell the weight of guilt, which rests on 
 those who still support it? Christianity is injured by 
 them. It is exposed to the sneers of unbelievers. A 
 fraud is branded on its forehead. Truth is set at 
 nought for the sake of power. They who love the 
 truth, and know what a hard battle, under the best 
 circumstances, it has to fight in the world, groan in 
 heart to think, that it should thus be injured by 
 those who should be its defenders. But we must 
 leave its cause in God's hands. We cannot be sum- 
 
76 
 
 siently thankful, that by His mercy, we have been 
 delivered from participating in the guilt, which the 
 continued maintenance of the Pope's supremacy 
 inflicts upon the Religion of Truth. 
 
 But you may ask : How is that continued main- 
 tenance to be accounted for, in so large a part of 
 Europe — considering how much light has flowed in 
 since the Reformation ? 
 
 The answer to this important question will oc- 
 cupy the remainder of my Discourse. 
 
 You must remember, brethren, that possession in 
 this world has ever proved itself to be the strongest 
 of titles. A spiritual Potentate, who has sat on 
 his throne for more than a thousand years, is not 
 easily to be displaced. 
 
 Look at the East, as I said in the beginning of 
 my discourse. There you may see a power sustain 
 ing itself, which is not of God. In spite of all the 
 light which now penetrates the East from the West, 
 the False Prophet of Arabia is still acknowledged 
 as the Prophet of God, by almost as many millions 
 as own the Pope's claim to be the Vicar of Christ. 
 
 11 The times and the seasons are in the hands of 
 God" After the nations of Europe had given them- 
 selves up so long to a blind superstition, subversive 
 
77 
 
 of Christ's sovereignty — after they had refused to re- 
 turn to the simplicity of scriptural and primi- 
 tive Christianity, at the trumpet-call of the Reforma- 
 tion — what could we expect, but that God would 
 leave them yet awhile longer in the darkness and 
 degradation, which they preferred to the offered 
 light and liberty of the Gospel ? 
 
 Remember also, that the Pope is a Temporal 
 Prince as well as a spiritual one. He has a place 
 among the old Monarchies of Europe. His tem- 
 poral power has always been a main stay to his 
 spiritual power. He was " wise in his generation" 
 when he used the " Donation of Constantine," and 
 the false decretals, and other forgeries, for the 
 founding of his temporal kingdom. But he became 
 only so much the more unlike Him, whom he pro- 
 fesses to represent — whose throne is " established 
 " in truth and righteousness.''' 
 
 The Pope's power — both temporal and spiritual — ■ 
 has been so long and intimately bound up with 
 the forms of government, the institutions, the 
 habits, maxims, and customs, (to say nothing of the 
 associations of art,) of the old nations of Europe, 
 that it must necessarily be a work of time and 
 labour, to disentangle or tear them asunder. Pro- 
 bably it will not be done, till the evils flowing from 
 the connection shall become intolerable. 
 
78 
 
 Men are disinclined to cast down a power, merely 
 on the ground of its having originally a bad title. 
 They do not disturb the long-established dynasties 
 of this world on that account. They forget that the 
 Papal Dynasty is one of a very different nature. In 
 this case, it is not merely peace and convenience in 
 the present world, that are concerned ; it is Faith, 
 and Salvation in the world to come. No length of 
 time, no considerations of expediency, ought to 
 weigh, w T hen the everlasting truth is suffering dis- 
 grace and oppression, every moment that the Pope's 
 supremacy is allowed to continue. But men will not 
 readily open their eyes to the distinction between 
 one established power and another. Subtle Roman- 
 ists, like Bossuet, endeavour to blind them to it. 
 
 The governments of Europe are for the most part 
 absolute and despotic. Despotism has an instinc- 
 tive leaning to the Pope. There is, and ever will 
 be, a natural alliance between " popery and arbitrary 
 " power" — as one of our Church Services expresses 
 it. Herein again, the Pope, and He whom he pro- 
 fesses to represent, are essentially unlike. Jesas 
 Christ came to break every chain. And Christianity, 
 as restored by our Reformers, is everywhere tending 
 to put an end to slavery of every kind, bodily, 
 mental, and spiritual. 
 
 The Pope has a vast army of able and zealous 
 
79 
 
 servants in the Romish Priesthood. These are the 
 unwearied supporters of his cause. They have in- 
 calculable power. They crush all inquiry into the 
 nature of his claim. Their cruel vow of celibacy cuts 
 them off from other ties, and binds them the more 
 closely to him. The Monks and Friars are still 
 his devoted slaves. The late Pope by a Bull re- 
 stored the Order of the Jesuits — that order which 
 was formed for the purpose of opposing the Reform- 
 ation — which works in the dark — which in the 
 last century was expelled from Roman Catholic 
 countries, for its intrigues and immoral maxims — 
 and was dissolved by the Bull of a former Pope, 
 Clement xiv. He restored the Order, because, as 
 he expresses it, " the ship of St. Peter could no 
 " longer spare those expert rowers." 
 
 The Pope is the type of priestly power, abstract- 
 edly viewed ; and on this account he finds favour in 
 the eyes of all who love that power. And the love 
 of that power is one of the strongest passions in the 
 human breast. A priest, in the Romish sense, rules 
 over his fellow-creatures in their highest part — the 
 spiritual. He is a mediator, i.e., a supposed ne- 
 cessary medium between the soul and God — an in- 
 dispensable channel of peace and absolution. He 
 stands half way between Earth and Heaven. Our 
 church recognizes n® such priest but Christ. In 
 
80 
 
 Him the whole priesthood, in the strict sense of the 
 word, is merged. But those who think differently, 
 and long for the intoxicating power I have mention- 
 ed, regard the Pope as embodying this power in 
 perfection, — and accordingly support him. 
 
 There are also many who look on him with com- 
 placency, as the centre of unity This is a light, in 
 which he attracts much theoretical regard. They 
 lay it down as a proposition, that there ought to be 
 a centre of unity. A mere theory can have no 
 weight, when Faith is concerned. But in the present 
 case, if we regard expediency alone, this theory 
 fails. For to have a centre of unity, all should be 
 agreed who he is. To set up a monarch with a 
 doubtful title, is to breed a civil war. Now in the 
 Pope's case, universalagreement is impossible. 'Men. 
 who take Scripture for their guide can never ac- 
 knowledge his authority. So that there will be no 
 end to the divisions and calamities which will con- 
 vulse Europe, till this Pretender is dethroned ; and 
 Christ, the rightful Sovereign, and the only true 
 centre of unity, is restored. But till this is seen 
 and felt, the Pope will find favour with the class of 
 visionaries to whom I have alluded. 
 
 In short, whatever attractions the system of Po- 
 pery has, the Pope reaps the advantage of them all. 
 Since by its formalism, its mysticism, its self- 
 
§1 
 
 righteousness, its accommodating spirit, its imposing 
 grandeur, its gorgeous ceremonial, its high antiquity, 
 it captivates various kinds of men, ignorant of that 
 which is better ; it secures to the Pope all these, as 
 his supporters. For he cannot be separated from 
 the system to which he gives his name. He is its 
 key-stone — and they must stand or fall together. 
 The Greed and Catechism of Trent have irrevocably 
 bound him up with all the articles, which constitute 
 the Faith of the church of Home. 
 
 Lastly, you must remember what for the most part 
 is the state of those countries, which submit to the 
 Pope's claim. They have not the means of seeing 
 its fallacy. In Italy and Spain the light of the 
 Reformation was utterly extinguished, by extermi- 
 nating the Protestants. In France the same plan 
 was pursued, as far as possible. Thus the Scrip- 
 tures were banished. And by means of the Con- 
 fessional, the priests still banish them. A bible, 
 or a protestant book on religion, if it finds entrance 
 into Italy or Spain, is speedily discovered, given up, 
 and destroyed. Thus darkness remains. The 
 people are industriously taught to identify Roman- 
 ism with Christianity, Protestantism with Infidelity. 
 They see no alternative, but to adhere to the Pope, 
 or plunge into the gulf of total irreligion. They 
 have learnt, by the terrible example of the first 
 
82 
 
 French Revolution, that religion of some kind is 
 an absolutely essential element of society, for the 
 preservation of order and morality. Till, therefore, 
 they learn also, that there is a religion, and the 
 only true religion, producing the fruits of goodness 
 and happiness, yet without the distinctive tenets of 
 Eomanism, and without a visible head, — they must 
 be expected to adhere to the Pope. We may grieve 
 at this, but we cannot be surprised. 
 
 Brethren, let us not despair of the liberties of 
 mankind. The reasons I have given you why the 
 Pope's power is still flourishing are, indeed, many — 
 the roots of that power strike deep into the pas- 
 sions of human nature — a desire to rule on one side, 
 a desire to escape responsibility on the other, the 
 love of what affects the senses, the dislike of what 
 is spiritual, with many other unsanctified feelings, 
 uphold the system — but let us not despair. God 
 is strong. God is merciful. He will put forth His 
 power ; whether in the use of ordinary means, or 
 by extraordinary interposition, we know not. Christ 
 will vindicate His majesty. He will give honour to 
 the Gospel. He will make it known once more to 
 the nations that lie in darkness and the shadow of 
 death. He will redeem his disobedient and wander- 
 ing people, from this Babylonish Captivity. It can- 
 
83 
 
 not be — with reverence be it spoken ! — that He will 
 suffer His holy religion to be exposed to doubt and 
 scorn, by the perpetual continuance of the present 
 Usurpation, with all its attendant fruits of false 
 doctrine and superstitious practice. The morning 
 will arise — long looked for, the object of many 
 prayers. It may be ushered iu by thick clouds, 
 and even terrible storms. But it will come, in the 
 mercy of God ; — and will disperse the clouds, and 
 put an end to the storms. Then Europe will 
 awake — it will open its eyes to the interested in- 
 ventions of men — it will be weary of the evils which 
 have been inflicted om it in the name of Religion — 
 it will break the chains of the most presumptuous 
 despotism which ever existed — it will accept once 
 more the benign and blessed rule of the Saviour 
 Himself. The Bible will triumph, in the power of 
 Him who gave it, and who never fails to accompany 
 His gift to humble hearts. Then all will be united 
 to Christ and to one another. Yes, my Brethren, 
 Christianity will yet be known in the world as the 
 religion of peace — which it can never be, till peace 
 is based on purity. The very lovers of peace mu3t 
 be the first to contend against falsehood, because 
 whatever is raised on that foundation cannot but 
 fall. There can be no stability, no feeling of 
 security, no mutual confidence and harmony, till 
 
84 
 
 we are all built on the one sure foundation of 
 God's everlasting Word. Meanwhile let us do 
 our part to hasten that blessed time. Let us pray 
 for our benighted brethren. Let us, by God's help, 
 cast all popery out of our own hearts, and adorn 
 and recommend by all christian graces the religion 
 we enjoy in our Reformed Church. And with our 
 dying breath let us repeat to our children the 
 needful words of warning, given us in the text : — 
 " Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways and see r 
 ''and ash for the old paths, where is the good way y 
 " and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your 
 " souls" 
 
NOTES TO LECTURE II. 
 
 (a), p. 53. See Mansi. Concil. T. l.p.35. Biniiis 
 himself, zealous Romanist as he was, confesses that 
 this alludes to metropolitan bishops. " The Council 
 *' of Nice," he says, " and the Council of Ephesus, 
 " follow these Apostolic Canons, decreeing that 
 " every bishop should acknowledge his primate and 
 "metropolitan." (lb. p, 61. E.) 
 
 The English nation acted according to this Can- 
 on at the Reformation, It threw off the yoke of 
 an Italian bishop, and looked up to its own primate 
 and metropolitan as its head, in point of rank. And 
 the power, which the Pope had exercised, of judg- 
 ing ecclesiastics in all cases of offence against the 
 laws of the land, temporal or spiritual, it transferred 
 to the hands in which Scripture directs us to place 
 it, those of the Sovereign. 
 
 (b). p. 53. See Archbishop Wake's "Epistles of 
 the Apostolical Fathers." 
 
 (c). p. 54. Irenaei frag. ep. ad. Vict, ex Euseb. 
 V. c. 24. " When the blessed Poly carp came to 
 " Rome — neither could Anicetus persuade him, nor 
 " he Anicetus. When matters were thus situated, 
 
86 
 
 " they held communion; and Anicetus yielded to 
 f* Polycarp, as a token of respect, the office of con- 
 *' secrating the eucharist in the church ; and at 
 *' length they parted in peace, both those who ob- 
 " served one custom and those who observed the 
 " other/' 
 
 The Romanists lay much stress upon the words 
 of Irenseus — " ob potiorem principalitatem," (some 
 read potentiorem). The original words were written 
 in Greek, but are lost ; and these which have come 
 down to us occur in a later and barbarous Latin 
 translation. But on the very face of them, they do 
 not ascribe an exclusive " principalitas" to Rome. 
 And as I have shewn before (p. 38) "principalitas" 
 and "princeps" had a very different meaning in an- 
 cient times from what they acquired in later ones. 
 It was the want of knowing this difference, we may 
 charitably hope, which led one of the Popes (Boni- 
 face viii), to draw an argument from the opening 
 words of Scripture : " In the beginning God cre- 
 " ated the Heavens and the Earth' 1 which the Vul- 
 gate renders by the Latin, " In principio, <#c." 
 Mistaking "principio" for a word denoting power, 
 he argues, that because Moses did not say, "Inprin- 
 ** cipiis" we may therefore conclude, that God 
 meant the w T orld to be ruled by one Prince, namely 
 the Pope ; not by many ! (Bishop Stillingfleet's 
 "Works, Vol. ii p. 201.) 
 
 Placing so much stress on the words of Irenaeus 
 in one case, why do not the Romanists place as 
 much in another ? Irenaeus says nothing of St. 
 Peter and St. Paul being the Bishops of Rome. 
 He says they founded the Church, and gave the 
 foishopric to Linus. How greedy of distinction is 
 
87 
 
 the Church of Rome, when, in order to boast of the 
 names of St. Peter and St. Paul, she makes them 
 both at one time her own bishops — knowing that it 
 is a rule, which she herself acknowledges, that there 
 cannot be more than one bishop at a time in one 
 diocese. 
 
 See Bishop Marsh's instructive Work, called " A 
 " Comparative View of the Churches of England 
 " and Rome." ch. x. 
 
 (d). p. 65. See the Bishop of Vermont's " Church 
 " of Rome in her primitive purity," ch. xiv ; and 
 Cypriani Op. In his Epistle to Pompeius, Cyprian 
 says : " How great is this obstinacy, how bold this 
 " presumption, to place this human tradition" (pro- 
 duced by Stephen, concerning • the laying on of 
 'hands on heretics'), " before the divine sanction, 
 " forgetting that God is always indignant and 
 " wrathful, whenever human traditions are exalted 
 '* above his precepts.' 7 
 
 (e). p. 58. In the struggle between Damascus 
 and Ursicinus for the bishopric, no less than 130 
 christians were killed in one of the churches, in the 
 course of a single day. 
 
 The Pagan Prefect of the City said sneeringly to 
 Pope Damasus, after his victory, "Promise me the 
 " place of bishop of Rome, and I will forthwith be 
 " a christian." 
 
 The succeeding contests in some cases were so 
 fierce, and destructive of the public peace, that at 
 length the Emperor Honorius decreed, " that for 
 " the future, whenever two should be elected at one 
 " time, neither of these two should be bishop, but 
 " a third should be elected, who had not contended 
 " for the office." 
 
88 
 
 Observe here, not only the worldly character of 
 these elections, but also the power exercised by the 
 Koman Emperors over the persons elected ! 
 
 (e). p. 59. The words of Ammianus Marcellinus 
 are : " When I consider the pomp of the City, I 
 " do not wonder that they who are covetous of that, 
 " should strive with all their might to obtain the 
 " office (of bishop), which, having once acquired, 
 " they are secure that they shall be enriched with 
 " the offerings of matrons, ride about in their 
 " coaches, be gorgeously apparelled, and prepare 
 " such banquets and feasts as exceed those of royal 
 " tables ; who might be truly happy, if, despising 
 " the Greatness of the City, by which they screen 
 " and excuse their doings, they would live after the 
 " example of some provincial bishops, whose great 
 <; abstinence in eating and drinking, together with 
 " the simplicity of their attire, and the modesty of 
 " their behaviour, constantly recommends them as 
 " pure and humble in the sight of God and good 
 " men." 
 
 (f). p, 61. See Archbishop Laud's " Conference 
 " with Fisher," § 25. p. 112, &c. Lond. 1673. 
 
 See also Bishop Stillingfleet's Works, Fo. Ed. 
 Vol. iv. p. 399, in which he defends Archbishop 
 Laud's view of the case of Augustine. 
 
 It is difficult to take any other view, for Pope 
 Boniface, in his Epistle, boasts of the reconciliation 
 he had effected between the African and Roman 
 Churches, and ascribes it to the co-operation of 
 Eulalius, bishop of Carthage ; but the previous se- 
 paration, which had lasted 100 years, he ascribes to 
 the author of all evil — " instigante Diabolo." And 
 Eulalius, in the Epistle he addressed to Boniface 
 
89 
 
 for the reconciliation, did not hesitate to curse those 
 who caused the separation — which curse would in- 
 clude Augustine. 
 
 (g). p. 62. The Council of Chalcedon was held 
 a.d. 451. It is the 4th General Council. Speaking 
 of the dignity accorded to the Bishop of Rome, the 
 council expressly says, that it was on account of 
 the greatness of the City of Rome — " quia urbs ilia 
 imperaret," " because that city was the seat of empire." 
 
 (h). p. 63. Ep. to Emperor Maurice. B. vii. Ind. 
 15., Ep. 33. 
 
 (i). p. 63. It is desirable to keep in mind the 
 fact, that the word " Antichrist" originally Greek, 
 means " in the place of Christ." This may mean 
 one who is against Christ, by assuming His place 
 and authority. 
 
 (k). p. 65. The Pontifex Maximus of the ancient 
 Romans was at the head of their religion. He was 
 consequently a most important personage. The 
 Emperors felt it necessary to bear the title — even 
 the Christian ones, up to Gratianus, as appears 
 from their coins. But the execution of the office, 
 with the title also, as deputy, they gave to a priest. 
 He consecrated the other Pontiffs, who like the 
 Flamens, constituted a Priestly College. The 
 Heathen Pontificate, from the beginning of Rome, 
 lasted a thousand years. It finally fell, under the 
 Emperor Theodosius. The Chief Pontiff could 
 not be judged by the senate or the people ! 
 
 The Popes naturally desired to take the place of 
 the Chief Pontiff, with its powers and privileges. 
 This they succeeded in doing. To do it more easily 
 and effectually, they assumed the very name. For- 
 merly, they wore white linen shoes, in imitation of the 
 
90 
 
 Chief Pontiff. In like manner the College of Car- 
 dinals assumed the red cap in imitation of the Chief 
 Flamen. 
 
 These Cardinals soon displayed an offensive pride. 
 Deacons can be Cardinals (as was Pole in the days 
 of our Queen Mary ; who aspired to marry Elizabeth, 
 which he could have done, as he was not in Priest's 
 orders). These deacons at Kome began to think 
 themselves better than priests elsewhere. The 
 Author of the " Questions on the Old and New 
 "Testament," says : " Because they are ministers 
 "of the Roman Church, they think themselves 
 "more honourable than others, on account of the 
 "magnificence of the City of Rome." 
 
 Jerome, whom the Roman Canons not only style 
 "blessed"like the other Fathers, but "most blessed," 
 rebukes the haughtiness of the deacons and Clergy 
 at Rome, not sparing the bishop. He tells him : 
 " The church of Rome is not to be esteemed differ- 
 " ent from the church at large. Wheresoever there 
 " is a bishop, whether at Rome (the capital) or at 
 " Eugubium (a small Italian City), he is of equal 
 " dignity." (To Evagrius, T. 2.) 
 
 How is this to be reconciled with Popish preten- 
 sions ? 
 
 (1). p. 65. Pope Adrian iv., in the year 1156, dis- 
 posed of Ireland to King Henry ii., on condition of 
 his rendering it subject to the papacy. In the 
 Bull, he assumes that all Islands, which have once 
 received the Christian faith, belong to the Pope, 
 to dispose of as he pleases. Why Islands in par- 
 ticular, he does not say. This Bull, or Letter, is 
 undoubtedly authentic. It is contained in Matt. 
 Paris, and in Giraldus Cambrensis, a contem- 
 porary. 
 
91 
 
 (m). p. 66. See a full account of these painful 
 and shocking transactions in Chanc. Geddes's 
 Tracts (which should be republished). Even Gre- 
 gory, the greatest and best of the Popes, appears to 
 little advantage. He flattered the Emperor Mau- 
 rice whilst alive in fulsome terms, and after his 
 death he equally flattered his execrable murderer 
 Phocas, who made himself Emperor. This Phocas 
 restored the use of Images ; which Maurice, to 
 Gregory's vexation, had wholly abolished. This same 
 Phocas conferred on Pope Boniface, not long after- 
 wards, the title of " Universal Bishop," taking it 
 away from the new Patriarch. 
 
 Doubtless Gregory thought that the interests of 
 the church required him to be a flatterer. How 
 little does this show of a true appreciation of the 
 function of the church — which is, to spread the 
 knowledge and practice of the truth! How little of 
 confidence in Christ s protecting care ! 
 
 Pope Zachary, in a succeeding century, pushed 
 the maxim of doing evil, that good might come to the 
 church, much further ; when he deliberately sanc- 
 tioned, in the name of religion, the deposition of 
 an unoffending King, merely because he had a 
 powerful subject, more fit to rule a kingdom, and 
 more disposed to befriend the Popes. Thus re- 
 bellion was justified for the sake of the church. 
 Thus Popes can dispense with the laws of God. 
 
 Some centuries afterwards, we find Pope Gre- 
 gory vii., or Hildebrand, alluding to Zachary's con- 
 duct in the following language : — " Behold, after 
 " what oracles most of the Pontiffs have excommu- 
 " nicated, some Kings, others Emperors ! Zachary 
 " deposed one King of France, less for the faults 
 
92 
 
 " of this King than for his incapacity ! He put 
 " Pepin in his place, and released the Franks from 
 " their ancient oath!" (Letter to Heriman). A 
 worthy precedent for a Christian Bishop to follow ! 
 (n). p. 66. The Bull by which Pope Pius v. 
 deposed our Queen Elizabeth applies the words of 
 the prophet Jeremiah to Popes in general : " See, I 
 u have set thee up over the nations, and over the 
 " kingdoms, to root up and to pull down, to destroy 
 " and to throw down, to build and to plant." 
 
 The Canonical Epistle of Pope Innocent hi. 
 makes the same impious application of the Prophet's 
 words, to justify the deposition of princes. 
 
 See " Southey's Book of the Church" for an ac- 
 count of the Bulls deposing Queen Elizabeth. There 
 were two such Bulls, issued by two Popes in suc- 
 cession. In each, the Queen was excommunicated 
 as a Heretic and the " servant of wickedness ;" 
 she was deprived of her title to the throne, and her 
 people absolved from their allegiance. 
 
 It is said that these Bulls, deposing the Queen, and 
 thereby affecting the title of her successors to the 
 throne, have been formally suspended by more modern 
 Popes. We know not how that may be. But we 
 know that our Sovereigns are at the mercy of the 
 Popes at any time. They may restore the old 
 Bulls to force, or may issue new ones. And why 
 should they not, when they may see fit to do so ? 
 The Sovereign holds the crown of England on ex- 
 press condition of maintaining the Protestant Faith 
 established in these realms. This in the Pope's 
 estimation is maintaining Heresy. If conscientious 
 and consistent, he must depose such a Sovereign, 
 when he can. Moreover, there are certain broad 
 
kinds, which were taken by the CrowJl^fi&j J&m +> _- «* 
 Church, under Henry viii. and Edward vi^AjeUIilS 
 Roman Church has not given up her right to recovei 
 these, if possible. It is a maxim of that Church, 
 that no time deprives her of her rights. The fol- 
 lowing is the language used by a late Pope, so short 
 a time back as a.d. 1805, in the secret Instructions 
 addressed to his Nuncio at the Court of Vienna. 
 
 " The church has not only endeavoured to pre- 
 ** vent heretics from possessing themselves of the 
 " ecclesiastical property, but she has likewise de- 
 " creed, under pain of the crime of heresy, the con- 
 " fiscation and loss of the property of those who ren- 
 " der themselves guilty. This punishment is decreed 
 " as respects the possessions of individuals, by a Bull 
 " of Innocent iii; and as respects principalities and 
 " fiefs, it is one of the rules of the canon law y Chap. 
 " Absolutes 16, de Haereticis, that the subjects of an 
 " heretical prince became freed from all allegiance 
 " to him, dispensed from all fidelity, from all ho- 
 " mage. Little as we may be versed in history, we 
 " cannot be ignorant of the sentences of deposition, 
 " pronounced by the pontiffs and by the councils 
 "against princes, who obstinately persisted in 
 " heresy. In truth, we are fallen upon times so 
 " calamitous, and of such great humiliation for the 
 " spouse of Christ, that it is not possible for her to 
 " practice, nor expedient to revive, such holy max- 
 " ims, and she is compelled to suspend the execu- 
 " tion of her just severity against the enemies of 
 "her faith." 
 
 Such language, used in 1805, is doubly ominous, 
 when applied, as it inevitably will be, to our own 
 times. No Bull, it appears, grows old. No " holy 
 
94 
 
 maxim" loses its force. The church might always 
 acquire, but is never to renounce ! 
 
 Let England listen, and learn in time ! 
 
 (o). p. 68. Labbe, the learned Romanist, says of 
 the " Decretal Epistles," that " nothing can wash 
 " them white." 
 
 Fleury, the Romish Historian, speaks thus : — 
 " Of all the Forgeries, the most pernicious were the 
 ** Decretals attributed to the Popes of the first four 
 " centuries, which inflicted an incurable wound on 
 " the discipline of the Church, by the new maxims 
 " they introduced for the judgments of bishops, and 
 " the authority of the Pope." He might also have 
 bewailed the deep wound inflicted by such frauds on 
 the Religion of truth. 
 
 Cardinal Bona says : " They were all forged by 
 ''some Spaniard, wider the name of Isidore, 
 " towards the end of the seventh century, with a 
 "pious fraud. They are for the most part full of 
 " vile chronological mistakes." 
 
 Guizot says that they appeared first in the North 
 and East of France, at the beginning of the ninth 
 century. (Hist, de la Civ. en France, Lee. 27.) 
 
 Let us conclude this note on the Decretals with 
 the lively language of Chanc. Geddes. " Our com- 
 11 fort is, that one would not think it possible for 
 " any body to read those Epistles, and afterwards 
 "to doubt of their being supposititious ; for none 
 " can read them and not feel that they are all writ 
 M with one and the same dull pen, and that they 
 " are full of barbarous words and phrases, which 
 " were not known in the ages whenthey were said to 
 H have been written. And though the man who 
 
95 
 
 " forged them, whoever he was, was so much of an 
 " antiquary as to know, that, when they were said 
 " to have been written, the custom was in the date 
 " of letters to name the Consuls of the year, yet so 
 " unfortunate was that poor wretch, as scarce ever 
 ** once to name the right ones." 
 
 (p). p. 68. See Chanc. Geddes's Tract, called 
 " The Grand Forgery displayed." Whilst we 
 grieve over the exhibition of fraud, connected with 
 religion, we cannot but be amused with the ac- 
 count of the absurdities accompanying it. 
 
 Sylvester was Pope, when the conversion, real 
 or pretended, of the Emperor Constantino took 
 place. His " Acts" are said to have been preserved, 
 and appear among the forgeries of the seventh cen- 
 tury. Out of these, Pope Adrian, 400 years after 
 the death of Constantine, relates the following 
 story. 
 
 Constantine, in the year 324, so persecuted the 
 Christians, that Sylvester and his Clergy fled into 
 caves of Mount Soracte. Then the Emperor, hav- 
 ing first barbarously murdered his mother, his son, 
 and his nephew, was seized with a leprosy. He 
 consulted the heathen priests, who told him that 
 nothing could cure him but a bath filled with infants' 
 blood. In compliance with this inhuman prescrip- 
 tion, multitudes of infants were snatched from their 
 mothers' breasts, and about to be immolated. But 
 on the night before that dreadful slaughter was to 
 take place, Constantine had a vision. St. Peter 
 and St. Paul appeared to him, and ordered him to 
 send for Sylvester, who would infallibly cure him. 
 He did so. The Pope was brought out of the 
 caverns, thinking that it was to die. But the Em- 
 
9G 
 
 peror received him most kindly and related the 
 dream ; asking him at the same time, what Gods 
 Peter and Paul were. Sylvester told him that 
 they were no Gods, hut Apostles of the true God. 
 Constantine then asked whether the Pope had any 
 pictures of the Apostles to show him, that he might 
 know whether they were the persons who appeared 
 to him. Sylvester said he had hoth their pictures ; 
 and sent for them. The moment the Emperor saw 
 them he cried out, These are the very persons 
 who appeared to me. Being thus satisfied, he com- 
 mitted himself to Sylvester, who taught him his 
 Catechism, and on the eighth day baptized him — 
 this being the only bath in which he could be 
 healed. 
 
 The Font in which Constantine was thus said 
 to be baptised is minutely and magnificently des- 
 cribed. A great donation is said by Pope Adrian, 
 relying on the " Acts of Sylvester," to have been 
 made to this font. Large grants of territory in 
 various kingdoms are assigned to the Patrimony of 
 St. Peter. Similar grants were made to the 
 Churches, which it is said the Emperor immediately 
 built in honour of his baptism and cure. 
 
 " The settling of rents, " says Geddes, '• arising 
 " out of Estates in Greece, Africa, and Asia, on a 
 " Font, and on Churches in Rome, cannot but look 
 " very strange, until the design is perceived, for 
 " which that is said to have been done ; which was 
 11 to persuade the world, that these payments from 
 " those remote regions were of the nature of tri- 
 " butes, and homages to the Roman See, as their 
 " Mother-church and Font." 
 
 Sylvester, it was told us, was not satisfied, till he 
 
97 
 
 had persuaded the Emperor to call a Synod at 
 Rome, by which twenty canons are said to have 
 been made, the last of which will suffice to shew 
 the character of all : — 
 
 " None shall judge the First See (that of Rome) 
 " because all sees desire, that judgment shall be 
 M administered to them by the First See ; nor shall 
 " the Judge be judged (i. e. the Pope) either by the 
 "Emperor, or by tie whole Clergy, or by Kings, or 
 "by the People"!! 
 
 The " Acts of Sylvester" end with a long tale 
 concerning a Serpent, which desolated the country 
 about Rome, but by the sign of the cross used by 
 Sylvester, was shut up in a certain cave near Rome, 
 with brazen gates, which will fly open of themselves 
 at the Day of Judgment. 
 
 These very Acts of Pope Sylvester are defended 
 as true, by no less a person than Cardinal Baronius, 
 the great Ecclesiastical Historian ! Baronius gives 
 up the " Donation*' as indefensible, but ha stand* 
 by *' Sylvester's Act*" So does Cardinal Pole ! 
 And perhaps Cardinal Wiseman, the Editor of the 
 marvellous " Lives of the Five Saints, canonized 
 in 1839" may do the same. 
 
 Such are some of the chief materials, out of 
 which the power of the Popes was constructed. 
 Such, in a great measure, is the origin of the Pope's 
 supremacy ! " Who can bring a clean thing out of 
 " an unclean ?" 
 
 (q). p. 70. See Prof. Blunt's " Reformation in 
 England," Chap, ii., for a graphic account of the 
 " Regulars and Seculars," and their " schism,— -for 
 " such it was" says the learned Professor. This 
 
98 
 
 " schism," he goes on to say, " spread through the 
 " church like a leprosy. The architecture or orna- 
 " ments of the churches bespoke it. Many of those 
 " grotesque figures, "which are seen to this day de- 
 " corating the spouts of the roof, Or the labels of 
 " the windows, were probably meant as a fling at 
 "the monks/' He considers Dunstan as the 
 founder of the Monastic orders, — the regulars, — in 
 this country. For Dunstan's character, Southey's 
 Book of the Church may be consulted. Langland, 
 the old English poet, was a secular priest, and in 
 his poem of " Pierce Plowman,'' he lashes the re- 
 gulars without mercy. Consult also Hallam's 
 " Middle Ages," Ch. vii. p. % 
 
 (r). p. 71. The Canon Law says : — " We are in- 
 11 structed by the Gospel, that in this power of the 
 " Pope there are two swords, — the temporal and the 
 "spiritual." Many persons maybe so simple, as not 
 to know where they are to find this instruction 
 contained in the Gospel. The Romanists will 
 guide them to it, by taking them to Luke xxii. 38, 
 where they will find that " they, (some of the dis- 
 " ciples,) said unto Jesus, Lord, behold here are two 
 " swords." Our Lord forbade the use of these 
 swords ! Nevertheless, these are the "two swords," 
 the one temporal, by which kings are struck, the 
 other spiritual, by which bishops are subdued ; and 
 this is the sole title to the Pope's possession of 
 them ! 
 
 (s). p. 72. It would fill a volume to describe pri- 
 vate characters of Popes. Let Cardinal Baronius 
 tell us, out of his " Ecclesiastical History," what 
 was their general character in the ninth and tenth 
 centuries. 
 
99 
 
 " What was then the face of the Romish church ? 
 " How deformed ! When harlots, no less power- 
 " ml than vile, bore the chief sway at Rome, and 
 " at their pleasure changed sees, appointed bishops, 
 " and, which is horrible to mention, thrust their 
 "own Gallants into the chair of St. Peter, — false 
 " Popes, who would not have been mentioned, but 
 " for the more distinct recording of the succession." 
 (What is the worth of a succession which is said to 
 have been thus preserved ? Can any one be sure 
 that it was really preserved, and that the Popes 
 were duly consecrated ?) Baronius presently con- 
 tinues : — " Christ was then, it seems, in a very deep 
 " sleep, — And what was worse, while he was asleep* 
 " there were no disciples to awaken him; being them- 
 " selves all fast asleep. What kind of Cardinals, 
 " Presbyters, and Deacons, can we suppose to be 
 " chosen by these Monsters" (the Popes of two cen- 
 turies) " since nothing is so natural, as that every 
 " one should propagate his own likeness T 
 
 This is the evidence of a zealous Romanist, con- 
 cerning the supposed Representatives of Christ 
 during the space of two hundred years ! 
 
 Genebrard, the Romish Historian, bears similar 
 testimony. "For nearly 150 years, about Fifty 
 " Popes, from John viii., who succeeded the holy 
 " Popes Nicholas and Adrian ii., to Leo ix., (who, 
 " called by God as another Aaron, first brought 
 " back from Heaven the ancient integrity of the 
 " Popes to the Apostolic See,) deserted wholly the 
 •' virtue of their predecessors, and were apostate, 
 " rather than apostolic." 
 
 The Saxon Elfric, who lived in those days, gives 
 the true cause of the corruption of manners and of 
 
100 
 
 doctrine, which he himself witnessed : " The priests 
 " or hishops, who ought to have been the pillars of 
 " the church, were so negligent, that they did not 
 " mind the Divine Scriptures.'" (Archbishop Tillot- 
 son's Works, Vol. iii. p. 584. Fo. Ed.) 
 
 Was it much better with the Popes in succeed- 
 ing .centuries, up to the Eeformation ? What, for 
 instance, is the evidence of Matthew Paris in the 
 thirteenth century? He tells us of Grosthead, 
 bishop of Lincoln at that time, inveighing, in a 
 most Protestant manner, against the Pope of the 
 day. " M. Paris gives us the substance of his 
 " dying discourses," says Bishop Newton, " wherein 
 " he proves the Pope to be a heretic, and deservedly 
 " to be called Antichrist." No wonder that the 
 Pope excommunicated him, and that he died ap- 
 pealing from the Pope to the tribunal of Christ. 
 
 The thirteenth century, says Mr. Hallam, 
 (" Middle Ages," chap. 7,) constituted " the noon- 
 " day of papal dominion — extending from Innocent 
 " iii. to Boniface viii. inclusively." Of Innocent, it 
 is enough to say that he was the promoter of the 
 Crusades against the Albigenses. Anything more 
 cruel, more horrible, more disgraceful to humanity — 
 not to mention Christianity — than those Crusades, 
 cannot be conceived. Sismondi's History gives the 
 afflicting details. Innocent's pride was equal to 
 his cruelty. In a letter addressed to the Eastern 
 Emperor, and inserted in the Canons as containing 
 a most certain truth, he uses the following language : 
 4i You ought to know that God made two lights in 
 " the firmament of heaven, the greater light to rule 
 " the day, and the lesser light to rule the night ; 
 " both great, but one greater. In the firmament of 
 
101 
 
 " heaven, therefore, that is, in the universal church, 
 " God made two great lights, that is, He instituted 
 " two great dignities, which are, the authority of 
 " Popes, and the power of Kings. But that which 
 " rules over the days, that is, over spirituals, is the 
 " greater ; and that which rules over carnals is the 
 " lesser. So that the difference hetween pontiffs 
 " and kings, is as great as between sun and moon." 
 Cardinal Bellarmine gravely cites this, assenting to 
 it ! Suppose the Eastern Emperor had said :— 
 1 Granting the analogy, how am I to know, that it 
 does not apply to the patriarch of Constantinople, 
 rather than to you, the Pope t — what reply could 
 have been given ? The Pope had succeeded in out- 
 shining his rival luminary — but is success equivalent 
 to the divine sanction ? It might have happened, 
 that the language just quoted had proceeded from 
 the Patriarch — would the illustration in that case 
 have seemed equally convincing ? Would the Pope 
 have confessed, that his adversary was as far exalted 
 above kings, as the sun is above the moon ? 
 
 Yet so abject do men become, under the mysteri- 
 ous and benumbing influence of spiritual tyranny, 
 that no less a man than Sigismund, Emperor of 
 Germany, at a subsequent period, writes thus to a 
 brother-monarch, inviting him to attend the Council 
 of Constance : — " God has placed two luminaries 
 " over the earth, a greater and a less ; by which 
 " the authority of the Pope, and the power of kings, 
 " are designated." No wonder, that, to please the 
 Pope, the Emperor who could thus write broke his 
 solemn promise of protection in the case of Huss, 
 and delivered him up to the flames ! Reason being 
 sacrificed, what should hinder his giving up morality 
 to make the sacrifice complete ? 
 
102 
 
 Of the pride of Pope Boniface viii., the following 
 is a specimen. He put forth a Bull, in which he 
 pronounced all of every rank obliged to attend per- 
 sonally the Boman tribunal, when summoned, — ad- 
 ding : " Such is our pleasure^ who rule the world .'" 
 
 Why should we sully our pages with an account 
 of the personal vices of Pope Alexander vi., or of 
 the more venial fighting propensities of Pope 
 Julius ii. ? Let Card. Bellarmine tell us, what was 
 the condition of Beligion in those days : — " For 
 " some years before the Lutheran and Calvinistic 
 " heresies were published, there was, as contempo- 
 " rary authors testify, no severity in ecclesiastical 
 "judicatories, no discipline with regard to morals, 
 " no knowledge of sacred literature, no reverence 
 *' for divine things ; there was scarce any religion 
 ** remaining." (See Gerdesii Hist. Evang. renov.) 
 Many of the Popes were with good cause suspected 
 of being infidels — some of them secret Jews. 
 
 Bishop Gibson's Codex, Claude's Defence of the 
 Reformation, or even the Romish historians Fleury 
 and Dupin, may be referred to, as furnishing ample 
 evidence, that there is no divine providence shelter- 
 ing Popes from the commission of crimes. Why, 
 then, should they be sheltered from errors? 
 
 Let us conclude this sketch by a quotation from 
 Robertson the historian, describing the Great Papal 
 Schism, which shocked the world in the fourteenth 
 and fifteenth centuries. 
 
 " The long and scandalous schism which then di- 
 " vided the church, had a great effect in diminish- 
 " ing the veneration, with which the world had been 
 •1 accustomed to view the papal dignity. Two or 
 "three contending Pontiffs, roaming about Europe 
 
103 
 
 " at a time, fawning on the princes whom they 
 
 • wanted to gain ; extorting large sums of money 
 " from the countries which acknowledged their au- 
 " thority ; excommunicating their rivals, and curs- 
 " ing those who adhered to them ; discredited their 
 
 • pretensions to infallibility, and exposed both their 
 
 • persons and their office to contempt." (Hist, of 
 Chas. v.) 
 
 Thus the quarrels of Popes prepared men to re- 
 gard the Reformation with complacency. They saw 
 that a visible centre of unity, so called, might be a 
 fountain of disunion. They saw that there was no 
 miraculous interference from heaven, to prevent this 
 disunion from actually taking place. 
 
 Ought not history to teach us to draw the same 
 conclusion? — whatever apparent union there may be 
 in the present day within the Church of Rome, 
 while they have the one great object in view, that 
 of destroying Protestantism — and with it, liberty 
 of every kind ! What meant the saying, a short 
 time ago, in the " Univers," the Journal which 
 speaks the mind of the present Pope and his great 
 Continental supporters: — "Protestantism must be 
 "put down by force of arms?" We may rest as- 
 sured, that a great struggle is at hand; and that 
 no scruple will be felt as to the means used. 
 But we trust in the force of truth, and " the sword 
 "of the Spirit, which is the Word of God." We 
 trust also, that the warnings and instructions of 
 history will not be thrown away upon Protestauts. 
 And most of all, we trust in the mighty aid of God, 
 whose Son we honour in rejecting the Pope's claim, 
 and who has said: — " Them that honour Me, I will 
 " honour." 
 
104 
 
 (t). p. 74. See Bishop Stillingfleet on the British 
 Church, or Fuller's Church History. Seven (as 
 Bedesays) of the British bishops had an interview, in 
 Kent, with Augustine. He required that they should 
 look on the Pope as their chief bishop. They re- 
 plied that they could not do this, having always 
 looked up to their own^— at that time the bishop of 
 Caerleon. This refusal broke off the conference. 
 Thus the Pope's usurpation proved, as it has so 
 often done, the source of disunion. Twelve hundred 
 of the British clergy were soon afterwards slaugh- 
 tered by the heathen Saxons near Chester. The 
 Romish church in England was built on the ground 
 once occupied by the British church ; and which, 
 but for the Pope's assumption, would have been 
 occupied by it again. The Reformed church has 
 but restored the national independence. 
 
 (u). p. 74. See Hume's "History of England," 
 (Hen.ii.) or Bower's "History of the Popes," vol. 6, 
 (Hadrian iv). 
 
 (v). p. 74. See Br. Gilly's " History of the Wal- 
 denses," or Faber's " -Ancient Vallenses." 
 
 (x). p. 74. The present Pope, it appears, is pos- 
 sessed with the ambition of ruling more widely 
 than his predecessors. He has not only ventured 
 on the aggression which England is now resenting, 
 but he has also tried to extend his power over those 
 who belong to the ancient Greek Church. Three 
 years ago he addressed a solemn Pastoral Letter to 
 the members of that church — in which he claims 
 their obedience on the usual ground of his being 
 the heir of St. Peter, and St. Peter's being the 
 Rock on which the church is built. He adduces 
 also the texts concerning the keys, and the inde- 
 
105 
 
 fectibility of Peter's faith, and his having the sheep 
 committed to him. 
 
 This attack upon the Greek church has not been 
 made with impunity. In 1848, there was printed 
 at the Patriarchal press, in Constantinople, " An 
 " Encyclic Letter, to all the orthodox,'' signed by 
 the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Patriarch of 
 Alexandria, the Patriarch of Antioch (since dead), 
 the Patriarch of Jerusalem, and their respective 
 synods. It is true, the Sees of these bishops are 
 now poor and under the civil government of Turks, 
 but the bishops themselves are not the less the re- 
 presentatives of the ancient bishops of those Sees — 
 sees as old as that of Rome itself ; nay in the case 
 of Jerusalem and Antioch still older. 
 
 The four patriarchs complain of the attempt of 
 the Pope to sow division in their churches, by his 
 unscriptural and uncatholic claim. 
 
 " For some time the attacks of Popes in their 
 " own persons had ceased, and were conducted only 
 " by means of missionaries ; but lately he who suc- 
 " ceeded to the See of Rome in 1847, under the 
 " title of Pope Pius ix., published this present year 
 " an Encyclical Letter, addressed to the Easterns, 
 " which his emissary has scattered abroad, like a 
 " plague coming from without." 
 
 They speak of "the Seven (Ecumenical Councils," 
 by which they mean those wbich preceded the 
 Second Council of Nice, where " the worship of 
 '* Images" was established. The Westerns count 
 that Council the Seventh General Council, the 
 Easterns the Eighth. " The lightning of the a- 
 "nathemaof these Councils," say the patriarchs, 
 
 o 
 
106 
 
 " strikes the papacy — because it has adulterated 
 " the Creed by its additions — which the Demon of 
 " Novelty dictated to the all-dariug Schoolmen of 
 " the Middle Ages, and to the bishops of the elder 
 " Home, venturing all things for lust of power." 
 
 Proceeding to a formal refutation of the proposi- 
 tions contained in the Pope's Letter, they say :- - 
 
 " The Church of Rome founds its claim to be the 
 "throne of St. Peter, only on one single tradition; 
 " while Holy Scripture, Fathers, and Councils, at- 
 " test that this dignity belongs to Antioeh ; which, 
 " however, never on this account claimed exemption 
 14 from the judgment of Holy Scriptures, and sy- 
 " nodical decrees." To understand this fully, we 
 must remember, that the Church of Rome herself 
 holds the tradition, that Peter was bishop of Antioeh 
 for several years, before he was bishop of Rome. 
 
 " If the Church of Christ had not been founded 
 " on the rock of Peters confession (which was a com- 
 " mon answer on the part of the Apostles), but on 
 " Cephas himself, it would not have been founded 
 " at all on the Pope, — who, after he had monopo- 
 " Used the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, how 
 " he has administered them is manifest from 
 " history." 
 
 "Our Fathers, with one consent, teach, that the 
 " thrice-repeated command * Feed my sheep* con- 
 " ferred no privilege on St. Peter above the rest, 
 " much less on his successors also ; but was simply 
 " a restoration of him to the Apostleship, from 
 " which he had fallen by his thrice-repeated denial. 
 " And the blessed Peter himself appears thus to 
 "have understood our Lord's thrice-repeated en- 
 M quiry, ' Lovest thou me T and ■ more than these' ; 
 
107 
 
 " for, calling to mind the words, ' Though all shall 
 " be offended because of thee, yet will I never be 
 " offended,' he was grieved, because He said unto 
 " him the third time, ' Lovest thou me ?' " 
 
 " But his holiness says that our Lord said to 
 " Peter, ' I have prayed for thee that thy Faith fail 
 " not, and thou, when thou art converted, 
 " strengthen thy brethren.' Our Lord so prayed, 
 11 because Satan had asked that he might subvert 
 " the faith of all the disciples; but our Lord allowed 
 "him Peter alone, chiefly because he had uttered 
 " words of self-confidence, and justified himself 
 " above the others. Yet this permission was only 
 " granted for a time, in order that when he again 
 " came to himself by his conversion, and shewed his 
 " repentance by tears, he might the more strengthen 
 " his brethren, since they had neither perjured 
 " themselves nor denied their Lord." 
 
 " His holiness says that the bishop of Lyons, 
 " the holy Irenmus, writes in praise of the Roman 
 " Church. ' It is fitting that the whole church, 
 " that is, the faithful every where shall come to- 
 " gether, because of the precedency in this church, 
 " in which all things have been preserved by all the 
 •' faithful, the tradition delivered by the Apostles.' 
 " Who doubts that the old Roman Church was Apos- 
 " tolic or orthodox ? Would any one of the Fathers 
 " or ourselves deny her canonical perogatives in 
 "the order of the Hierarchy, — so long as she 
 " remained governed purely according to the doc- 
 " trines of the Fathers, walking by the unerring 
 "canon of Scripture and the holy synods ?... But 
 " who is so bold as to dare to say that if Irenaeus 
 " were to live again, he, seeing the Church of Rome 
 
108 
 
 " failing of the ancient and primitive Apostolic 
 " teaching, would not himself be the first to oppose 
 " the Novelties, and self-sufficient determination, of 
 "the Roman Church? When he heard of the 
 " Vicarial and Appellate jurisdiction of the Pope, 
 "what would he not say, who in a small and almost 
 " indifferent question, respecting the celebration of 
 " Easter, so nobly and triumphantly opposed and 
 " extinguished the violence of Pope Victor, in the 
 " free Church of Christ? Thus, he who is adduced 
 "as a witness of the supremacy of the Roman 
 " Church, proves that its dignity is not that of a 
 " Monarchy ; nor even of arbitration, which the 
 " blessed Peter himself never possessed ; but a 
 " brotherly prerogative in the Catholic Church, and 
 ** an honour enjoyed on account of the celebrity and 
 "prerogative of the City!" 
 
 In like manner the Patriarchs refer to Clement, 
 and afterwards to other ancient authorities, to over- 
 throw the Pope's claim ; which they do effectually, 
 and in a very dignified manner. 
 
 This Voice from the East comes at a very oppor- 
 tune time — chiming in with that which we of the 
 English Church are raising in the West, in utter 
 denial of the Pope's presumptuous claim. I will 
 not weaken the impression of this solemn Protest 
 by adding any more notes to the present Lecture, 
 but will leave the voices of the four Patriarchs, of 
 Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria, 
 to be the last which sound in the ears of my readers 
 They ought to sound in the ears of the Pope him- 
 self, as voices from the dead, calling him to return 
 to primitive purity and humility. 
 
LECTURE in.* 
 
 THE 
 
 LIBERTY OF THE GOSPEL, 
 
 COMPARED WITH 
 
 THE JEWISH BONDAGE OF ROMANISM. 
 
 Galatians v. i. 
 " Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty wherewith 
 Christ has made us free, and be not entangled 
 again with the yoke of bondage.'* 
 
 St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians seems, from 
 its internal evidence, to have been written princi- 
 pally to guard them against Judaizing teachers. 
 These Judaizing teachers insisted on the Christians 
 being circumcised, whether they were originally 
 Jews or Gentiles. The false principle of this was, 
 that it supposed the law of Moses to be in force 
 
 * This Lecture is printed exactly as it was delivered, the 
 Sunday after the Pope's Bull came out, 
 
 P 
 
110 
 
 under the Christian Dispensation — the Ceremonial 
 Law, as well as the Moral. Now, the teaching of 
 St. Paul, and that of the Gospel, is, that the Cere- 
 monial Law is altogether done away — because types 
 cease, when the antitypes appear — and signs and 
 shadows are of no further use, when the substance 
 signified is actually in our possession. To continue 
 after that to value the types, the signs, the shadows, 
 is to turn the mind from the antitype, the thing 
 signified, the substantial blessing ; and to go back 
 to what the Apostle calls in another place, " the 
 heggarly elements" All, therefore, who taught men 
 that the Ceremonial Law was still in existence, and 
 demanded obedience to it, prevented their seeing the 
 power and glory of the Gospel, and thus did them 
 an irreparable injury. The Jewish rites and cere- 
 monies vanished as the dim mists and morning 
 clouds depart, when the Sun arises with health and 
 warmth in its beams. And as to the other part of 
 the Law of Moses, the Moral Law, St. Paul shews, 
 in opposition to the same Judaizing teachers, that 
 it is not a covenant of life, — though it is, and ever 
 will be, a rule of life. We cannot live by the law, 
 "for by the law is the knowledge of sin ;" and by sin 
 comes death, not life. We are " under the law to 
 Christ." The knowledge of the will of God, re- 
 vealed in the everlasting Law, drives us to Christ, 
 
Ill 
 
 that we may take refuge in Him from the curse 
 of the Law — not from its obligation, but its curse — 
 for " cursed is he who continueth not in all things that 
 are written in the Law to do them." We are all 
 under this curse — we have none of us "continued 
 in all things that are written in the Law" — we have 
 none of us kept the two great Commandments, that 
 of loving God with all our faculties of mind and 
 soul, and that of loving our neighbour with exactly 
 the same love with which we love ourselves ; — we 
 stand self-condemned; and not only self-condemned, 
 but also under God's- condemnation— which is 
 death eternal. What hope of escape have we? 
 Whither shall we flee ? Where shall we hide our- 
 selves from the glory of Him who cannot look upon 
 sin ? We are driven, as I said, to Christ. The 
 Law is thus a " Schoolmaster, to bring us to Christ" 
 The Saviour has done that for us, which we cannot 
 do for ourselves. He, being born by the Holy 
 Ghost of a pure Virgin, had no sin of His own to 
 bear — He kept the whole Law for us during His 
 life — He bore its penalty for us in His death — He 
 bore " our sins in His own body on the tree" — He 
 " was made a sin-offering for us, that we might 
 be made the righteousness of God in Him" in other 
 words, that His righteousness might be imputed to 
 us. Thus the curse of the Moral Law is taken away 
 
from all who are in Christ Jesus. They will not 
 be judged by the Law. All self-dependence is 
 thus removed. Were a man able to keep the whole 
 Law from this time henceforth, yet his having sin- 
 ned once in former times would be his ruin, if he 
 relied upon himself ; for St. James says : — " He 
 that keepeth the whole Law, and yet offendeih in one 
 point, he is guilty of all." Adam died, and brought 
 death on us and all our woe, by one act of disobedi- 
 ence. Away, then, with all idea of justifying our- 
 selves ! If we are not justified by Christ's perfect 
 righteousness alone, which righteousness we lay 
 hold on by faith, woe be to us ; we shall never, 
 never, know the joys of salvation! Christ must be the 
 only hiding place to us, as the cleft of the Rock was 
 to Moses, — when the Glory of God shall pass by, to 
 the destruction of all careless or self-justifying sin- 
 ners, in the Great Day. 
 
 Speaking of this liberty, whereby the conscience 
 is relieved from the fear of death and judgment, 
 consequent on the breach of the Moral Law, as well 
 as from the trammels of the Ceremonial Law, St. 
 Paul says in the text : — " Stand fast in the liberty 
 wherewith Christ hath made us free," This freedom 
 is so delightful and precious in itself, and so ne- 
 cessary to a vigorous progress in holiness, that it 
 is well worth guarding. The word " Stand*' im- 
 
113 
 
 plies that there is need of heing watchful. Standing 
 is the attitude of defence and preparation. When 
 there is nothing to be feared, we sit down, or we 
 stretch our limbs on the welcome bed of sleep. But 
 when there is danger, we retain the upright posture. 
 Thus in another Epistle, St. Paul says : — " Put on 
 the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to 
 stand'' — whereby we are reminded, that it is at 
 once a duty to stand, and a difficult duty. Yes ! 
 my brethren, the liberty wherewith Christ makes 
 us free from the curse of the Law, as a covenant of 
 life, is not a liberty to do nothing, to be idle and 
 slothful, to break the Law, and dishonour the Gos- 
 pel. The Law, i. e. the Moral Law, is still a rule 
 of life, whereby we must guide our conduct. Only 
 we are to do it out of love to Christ, aud not in the 
 proud spirit of the Pharisee, who cried " God, I 
 thank thee that I am not as other men are /" We are 
 to do it by the help of Christ; by the help of that Holy 
 Spirit whom Christ promised to send to all who 
 ask him. " I can do all things through Christ which 
 strengthened me," is to be the thankful confession 
 of our hearts, To Him be all the glory of every 
 good act we perform ! Thus St. Paul says in the 
 13th verse of the chapter before us : — " Brethren, 
 ye have been called unto liberty ; only use not liberty 
 for an occasion to the flesh" And this he interprets 
 
114 
 
 presently afterwards, when he says : — " Walk in the 
 Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh." 
 The enemy, then, against whom in particular the 
 text exhorts us to " stand" in the attitude of vigil- 
 ance and activity, is the flesh. " For the flesh*' the 
 Apostle goes on to say, " lusteth against the Spirit, 
 and the Spirit against the flesh." The flesh is the 
 ally of the world — the flesh is the traitor that de- 
 livers us up to the Devil. Our liberty, then, spoken 
 of in the text, and which we are so carefully to 
 guard, is a spiritual liberty, a pure and holy 
 liberty ; a liberty, not only from the fear of punish- 
 ment, but from the love of earthly things, from the 
 tyranny of the appetites and passions, in short from 
 all that is included under the term " carnal." In 
 this liberty, if we are so happy as to possess it, let 
 us, my brethren, " standfast." We cannot be too 
 careful, too sober, too vigilant, in our defence 
 of it. 
 
 Such I think to be a brief exposition of the 
 meaning and force of the Apostle's exhortation in 
 the text. 
 
 In all ages, this pure and simple liberty of the 
 Gospel has been the object of attack, from persons 
 who either love it not, or understand it not. 
 
 Human wisdom is always busy in adding to the 
 revealed wisdom of God. St. Paul gives us ample 
 
115 
 
 notice that this would happen under the Christian 
 Dispensation, as it had done under the Jewish, 
 where the word of God was made void by rabbinical 
 traditions. He tells us that " his own preaching 
 was not with enticing words of mans wisdom*' and 
 therefore was not acceptable to "the wise after the 
 flesh." To such, he says, it was foolishness. And 
 yet, he declares : " the foolishness ," so to speak, " of 
 God, is wiser than men" — i.e. in the simplest truths 
 of the Gospel, which a child, who is a child in 
 heart, can understand, there is more real wisdom, 
 than in all the subtleties of philosophy, and all the 
 depths of metaphysics. Now it was needful to lay 
 this down, for not many ages elapsed after the Apo- 
 stolic Age, before men thought themselves wiser 
 than God, and despised the simplicity of Gos- 
 pel truth. They took away from Christians that 
 blessed " liberty,"' spoken of in the text, " where- 
 with Christ had made them free!' They did this in 
 two ways — partly by bringing in again the bondage 
 of ceremonies — and partly by obscuring the doctrine 
 of Justification by faith in Christ's merits alone. 
 Thus, in effect, a sort of Judaism was restored — the 
 very thing which the Epistle to the Galatians was 
 written to oppose. But Christians had warning, 
 that the spirit of Judaism would never be extinct ; 
 else why was that Epistle handed down to us ? The 
 
116 
 
 dangers -which the Galatians had to guard against, 
 by " standing fast in their liberty," are dangers to 
 which Christians in every generation are liable, — in 
 substance, if not in the same precise form. There 
 is in all ages a tendency to revive a Ceremonial 
 Law. I do not mean to decry the proper use of 
 decent external observances, but I speak of the ex- 
 orbitant importance attached to particular rites and 
 ceremonies, introduced into the Church of Christ, 
 and then bound as a yoke upon men's consciences, 
 as if they possessed a divine authority. As the 
 Judaizing teachers in St. Paul's day vehemently 
 affirmed, that unless men were circumcised they 
 could not be saved, so there rose up Fathers and 
 Teachers in the Church of Christ, in succeeding 
 days, who insisted with equal vehemence, that all 
 men must implicitly submit to whatever the rulers 
 of the Church might ordain, or custom might 
 establish, on pain of being separated from the 
 Church, and losing salvation. Surely such teaching 
 was Judaism revived, in spirit if not in letter. It 
 was the bondage, in part, against which the Apostle 
 warns us in the text. To imagine that salvation de- 
 pended upon gestures and postures, and vestments 
 of different kinds and colours, to which a mystical 
 interpretation was attached, was to mistake the 
 whole scope and bearing of the Gospel, and to bring 
 
117 
 
 back the yoke and burden of the Jewish law. (a) 
 But the evil went further than this. As there was 
 a Jewish Hierarchy, so there must needs be a 
 Christian. Thus spoke human wisdom — and its 
 voice was louder than "the still small voice of God" 
 in the written word. As there was a visible High 
 Priest, and only one, at the head of the Jewish 
 Church, so there must be a Visible Representative 
 and Vicar of Christ, and only one, at the head of 
 the Christian Church. Thus spoke human wisdom 
 again. He must be the Supreme Pontiff; and 
 when he acts officially, he must be supposed to act 
 infallibly and by inspiration, (b) The inferior 
 Priests were then transformed from being Christian 
 Ministers, the guides of the flock, and the helpers 
 of their faith, into sacrificing Priests, (c) But 
 where were they to find the sacrifices which they 
 were to offer ? Christ, by using bread and wine at 
 the institution of the Last Supper, put an end to 
 the sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb. Much more 
 were all other sacrifices of living creatures abolished, 
 because the blood which alone had real cleansing 
 power was shed upon the Cross. The language 
 used in the Epistles, especially in that to the He- 
 brews, was too plain and full to allow of the restora- 
 tion of animal sacrifices^ What, then, was done ? 
 The very bread which was prescribed to be eaten 
 
 Q 
 
118 
 
 at the Lord's Supper, was declared to be a body ; 
 and not only so, but the very body of Christ, the 
 glorious body which had gone up into Heaven in 
 the sight of all the Disciples forty days after the 
 Crucifixion. In order to have a real sacrifice, this 
 doctrine was introduced ! And any one who 
 doubted or denied it, was cut off from the hope of 
 Salvation. The same penalty awaited any one who 
 dared to enquire into the validity of the title of the 
 new High Priest, the Supreme Pontiff, the visible 
 Head of the Universal Church. Then again, there 
 were Councils held by the Rulers of the Church 
 from time to time, and if these Councils were held 
 with certain conditions, and under certain circum- 
 stances, they were called General Councils (though 
 they seldom numbered more than a few hundreds) 
 and their decisions were accounted unquestionable 
 rules of faith. Men were not permitted, to look at 
 the Scriptures, and compare the decisions of the 
 Councils with the Written Word, and receive them 
 or not, according as they tallied therewith ; (d) 
 they were to bow down to them with the same un- 
 questioning reverence as. to the language of the 
 Apostles. And what was the penalty if they did 
 not ? Excommunication ! — the tremendous effects 
 of which, in a temporal point of view, to say nothing 
 of the supposed spiritual effects, were such as few 
 
119 
 
 could endure the thought of encountering. Thus 
 a new Moral Law sprang up, which was made as 
 binding on men as ever the Ten Commandments 
 had been. Disobedience to the ordinances of the 
 Church was considered as fatal to the soul, as dis- 
 obedience to Christ. Consequently, there were 
 such an infinite number of new sins, unheard of in 
 the Gospel, which men found themselves liable to 
 commit, that they surrendered their consciences in 
 despair into the hands of the Priests — -just as they 
 who walk at night through ways beset with unknown 
 pits, are thankful to trust implicitly to those who 
 profess to be able to guide them.(e) Thus confession, 
 absolution, and penance, took the place of godly 
 living and Christ's pardoning grace. The practical 
 effect of this system of human invention, was to in- 
 duce men to trust to Church ordinances for salva- 
 tion. Thus the great doctrine of Justification by 
 Faith was set aside. The one Mediator between 
 God and man was displaced; or at least His place 
 was shared by a multitude of Mediators. Men were 
 not allowed to "come boldly to the Throne of Grace, 
 that they might obtain mercy, and find grace to help 
 in time of need" — they were to come to the Priest 
 first, and only through him were they to communi- 
 cate with Heaven. And he, alas ! taught them to 
 look to saints, especially the Virgin Mary, for help 
 
no 
 
 in their times of trouble. He exalted her to the 
 Throne of Christ. He obscured the view of the 
 Deity. He even interposed Images. He substi- 
 tuted communion with God through the senses for 
 communion with God through the Spirit. He 
 " taught for doctrines the commandments of men, and 
 made void the Word of God by his traditions." 
 
 I will not continue the list of practical corruptions, 
 and doctrinal ones too, whereby the simplicity of 
 the Gospel was taken away, and its glory darkened. 
 miserable time, which lasted more than a thousand 
 years I O miserable men, who lived in those days ! 
 We, who live in the present day, and in this land 
 of light, we know not our own happiness. We 
 never tasted the misery of our Ancestors, and we 
 feel not the gratitude we ought to feel for the de- 
 liverance which the Eeformation wrought for us. 
 It was a great and marvellous deliverance. When 
 we see how difficult it is for the European nations 
 in general to emancipate themselves even in this 
 age of intellectual illumination, we cannot but won- 
 der that our forefathers, three hundred years ago, 
 should have effected their emancipation. We cannot 
 but say, "It was the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous 
 in our eyes." It was the effect of going back to the 
 Bible, the source of all divine truth- The transla- 
 tion of the Bible and the free reading of it ; the re- 
 
121 J; 
 
 storation of Prayers in the known language of ^Q"R *$\>^ 
 Country ; the flame of piety which spread from 
 bosoms of the Martyrs to the population at large ; 
 the abolition of all useless ceremonies ; the putting 
 of Ceremonies altogether, even those which werere- 
 tained, on their right footing, as used merely for 
 decency and order, and not having any innate virtue, 
 but liable to be changed when it may seem good 
 (as you will see in the preface to your Prayer Book); 
 the destruction of Images and of Altars ; the return 
 to the proper observance of the Lord's Supper, as 
 a commemoration of the One only Sacrifice, oblation, 
 and satisfaction, made by our Blessed Lord on the 
 Cross ; the refusal to acknowledge any Mediator 
 but Him ; the clear view that the Christian Dis- 
 pensation admits of no sacrificing priests ; (f) the 
 re-establishment of the pure doctrine of Justification, 
 whereby a sinner, truly repentant, longing both for 
 pardon and holiness, may go at once to Christ, and 
 wash away his sins in the fountain of His blood, — 
 the fountain both of purification and strength, over 
 which is written, in words addressed to all, " Ho! 
 every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he 
 that hath no money, come ye, buy and eat ; yea, come, 
 buy urine and milk without money and without price " 
 Thus the purchase of masses, to be said for the 
 souls of the living and the dead, was stopped. The 
 
122 
 
 profitable sale of indulgences, whereby purgatorial 
 punishments, the invention of interested men, were 
 to be soothed and shortened, was abandoned. The 
 Sacrament of Penance, by w T hich the soul was given 
 up to the Priest to be pardoned or not as he pleased, 
 was pronounced an unwarranted and horrible as- 
 sumption. The Confessional, that convenient in- 
 strument, by which the Priests were admitted to 
 men's secrets, and thus held them in subjection, 
 was closed. In short, liberty, christian liberty, was 
 restored — and with it true morality and virtue. 
 For the doctrines of the Gospel, uncontaminated 
 with human wisdom, are the only sure basis of 
 morality and virtue. There, all is open, pure, sim- 
 ple, heart-touching. We see in the Gospel the 
 love of Christ — and "that love constraineth its." 
 " We love Him, because he first loved us. v For His 
 sake, we love " the brethren" — we love all "for 
 whom Christ died." God's ministers are honoured 
 by his people for their work's sake. God's people 
 are dear to their ministers, because they are, when 
 living up to their principles, 4< their joy and crown" 
 We, who are your ministers, my brethren, desire 
 not to " have dominion over your faith, but to be 
 helpers of your joy ; for by faith ye stand . " By your 
 personal, individual faith, you must stand before 
 God. We can do nothing for you but guide you to 
 
123 
 
 the foot of the cross. We have no keys to open 
 and shut Heaven, except the keys of knowledge, 
 handed down by the Apostles in the infallible Word, 
 which is sufficient to salvation : out of that word 
 we can tell you, by what means you will attain life, 
 and by what course you will lose it — but further than 
 its authority enables us to go, in opening or shutting 
 the kingdom of Heaven, we neither dare nor wish to 
 go. We say to you, judge for yourselves — by your own 
 judgment you must stand or fall. " Prove all things, 
 holdfast that which is good' 1 Pray for God's help 
 against the deceits of the world, the flesh, and the 
 devil, and then " search the Scriptures" boldly — 
 have no disparaging fears that they will mislead 
 you, if you search humbly and honestly — they are 
 "the power of God, and the wisdom of God," and 
 the Holy Spirit will ever accompany them to "those 
 that are good and trice of heart." Open your eyes, 
 then, my brethren, to the full value and blessedness 
 of the " liberty" you enjoy. Need I tell you, it is 
 Protestant liberty. Never be ashamed of that word. 
 It should be enshrined in every heart and memory. 
 It reminds us that we were once enslaved, as our 
 Church Service for last Tuesday expresses it, by 
 " Popish tyranny and arbitrary power." It must 
 not be given up, for we have need to keep that aw- 
 ful struggle in remembrance, through which our 
 
124 
 
 liberties were recovered. No false kindness to those 
 who in the present day represent the oppressors of 
 our forefathers, should lead us to part with a word 
 which is a needful memorial. If we have exercised 
 too much of this false, yet well-meant, kindness al- 
 ready, the time is come when we are made sensible 
 that it is no longer right to exercise it. Our Christ- 
 ian forbearance and gentleness has been abused. 
 Our silence has been misconstrued. It has been 
 supposed that we have grown indifferent and luke- 
 warm, insensible of our blessings, and ashamed of 
 our Protestantism. It has been proclaimed to the 
 world, as I have before observed, that England no 
 longer values the Reformation ; but is hastening 
 back to the bosom of that corrupt and tyrannical 
 Church, which ruled her before the light of the 
 Gospel shone forth at the Reformation. If any 
 cause has been given for this proclamation, by en- 
 couraging hopes in those who have made it, may 
 God forgive the men who have in any degree afforded 
 such encouragement, and have been instrumental 
 in bringing this insult upon the nation ! May He 
 open their eyes to see the sin they have committed, 
 and the danger which now threatens them. May 
 they who, as one of our bishops recently says, have 
 led their countrymen to the edge of the precipice, 
 be the first to draw back, and warn their followers 
 
125 
 
 to draw back also. My brethren, whatever others 
 do, we must not be asleep on this occasion. We 
 must neither allow ourselves to be deluded, nor mis- 
 represented. We must preserve the faith, and 
 vindicate the fame, of Protestant England. We 
 must rally round our Reformed Church. We must 
 tell the world, in a manner not to be mistaken, that 
 the principles of the Reformation are as dear to us 
 as ever, and that we have no intention of retracing 
 our steps, and giving up the liberty we have enjoyed 
 for three hundred years. In the words of the Apostle, 
 I say to you all : " Stand fast, therefore, in the 
 liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, and be not 
 entangled again with the yoke of bondage." " Stand, 
 having your loins girt about with truth, and having 
 on the breastplate of righteousness, and your feet 
 shod with the preparation of the Gospel of peace ; 
 above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye 
 shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the 
 wicked; and take the helmet of salvation, and the 
 sword of tlie spirit, whieh is the Word of God — 
 praying always with all prayer and supplication in 
 the spirit," and that not only for yourselves, your 
 Protestant brethren, your church, and your country, 
 but also for those who would oppress and enslave 
 you — for we war not against persons, but against 
 principles. " The weapons of our warfare are not 
 
126 
 
 carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down 
 of strong holds, casting down imaginations, and 
 every high thing which exalteth itself against the 
 "knowledge of God." Take Christ's yoke upon you, 
 for " His yoke is easy, and his burden is light." But 
 by God's help keep off every other yoke, whether 
 of evil spirits, over your hearts, or of ambitious 
 men over your consciences. Thank God that your 
 lot has been cast in this free and happy land ; and 
 think it your bounden duty, as the sign of your gra- 
 titude, to leave it as free and happy to your children, 
 as you found it at your birth. If, to do this, it be 
 necessary to endure a painful struggle against those 
 ■who would prevent your doing it, be content to go 
 through that struggle. They who accomplished 
 the Reformation, which made our land what it is, 
 grudged not their lives. And never were truer 
 words spoken than those which a good bishop of 
 our church, in the last generation, used in one of 
 his Charges : 
 
 " What noble examples of constancy unto death 
 " did our holy Reformers set us, in laying down 
 "their lives for the truth! And can that be thought 
 " a matter of indifference, which cost so many lives, 
 " and employed so much learning to establish ? If 
 " we ' cry aloud and spare noV against the unscrip- 
 " tural errors of Popery, we do so, because it is our 
 
1ST 
 
 ** duty; not with a view to excite animosities against 
 " the Papists. If the 'Reformation was worth es~ 
 '•tablishing, it is worth maintaining! And it can 
 44 only be maintained by a constant vigilance in 
 " support of those principles, which effected it in 
 M the sixteenth century." 
 
NOTES TO LECTURE III. 
 
 (a) p. 117. The Preface to our Book of Common 
 Prayer, in that part which is headed : " Ceremonies, 
 -' why some be abolished, and some retained," has 
 the following words : — " Some are put away be- 
 " cause the great excess and multitude of them hath 
 " so increased in these latter days, that the burden 
 " of them was intolerable ; whereof Saint Augustine 
 " in his time complained, that they were grown to 
 11 such a number, that the estate of Christian people 
 " was in worse case, concerning that matter, than were 
 " the Jews. And he counselled, that such yoke 
 " and burden should be taken away, as time would 
 " serve quietly to do it. But what would St. Au- 
 " gustine have said if he had seen the Ceremonies 
 " of late days" (i. e. before the Reformation) " used 
 11 among us ; whereunto the multitude used in his 
 " time was not to be compared ? Thus our exces- 
 " sive multitude of Ceremonies was so great, and 
 u many of them so dark, that they did more confound 
 " and darken, than declare and set forth Christ's 
 " benefits unto us. And besides this, Christ's Gospel 
 " is not a Ceremonial Law (as much of Moses' Law 
 
129 
 
 " was), but it is a religion to serve God, not in 
 " bondage of the figure or shadow, but in the free- 
 " dom of the spirit ; being content only with those 
 44 Ceremonies which do serve to a decent order and 
 " godly discipline, and such as be apt to stir up the 
 " dull mind of man to the remembrance of his duty 
 " to God, by some notable and special signification, 
 " whereby he might be edified." 
 
 Claude, in his excellent " Defence of the Re- 
 formation," has the same sentiments. "Our Fa- 
 " thers,"hesays, speaking of the Reformers, "beheld 
 " the Economy of Moses revived in the world (by 
 " the Romanists). They took especial notice of 
 " their external sacrifices, their solemn feasts, distinc- 
 " tion of meats, of their altars, of their tapers, of 
 " their sacred vessels, of their censings, of their set 
 "fasts throughout the year, of their mystical figures, 
 " and an excessive usage of Ceremonies, This was 
 " without doubt a character very opposite to that of 
 " the Gospel of Jesus Christ, where the spirit rules 
 " and not the letter. St. Peter calls this a yoke 
 " which neither they (who heard him) nor their fa- 
 " thers were able to bear." (Acts xv.) 
 
 The superstitious importance attached to the 
 preservation of ancient rites and ceremonies is 
 based on the false principle, that the Visible Church 
 has always had the guidance of God's Spirit ; and 
 that, therefore, these rites and ceremonies bear a 
 divine sanction, and constitute our bond of union 
 with the church of past days. What is this but the 
 old mistaken view, which confounded Israel after 
 the flesh with the spiritual Israel, There is no 
 mistake more full of mischief in the present day, 
 than this confusion of the Church Visible and the 
 
130 
 
 Church Invisible. It brings men into slavery to 
 the ancient Church, — not into union. 
 
 (b). p. 117. The following passage is extracted 
 from Bishop Patrick's Treatise, entitled, * The 
 Texts examined, cited by Papists to prove the 
 Pope's Supremacy." It shows that the Romanists 
 make the Pope the representative of the Jewish High 
 Priest, and on that ground give him absolute power. 
 
 " The Supremacy stands on such a tottering 
 " foundation, that finding how little the texts in the 
 44 New Testament avail them, they ransack the 
 M Old Testament, to fetch some feeble support to 
 "it from thence. And the late ' Catholic Scrip- 
 44 turist' fancies the Old Testament helps them 
 *' thus far in this point, that it teaches, among the 
 " Priests of the old Law one was chosen successively 
 ** to be the Highest and Chief Priest ; commanding 
 " all such causes as are ecclesiastical causes, to be 
 44 brought to the tribunal of the High Priest, and 
 44 his sentence to be obeyed even under pain of death. 
 44 And for this he alleges Deut. xvii. 8 to 12." 
 
 44 But this only proves how ignorant such Ca- 
 4 'tholics as he, are in the Holy Scriptures; where 
 44 it is impossible for him to find, that the High 
 44 Priests were chosen successively ; for they had 
 44 that dignity by inheritance in one certain family, 
 44 not by election. And as to the power which he as- 
 44 cribes to them, there is not so much as a whisper 
 44 of it, in the place he alleges. The words of which, 
 44 he did wisely not to quote, but only the chapter 
 4 - and verse. For the words speak not a syllable of 
 u the power of the High Priest, but of the authority 
 44 of the Supreme Tribunal, or Court among the 
 
131 
 
 " Jews, which consisted of a great number of 
 44 persons, and from which there was no appeal. 
 44 In which Court the High Priest was so far from 
 44 being chief, that he was not so much as admitted 
 " to be a member of it, unless he was a wise man." 
 
 44 The Court was neither his Court, nor were 
 44 causes judged by his sentence ; nor is there one 
 44 word here of causes ecclesiastical, but only of civil ; 
 H between blood and blood, plea and plea, stroke 
 44 and stroke ; — unless we suppose the word stroke 
 " to relate to the leprosy, which belonged to the 
 " priests to judge of it, but excluded men from 
 "civil society, as well as sacred." 
 
 "By such fine fetches as this, Innocent iii proved 
 "his power over the whole church from these words 
 44 in Deuteronomy. But he did not mince the 
 44 matter, as the ' Catholic Scripturist' doth, but 
 44 stoutly affirmed, that the Pope may exercise tern- 
 44 poral jurisdiction, as well as spiritual, not only 
 44 in the church's patrimony, but in other countries 
 44 also, in certain cases. For Deuteronomy being 
 44 by interpretation a second law, it proves by the 
 44 very force of the word, that what is here decreed 
 44 in Deut. xvii. 8, ought to be observed in the New 
 44 Testament ! And then the place which the Lord 
 44 hath chosen is the Apostolic See, viz. Rome ; the 
 li Levitical Priests are his brethren, the Cardinals ; 
 44 the High Priest or Judge is the Pope, the Vicar 
 44 of him who is a Priest for ever after the order of 
 " Melchisedek, appointed by God, the Judge of 
 44 quick and dead ; the first sort of judgments be- 
 44 tween blood and blood is meant of criminal and civil 
 44 causes; the last between stroke and stroke is meant 
 44 of ecclesiastical and criminal \ the middle between 
 
182 
 
 m plea and plea belongeth to both ecclesiastical and 
 " civil ; in which if any one contemn the sentence 
 " of the Apostolic See, he is doomed to die, that is, 
 ' ' to be cut off by the sentence of excommunication, 
 "as a dead man, from the communion of the 
 " faithful !" 
 
 " Perhaps the Catholic Scripturist will say : 
 " That they now argue from this place only, by 
 " parity of reason, that there must be one High 
 " Priest among Christians, because there was but 
 " one among the Jews. To which we will give an 
 " answer, when they shall prove, that Judea was as 
 ** big as the whole world." 
 
 (c).p. 117. When the Rev. K. W. Sibthorp in 
 the year 1842 took the hasty and ill-considered step 
 (as he has since solemnly confessed it to be), by which 
 he united himself for a time to the Church of Rome, 
 he thought fit to publish his " Reasons" for taking 
 that step. The chief reason appeared to be his 
 desire of seeing the Jewish economy re-produced 
 visibly in the Christian Church. 
 
 Several " Answers" were given to his u Reasons." 
 The most remarkable was that by a converted Jew, 
 Mr. Ridley Herschell, a gentleman of high and un- 
 blemished character. He tells us : — " It was among 
 " Roman Catholics that I first began to inquire into 
 " the nature of Christianity. So long as I continued 
 " in nature 'g darkness, I desired nothing better 
 M than the Jewish Church in which I was born — 
 " ancient, united, and in former times universal, 
 " seeing that there was no true Church but itself. 
 " Its services have a fair shew of devotion ; and it 
 " is not without its appliances for quieting the 
 
133 
 
 a stings of conscience. But when under the pres- 
 " sure of deep affliction, I sought for the consola- 
 " tion this world cannot give, then all was dark ; 
 " between the Holy God and sinful man there 
 " seemed an impassable gulf. In this state of mind, 
 " the providence of God led me for the first time in 
 " my life to read the New Testament. Its perusal 
 w did not set me to seek for a church ; but it led me 
 " to ask the church how I should find that peace, 
 " which Jesus of Nazareth promised. Being then 
 "in a Roman Catholic country, I applied to 
 " ministers and members of that communion. They 
 " were kind and sympathising ; ready to instruct 
 " me, to the best of their ability. But I can truly 
 " say, miserable comforters were they all. Confession 
 "'of sin to a priest brought no sense of God's for- 
 " giving love to my soul. The repetition of Ave 
 " Marias and Paternosters only reminded me of 
 " what I had been taught to use as the remedy for 
 " all evils, temporal and spiritual, the repetition of 
 " the 23rd Psalm. Vigils and fasts I had been ac- 
 " customed to from childhood ; and had too often 
 " felt their inefficacy, to put faith in them as means 
 " of comfort." 
 
 11 Had I found in their church, that which the 
 " New Testament led me to believe that I should 
 " find in Christianity, I would have joined it. I not 
 " only did not find it, but found much that was di- 
 •• rectly contrary to the doctrine of the New Testa- 
 " ment, and therefore I did not join it." Then, 
 addressing Mr. Sibthorp, he says : — " You state, that 
 " the constitution of the ancient Jewish Church led 
 " you to look for a similar constitution in the Church 
 " of Christ. Strong as my predictions were in fa- 
 " vour of that Church in which I was born, I was 
 
 ■ 
 
134 
 
 "led by the perusal of the New Testament to a 
 
 " different conclusion. I find the two dispensations 
 
 " spoken of, much more in the way of contrast, 
 
 " than of resemblance." To prove this, he quotes 
 
 Heb. ix., 10 to 14., x. 19, &c. Speaking of the 
 
 Mediatorial system, he has a remarkable passage : 
 
 " The Jews have many traditions of the awfulness 
 
 " of the sojourn of the High Priest, when he went 
 
 " alone into the most Holy Place ; and allege, that 
 
 " in the time of the second temple, many of the 
 
 " High Priests died there, unable to bear the awful 
 
 " presence of God. With these notions instilled 
 
 " into me from childhood, of the sacred and fearful 
 
 " nature of a direct approach to God, I was predis- 
 
 " posed to receive readily the tidings of any human 
 
 " intercessor, whether priest, saint, angel, or the 
 
 " Virgin Mary. Did I find a hint of any such in 
 
 " the New Testament ? No. Did I find a hint 
 
 " that there is now any need of such ? No. I find 
 
 " that all believers have boldness to enter into the 
 
 " Holiest by the blood of Jesus. The matter is 
 
 " brought forward (in the Epistle to the Hebrews) 
 
 " for the express purpose of marking the contrast 
 
 " between the two Dispensations." As regards daily 
 
 Sacrifices, he says to Mr. Sibthorp : " You state 
 
 " that the consideration o/ the Mosaic Dispensation 
 
 " led you ' look for a church characterized by con- 
 
 " tinual daily sacrifices.' Most certainly the New 
 
 " Testament leads us to no such expectation. 
 
 " There the Holy Ghost, by the pen of Paul, ex- 
 
 " pressly states, that the sacrifices were repeated, 
 
 " yearly and daily, because of their inefficiency to 
 
 " take away sin. Because they were but shadows, 
 
 " therefore there was ' a remembrance again mado 
 
 " of »ns.' Now to this, Christ is brought forward in 
 
I3& 
 
 " the way of contrast. ' Every priest (among the 
 " Jews) standeth, daily ministering, and offering 
 " oftentimes the same sacrifices which can never 
 " take away sins. But this Man, after He had 
 " offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on 
 " the right hand of God.' The ' Lamb of God' has 
 " been slain, therefore the consciences of true 
 " worshippers are purged \ and sacrifices, real or 
 " symbolical, cease to be offered." With regard to the 
 Pope's being the antitype of the Jewish High Priest , 
 Mr. Herschell expresses his surprise, that Mr. Sib- 
 thorp could have fallen into such an error, " from 
 a confusion of type and antitype." The Pope being 
 in the Romish view the visible representative of 
 Chirst, "the representative on earth of the Divine 
 High Priest in heaven," is himself but a type I 
 " So," says Mr. Hershell, " while you profess to 
 " expect in the Christian Church the antitypes of 
 " the Jewish Dispensation, it turns out that after all 
 *' you are merely looking for a new set of types. 'The 
 " Catholic Church,' you tell us, ' stood forth in my 
 " view, the close and perfect antitype of the Church 
 " under the Old Testament/ That is, you state or 
 44 infer : Rome (the city) is the antitype of Jerusa- 
 " lem ; the Pope, of the Jewish High Priest ; the 
 *• priests and deacons, ' of the regularly organised and 
 '• consecrated Priests and Levites ;' the daily mass, 
 " of the daily sacrifice ; the seven sacraments, of 
 " the seven-branched candlestick ; « the magnificent, 
 *' significant ritual,' of that ritual ' every ceremony 
 " of which was symbolic' If the Christian Church 
 " consist of such antitypes as these, it is, indeed, 
 " • the shadow of a shade'." 
 
 Returning to his own experience, when, in severe 
 affliction, and under deep conviction of sinfulness, 
 
156 
 
 he sought a solid comfort and peace with God, which 
 Judaism, robbed of Christ, could not give him, Mr. 
 Herschell says : " I had been accustomed all my life 
 " to a religion of forms, but I saw in the Gospel 
 " of Christ a more excellent way." Then briefly sum- 
 ming up the glorious privileges freely held out 
 to all who believe, he declares: "Of those glorious 
 " privileges of the sons of God, I heard no more in 
 " the Church of Rome, than in the Jewish Church. 
 " The same reliance on outward forms, the same 
 "spirit of bondage, the same twilight of uncertainty, 
 '* characterized the Church I had left, and that with 
 " which I now came into contact. The fundamental 
 " truths of the Gospel are but dimly discernible ; 
 " while many things are held as truths, which con- 
 tradict them." Lastly, as regards the boasted 
 unity of the Romanists in their Church, this im- 
 partial and truly enlightened witness observes : 
 " If outward uniformity he the good a man seeks, he 
 '* may find it in Romanism. There he may find 
 " quiet. The man who is vexed with the noise and 
 " bustle of the st7eet, may in like manner take tip his 
 " abode in the church-yard. The dead are quiet 
 " enough." 
 
 These extracts, from a pamphlet which served 
 its purpose at the day, are worth preserving. 
 Doubtless, Mr. Sibthorp, whose piety and sincerity 
 none ever doubted, now agrees with the sentiments 
 which they so strikingly express. 
 
 (d). p. 118. " General Councils," says our Church 
 Article xxi, " forasmuch as they be an assembly of 
 " men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit 
 " and word of God, may err, and sometimes have 
 
137 
 
 " erred, even in things pertaining unto God. 
 " Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary 
 " to salvation, have neither strength nor authority, 
 " unless it be declared," (i. e. made clear) " that 
 " they be taken out of Holy Scriptures." 
 
 (e). p. 119. The sins which the Church of Rome 
 introduced, that she might bring the people into 
 bondage, are what Luther called " ficta peccata" — 
 made sins — sins arising from " the commandments of 
 men," — such as existed among the Jews in our 
 Lord's time. 
 
 In the confession of Augsburg, drawn up by 
 Melancthon.itis said: "Gerson writes, that many 
 " fell into despair, and some even committed 
 " suicide, because they found it impossible satisfac- 
 11 torily to observe the traditions of the church." 
 Gerson was a Romanist of the fifteenth century. 
 What a deliverance would the true doctrine of 
 Justification by Faith have proved to such persons, 
 had they known it ! 
 
 It was these sins, on which Luther exhorted Me- 
 lancthon to lay little stress in his sermons, and to 
 preach boldly, that even the greatest sins, sins a- 
 gainst God's plain commandments, are freely, and 
 at once forgiven by Christ, when confessed to Him 
 in penitence and faith. 
 
 Melancthon in a letter to Luther, had expressed 
 great uneasiness as to a point of duty which con- 
 cerned a secondary matter. Luther, in his answer, 
 bids him concern himself more with the efficacy of 
 Christ's blood to wash away all sins, than with the 
 size of the sins. In his usual style, he then says : 
 M If you preach of grace, let it be real grace ; if you 
 
138 
 
 *• preach of sins, let them he real sins. Be a 
 " sinner, and sin boldly ; and so much the more 
 " stedfastly trust in Christ." By which words, he 
 clearly means : ' Describe the sinner, as the chief of 
 sinners — let him bring real sins — sins of the 
 greatest magnitude, such as unbelief, — to the mercy- 
 seat. Put yourself in the place of such a sinner, 
 let your convictions of sin be deep, arising from 
 deep offences against the gracious God and Father 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ, then you will preach pro- 
 perly.' Bossuet, and others after him, even in- 
 cautious Protestants, have so dreadfully misrepre- 
 sented Luther, (than whom none could be more 
 moral, as Erasmus confesses) as to suppose that he 
 counselled Melancthon to fall into sin on purpose ! 
 — and that into all kinds of sin ! But this is only 
 one specimen out of many, of the violent mistakes 
 made of Luther's meaning in various passages ; 
 because he spoke strongly, and only to the occasion. 
 See Archdeacon Hare's "Mission of the Comforter," 
 Note w, for a very triumphant defence of that most 
 holy, most pure-minded, man of God, — whom none 
 but those who are themselves pure in mind and 
 heart, can thoroughly understand. 
 
 The false principle of the "ficta peccata," or sins 
 of human making, is this — that they place sins 
 committed against the Visible Church, which is 
 but the hand-maid of Christ, on a level with sins 
 against the Ten Comandments. 
 
 As an instance : when the Visible Church thought 
 fit to prohibit the marriage of priests, and compelled 
 them to take a vow, then the sin of breaking this 
 vow was held greater, than that of breaking the 
 Seventh Commandment. Concubinage was allowed* 
 
139 
 
 A small tax paid into the Chancery of Rome, suf- 
 ficed to cancel the sinfulness. Thus the Law of 
 God was set aside hy the " commandments of men." 
 (See proofs of what is here stated, in Bishop Gib- 
 son's * Preservative," Vol. i. Tit. i. ch. 5.) 
 
 Our Lord reprehended the Pharisees, for setting 
 the Altar of God above the God of the Altar. 
 Thence arose the " fictum peccatum," described by 
 the name of u Corban" — by which it was counted a 
 greater sin to violate the promise made to the 
 Church, than to violate the Fifth Commandment. 
 (Matt, xv., 1 to 9., and xxiii., 16 to 26.) 
 
 We may also mention the vast and arbitrary ex- 
 tension of the prohibition of marriages when they 
 fell within certain degrees of kindred or affinity. 
 This brought the consciences of men into bondage 
 to the Church of Rome. In this, as in other cases 
 of " ficta peccata," " the hearts of the righteous were 
 made sad, whom God had not made sad." The 
 only remedy for the imaginary sins thus committed, 
 was the purchase of the Pope's dispensation. 
 
 Another instance in which the same false prin- 
 ciple is exhibited by the Church of Rome, is that 
 of confounding separation and schism. These are 
 not necessarily, and in all cases, one and the same 
 thing. To cleave to Christ, it may be needful to 
 quit a Visible Church. If so, the separation is not 
 schism. The schisms spoken of by St. Paul, in his 
 1st. Epistle to the Corinthians, were within the 
 Church — so that schism may exist without separa- 
 tion, just as separation may exist without schism. 
 The sin of schism lies in causeless separation, 
 whether outward or inward. On this point, Arch- 
 bishop Laud speaks thus : " A schism must needs 
 
140 
 
 " be theirs, whose the cause of it is. There may 
 '•' be a necessary separation, which incurs not the 
 "blame of schism." (Conf. with Fisher, §21. 1.) 
 And again, " He makes the separation, that gives 
 ** the first just cause of it." (lb. § 21. 2.) But the 
 Church of Rome shuts all out of the pale of salva- 
 tion, who quit her pale. This was the very error 
 of the Judaizing teachers — they were guilty of 
 schism, by including circumcision in the terms of 
 communion. 
 
 ff). p. 121. "Sacrifice is now no part of the 
 Church Ministry y' says (Hooker, Eccl. Pol. B. v. 
 c. 78.) 
 
 And so says our Book of Homilies — "Make 
 " Christ thine own, and apply Him to thyself ; 
 " herein thou needest no other man's help, no other 
 '* sacrifice Or oblation ; no sacrificing Priest ; no 
 " mass ; no means established by man's invention." 
 (Sermon on the Sacrament, 1st. Part — supposed to 
 be Bishop Jewel's). 
 
 Thorndike, Prebendary of Westminster, speaks 
 thus : " As for the Priest's office, from which most 
 " men desire to derive the pre-eminence of the 
 " clergy, it was manifestly peculiar to Israel after the 
 "flesh, and to cease with the same, seeing the 
 " Church hath no other sacrifice, but that one of 
 « Christ upon the Cross." (" On the Right of the 
 Church." p 333. Brewer's Edition, 1840.) 
 
LECTURE IV. 
 
 THE 
 
 CHURCHES OF ENGLAND AND ROME, 
 
 COMPARED AS TO 
 
 THEIR RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 Jeremiah ii. 13. 
 
 u My people have committed two evils; they have 
 forsaken Me the fountain of living waters, and 
 hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can 
 hold no water.'* 
 
 I said in the beginning of my first discourse, 
 that you must be on your guard, when you hear it 
 said, that the difference between the Reformed re- 
 ligion and the Romish lies only in some additions, 
 which the Church of Rome has made to the truths 
 of Scripture, (a) It is true, the difference lies in 
 these additions — but that difference is vital I The 
 
142 
 
 additions made by the Romanists to Scriptnre hare 
 destroyed the simplicity and purity of the Gospel. 
 They are of the character of those additions made 
 by the Judaizing teachers in St. Paul's days, of 
 which I spoke in my last discourse ; and which, ac- 
 cording to the Apostle, were of such a deadly nature, 
 in their effect on the Gospel, that if the Galatians 
 embraced them, " Christ" he said, " would profit 
 them nothing." I am bold to say, my brethren, that 
 the differences which separate us from the Church 
 of Eome, are of this character. They touch the 
 vitality of our religion. I am bold to say, that the 
 causes of disunion among Protestants in general 
 are as nothing, compared with them. No one can 
 more lament Protestant divisions than I do. They 
 not only produce heart-burnings, where nothing but 
 brotherly love should exist, but they prevent our 
 offering such an unbroken front to our common 
 enemy, in the approaching contest, as we ought to 
 offer. They give occasion, also, to the Romanists to 
 contrast our apparent disunion with their apparent 
 unity, (b) But — I desire to repeat — the real differ- 
 ences between the Church of England and her ortho- 
 dox Protestant brethren, are as nothing, compared 
 with the differences between her and the Church of 
 Rome. For these latter are on points of doctrine — 
 and of fundamental doctrine, They affect the 
 
143 
 
 honour of Christ. They concern the whole cha- 
 racter of the Gospel. Now, do I say this of the 
 magnitude of our differences ; and does not the Pope 
 say the same ? Do not the new Cardinal and the 
 new Bishops say the same ? Do not even those un- 
 happy men who have left our communion — in which 
 they so long ministered, and knew so well the 
 honesty, and truthfulness, and tolerant spirit, which 
 characterize our beloved Church, the recollection 
 of which should have hindered their using harsh 
 and contemptuous language towards her — do not even 
 they re-echo the words of their superiors ? Yes, all with 
 one voice proclaim, that we are hopelessly heretical! 
 They declare that the gulf which divides us from 
 themselves is impassable. They treat our Church as 
 non-existent. They speak of England, as having 
 been in a dead and heathen state, ever since the 
 Reformation, (c) Yes ! our beloved Country, which, 
 with all its faults, is the glory of the earth, and the 
 foremost in every great work of love and beneficence, 
 is spoken of as "a heathen country'' — without a 
 church, without bishops, without clergy, without 
 a christian people. I stop not to ask, what manner 
 of spirit they are of, who thus describe a country, which 
 has produced men more worthy to be sainted by 
 mankind, than most of those whom the Church of 
 Borne calls "Saints", and which is at this moment 
 
144 
 
 making such unparalleled efforts to spread the Christ- 
 ian Religion throughout the world ; but I ask : Is 
 not this a confession, that there exists an irrecon- 
 cilable contrariety between the Church of this 
 Country and the Church of Rome ? I only point 
 to the fact, that such a confession is now undeniably 
 made. We thank the Pope and his followers for 
 having made it. We thank them for proclaiming 
 the truth — which deluded men among ourselves, 
 in false charity, have often doubted. There can 
 be doubt no longer. The conduct, and still more 
 the language, of the Roman Church on this occasion, 
 is an acknowledgment, that all efforts to put a con- 
 struction on our Articles and Formularies, which 
 would bring them into anything like agreement 
 with the Catechism of Trent, and the Breviary, and 
 the Creed of Pope Pius iv., have been made in vain. 
 All hopes of union, such as some have fondly and 
 perilously entertained, must now be given up. No 
 position half-way between the Church of England 
 and the Vatican, can be acknowledged by either 
 Church. We rejoice, for the sake of those who have 
 been in such a false position. Unless their spirit- 
 ual health has been irretrievably injured, they will 
 now draw back. And all who have hitherto 
 suspected our church of having any leaning towards 
 Romanism, will be satisfied that their suspicions 
 
145 
 
 were unfounded. In herself, she is clean and un- 
 dented. The principles of the Reformation are 
 still hers. She loves the memory, and adheres to 
 the views, of the Reformers. And that this 
 is the case, we have the testimony of those who 
 hear us no good will, the Romanists. They have 
 done us the greatest service by throwing off all dis- 
 guise, and telling the world that there can be no 
 peace between themselves and us, unless we he 
 entirely changed. Be it so ! — there can be no peace 
 except on that condition, and to that condition we 
 never can agree. Rome cannot change, by her alle- 
 giance to the Council of Trent. We will not change, 
 by our allegiance to the Gospel of Christ. There- 
 fore we must be content, at an interval of two 
 hundred years, to take up the cry of one of our 
 most pious bishops, (uttered in a christian spirit, 
 and having reference to none but christian means 
 of warfare) — " No Peace with Rome !" (d) 
 
 You will ask : What is the explanation of the 
 existence of this vital difference between the two 
 churches ? How was it that the Church of Rome 
 had diverged so far from the Gospel? And how 
 did the Church of England find her way back 
 again? 
 
 The explanation is this : The Church of Rome 
 had " made void the Word of God through her tra- 
 
146 
 
 ditions." The Church of England returned to the 
 Scriptures, as the only source and standard of 
 faith. 
 
 If doctrines are drawn from different sources, 
 you will not wonder that they should be different. 
 
 We affirm, that the Romanists " have forsaken 
 the fountain of living waters, and liave hewed them 
 out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water." 
 
 We drink once more from the fountain of truth. 
 They still drink from thejstream, which has received 
 the impurities poured into it duriug more than a 
 thousand years. They refused to have this stream 
 purified at the Reformation. 
 
 Here then, my brethren, is the whole cause of 
 difference. The Church of England has a single 
 Rule of Faith — Holy Scripture. The Church of 
 Home has a double rule — Scripture and Tradition ; 
 which however, practically and often avowedly, re- 
 solves itself into Tradition alone. 
 
 I must explain to you in what sense the word 
 " Tradition" is used, as here applied to a Rule of 
 Faith. To do this, I must first say, in what sense 
 it is not used. It is not that merely historical evi- 
 dence, by which we are justified in observing certain 
 practices, such as the keeping of the Sabbath on the 
 frrst day of the week, and the baptizing of Infants. 
 We trace these practices, as we do any historical 
 
147 
 
 facts, up to the times of the Apostles, by the 
 evidence afforded us in the writings of the earliest 
 christians, — regarded merely as honest men, who 
 told the truth concerning what was before their 
 eyes, — not as divines, expounding points of doctrine. 
 And we doubt not, that in retaining these observ- 
 ances, we are shewing a proper reverence for Apos- 
 tolic example. It is not on any ground of peculiar 
 authority, supposed to belong to the ancient writings 
 I mention, that we do this ; it is simply because 
 we regard the writers as witnesses worthy of credit. 
 If they had not been christians and yet entitled to 
 such credit, their testimony would have answered 
 the same purpose. 
 
 In like manner, the Tradition from which Rome 
 derives her faith, is not that evidence, on the 
 strength of which we believe the Scriptures of the 
 New Testament to be the genuine writings of the 
 Evangelists and Apostles. Here again, all we want 
 is historical testimony, by which to trace up the 
 books to the Apostles' times. We ascertain their 
 genuineness, as we do that of any uninspired ancient 
 book, such as Caesar's Commentaries or Virgil's 
 ^Eneid. Augustine said : " If I did not put trust 
 in the church, I should not put trust in the Scrip- 
 tures." We say the same. He only meant, that 
 he relied on the honesty of the different churches* 
 
148 
 
 "which possessed copies of the original Scriptures, 
 and by mutual collation of their copies, settled the 
 canon. He was not speaking of a matter in which 
 the churches gave their opinion ; but of a matter of 
 fact, to which they testified. In such a matter, all 
 that is required is veracity. To speak of au- 
 thority in such a case, is to speak of that which 
 would destroy our faith, and would have destroyed 
 Augustine's. If we thought that the early christians 
 had presumed to exercise authority, as if they were 
 invested with miraculous discernment in their de- 
 termination of the canon, we should feel that a 
 heavy blow was inflicted on the canon itself. No ! 
 — they acted only as " witnesses and keepers" on 
 that great occasion, (e) 
 
 Having shewn you, that Tradition, as applied to 
 faith, is not that which is applied to historical 
 facts, let me now explain to you, what it is. 
 
 It is analogous to that which the Jewish Rabbies 
 held to be the Oral Law. They said that besides 
 the written law, contained in the Pentateuch, Moses 
 delivered an oral law, of equal authority, which was 
 handed down by the Rabbies from generation to 
 generation. This oral law is the basis of their Talmud 
 — which is practically their Bible, and which keeps 
 them back from acknowledging their own Messiah. 
 They, like the Romanists, have professedly a 
 
149 
 
 double rule, the written word and the oral law ; 
 but practically, a single one, the oral law alone. 
 Our blessed Lord, you are aware, condemned that 
 oral law, as altogether of human invention, and as de- 
 structive of the Word of God. In spite of this 
 warning, men have ventured, under the Christian 
 Dispensation, to hew out for themselves the same 
 broken cistern. The Church of Rome declares, that, 
 besides what they wrote in Scripture, the Apostles 
 delivered a body of doctrines orally, which was in- 
 tended to be supplementary to their writings, and of 
 equal authority. These doctrines, the Council of 
 Trent says, have been in the uninterrupted possession 
 of the church, from the first, — in exactly the same 
 state in which they have finally brought forth to 
 view, and made binding on the Komanists. The 
 Church of Rome professes to gather them for the 
 most part from the writings of the fathers — -just as 
 the Jews gathered their supposed oral law from the 
 writings of the ancient Rabbies. Why, in either 
 case, the office of writing down the things delivered 
 should be left to the future, with the great proba- 
 bility of loss or corruption in the mean time, and 
 not be performed at the moment when they were 
 delivered, and by those who delivered them, we are 
 at a loss to conceive. It appears to us prima facie 
 inconsistent with the Divine wisdom and goodness* 
 
 u 
 
150 
 
 But they insist on our believing that God pursued 
 this process. It is in vain that we plead the great 
 improbability ; or that] we even turn to the early 
 Fathers, and show out of their works, that there is 
 scarcely any one thing in which they so much agree, 
 as in sending us continually to the Scriptures alone, 
 from which to gather our Faith ! 
 
 Tradition, as a source and rule of faith, is called 
 by the Romanists " the unwritten Word." You 
 must be aware of this, my brethren, otherwise when 
 you hear a Romanist appealing to the Word of God, 
 you may think that he has some Scriptural support 
 for what he says. Though we by the " Word of God" 
 always mean the Scripture, he may mean the " un- 
 written Word," that is, Tradition. It will be well 
 to ask him which he means, the Written, or the 
 Unwritten, lest we should mistake some " com- 
 mandment of men" for a divine precept. 
 
 And when a Romanist uses the phrase " the un- 
 written Word," you must keep in mind what I have 
 mentioned, that he means what was originally not 
 written, but was afterwards, for the most part at 
 least, written by the Fathers. 
 
 That I may not ask you to take my representa- 
 tion on trust, let me now refer you to the Romanists 
 themselves. 
 
151 
 
 " We," says Cardinal Bellarmine (one of their 
 highest authorities) " assert, that the necessary doc- 
 " trine whether of Faith or Morals, is not all ex- 
 pressly contained in Scripture; and therefore, that 
 "besides the Written Word of God, there is a necessity 
 "for an unwritten Word, i. e.tlie divine and apostol- 
 " ical Traditions. But Protestants teach, that all 
 " things necessary to Faith and Morals, are con- 
 " tained in the Scriptures, and therefore, that there 
 " is no need of any unwritten Word/' (f) 
 
 Bossuet, the celebrated Bishop of Meaux, who 
 also is a very high authority among the Romanists, 
 and who tried, as much as possible, to put the 
 tenets of Romanism in a light acceptable to Pro- 
 testants, thus speaks : " We receive with equal 
 "veneration, all that has been taught by the 
 " Apostles, whether in writing or by word of mouth." 
 " Our adversaries should not be surprised, if we, 
 " who are so earnest in collecting all that the fathers 
 " have left us, do preserve the deposit of Tradition 
 " as carefully as that of the Scriptures.' 1 (g) 
 
 But let us hear the Council of Trent on this 
 subject. 
 
 " This Sacred Council, assembled in the Holy 
 " Ghost, (h) and presided over by the three Legates 
 " of the holy see — knowing that the truth is con- 
 «* tained in the written books, and in the unwritten 
 
152 
 
 11 traditions, which having been received by the Ap- 
 " ostles, either from the mouth of Christ himself, or 
 " from the dictates of the Holy Spirit, were handed 
 " down and transmitted to us, — after the example of 
 " the ortfiodox fathers, receives and venerates with 
 " equal affection of piety and reverence all the books 
 "of the Old and New Testament, and also the Tra- 
 " ditions, relating as well to faith, as morals ; inas- 
 " much as coming either from the mouth of Christ 
 " himself, or dictated by the Holy Spirit, they have 
 "been p-eserved in the Catholic Church inuninter- 
 " rupted succession.*' (Sess. iv. 1st. Decree.) (i) 
 
 Then enumerating the canonical books of Scrip- 
 ture, (and including in them the apocryphal books) 
 the council adds : 
 
 " If any one shall refuse to receive these books, 
 " as contained in the ancient vulgate Latin Edition ; 
 " or shall knowingly despise the aforesaid Traditions, 
 " let him be accursed." 
 
 Here, my brethren, we have three points decided, 
 all very momentous, and enforced to be believed on 
 pain of Anathema, namely, the independent and 
 equal authority of the Traditions — the union of tJw 
 Apocrypha with the ancient canon of Scripture, — 
 and the elevation of the Latin Vulgate translation, 
 to a level with the original Hebrew and Greek 
 Scriptures. 
 
153 
 
 So entirely independent is the authority of the 
 traditions, that there are several tenets, articles of 
 faith, which are made to rest on Tradition alone, 
 without any reference to Scripture. 
 
 At the close of the decree of the council, on 
 " Purgatory,'* the doctrine laid down, is declared to 
 be that which was •' handed down by the holy fa- 
 thers and sacred councils.'" Here is no mention 
 whatever of Scripture. 
 
 In the decree on the " Sacrifice of the Mass" for 
 departed souls, we find tradition alone mentioned. 
 
 The same is the case with the decree on the 
 doctrine of *' Indulgences" 
 
 Also, in that which regards the "invocation, 
 veneration, and relics, of Saints, and of Images" 
 we have no mention of Scripture. 
 
 So that it is manifest, from the decrees of the 
 Council of Trent, that tradition by itself is considered 
 a sufficient rule of faith. 
 
 Let me make one quotation more from the au- 
 thoritative documents of the Church of Rome, that 
 yon may have no doubt concerning her views on 
 the subject which engages us. Hear the first two 
 articles of the Creed of Pope Pius iv. 
 
 The first is : "I most firmly admit and embrace 
 " the Apostolical and Ecclesiastical Traditions, and 
 "all other observances and constitutions of the 
 "church." 
 
 * >-> 
 
154 
 
 The second is : "I also admit" (not, " I most 
 ft firmly admit and embrace," — the language grows 
 cold) " the Sacred Scriptures ; according to that 
 " sense, which the holy mother Church, to whom it 
 " belongs to judge of the true meaning and inter- 
 " pretation, hath held and holds ; nor will I ever re- 
 " ceive and interpret them, otherwise than according 
 " to the unanimous consent of the fathers." 
 
 In these two articles, you see, my brethren, that 
 Tradition is put before Scripture, and much more 
 ■warmly acknowledged. And even where Scripture 
 is tardily and coldly acknowledged, there is a proviso, 
 that the person who accepts it as God's Word, shall 
 never presume to judge of its meaning; unless in 
 the sense of holy mother Church, and according to 
 the unanimous voice of the fathers. As the Church 
 of Rome has scarcely ever decided the sense of 
 Scripture, except in cases where she wished to ag- 
 grandize the priesthood, by separating them from 
 the laity, and constituting them the Church, and 
 investing them with almost divine prerogatives ; 
 and as the fathers have scarcely ever been unani- 
 mous (except in the early centuries, when they agreed 
 in the doctrine of the Trinity, and in holding up the 
 Scriptures as the sole rule of faith, and in expecting 
 the Man of Sin to arise, as soon as the power of the 
 Roman Empire should be taken out of the way J ; 
 
155 
 
 under these circumstances we may naturally ask, 
 what profit is to be derived by individuals from 
 " admitting" (the word is almost an insult !) " the 
 Sacred Scriptures f* 
 
 Yet so afraid, even with these restrictions, is the 
 Church of Rome, lest the Scriptures should weaken 
 her influence, if read at all, that the " Congregation 
 of the Index," as it was called, appointed by the 
 Pope and the Council of Trent, to decide what 
 books could not be read with safety, included the 
 Bible in the vernacular tongue ! No layman, by the 
 fourth rule, is allowed to possess such a Bible, 
 without written permission from the bishop, ob- 
 tained through the priest, (k) This prohibition is 
 not put in force, in a Protestant country like ours. 
 But it has not lo3t its force ; and may be brought 
 into action at any time. Meanwhile, it shews the 
 dread which Romanism has of the Written Word. 
 
 In accordance with this feeling of dread, the 
 Romanists have ever disparaged the Scriptures. 
 They call them unintelligible. As if God, by His 
 Holy Spirit could not, or would not, write so as to 
 be understood ! Did not our Lord charge the Jews 
 with sin, because they did not understand what was 
 written? Yet Bellarmine hesitates not to say 
 (and it may serve as a specimen of what they all 
 say) — " The Gospel, when unaccompanied with tra- 
 
156 
 
 " dition, is an empty name, and words without mean- 
 " ing!' (1) Thus you perceive, my brethren, what 
 is the effect of combining tradition with Scripture. 
 Tradition absorbs the whole regard and confidence. 
 Scripture takes the second place — and often is alto- 
 gether overlooked, or even unscrupulously opposed ; 
 as when men " bow down" to images, and when 
 many mediators are introduced, instead of the " One 
 Mediator" being alone acknowledged. Our exami- 
 nation, in my first discourse, of the Pope's claim to 
 be the heir of St. Peter, founded on an imaginary 
 supremacy of that Apostle, and the ease with which 
 his case was refuted, may serve to shew, that the 
 .Romanists have an interest in preventing the read- 
 ing of the Scripture, or if they cannot prudently 
 prevent its being read, then in disparaging it. 
 
 Behold then, brethren, what you must give up, 
 should you be so unhappy as to embrace Romanism. 
 You would no longer be allowed to drink cheerfully 
 and to the full of the fountain of life. If you 
 went at all to Scripture, you would go with fear and 
 trembling. You would read it with other men's 
 eyes. You would judge of it with other men's 
 minds. Your own understanding and conscience 
 would be previously surrendered. Our Lord said : 
 " Search the Scriptures" The Apostle Paul said : 
 " I speak as unto wise men, judge ye what I say" 
 
157 
 
 But the Church of Rome forbids to search the 
 Scriptures; or to judge what was the Apostle's 
 meaning. What said the Cardinal who has stirred 
 up the present strife ■, in the lectures which he de^ 
 livered fifteen years ago ? " There is but one gate 
 (i of entrance into the Church," (meaning his own 
 church) " and that is the gate of absolute, uncon- 
 " ditional submission to the teaching of the church.*' 
 Here we are told what awaits any one, who passes 
 out of the light and liberty of Protestantism, into 
 the darkness and bondage of Popery. At the very 
 moment of making this exchange, he must lay 
 down his mind and conscience, never (m) to be ex- 
 ercised again, in matters of the highest consequence, 
 to the end of his life. 
 
 It is remarkable, that under all religions, where 
 there has been a written book at the beginning, 
 there has grown up in time a system of unwritten 
 traditions, which has at last superseded it. It is 
 the ready device of ambitious men, who desire to 
 speak with authority, aud who fail not to speak to 
 their own advantage. I have already alluded to the 
 Jewish Talmud, and I have reminded you of the 
 way in which our Lord characterized the traditions 
 which compose it. In the Mahometan religion, the 
 same thing has happened, which has taken place 
 in the Christian. An unwritten word is there, as 
 
 v 
 
158 
 
 in the Roman Church, set up against the written. 
 There is the same division between the Turks and 
 the Persians, that exists between the Romanists 
 and the Protestants, The Turks have added tra- 
 ditions, or a pretended oral law, to the Koran — the 
 Persians utterly reject it. (m') The time will not allow 
 me to seek for other instances ; nor is it necessary. 
 It is enough to shew that nothing strange has taken 
 place, in the fiction of a Christian oral law, which 
 has been made in the Church of Rome. 
 
 By such a fiction, united with the convenient as- 
 sumption, that the Church alone has possession of 
 this law, and can infallibly gather it out of the fa- 
 thers when needed, it is plain, that additions may 
 be made to the revealed religion of Jesus to an ex- 
 tent, which shall entirely change the character of 
 the religion. And this is what we charge the Roman- 
 ists with having done, as I have before stated. We 
 charge them with " having made void the Word of 
 God through their traditions,'* after the example of 
 the Jewish Rabbies. And they in their turn, charge 
 us with having cast off Christianity, because we have 
 cast off Tradition. This brings me to lay before you 
 our own confession of faith. It is contained in our 
 Sixth Church Article. 
 
 " Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary 
 H to salvation, so that whatsoever is not read therein, 
 
159 
 
 * nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required 
 " of any man, that it should be believed as an article 
 " of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to 
 ** salvation!' 
 
 Brethren, this is a simple, but noble, confession. 
 Here we see no self-seeking on the part of the 
 Church. Here we see the Church, like Mary the 
 sister of Lazarus, sitting at the feet of Jesus, and 
 hearing Him speak. Scripture is the revelation of 
 Christ. It is the office of the Holy Ghost to " take 
 " of the things of Christ and shew them unto us" 
 which is done in the inspired Word. To that 
 Word we make no addition. What act was ever 
 more bold, and more unfaithful, than that by which 
 the Church of Rome added the uninspired Apocry- 
 pha to the Scriptures ? The Visible Church, says 
 our twentieth article, "is a witness and keeper of 
 Holy Writ' 7 But here was a Church, (if after that 
 she deserves the name) acting the part of a traitor, 
 and invader of that which it was her office to pro- 
 tect ! (n) Let us be thankful that our church has 
 committed no such crime. A list of the canonical 
 books is added to our sixth article, but no Apocry- 
 phal one appears amongst them. When the an- 
 cient, and in part excellent, Apocryphal books are . 
 read by us on week-days, it is only, as our Prayer 
 Book tells us, for moral instruction, not for doc- 
 
160 
 
 trinal. Scripture alone is appealed to for doctrine. 
 And I cannot but beliove, that, if for nothing else, 
 yet for the self-denying renunciation of all dominion 
 over men's faith (o) which is made in the sixth 
 article, and for the confession it contains of the 
 sufficiency and sole supremacy of the written Word, 
 God will continue to defend and bless our Church. 
 For ever thanked and honoured be the Reformers, 
 who drew up, and bequeathed to us, that inestimable 
 Article ! It is the palladium of our Church. 
 
 We depend not, my brethren, on the opinions or 
 characters of men, for the truth of our religion. 
 We derive it not from Cranmer, or Ridley ; from 
 Luther, or Calvin. If those great and good men 
 had faults, it affects us not. They had all one 
 shining virtue, that of sending men to the fountain 
 of truth, not bidding them seek it at their lips. We 
 derive our faith from a source, the purity of which 
 cannot be assailed. What comfort there is in this 
 consideration ! What peace to our minds ! The storms 
 may rage around the characters of the departed — 
 history may reveal infirmities in the best men that 
 ever lived — God may have worked His gracious 
 will, even by ungodly men, who only sought to 
 work their own — but our religion itself is safe — 
 our hopes of immortality are built upon a rock — 
 even on that " Word of God, which liveth and a~ 
 htdeth/or ever" 
 
161 
 
 The first great principle of the Reformation was, 
 that Scripture alone is the rule of faith. But this 
 would have been of little use without another — the 
 right to judge of its meaning for ourselves. There- 
 fore the second great principle was, the right of 
 private judgment. 
 
 Now, in this respect, our church is true to the spirit 
 of the Reformation. For you will observe that the 
 words of the sixth article are these : " Whatsoever 
 " is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is 
 " not to be required that it should be believed as 
 " an article of the faith." In other words, a matter of 
 faith must be either plainly read, or clearly demon- 
 strable, to a sound mind of an ordinary character, as 
 a deduction from what is read. But demonstration 
 and deduction imply the free exercise of reason. It 
 follows, that our church recognizes the right of that 
 free exercise. Nay, she goes further ; for in her 
 excellent Homilies, too little studied, yet not un- 
 suited to these times, she represents it not merely 
 as a right, but as a duty. Would that all men 
 would read and digest the first of her Homilies, 
 entitled, "A fruitful exhortation tathe reading and 
 knowledge of Holy Scripture !" 
 
 It is true, that in one of our church articles, 
 which follows at a considerable distance from the 
 sixth, I mean the twentieth, we find it said : " The 
 
162 
 
 church hath authority in controversies of faith'* 
 But this refers only to disputes occurring among 
 the members of the church, or charges of false 
 teaching brought against her ministers. Every 
 church must have authority to settle disputes, and 
 examine such charges. That nothing more is 
 meant, is clear from the succeeding words : " And 
 " yet it is not lawful for the church to ordain any- 
 " thing that is contrary to God's Word written, 
 " neither may it expound one place of Scripture, 
 " that it be repugnant to another. " To which is ad- 
 ded : " Wherefore, although the church be a witness 
 " and keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to de- 
 " cree anything against the same, so besides the 
 " same, ought it not to enforce anything to be be- 
 lieved for necessity of salvation. ,, Here it is 
 plainly left to all men to judge of the decision made 
 in any " controversy of faith." Every organized 
 religious body mnst have, and exercise, the power of 
 deciding disputes within its own bosom. Every 
 particular church, since the divisions caused in 
 Christendom by the assumptions of the church of 
 Rome, has been compelled to put forth a confession 
 of faith, (like our thirty-nine articles,) by which to 
 distinguish itself from other churches, and to de- 
 clare how it differs from the Roman. Such a con- 
 fession is not a Creed, like that of Pope Pius iv. 
 
163 
 
 It pronounces no sentence of exclusion from ever- 
 lasting life, on those who do not embrace it. (p) 
 Our church, I can boldly say, does not identify her 
 pale with the pale of salvation. Church-member- 
 ship, and union with Christ, are not necessarily the 
 same thing. A particular church has authority 
 over the one, but not over the other. In other 
 words, the Invisible Church gathers its members 
 out of all particular churches, (q) 
 
 It is desirable, on a subject so important as that 
 on which we are engaged, to remove all possible 
 misconceptions. Let me, therefore, allude to a 
 possible misconception of the term " Traditions," 
 when it occurs in our thirty -fourth article. The 
 traditions, there mentioned, are called " Church 
 Traditions." They are not to be confounded with 
 those of which I have spoken, as a rule of faith to 
 the Romanists. Bellarmine divides traditions into 
 divine, apostolical, and ecclesiastical. These last con- 
 cern not faith. They regard rites and ceremonies. 
 Respecting them, the thirty-fourth article thus 
 speaks : " It is not necessary that traditions and 
 ceremonies be in all places one, and utterly like, 
 for at all times they have been diverse, and may be 
 changed, according to the diversities of countries, 
 times, and men's manners." 
 There is also a 'passage of Scripture, in which the 
 
164 
 
 word u Traditions" may be misunderstood. I allude 
 to that where St. Paul says to the Corinthians: 
 " Keep the traditions, as I delivered them." I might 
 quote a similar injunction to the Thessalonians. The 
 truths here meant, are those which he taught whilst 
 he was among them. They were no secrets. They 
 were such as he embodied in his Epistles, (r) He 
 bade his converts keep them in remembrance. So, 
 at Miletus, in the twentieth chapter of the Acts, 
 he bade the assembled elders "watch, and remember" 
 the warnings he had given them during the space 
 of three years. What has this to do with traditions, 
 supposed to be orally handed down ? Our only 
 means of knowing what the preaching was, to 
 which St. Paul alludes, is to consult his Epistles. 
 There we shall find it. We are not in the posi- 
 tion of the first converts. Nothing but the assur- 
 ance of a perpetual miracle, worked in every age, to 
 keep a tradition from being lost or corrupted, 
 could satisfy us, that any oral teaching of St. Paul 
 has come down to us, which is not contained in his 
 writings. And why should God work such a miracle, 
 when to have included the matter in those writings, 
 would have made it unnecessary ? Is it not an at- 
 tribute of God to do His mighty works by the 
 simplest means ? Does not St. John tell us, that 
 he * wrote" his gospel, that we " might believe, and 
 
165 
 
 tliat believing, ive might have life /'■ The plan, then, 
 of writing, was meant by God to answer the pur- 
 pose here specified, that of teaching us all things 
 necessary for faith. So that this passage alone of 
 St. John excludes all traditions, independent of 
 Scripture, from having any connection mih faith. 
 No essential thing would be omitted, according to 
 his declaration of the divine intention. All, there- 
 fore that was omitted, was unessential to salvation. 
 The nature of the truths which concern faith in 
 Jesus is such, as would expose them in a peculiar 
 degree to corruption, if intrusted to tradition and 
 not to writing ; for they are humbling to the natural 
 man, — and they require inward purity. Consequently, 
 if men had power over them, they would alter and 
 accommodate them. But even if this were not the 
 case, we could have no confidence in any doctrine, 
 handed down from mouth to mouth for several 
 hundred years before it was committed to writing. 
 Well says a living writer of great ability : " Who 
 " would place as much trust in the genuineness of 
 " some account, which has been transmitted from 
 " mouth to mouth, by popular rumour, from one end 
 " of the kingdom to another, as in a letter that has 
 * been transmitted over the same space ?" (s) How 
 much more true is this, if instead of one kingdom, 
 the account has to pass from mouth to mouth 
 
 w 
 
166 
 
 through many kingdoms, and that for many ages, 
 before it was arrested, and committed to paper ! 
 Now this is exactly the predicament of many, I 
 might say all, of the distinctive doctrines of Rome, 
 which they profess to gather from tradition. We 
 cannot find them in the fathers, who lived in the 
 early centuries. The first time that they appear 
 in writing is, in all cases, long after the death of 
 the apostles — so long, that nothing but a miracle 
 could have ensured their transmission. Let us ex- 
 amine a few cases, and judge what probability exists, 
 that the doctrines have been derived from the 
 apostles " by uninterrupted succession" — the condi- 
 tion attached by the Council of Trent to a true 
 tradition. 
 
 The Worship of Images, we are sure, did not exist 
 in the first three centuries. Many of the fathers 
 distinctly condemn the practice. Even Pope Gre- 
 gory, though he approved of the use of images as 
 memorials, condemned the worship of them. Never- 
 theless, the second council of Nice decreed the 
 worship in the eighth century, (t) And the council 
 of Trent has pronounced that council a General 
 Council, so that it has received the decree. 
 
 In the still higher worship offered to the Virgin 
 Mary, we have still stronger evidence of novelty. 
 Epiphanius, in the fourth century, found some wo- 
 
167 
 
 men offering cakes to her, and inveighed vehemently 
 against them. Speaking of our Lord's addressing 
 her, he says: "Lest any should think that the holy 
 " Virgin was a being of superior excellence, He 
 " called her ' Woman,' as if he had a prophetic re- 
 " gard to those divisions and heresies which were 
 " to take place on the earth." Epiphanius is held 
 in honour by the Church of Rome. 
 
 In the case of the Pope's Supremacy, we have 
 seen how gradually and stealthily it arose, after the 
 first three centuries. The propriety of bearing the 
 title of " Universal Bishop" was a secret to Pope 
 Gregory, as we have seen. 
 
 Most of the fathers held that the saints are not 
 in heaven, but in the blissful place of departed 
 spirits. Consequently, they knew nothing of the 
 doctrine of praying to saints in Heaven, (u) 
 
 The invention of Purgatory was not borrowed 
 from the Greeks and Romans, till the fourth cen- 
 tury. This is plain from Ephipanius's words : 
 '« After death, there is no help to be obtained. The 
 " garners are sealed up, and the time is ended, — 
 " the combat is finished, and the lists are emptied, 
 " and the crowns are given. Such as have fought are 
 " at rest, and such as have not won are gone forth ; 
 " such as have not contended, cannot now arrive in 
 '■< time, and such as have been overthrown are ex- 
 
168 
 
 u pelled ; and all things are clearly finished, after we 
 " have departed hence." (v) 
 
 Transubstantiation was a novelty a thousand 
 years after Christ. Pope Gelasius, five hundred 
 years after Christ, declared, that the substance of 
 the bread remains after consecration, (w) 
 
 These are instances enough to shew, that the 
 doctrines of Rome must have passed from mouth to 
 mouth, if they passed at all, for many hundred 
 years, before they were committed to writing, (x) 
 Who, then, can place the least dependence on them, 
 as real traditions ? Supposing them not to have 
 been mere inventions, who can imagine that they 
 could come down to the fourth or fifth, or some suc- 
 ceeding century, before they were written down, 
 and yet suffer no change ? Brethren, be thankful 
 to God, that your faith, or rather your credulity, is 
 not so severely taxed, as to be required to believe, 
 that accounts passing from mouth to mouth for 
 hundreds of years, can be depended on. Be thank- 
 ful that your faith rests not on such slippery sands 
 as human traditions, pretending to have been divine 
 and apostolic traditions, after such an interval had 
 elapsed from the times of the apostles, that there 
 is no possibility of testing the pretension. God 
 be praised, that we build not for eternity on such 
 a foundation ! 
 
169 
 
 But the Romanists tauntingly ask us : 'If our 
 traditions were novelties and inventions, tell us the 
 precise date when each of them came in' ? This is 
 too much to ask. If I see a person who left me 
 when he was in health, return, after a considerable 
 period, with a wasting disorder, am I to doubt the 
 fact of his having caught the disorder, because I 
 cannot tell the precise time of his catching it ? It 
 is enough for me, that I compare him as he is with 
 what he was, and behold his miserable state. The 
 Egyptians, it has been well said, cannot find the 
 head of the Nile — are they, therefore, to doubt the 
 evidence of their senses, that there is such a river, 
 and that it covers with its descending waters the 
 fields, which before were dry ? But the best answer 
 to this Romish sophism is to be found in our Lord's 
 parable of the tares and wheat. It was in the night, 
 " while men slept*' that there came the enemy, and 
 " sowed the tares J' 
 
 I might now conclude my discourse. I have 
 shewn you the cause of the contrariety between the 
 purified church of this country, and the unpurified 
 church of Rome. The doctrines of the one are 
 drawn from Scripture alone ; those of the other 
 from Scripture and tradition combined, or in the 
 case of the distinctive doctrines, from tradition with- 
 out Scripture, and even in opposition to it. I have 
 
170 
 
 shewn you what sort of dependence can be placed 
 on such a mode of acquiring knowledge, especially 
 in divine things, where faith is concerned, and 
 where the only question should he : " What saith 
 the Lord ? ,f " How readiest thou V 
 
 But I ought to notice, what devices the Koman- 
 ists adopt to evade the force of these arguments 
 against their traditions. 
 
 Pressed by the force of reasonings, and the ma- 
 nifest opposition of these pretended traditions to the 
 teaching of Holy Scripture, they have recourse to 
 the overbearing argument of authority. They at- 
 tempt to silence all reasoning, and crush all enquiry. 
 Hear the language of Cardinal Bellarmine. 
 
 " That is a true tradition, which all former doc- 
 " ters (i. e. fathers) have successively, in their 
 " several ages, acknowledged to come from the Ap- 
 " ostles, and by their doctrine or practices have ap- 
 " proved, and which the universal church owneth as 
 " such; and the reason is, because the universal church 
 " cannot err." 
 
 Knowing that there is not a single tradition on 
 which a distinctive Romish doctrine is founded, 
 which answers the condition of " a true tradition," 
 as described in the first part of this sentence, — 
 that of being acknowledged in uninterrupted succes- 
 
171 
 
 sion by all former doctors, — Bellarmine rests its 
 truth on the unerring decision of the "Universal 
 Church/' by which he means the Church of Rome. 
 Truly, this is a convincing mode of determining a 
 doubtful point : ' It is so, because we say so /* 
 
 Here, brethren, you have the naked assumption 
 of church authority, based on the false pretence of 
 universality. When we take the liberty of investi- 
 gating the existence of that universality, we are 
 stopped with the argument : ' The Church of Rome 
 says, that she is the universal church, therefore she 
 is so.' Her authority, it thus appears, rests on her 
 universality ; and her universality on her authority ! 
 This is the circle or maze, which she compels her 
 advocates to tread. 
 
 Perhaps I may take another opportunity of com* 
 menting further on this convenient assumption of 
 church authority or infallibility, which at once 
 crushes all opposition. If it were true, then the 
 gift of the Scriptures by God to, men, and that of 
 their mental faculties, would, (if we may so speak 
 without irreverence,) be but a mockery, or rather a 
 snare. 
 
 But there is another mode of escape to which the 
 Romanists have recourse, and which appears to 
 pay more respect to reason. It is a modern inven- 
 
172 
 
 tion, unknown to Bellarmine or the Council of 
 Trent. I allude to what is called the development 
 theory, (y) 
 
 By this theory, a Romanist, when pressed with 
 the arguments and proofs which shew the novelty 
 of the distinctive tenets of his church, gives up the 
 position, that the tenets, such as they now are, have 
 have been handed down, uninterruptedly, from the 
 time of the apostles, and may be found in the fa- 
 thers ; and candidly confesses, that there is an ap- 
 pearance of opposition to the tenets formerly enter- 
 tained. But he contends that it is only an appear- 
 ance. The tenets, he says, are really the same — 
 but in the one case they are seen in the germ, or 
 in an immature state ; in the other case, they are 
 seen in their full expansion or development. The 
 modern author, or expounder, of this theory, has 
 laid down rules, by which he supposes that the 
 church guided herself in determining what tenets 
 were truly and legitimately developed. 
 
 It is clear, that this is a device, adopted to suit 
 the age, when an open defiance of the rights of 
 reason is not prudent. It is certain that it is in- 
 consistent with the Trent theory, of traditions 
 coming down, just as they now are, from the 
 apostles' mouths. So that the Romanists must 
 choose, henceforth, between the two. They cannot 
 
173 
 
 stand on both. The very attempt to shift their 
 ground is dangerous. It is an abandonment of their 
 claim to unchangeableness. 
 
 Leaving them, however, to settle this matter 
 among themselves, we may observe, that the ground 
 they now occupy, is one which is occupied in com- 
 mon with Infidelity. The modern Infidels do not, 
 like those of former days, deride the Scriptures — 
 they profess to respect them — but they develope 
 their contents into a system, destructive of Christ- 
 ianity. So that in this case, as in others, Roman- 
 ism, to save itself, has not scrupled to borrow wea- 
 pons from the enemies of religion. 
 
 We are told that it is of salvation to hold the dis- 
 tinctive Romish tenets — the fruits of development. 
 How is it then, that it was not of salvation for men 
 to hold them in ancient times, whilst they were 
 unknown and unperceived, being yet in the germ ? 
 Nay, it is acknowledged, that in some cases, men 
 held opinions contrary to them, and yet were saved. 
 How is this ? Does Christianity differ from age 
 to age ? Or, is it not like its Divine Author, " the 
 same yesterday, to-day, and for ever ? 
 
 Brethren, we will be content to live and die as 
 the ancient Christians did, without holding these 
 new tenets. We have no respect for the Roman 
 Church, — after the investigation we made into the 
 
174 
 
 claim of [her usurping bishop, to rule the world. 
 We suspect every peculiar doctrine held by such a 
 Church. We doubt not that self-aggrandisement, 
 rather than love of the truth, has guided her judg- 
 ment in all cases where our reformers differed from 
 her. We will have none, then, but the old and 
 primitive religion. We discard traditions, develop- 
 ment, and every device, by which men have "added 
 to the Word of God." We fear the curse attached 
 to such an act. We desire to be no wiser than 
 those whom St. Paul, and St. Peter, and St. John 
 taught. We desire no other teaching than what 
 the Oracles of God contain. " One Mediator between 
 God and man" is enough for us. The joy3 of 
 Heaven — the pains of Hell — are sufficient for at- 
 traction or terror, without a Purgatory. We want no 
 sacrifice but Christ's. We will have no High Priest 
 but Him. We worship God alone — and we worship 
 Him with "a reasonable service" — we worship Him 
 as Christ commanded, " in spirit and in truth." 
 Thus we drink the waters of life at the fountain- 
 head ; and we avoid the condemnation which will 
 come on all, to whom the complaint in the text 
 applies : " My people have committed two evils, they 
 " have forsaken Me, the fountain of living waters, 
 ** and have hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, 
 " which can hold no water." 
 
175 
 
 Let me conclude with, the words of one, who, 
 having been inveigled into Romanism, but refusing 
 to prostrate his understanding, was, by the mercy 
 of God, delivered out of it, and gave the world his 
 reasons for returning to our reformed church, in his 
 immortal work, — (i The Religion of Protestants a 
 safe way to Salvation." 
 
 " The Bible," says Chillingworth, " and the 
 " Bible only, is the religion of Protestants. I, for 
 " my part, after a long, and, as I verily believe and 
 "hope, impartial search of the true way to eternal 
 u happiness, do profess plainly, that I cannot find 
 (< any rest for the sole of my foot, but on this rock 
 " only. I see plainly, and with mine own eyes, 
 " that there are Popes against Popes ; councils 
 " against councils ; some fathers against others ; 
 " the same fathers against themselves ; a consent 
 " of fathers of one age against a consent of fathers 
 " of another age ; the church of one age against 
 " the church of another age. Traditive interpreta- 
 " tions of Scripture are pretended ; but there are 
 f few or none to be found ; no tradition, but only 
 " of Scripture, can derive itself from the fountain ; 
 " but may be plainly proved, either to have been 
 " brought in, in such an age after Christ, or that in 
 (t such an age it was not in. In a word, there is no 
 " sufficient certainty, but of Scripture only, for any 
 
176 
 
 " considering man to build upon. This, therefore, 
 11 and this only, I have reason to believe; this I will 
 
 * profess ; according to this I will live ; and for 
 " this, if occasion require, I will not only willingly, 
 w but even gladly, lose my life. Propose me any- 
 " thing out of this book, and require whether I be- 
 
 * lieve it or no, and seem it never so incomprehen- 
 " sible to human reason, I will subscribe it with 
 <c hand and heart ; as knowing that no demonstra- 
 "tion can be stronger than this — God hath said so, 
 " therefore it is true." 
 
NOTES TO LECTURE IV. 
 
 (a) p. 141. Many eminent persons have care- 
 lessly fallen into this light way of speaking of the 
 difference between the two churches, as consisting 
 merely in additions to the truth, made by the 
 Church of Rome. It conveys no adequate idea of 
 the difference, The additions made to the truths by 
 the Church of Rome, are like the addition of drops 
 of poison to pure water. 
 
 The fundamental doctrines of the Gospel, as the 
 Bishop of Ossory has well remarked, are exclusive 
 propositions. Like the first commandment of the 
 Law, they forbid all addition. If added to, there- 
 fore, they are destroyed. For instance — as there 
 is " One God," so there is " One Mediator between 
 * God and man." To add more mediators, is to 
 destroy this fundamental truth. Again — it is the 
 doctrine of Scripture, that we are justified by faith 
 only, through the merits of Christ. To add works, 
 in the way of instrumentality, aud to look to the 
 merits of saints in addition to Christ's, is to make 
 void this doctrine, which our church considers 
 fundamental (See Church Art, xi.) And again — 
 
178 
 
 with regard to the sufficiency of Scripture, as the 
 sole rule of faith, — the addition of traditions nullifies 
 this fundamental truth. (Church Art. vi.) 
 
 Yet the Romanists say, it is safer to belong to 
 their church than ours, since they do but add. Is 
 it safer to drink poisoned water, than that which is 
 pure ? Would a man, living in Palestine, prefer 
 to draw from the Jordan, after it falls into the 
 Dead Sea ? 
 
 They say also : ' Where was your religion, before 
 the Reformation ?' We ask, in reply : Where was 
 our water, before it was filtered and purified ? 
 
 In like manner, we might reply : Where was our 
 garden, before it was weeded ? Or — where was our 
 Parliament, before it was reformed ? 
 
 If we are asked : Where was Protestantism 
 before the protest at Spires ? — we answer : In the 
 Scriptures. Protestantism is Christianity without 
 Eomanism ; and this Christianity is in the Scrip- 
 tures. A Protestant is one who, through going to 
 the Scriptures, rejects Popery. 
 
 (b) p. 142. The learned and pious Bishop Hall, 
 who defended Episcopacy in an able work, uses the 
 following language respecting the divisions among 
 orthodox Christians. 
 
 " Where are those waverers, who stagger in their 
 " trust in the church" (meaning the church of Christ) 
 " because of different opinions ? Say the Papists : 
 '• ' One saith, I am Calvin's, another, I am Lu- 
 " ther's.' We disclaim, we defy, these titles, these 
 " divisions. We are one in truth ; would God we 
 " were yet more one ! It is the lace and fringe of 
 
179 
 
 Christ's garment that is questioned among us ; the 
 doth is sound. \ ("Pharisaism and Christianity com- 
 pared") 
 
 Southey, in an article on " Church of England 
 Missions," in the Quarterly Review, No. 63, con- 
 trasts the apparent disunion among Protestants, 
 with the apparent unity among Romanists, hy look- 
 ing abroad, where Protestants forget their differ- 
 ances of discipline, and unite to spread the common 
 truth ; whilst Romanists, being relieved from the 
 artificial compression which binds them together at 
 home, have broken out into bitter dissensions. 
 " One contrast more," he says, " remains to be 
 " noticed, and it is an important one. How tri- 
 "umphantly, or rather with what exultation the 
 " Romanists reproach the Protestants for their 
 "numerous schisms, is well known ; and well 
 " would it be, if they who give occasion to the re- 
 " proach, would consider what advantage they afford 
 " thereby to the enemies of the Reformation. At 
 " this time there are Protestant missionaries abroad, 
 " from all those communities, which are agreed 
 " upon the fundamental doctrines of the Christian 
 " faith ; in other words, which hold the same creed ; 
 " and believe in the validity of the same ordinances. 
 " Lutherans ond Calvinists are thus employed ; 
 " Presbyterians and Independents, Baptists, Mor- 
 " avians, Methodists, and members of the Church 
 " of England. But among heathen nations, as in 
 "Popish countries, the points of difference between 
 " them, are overlooked or forgotten ; and they have, 
 " in every instance, without a single exception, 
 " given each other the right hand of fellowship in 
 " cordial cooperation. Whereas, among the Roman 
 11 Catholics, those divisions and animosities which 
 
180 
 
 " are kept down in Europe, by the temporal au- 
 " thority of their church, have broken out in their 
 " missions. Jesuits and Dominicans, Franciscans, 
 " and Carmelites, have intrigued against, and 
 " counterworked, and undermined each other; and 
 " in some instances, have engaged their converts in 
 " actual hostilities. But the boasted unity of the 
 " Romish Church bears examination no better than 
 " its other pretensions." 
 
 Dr. Wolff, who was once a Jew, then a Romanist, 
 and lastly, is a Church of England clergyman, and 
 who having travelled all the world over, is entitled 
 to be heard as to the results of his observation 
 and experience, gives a very striking testimony to 
 the internal disunion of the Romanists, which pre- 
 vails in Europe itself. The passage is too long to 
 quote. It occurs in his Narrative of his mission to 
 Bokhara, p. 387 : "I ask, is there union within the 
 "pale of the Roman Catholic Church ? dc. dc. 
 
 (c) p. 143. Card. Wiseman, in his pastoral ad- 
 dress, speaking of the Pope's brief, says : " The 
 " great work is complete. Catholic England is re- 
 " stored to its orbit in the ecclesiastical firmament, 
 " from which its light had long vanished. 1 ' 
 
 Father Newman, in his sermon at the consecra- 
 tion of one of the new bishops, says : " The people of 
 " England are now about, of their own free will, to be 
 " added to the holy church. I do not recollect any 
 " people on earth, who, having once rejected the re- 
 11 ligion of God, were again restored to the bosom 
 " of the church. The grave is opened, and Christ 
 "is coming out!" Can such language be mis- 
 taken? 
 
181 
 
 (d) p. 145. The bishop alluded to, is the good 
 Bishop Hall. Pious as he was, he could not be 
 silent, when he saw in his time (the time when 
 Laud was Primate), so many churchmen hankering 
 after union with Rome. He wrote his book, called 
 " No peace with Rome," to warn them against the 
 attempt. At the close of it, after examining the 
 errors and corruptions of the Romish religion, 
 coupled with their pride and claim of Infallibility, 
 he speaks thus : 
 
 " And now, since no wise man can suspect of us, 
 *'• that we will ever grow to that height of madness, 
 "as to run perfidiously from the standard of God 
 " to the tents of the Roman Antichrist, is there 
 " any hope that the Papists will ever be drawn 
 " back to the sound and pure judgment of 
 " the primitive antiquity ? O that God would 
 " vouchsafe this grace to the Christian world, that 
 " we could but comfort ourselves with the hope of 
 " so great happiness !" 
 
 " But alas ! sooner may God create a new Home, 
 11 than reform the old. Yea, needs must that 
 " Church put off itself, and cease to be what it is, 
 " ere it can begin to be once more again what it was.*' 
 
 " If there be any likelihood of remedy yet to be 
 " hoped for, surely it must come either from her- 
 " self, or from others. Can it come first from her- 
 " self, since she obstinately defends her errors, not 
 " only with tongue and pen, but with fire and sword 
 " too '?— since she will not yield so much as that 
 "she can err?— since by the flatteries of her last 
 " and worst parasites, the Jesuits, she is grown 
 ** prouder than ever she was ? Can it be, then, 
 *' from others ? How oft has this been endeavoured 
 " in vain ! Home may be sacked and battered, as 
 
 T 
 
182 
 
 u it has often been, by military forces ; but purged 
 " by admonitions, convictions, and censures, it -will 
 " never be." 
 
 " For us — unless He that doeth wonders alone, 
 " by His stretched-out arm from Heaven should 
 " mightily, beyond all hope, effect this, — we know too 
 .'* well that it cannot be done. Only this one thing, 
 " which God has promised, we do verily expect, — 
 *' to see the day, when the Lord Jesus shall with 
 11 with the breath of his mouth destroy this lawless 
 " marly long since revealed to His Church ; and by 
 " the brightness of His glorious coming, fully dis- 
 •' cover and destroy him." 
 
 " Glory to God, victory to the Truth, war with 
 " Heresy, peace to the Church ! Amen !'* 
 
 The present Bishop of London, in his charge, 
 a. D. 1842, uttered a seasonable warning, "If we 
 " are to seek for unity in a reconciliation with Rome, 
 " we must be prepared to traverse the entire space be- 
 " tween us and the Vatican ; for not a hair's breadth 
 * will the rulers or doctors of that Church advance 
 " to meet us." 
 
 The present Bishop of Lincoln, in his charge the 
 same year, (which is a valuable treatise on the doc- 
 trine of Justification) sounded the same warning. 
 Having quoted Hooker's celebrated description of 
 the disagreement between us and the Church of 
 Home, on that fundamental point, the bishop adds : 
 — " Such, according to Hooker, is the disagreement 
 " between the two churches ; and every part of the 
 " statement is borne out by the comparison, which 
 " has now been instituted between our Articles and 
 " the Decree (of Trent). It is a disagreement which 
 " no ingenuity, no subtlety, can explain away. If, 
 
183 
 
 " then, the churches are to be reconciled on the 
 " doctrine of Justification, it can only be by explicit 
 " confession of error, on the one part or the other ; 
 " and we cannot be at a loss to know, from which 
 " that confession must proceed. Home will not, 
 '* indeed cannot until its claim to Infallibility is re- 
 * nounced, make concession." 
 
 The interesting account lately published by Canon 
 Townsend, of his interview with the present Pope, 
 and its result, fully confirms this view of the utter 
 hopelessness of any reconciliation. Nothing more 
 could be expected, after the failure of Archbishop 
 Wake's attempt at reconciliation, detailed in his 
 Correspondence with the candid and moderate Ro- 
 manist, Dupin. 
 
 Bishop Hacket's Life of Archbishop Williams (a 
 book which contains much that is surprisingly ap- 
 plicable to the present state of our Church), has a 
 curious account of a design, similar to Canon Towns- 
 end's, ineffectually entertained by Antonius de 
 Dominis, Archbishop of Spalato, in the time of 
 James I. (Fo. 98—104.) 
 
 (e) p. 148. See Lardner, on the " Credibility of 
 the Gospel History." And Jones, on the " Canon 
 of Scripture." 
 
 (f) p. 151. Dr. Delahogue, in the treatise " De 
 Ecclesia Christi, "used at Maynooth, says of the Pro- 
 testant doctrine that which is perfectly true : " In 
 " the principles of Protestants, two things are to be 
 " admitted ; that the Scriptures are necessary, and 
 j that they are sufficient for perfecting faith." 
 
184 
 
 He adds : " But both these principles are most 
 false!" "Atquihcec duo falsissima sunt." Even 
 the necessity of Scripture, as well as its sufficiency, 
 is here denied. 
 
 (g) p. 151. See Bossuet's " Exposition of Doc- 
 trine" ch. xvii. Bossuet says : " Jesus Christ, 
 "having laid the foundation of the Church by 
 "preaching, the unwritten Word was consequently 
 " the first rule of Christianity. And when the 
 " writings of the New Testament were added to it, 
 f its authority was not forfeited on that account." 
 True ; so long as it was accurately remembered, 
 it was of equal authority. But we have not heard 
 it. We have no means of gathering its substance, 
 but from Scripture. What is true of the first age, 
 is not true of any succeeding one. Even the first 
 age soon fell into error, when memory alone was 
 trusted, as we see from St. Paul's second epistle to 
 the Thessalonians, where he calls to thjeir mind 
 a matter which he had told them while he was with 
 them, but which they had forgotten or misunder- 
 stood, 2 Thess. ii. 1 — 5. 
 
 (h) p. 151. A doubt has been started by the 
 Bev. M. Hobart Seymour, in his interesting 
 " Mornings with the Jesuits," whether the Church 
 of Rome has really and irrevocably claimed Infalli- 
 bility. He is so learned, that one hesitates to 
 differ from him. But the words of the Catechism 
 of Trent are very strong : — " As this one Church, 
 " because governed by the Holy Ghost, cannot err, 
 " in faith or morals, it necessarily follows, that other 
 " societies arrogating to themselves the name of 
 
185 
 
 " Church, being guided by the spirit of darkness" 
 (' a diaboli spiritu' is the Latin) " are sunk into 
 " the most pernicious errors, both doctrinal and 
 " moral." (Maynooth Translation, p. 102) 
 
 The ultramontane opinions, now in vogue, as- 
 cribe infallibility to the Pope, when he speaks as 
 Pope. Bellarmine, by no means the most extreme 
 holder of those opinions, speaks in the following 
 extravagant manner : " If the Pope were to err, 
 11 by enjoining vices and prohibiting virtues, the 
 " Church would be bound to believe vices to be 
 " good, and virtues to be evil." (De Pontif. iv. c. 5) 
 No doubt, he supposed that there was no chance of 
 the Pope erring ; but what a way of stating his 
 opinion ! It is as much as to say, that there is 
 more certainty about the Pope's infallibility, than 
 about virtues and vices — that the duty of keeping 
 the Commandments is less clear, than that of sub- 
 mitting to the Pope's dicta. 
 
 Dr. Isaac Barrow has a good saying : " Infalli- 
 bility is the mother of Incorrigibility." 
 
 (i) p. 152. This decree concerning the rule of 
 faith in the Romish Church, was made in the fourth 
 session of the Council of Trent, held a. d. 1546, 
 co-incident with the death of Martin Luther. 
 
 The sixth Article of our Church was put forth a 
 few years after that session. So that our article 
 may be considered as a solemn disclaimer of tradi- 
 tion and church authority. Having the decree 
 before their eyes, the omission by the Reformers 
 of all mention but that of Scripture, is tantamount 
 to a declaration against what was omitted. 
 
186 
 
 (k) p. J 55. Of the Rules of the Index, entitled : 
 " Ten Rules, made concerning prohibited books by 
 " the fathers selected by the Council of Trent, and 
 " approved by Pope Pius iv.," the 4th is as follows : 
 
 " Since it is manifest by experience, that if Holy 
 " Bibles are allowed everywhere without discrimi- 
 " nation, in the vulgar tongue, more harm than good 
 " will arise from it, on account of the rashness of 
 " men, let the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor 
 " be abided by in this matter; so that with the advice 
 " of the parish priest or confessor, they may per- 
 " mit the reading of Catholic editions of the Bible 
 " in the vulgar tongue, to those whom they shall 
 " know to be likely to derive no harm, but an in- 
 " crease of faith and piety, which permission let them 
 " give in writing. But if any one shall presume to 
 " read or possess it, he shall not receive absolution 
 " of his sins, till he has delivered it up to his or- 
 " dinary." 
 
 (1) p. 156. Albert Pighius, a Pope's envoy, did 
 not scruple to use the following language concern- 
 ing the Holy Scriptures : " They are, as it were, 
 " a leaden rule, and easily suffer themselves to be 
 11 accommodated to the sense which any one has 
 " pre-conceived ; and are a nose of wax, which may 
 " be bent this way or that, and follows willingly the 
 "direction in which you pull it; so they suffer them- 
 " selves to be twisted and drawn, even to opposite 
 41 senses, and to be adapted to anything you please, 
 " unless you apply the inflexible rule, — the author- 
 ity and consent of the tradition of the Church." 
 
 Card. Hosius, one of the Pope's Legates at Trent, 
 says : " Vain is the labour ipeut on Holy Scripture, 
 
187 
 
 * for Scripture is but a creature, and a beggarly ele- 
 " ment." 
 
 Ludovicus, in a speech at the same Council, says : 
 ° Scripture is only lifeless ink." 
 
 I quote from Dr. Wordsworth's valuable " Let- 
 ters" and " Sequel to Letters," addressed to M. 
 Gondon. 
 
 (m) p. 157. See Wiseman's Lectures, L. i., p. 
 17., 1836. So determined is the Church of Rome 
 to crush all private judgment, that she will not allow 
 even secret thoughts to be entertained, contrary to 
 her decisions, without incurring her condemnation. 
 The second decree of the fourth session of the 
 Council of Trent declares, that " it belongs to the 
 " mother Church to judge concerning the true 
 " sense of Holy Scripture ;" and not only must 
 none teach in a sense contrary to hers, but must 
 not judge in such contrary sense, " not even if their 
 " interpretation were never to see the light!" 
 
 (m') p. 158. Sale, in his " Preliminary Dis- 
 course to the Koran," says : " The different sects 
 " of the Mahometans, may be distinguished into 
 '•two sorts — the Sonnites and the Shiites. The 
 " former are the traditionists, acknowledging the 
 " authority of the Sonna, or collection of traditions 
 " — in name, as well as design, answering to the 
 " Mishna of the Jews" (which is part of the Tal- 
 mud). " They receive the Sonna or traditions of 
 " their prophet, as of canonical authority. But the 
 11 Shiites reject it as apocryphal and unworthy of 
 " credit." 
 
188 
 
 (n) p. 159. During the fourth session of the 
 Council of Trent, a solemn anathema was vented 
 against all who shall not accept the Apocrypha as 
 equal in authority to the inspired books. 
 
 Here, beyond all measure the Pope ventured to 
 use the power which he is said to bear, — " that of 
 the true God." 
 
 The Jews never received the Apocryphal books, 
 as God's Word. So says Josephus. So confesses 
 Bellarmine. Our Lord stamped the Jewish canon, 
 " the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms,' 1 as the 
 only " Sciiptures." (Luke xxiv. 27, compared with 
 44.) 
 
 The Council of Laodicea, in the year 360, recited 
 the canonical books of the Old Testament, but 
 omitted the iVpocrypha, and the decree of this 
 council was confirmed by the Council of Chalcedon, 
 at which 630 bishops were assembled, and which 
 the Church of Rome acknowledges to be a general 
 council. Pope Gregory i. calls the Apocrypha 
 "the non-canonical books" (Job xix. c. 17). And 
 Jerome made a preface to the Apocrypha, in his 
 own Vulgate, to arm his readers against confounding 
 them with the canonical books ; which " armed 
 preface" as he called it, the Church of Rome re- 
 tained in her copies of the vulgate up to the Coun- 
 cil of Trent, when she took the daring step of 
 omitting it, and making the Apocrypha part of the 
 canon. (See Father Paul's History of the Council 
 of Trent ; Wordsworth's Letters to Gondon, L. iv. ; 
 and Bishop Marsh's " Comparative view," ch. iv. 
 and v.) 
 
 The ascribing authority to the vulgate translation 
 was a fit accompaniment to the daring act, which 
 
189 
 
 admitted the Apocrypha into the canon. u Let no 
 one," says the second decree of the same session, 
 i{ presume to reject the vulgate, as non-authentic, 
 " under any pretext whatsoever." It was then 
 thought that the translation was perfect, and a 
 Pope's bull forbade any alteration. How often, never- 
 theless, has it since been altered, and that by- 
 Popes who found out its imperfections, or had them 
 forced upon their attention, may be learnt from 
 James's " Bellum Papale." 
 
 (o) p. 160. Church authority is very different 
 from Church testimony. The Jewish Church gave 
 testimony to the genuineness and authenticity of 
 the books of the Old Testament, — from which they 
 excluded the Apocrypha, as uninspired. But when 
 they interpreted the prophecies contained in those 
 very books, and interpreted them against our Lord's 
 claim to be the promised Messiah, we give them 
 no authority — much less, infallibility. If we did, 
 woe to us ! Then we must give up Christianity. 
 As a visible Church, there never was a Church 
 which had better credentials than the Jewish. Yet 
 our Lord appealed to the common sense of the peo- 
 ple, to judge of the meaning of the Scriptures ; 
 which the rulers of that Church faithfully kept, but 
 grievously misinterpreted. 
 
 A witness in a court of justice, when the validity 
 of a will is inquired into, may be listened to with 
 confidence, so long as he confines his evidence to 
 the fact within his knowledge, that the document 
 exhibited is the will. But when he goes on to in- 
 terpret the words of the testament, the judge may 
 stop him ; for it may be manifest that he is misin- 
 terpreting them, and he may have an interest in so 
 
 z 
 
190 
 
 doing. He must not take upon him to do for the court, 
 that which the court is competent to do for itself. 
 
 If he says : * I do not speak my own opinion, 
 but what I heard from my father, and he from his, 
 and he, again, from his father' — such evidence 
 will still be rejected, if it contradicts the plain 
 terms of the will, the genuineness of which, as a 
 matter of fact, is proved. No hear-say testimony 
 can be taken, in opposition to that which appears 
 on the face of the deed. 
 
 Thorndike, in his " Eight of the Church," in 
 which he takes high views of Church authority, ac- 
 knowledges that as regards the canon of Scripture, 
 the Church was merely a company of men, witness- 
 ing to the genuineness of the writings. " The Church 
 " cannot act to the assuring of any body herein, as 
 " the Church, but as a multitude of men endowed 
 " with common sense, which cannot agree to deceive 
 (t or to be deceived. For if the profession of 
 " Christianity go before the being of a Church, and 
 " Christianity cannot be received, till it be acknow- 
 " ledged, with the records thereof, to be from God, 
 "then this assurance, though it come from the 
 " agreement of the men that make a Church, goes 
 " on in nature before the quality of a Church, and 
 " therefore comes as well from the consent of Jews 
 "for the Old Testament, as of Christians for tlie 
 New." (chap, v.) 
 
 (p) P- 163- Bishop Marsh, in his " Comparative 
 View," speaking of the * authority in controversies 
 of faith" mentioned in Art. xx., says: "The 
 " Church of England carries its authority no fur- 
 " ther than is absolutely necessary for its own pre- 
 servation. And Protestants in general, the Dis- 
 " senters themselves not excepted, exercise their 
 
191 
 
 "spiritual authority on the same principle, and 
 " carry it to the very same extent as the Church of 
 " England." (Marsh, ch viii.) 
 
 Thus the late Mr. Irving was expelled from the 
 Established Church of Scotland, for his opinion con- 
 cerning Christ's sinful nature. 
 
 (q) p. 163. The comforting trust that the In- 
 visible Church, the true " communion of saints," in 
 which we believe, consists of members drawn out 
 of all particular visible Churches, does not preclude 
 our affirming that one visible Church is more ex- 
 cellent than another. Episcopalians affirm, with 
 reason, that Episcopacy is the best, as it is un- 
 doubtedly the oldest, form of Church government. 
 They consider it necessary to the perfection, but 
 not to the being, of a Church. Such was the senti- 
 ment of all our Eeformers, who felt themselves 
 united in doctrine with the non-episcopalian Churches 
 abroad, though not in discipline; and, therefore, ac- 
 knowledged their orders, as was shewn by the de- 
 cision of two commissions issued under Queen 
 Elizabeth to our bishops, to try that question. 
 Archbishop Wake has expressed the same sentiment 
 very strongly, and called those, who would refuse 
 the name of Churches to the foreign reformed ones, 
 " men efiron mind.'" Archbishop Sharp, (of York) 
 has a passage in one of his sermons worth extract- 
 ing : 
 
 " The usual method, when the Papists would se- 
 " duce anyone from our Church, is this : ' Christ can 
 " have but one Church here on earth. You believe 
 " one Catholic and Apostolic Church. Satisfy your- 
 " self which it is, and join yourself to it.' I must 
 " needs say, that the waiving all other disputes, and 
 
192 
 
 " putting the controversy on this issue, is a very 
 " compendious way. Having found the true Church 
 " (by which they mean theirs), they will take care 
 " to satisfy you about all other things, whether you 
 •" will or no." 
 
 " But methinks, this question is just such as the 
 " following : ■ Since there is but one City of Lon- 
 "don, but abundance of streets, and lanes, and 
 <e alleys in it, some of which are well built, others 
 " ruinous and ready to tumble, some are healthful 
 '• and free from contagious disorders, others per- 
 " haps are visited with the plague ; now, in which 
 ** of all these streets, lanes, and alleys, is the true 
 " City of London to be found ? r " 
 
 " They are all parts of the same City, but none 
 "of them, singly taken, is that City." 
 
 " That part of the Church which is found in one 
 " place, may be more pure, holy, and apostolical, 
 " than that which is found in other places. And in 
 " all the countries where the Church is said to be, 
 " those where the faith is professed according to 
 " the Church of Rome, have the greatest mixture 
 " of errors and corruptions." 
 
 " If it were true, that out of all the communions 
 " in Christendom, one only were the true Church, 
 " the communion of the Church of Rome should be 
 " the last that I should join myself to." 
 
 The Archbishop then gives his reasons for saying 
 this ; deriving them from a comparison of the doc- 
 trines of Rome with those of Scripture — in other 
 words, making Scripture the test of a true Church, 
 instead of making any particular Church the judge 
 and interpreter of Scripture. (Sermons, vol. vii. S. 6) 
 
193 
 
 (r) p. 164. Hence it is, that the^ 
 tions" in the fathers often means, the 
 down in writing by the Apostles, i. e. the truths of 
 Scripture. Mr. Goode in his learned work " the 
 Rule of Faith," vol. ii. chap. 10., shews in a way 
 which has not been answered, that " when the fa- 
 " thers speak of ■ the apostolic tradition,'' or 4 the 
 '' tradition of the Apostles,' they are almost always 
 " referring to the Scriptures of the Apostles." And 
 that '.* someiim.es, when they speak of ■ the tradition 
 " of the fathers,' they are referring to something 
 " which these fathers gathered from Scripture*' 
 
 (s) p. 165. Archbishop Whately's " Kingdom of 
 Christ." 
 
 (t) p. 166. The words of the council, quoted by 
 Bishop Phillpotts in his Letters to Charles Butler, 
 are these : "Taught by the fathers, we embrace 
 " the venerable images. Let those who refuse to 
 " do this, be anathema, cast off from God" And 
 then they define what is meant by embracing the 
 venerable images. " As for them who say, that it 
 "is sufficient to have images for the sake of exciting 
 " their livelier remembrance of the prototypes^ (as 
 Pope Gregory i. had said), " and not for worship, — 
 " we deplore their madness." 
 
 Now this second Nicone Council, (held a.d. 787) 
 is expressly acknowledged by the Council of Trent 
 to be a general council. So that here we see a re- 
 futation of the assertion often made by Romanists 
 in this country, that they do not use images in 
 their Church for worship. 
 
194 
 
 (u) p. 167. See Archbishop Usher's (t Answer to 
 a Jesuit* p. 374., Camh. 1835. 
 
 " Irenseus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Clemens 
 " Komanus, Origen, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Au- 
 " gustine, Lactantius, Theophylact, and others, are 
 " confessed by Franc. Pegna (the Romanist), to 
 " have been of this opinion," viz., that the souls of 
 departed saints, though in bliss, are not yet in 
 Heaven. 
 
 (v) p. 168. Jerome thought so highly of Epipha- 
 nius, that he translated his Greek writings into 
 Latin, for the benefit of the Western Church. 
 
 (w) p. 16S. Some Romanists have denied the 
 passage to be genuine, in which Pope Gelasius 
 makes this declaration concerning the unchanged 
 substance of the bread. But Dupin, their historian, 
 sums up the evidences candidly and decisively, in 
 favour of its genuineness. See Finch's useful 
 " Sketch of the Romish Controversy/ ' 
 
 (x) p. 168. The Romanists have antedated the 
 first mention of their peculiar tenets in the fathers, 
 by quoting from writings falsely ascribed to them. 
 
 One instance may suffice. Dr. Wiseman, in his 
 " Moorfields Lectures," quotes from Athanasius as 
 follows : 
 
 " St. Athanasius, the most zealous supporter of 
 11 the Divinity of Jesus Christ, and consequently of 
 " His superiority over all the saints, thus enthusiasti- 
 V cally addresses our Lord's ever-blessed mother : 
 " ' Hear now, daughter of David ; incline thine 
 
195 
 
 " ears to our prayers ; we raise our cry unto thee. 
 " Remember us most holy virgin, and for the 
 " feeble eulogiums we give thee, grant us great 
 "gifts from the treasures of thy graces, thou that 
 " art full of grace ! Queen and mother of God, 
 11 intercede for us.' Mark well these words, 'Grant 
 " us great gifts from the treasures of thy graces,' — 
 " as if he hoped directly to receive them from her." 
 Then he adds : * Do Catholics," (i. e. Romanists) 
 " use stronger words than these ? Or did A than - 
 " asius think and speak with us, or with Protestants V 
 (Lect. vol. ii. p. 108 ) 
 
 Canon Tyler, in his work on the " Worship of 
 the Virgin," published by the Society for Promoting 
 Christian Knowledge, thus remarks on this preten- 
 ded quotation : 
 
 11 To Dr. Wiseman's questions, the direct answer 
 " is, that neither these words, nor the Homily from 
 " which the Dr. quotes them, ever came from the 
 *■' pen of Athanasius. And moreover, that the irre- 
 " futable proof of their spuriousness is drawn out 
 •* at large by the Benedictine Editors, in the very 
 ° edition and the identical volume of the works of 
 " Athanasius, to which Dr. Wiseman refers for his 
 11 authority, when he quotes the passage as geuuine. 
 " The above quotation (made up of different sen- 
 ** tences, selected from different clauses, and put 
 " together so as to make one paragraph) is found 
 " in a Homily, called ' On the annunciation of the 
 " Mother of God.' How long before the time of 
 " Baronius this Homily had been discarded as 
 " spurious, or how long its genuineness had been 
 * suspected, does not appear; but certainly two 
 " centuries and a half ago, and repeatedly since, it 
 
€t has been condemned as totally and indisputably 
 " spurious, and has been excluded from the works of 
 " Achanasius as a forgery, not only by members of 
 " the Reformed Church, but by the most zealous 
 " and steady defenders of the doctrines and practices 
 " of the Church of Rome." (Tyler, p. 167.) 
 
 The Benedictine Editors use these words : 
 " That this discourse" (the one quoted by Dr. 
 Wiseman) " is spurious, there is no learned man 
 " who does not now adjudge." These words were 
 spoken 150 years ago. What shall we say? Is 
 the Cardinal " not a learned man ?" Or does he 
 stoop to " a pious fraud ?" Other instances, as dis- 
 creditable as this, of his use of spurious writings 
 are given by Canon Tyler, p. 148, 156, 217, and 229. 
 
 It may be well to observe, that whatever in 
 the fathers tells against the Romanists, tells with 
 full force, since they cannot be supposed to have 
 put it in against themselves — but whatever tells 
 against us, may possibly have been interpolated, 
 and therefore has comparatively little force. 
 
 See Daille on the "Right use of the Fathers." 
 
 "THE DOCTEINE OF DEVELOPMENT." 
 
 (y) p. 172. The process, expressed by the word 
 *' development" is a mental one, whereby a truth or 
 a principle is made to unfold and expand, as the 
 bud in a plant grows and opens into the blossom 
 and fruit. 
 
 There may be a legitimate development. But 
 there may be a fanciful and deceitful one. 
 
 Mr. Newman, in his work on this subject (by 
 which, when about to join the Church of Rome, he 
 
197 
 
 made his peace with hei\ after having said that she 
 M resembled a demoniac, and should be treated as 
 " if she were the Evil One who governs her"), en- 
 deavours to shew, that truths of Scripture may be 
 developed, by an exercise of sufficient ingenuity, into 
 dogmas, which to the eye of common sense are ex- 
 actly their opposites. 
 
 To reconcile his leaders to the use of such a 
 magical process, he lays it down as a fact, that 
 " Christianity came into the world as an Idea, rather 
 than as an institution.'" According to this view, it 
 might at its birth bear no resemblance to the Christ- 
 ianity, which we now profess. Having a mere Idea, 
 the early Christians might be very wrong, and yet 
 very pious. They might think it a sin to bow down 
 to Images ; whilst in the modern Church of Rome, 
 it is thought no sin at all, but a religious act. They 
 might pray for the Virgin Mary (as Mr. Newman 
 acknowledges that they did) in the early Liturgies, 
 which shews that they regarded her as bom in sin 
 and needing a Saviour ; but in the Church of Rome 
 it is lawful to pray to her ; because the word 
 " blessed"' which was applied to her in Scripture has 
 been developed into sinless — sinless when her 
 mother conceived her. Such is the use and power 
 of development, in Mr. Newman's hands. 
 
 By Mr. Newman's theory, therefore, black may 
 become white — provided there was the least speck 
 of white originally. The speck may be developed, 
 till all the blackness disappears, and nothing but 
 whiteness remains. 
 
 Is not this literally exemplified in what he does 
 not scruple to call " the Deification of the Virgin 
 Mary ?" Hear this, Protestants ! — " the Deifica- 
 
 a 2 
 
198 
 
 Hon of the Virgin Mary" is the language of Father 
 Newman, the honoured friend of the present Pope, 
 and of Cardinal Wiseman ! (Essay on Development, 
 chap, viii., sec. 1.) 
 
 Thus the opposition of a Romish dogma to Scrip- 
 ture and to the early fathers, is said to be no oppo- 
 sition, but merely another state of one and the 
 same thing. 
 
 This may be very convenient for Romanists, but 
 it is equally convenient for Infidels. The German 
 rationalist Strauss, professes to receive Scripture, 
 but only as a myth. Is there mnch difference be- 
 tween an " Idea" and a " Myth?" In the hands 
 of a clever sophist, the same conclusion may be de- 
 rived from the one or the other. It suits the Ger- 
 man to develope Infidelity, — which resolves Jesus 
 Christ into a personification of human nature, in the 
 perfection which it can of itself attain. It suits the 
 Englishman to develope Romanism, — which puts 
 the Church in the place of Christ. 
 
 "What says Moeller, the late eloquent champion 
 of Romanism on the Continent ? He developes the 
 Incarnation of Christ into an ever-living, divine 
 power, called the Church. " The Church" he says, 
 " is Jesus Christ, reuewing himself without ceasing, 
 "re-appearing continually in human form. It is 
 " the permanent Incarnation of the Son of God." 
 Again : — " The Church, His permanent manifesta- 
 " tion, is at once divine and human ; it is the union 
 " of these two attributes." Hence the writer de- 
 velopes the Infallibility of the Church, by a very 
 easy process. (See Moeller's " Symbolik") 
 
 Of Moeller and his work, Dr. Wiseman in the 
 Preface to his " Lectures," thus spenks : "The 
 
199 
 
 " * Symbolik,' of my learned friend Prof. Moeller, 
 "is the most profound work, if I may coin a phrase, 
 " on the Philosophy of Divinity, which our time 
 "has produced." 
 
 Surely this is all very full of danger to the ex- 
 istence of Christianity itself. When put into the 
 alembic of Development, the most substantial truth 
 is expanded into a gaseous vapour, which reflects 
 all kinds of forms and colours. 
 
 The French democrats have not hesitated to re- 
 present the history of Jesus Christ, as an idea or 
 myth, conveying the proper notion of Socialism. 
 
 It must be steadily maintained, that there is 
 little room for legitimate development in Christ- 
 ianity. The Apostles did not merely receive and 
 impart the seeds of divine truth ; leaving it to un- 
 inspired men to palm upon their fellow-creatures 
 whatever they pleased, as the fruit. They " shunned 
 not to declare the whole counsel of God." Revela- 
 tion is not a science — admitting of increase. It 
 came from Heaven. And from the same source 
 alone can it receive addition or expansion. But 
 God has forbidden us to expect either. The Gospel 
 preached by St. Paul is declared by him to be 
 sufficient for all its great purposes ; and sufficient 
 for those who heard it, at the time. (Gal. i. 8, 
 where the words " other than," may be accurately 
 rendered " other besides") 
 
 The late much-lamented Prof. Butler, of Trinity 
 College, Dublin, has shewn in a series of most able 
 letters, originally communicated to the " Irish Ec- 
 clesiastical Journal," but siuce published in a vo- 
 lume, that by a moderately skilful application of the 
 
200 
 
 rules laid down by Mr. Newman for the process of 
 Theological Development, almost anything, how- 
 ever absurd or impious, might be developed from 
 some expression or other in Scripture. He deduces 
 '* sun-worship" from Scripture on Mr. Newman's 
 principles. (Letter iii.) 
 
 The American Romanists, through their bishops, 
 loudly remonstrate against this new Theory of De- 
 velopment — new in the extent, at least, to which 
 Mr. Newman has carried it, and the unblushing 
 boldness with which he has proclaimed it. They 
 say well, that it overthrows the theory of the Council 
 of Trent, and of all their great divines ; which was, 
 that their present dogmas have ever been held in 
 the Church in the same state in which they are now 
 held. Card. Wiseman, however, has continued to 
 defend the Theory of Development, in the " Dublin 
 Review;" and Bishop Gillis, of Edinburgh, has 
 delivered a course of Lectures upon it in that City. 
 
 We must leave them to settle their quarrel a- 
 mong themselves. In the mean time, it has re- 
 vealed the fact, that the old Theory of Traditions 
 is given up by the Romanists in this country, as 
 untenable. Then what becomes of the authority 
 of the Council of Trent ? What becomes of the 
 claim to Infallibility ? What becomes of General 
 Consent ? What becomes of interpreting, as the 
 Creed of Pope Pius iv. directs, " according to the 
 unanimous opinions of the Fathers, and not other 
 wise ?" All is resolved into " the Living Voice /" — 
 and that voice at the present momeut is not 
 harmonious, 
 
LECTURE V. 
 SCRIPTURE 
 
 THE ONLY 
 
 INFALLIBLE TEACHER. 
 
 Galatians i. 8. 
 " Though we, or an Angel from Heaven, preach any 
 other Gospel unto you, than that which we have 
 preached unto you, let him be accursed." 
 
 These are earnest words — even for the Apostle 
 Paul to speak, who always spoke earnestly. He 
 supposes a case, the very supposition of which must 
 have distressed him. He supposes it possible, that 
 he might be so led astray by some wrong influence, 
 as to come at a future time, to the Galatians, 
 preaching a Gospel differing from that which he 
 had already preached, and by which, under the as- 
 sisting grace of the Holy Spirit, they had been 
 converted. If he should do so, he warns them not 
 to listen to his new preaching, but to hold him 
 
202 
 
 " accursed,'" or as the original word is, " anathema.'" 
 St. Paul says, that he is ready to submit to he 
 treated as such, if he should be so unhappy and 
 guilty as to come preaching " another Gospel," and 
 that it would be their duty thus to treat him. So 
 earnest is he, and so fearful lest they should mis- 
 take his earnestness for a momentary excitement, 
 that he repeats the warning. After saying in the 
 text : " Though I, or an angel from Heaven, preach 
 " any other Gospel unto you than that which we have 
 "preached unto you, let him be accursed," he de- 
 liberately adds : " As we said before, so say I 
 ** again, if any one preach any other Gospel than 
 " that ye have received, let him be accursed." 
 
 It is plain, that great importance was attached 
 by the Apostle, or rather by the Holy Ghost, to the 
 warning here given. Let us, my brethren, attach 
 the same. Let us see what conclusions are to be 
 drawn from words so strongly spoken, and handed 
 down for our instruction and admonition. 
 
 The first conclusion we may draw, and in these 
 days a very important one, is this : That it is of 
 much more consequence to consider the character of 
 the teaching, than the authority of the teacher. 
 
 Who could have clearer credentials than St. 
 Paul ? Who could have a higher commission ? He 
 had all " the signs of an Apostle." He had received 
 
308 
 
 his commission from Christ Himself. " I certify 
 you, brethren'' he says in the next verse to the text, 
 "that the Gospel which was preached of me, is not 
 of man, for I neither received it of man, neither 
 was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus 
 Christ.' 9 Yet, having once preached it, having 
 fulfilled his task, having made them masters of the 
 Gospel, his power over it was gone. He could not 
 alter, or add, a fundamental iota. Not M an Angel 
 from Heaven" could do that! If, therefore, he 
 should come to them again, attempting so to alter 
 or add, he here tells them that they were to pay no 
 regard to his credentials. They were not to say : 
 * Is he not an Apostle ? Is he not inspired ? Has 
 he not the same commission which he had before ? 
 Has he not the same knowledge, authority, and 
 power? May we not trust him on account of his gifts?' 
 They were to ask no such questions. They were to 
 shut their ears They were to turn away from him, 
 as one who had no longer any claim to their esteem 
 or even attention. 
 
 Now this enables us to judge how far they are 
 right who say, that the chief use of Scripture is to 
 shew us, — who are to be our teachers. The very 
 contrary is the immediate inference from St. Paul's 
 injunction — namely, that the chief use of Scrip- 
 ture (which does for us in writing, what the Ap- 
 
204 
 
 ostle did for the Galatians in preaching) is to shew 
 us, what the doctrine is to which we may safely 
 listen. As soon as we detect in the teaching a dif- 
 ference from the main truths of the Gospel, even if 
 it consist in novelty alone, we are to turn away 
 from the teacher. Whatever authority he may bear, 
 he can have none equal to that which belongs to 
 the Gospel — "the faith once delivered to the saints." 
 We need not, therefore, enquire into his authority. 
 Were it that of an Apostle, rising from the grave, 
 it must not move us. Were it that of an Angel de- 
 scending from Heaven, we must resist it. No man, 
 no body of men, no church, no council, must force 
 upon us anything, as necessary to salvation, which 
 we cannot find in the Gospel, delivered to us in 
 Scripture. This is clearly deducible from the text, 
 if it has any meaning. And this overthrows the 
 sophistry of those who would persuade us, not to ex- 
 amine particular points of doctrine, till we have ex- 
 amined the general question of Church authority, (a) 
 Why should we do this, since no authority could be 
 greater than that which was Apostolical ; and even 
 Apostolical authority was not to be put by the Gal- 
 ations on a par with that of the Gospel, when once 
 preached by an Apostle. It may be very enticing 
 to be told, that if we do but settle the question of 
 Church authority, by certain notes and marks be- 
 
205 
 
 longing to the true Church, it will save all further 
 trouble ; for then, the doctrines taught will neces- 
 sarily be true. The warning given to the Galatians 
 reads us a different lesson. It shews, that there is 
 no necessary connection between the commission 
 to teach, and the purity of the teaching. It tells 
 us that the latter is the more important point, and 
 must first be settled ; and after that, it will be 
 time enough to settle the former, (b) 
 
 The second conclusion from the text is this : 
 That in matters where Salvation is concerned, we 
 may, and must, exercise private judgment, (c) 
 
 We shall be told, that private judgment can only 
 properly be exercised in mere human matters, such 
 as that of which I have been speaking — the ques- 
 tion of Church authority. The very reverse is 
 taught us in the text. It is in divine matters, that 
 we are more especially bound to exercise it. We 
 may be modest and submissive on minor points. 
 But when eternity is concerned, we must be allowed 
 to protect ourselves. God gives us this liberty. 
 God expects us to use it. It is to us a personal 
 matter of life and death. 
 
 The fact that he has not only given us this liberty, 
 
 but commanded us, as in the text, to make use of 
 
 it, furnishes an answer to what may be heard from 
 
 Romish Priests : ' Believe as our Church does, and 
 
 b 2 
 
206 
 
 if she is wrong, we will bear the responsibility.' It 
 is plain from the text, that men are not permitted 
 to shift the responsibility from themselves. They 
 must answer for their belief. They must not hear 
 false teaching. They must have no new Gospel — 
 no fresh articles of faith. If they accept any such, 
 they will share the guilt and the punishment. Woe 
 to them that mislead ! Woe to them that are mis- 
 led ! " If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall 
 into the ditch." 
 
 A third conclusion to be drawn from the com- 
 mand given to the Galatians is, the clearness and 
 perspicuity of the great doctrines delivered in 
 Scripture. 
 
 The arguments used in my last discourse proved, 
 that all such doctrines were written down, and not 
 left to the precarious, and worse than precarious, 
 mode of transmission, which oral tradition would 
 have afforded. God cared for us as much as He 
 did for the Jews ; and gave us scriptures containing 
 the Gospel, as He gave them scriptures contain- 
 ing the Law. What the text proves is, that the 
 language in which the gospel was delivered was 
 plain and intelligible. For if not, — how could it be 
 expected, that the Galatians should reject any other 
 gospel ? How could they be aware, that it was 
 " another ?" How could they detect the difference? 
 
•201 
 
 Be assured, my brethren, that if you understand 
 not the gospel, the fault must be in yourselves. If 
 the heart be right, then " he may run that readeth 
 it." " The wayfaring man, though a fool" (as re- 
 gards this world's wisdom and learning,) "shall not 
 err therein" Those were awful words of St. Paul, 
 which he addressed to the philosophical Corinthians : 
 " If our Gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost, 
 in whom the God of this world hath blinded their 
 minds, lest the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ, 
 who is the image of God, should shine unto them." 
 
 There is another and fourth conclusion, of like 
 kind and equally important, to be derived from the 
 text : that of the sufficiency and completeness of the 
 written Gospel. 
 
 The text supports the view of our Sixth Article, 
 on which I dwelt in my last discourse. The title 
 of that Article is " the sufficiency of Scripture." If 
 such sufficiency had not existed, then the Gala- 
 tians could not have obeyed the Apostle's command. 
 For that command is, not merely to reject a gospel 
 opposed to that which they had received, but also 
 one additional to it. The accurate and perfect ren- 
 dering of the Greek words translated in our version, 
 ''- other than," is "other besides." So that it was ex- 
 pected of the Galatians, that they would reject any- 
 thing essentially new. (d) Then they must have 
 
208 
 
 been in possession of all they needed ; for if they had 
 been left in ignorance whether there was a defici- 
 ciency or not, then a door would have been opened, 
 at which subtle teachers, coming to the simple Gal- 
 atians, might have introduced the greatest errors, 
 or at least principles which would lead to the greatest 
 errors. No such teachers would call their own 
 teaching new ; they would represent it as merely sup- 
 plemental. Especially would this have appeared to 
 be the case, if St. Paul had come again to them, 
 preaching "another Gospel," i.e. adding to the faith. 
 They would then have welcomed him. For if the build- 
 ing, which he " as a wise master-builder,'* had raised 
 for them, had not been known to be complete, and 
 incapable of receiving addition ; who so likely, they 
 would naturally think, to come in order to finish it, 
 as the Apostle? Yet the text forbids them to 
 suffer even him to add another stone. It follows, 
 that not one stone was wanting. All was com- 
 plete and perfect ! The text, therefore, is a denun- 
 ciation of woe to those, who venture to add to the 
 Gospel, as well as to those, who dare to impugn or 
 corrupt it. It denounces the same woe to those 
 who suffer the same sacrilege to be committed. All 
 Christians are hereby bound to " contend earnestly 
 for the faith once delivered" — not to suffer it to be 
 increased or diminished. Christ was not only " tht 
 
'209 
 
 author," but " the finisher of our faith." St. Paul 
 preached " the whole counsel of God." He has 
 told us that " he kept nothing back." God having 
 spoken by him, and spoken all that was needed, 
 and the Galatians being informed of this fact, what 
 guilt would be theirs, if they allowed any new 
 article of faith (e) to be palmed upon them ! It could 
 not come from God, after he had given them such 
 information as the text contains. And what guilt, 
 my brethren, will be ours, if we do not guard the 
 glorious Gospel from any human admixture ! If 
 Uzza of old was so severely punished for " 'patting 
 forth his hand to the Ark" containing the Law of 
 Moses, of how much sorer punishment shall not 
 we be thought worthy, if we touch, or allow others 
 to touch for us, the Ark which contains the Gos- 
 pel of Christ ! 
 
 Thus I have pointed out four conclusions which 
 are readily drawn from the text, and which, were 
 there no others, render it one of the most valuable 
 passages of Holy Writ. Let me recapitulate them. 
 The first is, that the credentials of those who teach 
 are of secondary consequence, compared with the 
 purity of their doctrine (f) ; and that if weallowthem 
 to mislead us, we cannot throw the whole burden 
 of the guilt on them. The second is, that God has 
 given us the exercise of private judgment in essen- 
 
210 
 
 tial matters, not only as a right, but as a duty. 
 The third is, that Scripture, in its revelation of the 
 Gospel, i. e., all saving truth, is perfectly clear and 
 intelligible. And the fourth is, that it is complete, 
 having no room left for addition — under cover 
 of which, corruption would inevitably creep in. (g) 
 Well might St. Paul impress a particular import- 
 ance on the injunction given, by the earnestness 
 with which he gave it ! " Though we, or an Angel 
 from Heaven, preach any other gospel unto you, 
 than (or besides) that which we have preached unto 
 you, let him be accursed ."' 
 
 What is the Gospel ? This is a question which 
 ought briefly to be answered on this occasion, that 
 we may keep in mind what it is for which we con- 
 tend, and that our opposition to Romanism may 
 never degenerate into a mere negation of errors* 
 
 The Gospel, fundamentally viewed, consists of 
 those divine truths which are connected, either as 
 facts, or as direct and necessary inferences, with the 
 one great doctrine of f! Christ Crucified.'" 
 
 This is plainly the meaning of the word, u Gospel," 
 used in the text. For not long afterwards, the 
 Apostle says : " foolish Galatians ! who hath be- 
 witched you, that you should not obey the truth, 
 before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set 
 forth, Crucified among you . ? " The crucifixion 
 
211 
 
 had been the great subject of St. Paul's preaching. 
 He had depicted it, as it were, to the life. In the 
 same way, the same Apostle speaks to the Corinth- 
 ians concerning " Christ Crucified," as the one 
 great subject which embodied all his preaching at 
 Corinth, during the two years he had spent in that 
 city — in other words, as the Gospel, or good tid- 
 ings, f* I ivas determined" he says in his first 
 Epistle to the Corinthians, " not to Jcnoiv anything 
 among you, save Jesus Christ, and Him Crucified" 
 " Christ," he says again, " sent me, not to baptize, 
 but to preach the Gospel, not with wisdom of words, 
 lest the Cross of Christ should be made of none 
 effect." Every thing, then, which formed an essen- 
 tial and fundamental part of the doctrine of Christ 
 Crucified, was comprehended under this term " the 
 Gospel." Thus the everlasting purpose of God to 
 save man, whose fall was foreseen before he was 
 made ; — the consent of Christ to be " the Lamb," 
 which was " slain from the foundation of the world ; 
 — the Incarnation, or taking of the manhood into 
 union with the Godhead, in His one undivided 
 person;— the sinless purity of His manhood, through 
 the operation of theH oly Ghost ; — the perfect obedi- 
 ence to the Law, exhibited in His life ; — His endur- 
 ance of the curse and penalty of the Law, in the ago- 
 nies of the Cross, for us ; — His real death, proved by 
 
212 
 
 the descent of His human soul into Hades ; — His 
 resurrection, in the same body, incorrupt; — His as- 
 cension; — His sending the Holy Ghost, the Comforter 
 and Sanctifier; — and the fact of His unceasing Medi- 
 ation and Intercession for us, at the right hand of 
 God ; — together with the assurance, that He is the 
 " HighPriest after the order of Melchisedek," prophe- 
 sied of by David — who was to supersede the Aaron- 
 itic priesthood, and by His one sacrifice of Himself to 
 put an end to all sacrifices on earth, and by opening 
 the Holy of Holies to all mankind, and rending 
 the veil, to give perfect freedom of direct access to 
 God ; — these, my brethren, are the great truths, 
 which circle round the doctrine of Christ Crucified, 
 and constitute the Gospel, of which St. Paul speaks 
 in such glowing terms : " We have not an High 
 Priest which cannot be touched with the feelings of 
 our infirmities, but was in all points tempted like as 
 we are, yet without sin; let us, therefore, come boldly 
 to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and 
 find grace to help in time of need." 
 
 Such, my brethren, is " the glorious Gospel of 
 Christ" in its fundamental points. I may have o- 
 mitted something which I ought to have mentioned. 
 Tf I have, your own knowledge, acquired by freely 
 reading the Scriptures, and freely judging of their 
 meaning, will supply the omission. 
 
213 
 
 Happy he who embraces this gospel with all his 
 heart ! Happy he, who feels his own lost state by 
 nature ; and flees to the Saviour for pardon, and 
 the grace of the Holy Spirit ! Happy he whose 
 faith is fixed on Jesus — the one Object to which the 
 Scriptures direct the eye of faith ! But what mis- 
 fortune can be greater, than to have the direct view 
 of Him impeded ? What injury more grievous, 
 than to be debarred free access to the " High 
 Priest'' and the " throne of grace?" What guilt 
 equal to that, by which any of our fellow-creatures 
 presume to interpose other objects between the eye 
 of faith and the Redeemer ? Glorious as the Gospel 
 is, yet its glory may be obscured by false teachers, 
 such as troubled the Galatians. Of what practical 
 benefit would be the fairest building, though in- 
 tended by its first builder to be open to all, and 
 calculated in itself to attract all to enter it, if under 
 pretence of making necessary additions, other 
 builders erected a high wall in front, preventing 
 immediate approach, and shutting it out from view ? 
 This, my brethren, is the crime which the Church 
 of Rome has committed, by her additions to the 
 scheme of Redemption. She has darkened the 
 ?{ counsel of God." She has introduced " another 
 gospel*' She has built up a system of human 
 merits, burdensome rites, and priestly agency, called 
 
 c 2 
 
214 
 
 the Mediatorial and Sacramental System, whereby 
 the Holy of Holies has once more been closed, and 
 Christ shut out from view. This terrible crime, 
 the greatest a church could commit against men 
 and against Christ — this obscuring of the doctrine 
 of Justification by Faith — this taking away the 
 liberty of the Gospel and establishing a Jewish 
 bondage — is that which our truly protestant Hooker, 
 in his memorable discourse on the subject of Justi- 
 fication, calls " the mystery of the man of sin" 
 
 Observe, brethren, I beseech you, that in speak- 
 ing of believing, I used the words "with all the heart." 
 Observe also, that I have, in what I have just stated, 
 made frequent use of the word 'fundamental" Let 
 me explain to you, why I attach importance to these 
 expressions. 
 
 Saving faith is much more a matter of the heart, 
 than of the mind. The mind may be ignorant on 
 many minor points ; and yet the heart may truly 
 believe, — like that of the Ethiopian Eunuch. We 
 must distinguish between fundamental things and 
 non-fundamental— between things essential and non- 
 essential. This is a distinction which Romanists 
 would fain destroy. They say, that it is unbelief, not 
 to receive all the things, small and great, contained 
 in Scripture, in the one true sense which belongs 
 to each. We acknowledge, that a man must believe 
 
215 
 
 all which he sees to be in Scripture ; but we deny 
 it to be necessary for him, that he should see all. 
 He must not, indeed, be wilfully ignorant. And 
 what he sees, he must believe ; because to do other- 
 wise, would be to doubt the truth of Scripture. But 
 he need not distress himself with the fear, that un- 
 avoidable ignorance will endanger his soul. St. 
 Paul says : " Now we know in part." And even 
 the part which it is allowed us to know, we do not 
 know perfectly. The sense of our deficiency should 
 quicken our desire to know more, and to come to 
 that bright and happy world, where we shall " see 
 Christ face to face ," and shall "know, even as also we 
 are known." But Romanists, by confounding what 
 is fundamental and what is non-fundamental, will en- 
 deavour to persuade you, that it is perilous to be 
 ignorant of anything affirmed in Scripture, or to 
 mistake the sense in the slightest matter. In all 
 cases they say the peril is equal, because it is that 
 of unbelief ; — making belief a merely mental opera- 
 tion, and leaving out the consideration of the heart. 
 And how are you to avoid falling into this peril 
 of unbelief? By joining their Church; and saying, 
 that you believe as the church believes ! The faith 
 of the church, they tell you, will then be yours. 
 Your belief, being implicit, will contain every thing. 
 Blindly believing you know not what, you will be- 
 
210 
 
 lieve aright. Is this like the faith we read of, in 
 the gospels and epistles — the faith which Jesus 
 and his apostles demanded ? My brethren, he as- 
 sured that the Church of Rome has no such know- 
 ledge herself, as is claimed for her. If she had, 
 she must be very cruel to her members, to have 
 withheld from them an authoritative and inspired 
 exposition of all parts of scripture. Why leave 
 them in the dark, if she could enlighten them ? 
 But has she not left many questions of importance 
 open questions — open to opposite opinions ? How 
 is this, if there be but one true sense for every 
 single thing in scripture ; and if it be a matter of 
 salvation to believe in the right sense, implicitly 
 or explicitly ? Is her own faith, then, as blind as 
 that which she desires her members to have ? Has 
 she not left it undecided, whether our Lord's words 
 in the sixth chapter of St. John's gospel, concern- 
 ing eating His flesh and drinking His blood, do all 
 apply to the Eucharist or not ? Has not the ques- 
 tion, whether the Virgin Mary was born sinless, 
 been hotly disputed within her pale for hundreds 
 of years ; though now the Pope is about to decide 
 it in favour of her sinlessness, and, in spite of the 
 awful anathema in the text, to decree a new 
 article of faith ? But, brethren, were the faith of 
 the Church of Rome as certain as it is uncertain, were 
 
217 
 
 it as pure as it is impure, it could not be yours, mere- 
 ly by your saying, ' I believe as the Church believes.' 
 There can be no vicarious faith. The real function 
 and use of a visible Church, is to lead you to believe 
 for yourselves — to lead you to Christ, the one great 
 object of faith. This is what our Church does. She 
 " lifts up Christ" — and He has said : " I, if I be lifted 
 up, will draw all men unto Me." But, for your com- 
 fort, when you' reflect on the deficiencies in your 
 faith and knowledge, our Church tells you, that 
 faith itself does not save you, as a work. Your de- 
 pendence for salvation is on Christ alone. If after 
 all your efforts to reach perfection, you are still im- 
 perfect in your faith, as in every thing else, you 
 must cry : "Lord I believe, help Thou mine unbelief." 
 Were not the Apostles, in our Lord's day, imperfect 
 and deficient, both in faith and knowledge ? But 
 they clung to Him with their heart — their faith and 
 knowledge sufficed for that. When Peter was 
 sinking in the waters, his faith was " little," as 
 Jesus called it ; but when he stretched out his hand 
 and cried " Lord, save or I perish," Jesus took hold 
 of him, and drew him out. Fear not, therefore, if 
 you so believe in the Saviour, that you "love Him? 
 and are ready to " give up all things for the excellen- 
 cy of the knowledge of Him." Fear not, I say ; 
 Christ will stretch out His arm, if you are willing 
 
218 
 
 to grasp it, and to be drawn out of the great 
 deep; — that deep, which otherwise must swallow 
 you up eternally. Faith, mighty as it is, is but 
 the hand that lays hold of Christ. It is but the 
 instrumental, not the meritorious, cause of accept- 
 ance. It needs the merits of the Saviour, to be itself 
 forgiven. Well have our Reformers spoken on this 
 important point. " Faith," says the Homily on 
 Salvation, " putteth us away from itself, and re- 
 mitteth us unto Christ, to have only by Him re- 
 mission of sins, or justification.'' It is like John 
 the Baptist, who confessed his own "unworthiness," 
 and pointed to " the Lamb of God which taketh away 
 the sins of the world." Tremble not, then, ye who 
 truly believe in Jesus, as the Incarnate and Cruci- 
 fied Saviour. Cleave to Him, and let nothing tear 
 you from Him. He is ready to receive you with 
 open arms. Find refuge in Him from all your fears 
 and all your sins. And when you have done this, 
 — when having experienced the sanctifying as well 
 as comforting effect of so doing, through the power 
 of the Spirit, you can cry : "J know whom I have be- 
 lieved, and am persuaded that He is able to keep that 
 which I have committed to Him against that day," — 
 then you will have a clearer and stronger assurance 
 within yourselves of the truth of Christianity, and 
 the inspiration of Scripture, than any which the ex- 
 
219 
 
 ternal evidences, however valuable to those who 
 study them, can convey. 
 
 But, says the Church of Rome : ' I am infallible. 
 I cannot err. I have the perpetual, miraculous 
 guidance of the Holy Ghost. So that I must have 
 all knowledge and all faith. And if you are found 
 in me, at the day of judgment, you must be safe !' 
 Thus in effect, she takes the place of Christ. 
 
 But if we ask how she proves what she says, we 
 find that it is mere assertion. 
 
 She appeals to Scripture, especially to the passage : 
 * Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the 
 world." But when we deny that this contains a 
 promise of infallibility, she claims the right of in- 
 fallibly interpreting it. This is taking for granted 
 the thing to be proved, (h) 
 
 We ask, where does this Infallibility lie? Does 
 it lie in one certain place, where it may be found ? 
 If the Church of Rome is not infallibly sure of that, 
 what can she be infallibly sure of ? The very first 
 use of infallibility should be to proclaim its own 
 seat of residence ; otherwise how can it be con- 
 sulted, when most needed ? It condemns its own 
 pretensions, if it cannot do this. 
 
 Does it reside in ( the Church at large?' If so, 
 it must always have done this. But it did not re- 
 side there, when the Church was most pure, and 
 
220 
 
 had just received the miraculous effusion of the 
 Holy Ghost on the Day of Pentecost. For it is 
 plain, from the scripture narrative, that the Apostles 
 themselves, and the whole Church, were ignorant of 
 the great fact, that the Gentiles were to he admitted 
 on equal terms with the Jews, through simple faith 
 in Christ. It was needful that Peter's eyes should 
 be opened to this fact, by a special vision, preced- 
 ing the conversion of Cornelius. And it was with 
 difficulty that the eyes of the rest could be opened, 
 after that event. Yet, in the parting words of our 
 Lord, and in the prophecies of Isaiah, what could 
 be plainer, than the communication of God's pur- 
 pose to the Church, that the Gentiles were to be 
 "fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers 
 of his promise in Christ by the gospel ?" If the 
 early church, then, even when it consisted partly 
 of the Apostles, could be so blind — blind to the 
 doctrine of its own Catholicity — how can a claim of 
 unerring distinctness of sight be set up for the 
 Church at large, in any succeeding time ? 
 
 Since, then, Infallibility does not reside in the 
 visible Church at large, where else can it be said 
 to reside ? 
 
 Will they answer : ' In Councils ;' — after the 
 clergy had been distinguished from the laity, and 
 were supposed to form the " Church ?" But here, 
 
221 
 
 again, a single failure overthrows the supposition. 
 Now, not many years after the first Council of Nice 
 was held, a still larger council was held at Arim- 
 inum, or as it is now called, Rimini (where the 
 picture of the Virgin is said to wink), in which 
 council the decision of that of Nice was overthrown. 
 The same opposition of councils is proveable in 
 other cases. Consequently, councils cannot be the 
 seat of infallibility — for, as our twenty-first Article 
 says, " General Councils, forasmuch as they be an 
 " assembly of men, whereof all be not governed 
 " with the spirit and word of God, may err, and 
 " sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining 
 " unto God." 
 
 Does Infallibility lie in that vague thing called 
 ' General Consent ?' Here again, the claim is de- 
 stroyed by facts. For in the days of Athanasius, 
 so grievously had the visible Church at large erred 
 in fundamental faith, that it was a saying which 
 has come down to our days, and which comforted 
 the heart of Luther in his days, that "it was Athan- 
 asius against the ivorld" Consequently ' general 
 consent,' which was against the truth at that time, 
 can at no time be trusted, as infallible. 
 
 Lastly, will they fly to 'the Pope,' and tell us, as 
 they universally do in the present day, that infal- 
 libility rests with him, as the successor of St. Peter ? 
 
 d 2 
 
222 
 
 But was St. Peter himself infallible ? On the con- 
 trary, did he not fall into the error of the Judaizers, 
 against whom St. Paul wrote the Epistle from 
 which our text is taken ? Where was his infalli- 
 bility then, when St. Paul rebuked him ; and that 
 with such justice, that he could make no reply? St. 
 Peter was undoubtedly guilty both of error and 
 schism on that occasion. Let the world judge 
 whether his pretended successors have not imitated 
 him in these respects, rather than in his many 
 shining Christian virtues. 
 
 Thus, my brethren, I have practically shewn the 
 falsehood of that presumptuous claim of infallibility, 
 which the Church of Rome makes for herself and 
 her pontiff. In whatever sense, as to the meaning 
 and extent of the promise, Christ's words are taken, 
 " I am with you always,'' they cannot be taken in a 
 sense in which the fulfilment is manifestly inter- 
 rupted. The word "always" precludes the idea of 
 interruption. But whether as regards the Church 
 at large, or General Councils, or General Consent, 
 or the chief Pontiff, it is plain, that there have been 
 cases where error has prevailed ; — consequently, in 
 none of these quarters, can the promise of Christ 
 have been fulfilled, in the sense of conferring in- 
 fallibility. 
 
 This might, one should have thought, have driven 
 
223 
 
 the Romanists to put another and more correct 
 sense on the promise ; but the lust of dominion is 
 too strong, to suffer them to part with their false 
 claim. They, therefore, attempt to justify it on ge- 
 neral grounds of reasoning ; not on the ground of this 
 promise alone. They plead the necessity of the case. 
 They say : ' There must be an infallible Judge of 
 Controversies, (i) to prevent schisms, and drive out 
 heresies. This must be — therefore it is.' 
 
 It is always dangerous for human beings, es- 
 pecially " in things pertaining to God," to say, what 
 ' must be.' Our wisdom is small, and should be 
 guided entirely by God's revealed wisdom, (k) Nay, 
 often our wisdom is the opposite to God's, and is 
 confounded by the revelation of His. 
 
 This truth is eminently confirmed in the present 
 case. A slight examination of Scripture suffices 
 to rebuke the wisdom of those, who would have 
 an infallible tribunal erected on earth, at which re- 
 ligious controversies should be settled beyond 
 appeal. 
 
 Was there no danger of schism and heresy in 
 the Apostles' days ? Yet we find no declaration 
 made, that such a tribunal was to be established, in 
 order to meet the danger. 
 
 The Galatians were actually assailed by error 
 and division. They were likely to be still more 
 
224 
 
 assailed. They were weak in themselves, as 
 several strong expressions used by St. Paul imply. 
 " I stand in doubt of you" he says. " After ye have 
 known God," he says, " how turn ye again to the 
 weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire a- 
 gain to be in bondage." Alas ! these words show the 
 weakness of the human heart. It desires to be in 
 bondage. It loves not spiritual liberty. It is the 
 traitor within, which delivers men up to Romanism, 
 or any other form of self-righteousness. Again, St. 
 Paul says to the Galatians : "J am afraid of you, 
 lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain." There 
 could not, then, be a case, in which the tribunal in 
 question was more needed, if the mere keeping up of 
 external unity and profession was the only, or the 
 chief, object to be desired. But we find not a word 
 concerning such a remedy. Nothing was to protect 
 them, but their own private judgment, — exercised 
 with prayer for the removal of all secret disinclination 
 to judge aright. The Apostle knew that he had 
 not many years to live ; yet he leaves them to this 
 protection alone. He had given them " the Gospel." 
 They had " the truth as it is in Jesus" — they had 
 free access to " the throne of grace" — they could 
 have no more, because these were sufficient. All 
 other protection would, in the end, lead to worse 
 bondage. 
 
2-25 
 
 At Miletus, did St. Paul acquaint the assembled 
 elders of Miletus and Ephesus, with any divine 
 intention of establishing an Infallible Tribunal? 
 If there had been such an intention, surely that 
 was the time for announcing it. For he warns them 
 not only of " grievous wolves" invading them from 
 without, but he goes on to say : " yea, even of your 
 own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, 
 to draw away disciples after them." Did he provide 
 an external remedy ? Did he tell them to call 
 General Councils ? Did he foreshadow a particular 
 church, like that of Rome, which should infallibly 
 protect the general faith? Did he speak of a successor 
 to St. Peter, to be armed with universal authority, 
 and guarded from all error ? No ! he is again silent 
 as to all means of protection, but those which they 
 had within themselves — the knowledge they pos- 
 sessed of the truth, and the grace of God's Holy 
 Spirit. He simply bids them " keep in remem- 
 brance^ what he had preached to them, assuring 
 them that he " had kept back nothing that was 
 profitable to them." If, therefore, St. Paul had 
 known of any divine plan of erecting an Infallible 
 Tribunal, which the Romanists now affirm to be so 
 « profitable" for men, would he have " kept it back?*' 
 Would* he merely have used the farewell words : 
 " And now } brethren, I commend you to God, and 
 
226 
 
 to the word of His grace, which is able to build you 
 up, and to give you an inheritance among all them 
 which are sanctified ?" 
 
 Again ; to the Corinthians, among whom divi- 
 sions had already found entrance to a painful ex- 
 tent, he expressly says : " there must be also heresies 
 among you." — Why? — u that they which are ap- 
 proved may be made manifest among you" Here 
 he assigns the reason why God would permit the 
 existence of error in the church, — as He does that 
 of immorality. It would be to try their constancy. 
 Good may be brought out of evil, in this proba- 
 tionary state. Some evils are, by the divine regu- 
 lation of them, a remedy for worse evils. In the 
 natural world, storms are a cure for stagnation. 
 Thus God works His mighty and merciful will. 
 St. Paul says not a word of any mode of preventing 
 heresies, or causing them to cease. He does not 
 say : ' In order to prevent heresies arising among 
 you, there must be an infallible judge of contro- 
 versies.' Neither does he say : ' In order that, if 
 they should arise, they may be expelled, there must 
 be a vicar of Christ on earth.' No, he warns them 
 of what was inevitably coming, and bids them pre- 
 pare for the trial, with the means of defence, which 
 he had already given them. 
 
 Were St. Paul's predictions accomplished ? Did 
 
227 
 
 contentions, schisms, heresies, arise in the various 
 churches ? We can know very little of past history, 
 if we know not that they did. In the time of St. 
 Augustine, that learned father was able to count no 
 less than Eighty-Eight heresies, existing in his 
 day. Yet no infallible judge is mentioned as being 
 then known. No single tribunal, at which contend- 
 ing parties might appear. No Pope. 
 
 What is the comfort which the devout reader of 
 scripture and history has, when he sees the sad 
 spectacle of divisions among the worshippers of a 
 common Saviour ? He distinguishes between the 
 Church Invisible, and the Visible Church.(l) History 
 deals only with the latter ; but faith realizes the 
 former. " Faith is the evidence of things not seen." 
 Faith is sure that there has ever been, and ever 
 will be, " one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church." 
 'One/ as being the body of Christ, with Him for its 
 only head. 'Holy,' " because He is holy ;" and yet, 
 whilst militant here below, never perfectly holy. 
 'Catholic,' or universal, as differing, in this respect, 
 from the Church of the Jews before Christ, which 
 was confined to a single nation. 'Apostolic,' because 
 preserving the doctrine of the Apostles. With this 
 Church, Christ has promised that He will ever be. 
 By His spirit, it ever has been, and ever will be, 
 governed and sanctified. But we must not confound 
 
228 
 
 it with any particular visible churches. These may, 
 or may not, remain parts of it. Like a spreading 
 tree, it has branches in various states. Some may 
 be flourishing, others decaying, some dead, and yet 
 adhering to the tree, others altogether severed 
 from it, and mouldering into dust. Where is the 
 Church of Corinth ? Where the Church of Ephesus? 
 What purity could exceed that of the EphesianS; in 
 the Apostle's days, when he wrote to them his glowing 
 epistle ? Yet, thirty years after, it appears, from 
 St. John's message to them, that they had " left 
 their first love" " Where," we may go on to ask, " are 
 " the Churches of Asia, and of Greece, once so illus- 
 " trious? Where is the glory of Antioch, in which 
 " the disciples were first called Christians ? Where 
 " is the Church of the city of Tyre, whither the ships 
 "of all the earth flocked with their burdens, and 
 " where the blessed Apostle found brethren to re- 
 " fresh his heart seven days on his martyr voyage ? 
 " Where is the Church of Alexandria, the seat of 
 " the great Athanasius ? Where is Hippo, and 
 '• Carthage, and Nicsea, once the centre of Christ- 
 " endom, whence shone a light that has reached 
 " even to us ? Their candlesticks are removed — 
 " their lamp is put out in obscure darkness." It 
 may be said, the Church of the Romans was not 
 included in these. No — it was kept comparatively 
 
229 
 
 pure, for the first two centuries at least — perhaps 
 by divine providence, that it might serve as a contrast 
 to the modern Church of Rome. But when the Pagan 
 empire was taken out of the way, the warning of the 
 Apostle to the Romans was forgotten : " Be not 
 highminded, but fear!" " If God spared not the 
 natural branches," (alluding to the Jews) " take 
 heed lest He also spare not thee. Behold the severity 
 and goodness of God ; on them which fell severity ; 
 but toward thee, goodness ; if thou continue in 
 His goodness, otherwise thou also shalt be 
 cut off." Who will say, if he compares Roman- 
 ism with the religion of the Scriptures, that the 
 church of Rome has "continued in God's good- 
 ness ?" Who shall say, that it is not at this mo- 
 ment, a dead branch and withered, — though yet ex- 
 ternally adhering to the tree ? Who can tell how 
 soon that mighty tempest shall arise, which will 
 hurl it to the ground in the sight of all the world ? 
 Rome even now may be near her end. The cry 
 may at no distant hour be heard. " Babylon is 
 fallen, is fallen, that great City ; because she made 
 all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her 
 fornication." 
 
 My brethren, our Reformers had need of the 
 comfort which faith in Christ's promises to the In- 
 visible Church supplies. For the outward Church 
 
 e 2 
 
230 
 
 in their days was, apparently, in a dying state. 
 What says Cranmer? 
 
 " The Church is the ' pillar of the truth,' because 
 " it resteth on God's Word, which is the true and 
 " sure foundation, and will not suffer it to err. 
 " But as for the open, known Church, and the out- 
 " ward face thereof, it is not the pillar of truth, 
 " otherwise than it is a register or treasury to keep 
 " the books of God's holy will and testament. The 
 " holy Church of Christ is but a small flock, in com- 
 " parison of the great multitude of them that follow 
 " Satan and Antichrist ; as the Word of God and 
 " the course of the world, from the beginning unto 
 " this day, doth shew." (m) 
 
 What says Ridley ? In one of his " Confer- 
 ences" with his brother-martyr Latimer, when their 
 end was approaching, he thus speaks : 
 
 " The * holy catholic or universal Charch! which 
 " is ' the communion of saints' the house of God, 
 " the city of God, the spouse of Christ, the body of 
 " Christ, the pillar and stay of the truth, this 
 " Church, I believe, according to the creed ; this 
 " Church I do reverence and honour in the Lord. 
 " But the rule of this Church is the Word of God, 
 " according to which rule, we go forward unto life. 
 " And ' as many as walk according to this rule,' I 
 " say with St. Paul, ' peace be upon them, and upon 
 
231 
 
 •' the Israel of God.' The guide of this Church is 
 " the Holy Ghost. The marks whereby this Church 
 •' is known unto me in this dark world are these, 
 " the sincere preaching of God's Word, the due ad- 
 " miuistration of the sacraments, charity, and faith- 
 " ful observing of ecclesiastical discipline, according 
 " to the Word of God. And that church or 
 " congregation, which is garnished with these 
 " marks, is in very deed that heavenly Jerusalem, 
 " which consisteth of those that be born from above. 
 " This is the mother of us all ; and by God's grace, 
 " I will live and die the child of this Church. 
 "■ Forth of this, I grant, is no salvation. ' In times 
 "past,' saith St. Chrysostom ' there were many ways 
 " to know the Church of Christ, that is to say, by 
 '? good life, by miracles, by chastity, by doctrine, by 
 " ministering the sacraments. But from that time 
 "that heresies did take hold of the Churches, it is 
 " only known by the Scriptures, which is the true 
 " Church. They have all things in outward shew, 
 " which the true Church hath in truth'. And in 
 '* the end concludeth : 'Wherefore, only by the Scrip- 
 ' ; tures do we know, which is the true Church'." 
 
 Brethren, I trust that you will gain a clear idea 
 from these quotations, what the Catholic Church 
 is, and will not be liable to be led astray by the pre- 
 tension of a particular Church, like that of Rome, 
 
232 
 
 that she is the Catholic Church. Nay, since it is " by 
 Scripture alone, that we know which be the true 
 Church," as Chrysostom and our Reformers say, 
 you will be able to judge for yourselves, whether she 
 has any part in the true Church or not.(n) I con- 
 fess, myself, that I have great doubts on that point. 
 But I do not venture to decide positively. You 
 must examine the question for yourselves. 
 
 Be thankful to God, that your own Church was 
 purified. Behold in its existence, in its present 
 state of renewed spiritual strength and beauty, a 
 visible proof that Christ's promise has been fulfilled. 
 There are not wanting the same proofs elsewhere. 
 There are churches at this moment, more or less 
 pure, on the earth, unconnected with that of Rome. 
 There are christians in all countries, who love 
 Christ and one another, and keep the true spiritual 
 religion alive in the world — perhaps there never 
 was a larger number of such ; — we doubt not that 
 even in the Church of Rome, there are individuals, 
 whom the wonderful power of God preserves from 
 the corruptions of the system to which they are ex- 
 posed ; and to whom the cry is addressed, " come 
 out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her 
 sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.' '(o) What 
 more proof is required, that Christ " has built His 
 Church upon a Bock, and that the Gates of Hell 
 
233 
 
 have not," during the space of eighteen hundred 
 years, " prevailed against it .*'■ Let this proof, 
 which is the evidence of our senses, be a cheering 
 assurance to us, in looking forward to the future. 
 
 The outward Church, when it is pure, and en- 
 closes in its bosom a large inward one, is one of the 
 greatest blessings which a land can enjoy. It is 
 Christ's institution. It is a " witness and keeper of 
 Holy Writ." It carries the religion of Jesus to 
 every man's door. There is absolute need of the 
 outward Church for this purpose. Men do not 
 naturally seek religion, as they do bodily food and 
 clothing. It must seek them, as its blessed Author did, 
 — who "came to seek and save them that were lost." 
 It must force itself on their attention, and strive to 
 be heard in the midst of worldly din, and in spite 
 of the seducing calls of worldly pleasure. This is 
 the use of a standing Ministry. Edifices, also, 
 must be provided, and kept sacred, for public wor- 
 ship and public preaching. Man is a social being — 
 and the religion of Christ is eminently social. It 
 binds men in the firmest and most endearing ties. 
 " We know that we have passed from death unto life, 
 because we love the brethren " The holy glow and 
 flame of public worship, is highly conducive to indi- 
 vidual warmth, both of faith and piety. God is 
 honoured. Christ is lifted up. The Comforter is 
 
234 
 
 sought. The sacraments are administered. The 
 Gospel is proclaimed, and " the peace of God, which 
 passeth all understanding, keeps the hearts and 
 minds" of thousands. And a high standard of mor- 
 ality is the happy result. For the purest faith and 
 the brightest virtues go hand in hand. Let Eng- 
 land's Church be tried by this test ; and ungrateful 
 must England's people be, if they do not willingly 
 own their obligations to our Reformers. 
 
 Now contrast, brethren, the Church of Home, 
 and the countries where that church bears rule, 
 with your own Church and country. What are the 
 fruits of the Infallibility, which the Church of Rome 
 claims? If she can interpret the Scriptures unerringly, 
 surely she delights in the continual exercise of that 
 high privilege. No such thing. Instead of holding 
 constant intercourse with the divine book, she shuns 
 it, shrinks from it, and infuses a distrust of it into 
 her children. And no wonder. For as soon as we 
 look into it, we perceive that the distinctive tenets 
 developed by her Infallibility are, to the eye of 
 common sense, at direct variance with the Gospel 
 of Christ. Unless we resign our reason, we must 
 see this variance. That she herself is conscious 
 how manifest it is, may be inferred from her taking 
 the desperate step of exalting the Apocryphal books 
 to a level with the canonical, that she might find 
 
235 
 
 a countenance for some of her tenets, which scrip- 
 ture cannot be tortured into affording. The same 
 consciousness is betrayed by her use of the Latin 
 language in her public services, and by her restraint 
 of the private reading of the scriptures in the 
 vernacular tongue. I will not enter into particu- 
 lar tenets — some of which I shall discuss hereafter. 
 What have been the visible effects of her rule on the 
 nations and lands where it has long been exercised ? 
 Are they not sunk in mental darkness ? Is this 
 the natural effect of enjoying an infallible instruct- 
 ness ? Should we not have expected the very con- 
 trary ? Does not light spread ? Can the sun 
 shine, and the fields be wrapt in gloom ? I will use 
 the testimony of a modern historian, (p) who is not 
 inclined to speak unkindly, but from whom truth 
 extorts the following language : 
 
 " During the last three centuries" (i. e. ever 
 since the Reformation), "to stunt the growth of the 
 "human mind has been the chief object of the 
 " Church of Home. Throughout Christendom, 
 " whatever advance has been made in knowledge, 
 " in freedom, in wealth, and in the arts of life, has 
 " been made in spite of her, and has everywhere 
 " been in the inverse proportion to her misguided 
 •' power. The loveliest and most fertile provinces 
 " of Europe have, under her rule, been sunk in 
 
236 
 
 " poverty, in political servitude, and intellectual 
 u torpor. While Protestant countries, once pro- 
 " verbial for sterility and barbarism, have been 
 " turned by skill and industry into gardens, and 
 " can boast of a long list of heroes and statesmen, 
 " philosophers and poets. Whoever, knowing what 
 " Italy and Scotland naturally are, and what, four 
 " hundred years ago, they actually were, should now 
 " compare the country around Home with the 
 f country around Edinburgh, will be able to form 
 "some judgment as to the tendency of Papal dom- 
 " ination. The descent of Spain, once the first 
 " among monarchies, to the lowest depths of degra- 
 " dation ; the elevation of Holland, in spite of 
 " many natural disadvantages, to a position such as 
 " no commonwealth so small has ever reached, 
 " teach the same lesson. Whoever passes in Ger- 
 " many, from a Roman Catholic to a Protestant 
 '•principality; in Switzerland, from a Roman Ca- 
 " tholic to a Protestant canton ; in Ireland, from a 
 " Roman Catholic to a Protestant county ; finds 
 " that he has passed from a lower to a higher grade 
 " of civilization. On the other side of the Atlantic, 
 " the same law prevails. The Protestants of the 
 *' United States have left far behind them the 
 " Roman Catholics of Mexico, Peru, and Brazil. 
 "The Roman Catholics of Lower Canada remain 
 
237 
 
 •f inert, whilst the whole continent around them* is 
 "in a ferment with Protestant activity and enter- 
 " prise." 
 
 Such is the picture drawn by a free and mas- 
 terly hand, but with not a single colour overcharged, 
 No one, acquainted with the facts, will attempt to 
 deny its accuracy. Here, then, you have before your 
 eyes effects, which can be traced only to one cause. 
 Places, lying side by side in the same country, en- 
 joying the same government, laws, and climate, and 
 differing only in religion — or countries, with all the 
 natural advantages on one side, and the disad- 
 vantages on the other — exhibit to the world this 
 striking contrast, (q) Will men behold it and 
 draw no conclusion ? Or will they close their eyes 
 to it, and rush blindfold into mental and spiritual 
 slavery ? With the practical experience of three 
 hundred years, during which the Reformation, 
 that gave mental and spiritual liberty, has pro- 
 duced its visible fruits, will they go back to their 
 former bondage ? Nothing but temporary insanity 
 can induce them to do so — but I am not aware that 
 nations are safe from fits of insanity, more than in- 
 dividuals. Let us pray that God may not send one 
 on us ! 
 
 The picture just presented to you did not go be- 
 low the surface. The historian shrank from com- 
 
 f % 
 
238 
 
 paring the morality produced under the rule of Po- 
 pery, with that which prevails under the mild sway 
 of the Gospel. Let the history of the Jesuits dis- 
 close the system of morals, which drew upon them 
 the indignation of Europe in the last century, and 
 the blighting exposure made by the pen of Pascal. 
 Yet that Order has been restored, without the slight- 
 est condemnation of their morals ! Let history tell, 
 what was the state of France, after the revocation 
 of the Edict of Nantes. Infidelity, which had been 
 successfully met and driven out of this country by 
 Protestantism, found refuge in France, where Po 
 pery was utterly unable to contend with it. (r) The 
 result was that dreadful Revolution, during which 
 the Altar was thrown down, — and a harlot enthron- 
 ed, amidst the acclamations of the whole nation, as 
 the goddess of reason ! But we need not consult his- 
 tory alone, however recent. Our own times supply 
 evidence sufficient. We need only go to Italy, and 
 the city of Rome, at this moment. Is the infallible 
 "Head of the Church" beloved by his subjects ? Do 
 they — does Italy at large — bless his sway ? Has it 
 produced a state of morals, such as we should wish 
 to see in England ? Has it produced content and 
 happiness ? Have the Romans, after enjoying the 
 paternal rule of the " Father of the Faithful," the 
 " Vicegerent of Christ," for more than a thousand 
 
239 
 
 years, brought forth the fruits — I will not say, of 
 the Spirit — but of social excellence ? Have they 
 surpassed all Europe in intellectual stature ? Have 
 they surpassed — have they equalled — their ancient 
 heathen ancestors ? On the contrary, have they 
 not notoriously sunk into decrepitude ? God made 
 man to walk erect, and breathe the air of Heaven ; 
 — when man prefers to kiss the feet of a fellow- 
 mortal, he injures his nature, and approaches the 
 dust from which he was taken. Christianity, 
 above all things, gives freedom ; — " If the Truth 
 shall make you free, then are ye free indeed." It 
 asks the hearts of men — it seeks the service, not of 
 slaves but of children — and when men become 
 children of God, they treat one another as brethren. 
 But false religion, under every form of it that ever 
 appeared on earth, desires to rule by force. It feels 
 itself unsafe, if the worshippers have liberty. I 
 leave you to apply this to the case before us. In 
 my opinion, nothing more can be needed than the 
 state of Home, and Italy in general — moral, mental, 
 and social, — to open the eyes of the most careless 
 to the fact, that Popery is not the Christianity which 
 the Saviour left us. If it were, it would produce 
 better visible fruits. 
 
 Under the Jewish dispensation, the beginning of 
 
240 
 
 all the miseries, the schisms, the idolatries, the 
 Assyrian and Babylonish captivities, of God's an- 
 cient people, was " their making themselves a 
 " fcrngr,"— when the Lord their God was their king. 
 
 When the Saviour came to draw them back to 
 their allegiance to their true Monarch, what was 
 the reception which that degraded people gave Him? 
 Did they open their eyes to their past folly, and 
 cry : f This is the Son of God, let us fall down at 
 His feet and worship Him ?' No, they said : " This 
 is the heir, come let us kill him." And when He put 
 himself in their power, for our sakes, and was led 
 forth to death, they placed a crown on His head, 
 and a reed in His hand, and bowed their heads in 
 mockery, and cried, " Hail King of the Jews /" 
 
 Such was the effect of superstition and formalism. 
 All spirituality was gone. The unhappy Jews had no 
 longer the hearts of children, the only hearts which 
 God requires. Their minds were debased and dark. 
 They could not read their scriptures aright. They 
 could not see that their Messiah was among them. 
 The worst of all corruption — the corruption of true 
 religion — had hardened and blinded them. The 
 worst of all curses had befallen them — that which 
 God pronounced, when He said : (< I will curse their 
 blessings." 
 
 may this never happen to us, my brethren. 
 
241 
 
 May our homage to our Invisible King be ever a 
 ^art-homage ! May it ever remain spiritual and 
 undivided ! May we " call no man Master upon 
 earth !" 
 
 What did an assumed Infallibility do for the 
 Jews ? If ever there was a visible church, armed 
 with authority from Heaven, it was that of the 
 Jews. The Romanists openly contend, that it had 
 Infallibility, (s) They know that they cannot plead 
 for their own, unless they maintain that of the Jew- 
 ish Church. Yet it led the Jews to crucify Christ ! 
 The people looked to their rulers and chief priests, 
 and asked : "Have any of them believed ?" The 
 rulers held their Sanhedrim. The high-priest 
 pronounced that Jesus was an impostor, and must 
 die ! — though the Spirit of God made him uncon- 
 sciously a prophet, as to the effects of that death. 
 The Son of God went forth, bearing his cross — 
 testifying to the utter falsehood, and horrible cruelty, 
 of the claim to Infallibility. Whilst we adore Him 
 for atoning for our sins, let us not forget the silent 
 testimony which the atonement bore, to the conse- 
 quences of allowing that claim. Let us beware 
 lest we " crucify the Son of God afresh ;" and by 
 acknowledging any " High Priest" but Him, " put 
 him" once more « to an open shame." 
 
242 
 
 I have directed your eyes, my brethren, to the 
 visible fruits of a pretended human Infallibility — 
 rather than to the particular false doctrines, which 
 have flowed from it in the case before us. To these 
 latter I shall call your attention in a few discourses 
 to come. Transubstantiation, which bends the 
 knee to a wafer; — Saint- worship, which exalts the 
 earthly mother of Jesus to the throne, on which He 
 sits with his heavenly Father ; — the Confessional, 
 which forgets the words : " Who can forgive sins, 
 but God only ?" — these and other points, will occupy 
 us shortly. We shall then see some of the doc- 
 trinal fruits. 
 
 Finally, " what shall we say to these things ?" Be 
 very jealous, brethren, for the honour and supreme 
 authority of Christ. — for the purity of the gospel, 
 — and your own safety. Let the text often occur to 
 your minds. It will be a safeguard to you. It 
 teaches you, that when such interests are at stake, 
 there must be no hesitation, no humility. In de- 
 fence of your Christian liberty, you must " give 
 place by subjection, no not for an hour;" — though it 
 were St. Peter himself who demanded your subjec- 
 tion — much less, when his so-called successor de- 
 mands it. You must listen to no voice which claims 
 a power to interpret Scripture, beyond the power 
 
243 
 
 which diligent study, with all available helps from 
 the piety and learning of others, confers on all 
 men. (t) Keceive no new Gospel — no fresh articles 
 of faith — no pretended revelation — from any quar- 
 ter ; no, not from within. The Spirit of God will 
 never suggest anything, either to the rulers or pri- 
 vate members of churches, which is not in manifest 
 accordance with the words which He moved the 
 writers of Scripture to utter. " The voice of the 
 Gospel," said Luther, " once sent forth, shall never 
 be called back till the day of Judgment." The 
 text warns us, that it must neither be contradicted 
 nor added to. There is no safety for human beings 
 whether from the dogmas of Rome, or the wild 
 ravings of fanaticism, or the dreams of their own 
 heated imagination, but in humble, prayerful, confid- 
 ing study of the written Word. Scripture in its 
 fundamental points — those which constitute the 
 Gospel — those which were commanded to be 
 preached to all men, not left to be discovered or 
 developed in after times — those which the Gala- 
 tians had received, and which were to protect them 
 from false teachers — is clear, and sufficient. Trust 
 it, my brethren ; trust your reason, exercised upon 
 it, — in dependence on the Giver both of scripture 
 and reason, to remove all inward impediments, (u) 
 Heed not what the Romanists say, when you thus 
 
244 
 
 use your private judgment. They may deride you, 
 as if you were inconsistent, and whilst denying 
 the Pope's Infallibility, were each of you making 
 himself infallible. Not so, any more than each 
 Komanist makes himself infallible. The Church 
 of Rome speaks to him, and bids him receive what 
 she speaks, in the Decrees of Trent and the Creed 
 of Pope Pius the Fourth. God speaks to us, and 
 bids us receive what He speaks, in Holy Scripture. 
 In each case, the hearer endeavours to understand 
 what is spoken. In neither case is he infallible. 
 But in the one case, the speaker is human and fal- 
 lible ; in the other, divine and infallible. In the 
 one case, men are distrusting God ; in the other, 
 they are placing a due confidence in Him, and will 
 receive His blessing. In the one case, the Church 
 of Rome utters her anathemas against all who re- 
 ceive not the additions she has made to the Gospel ; 
 in the other, God utters His anathema in the text 
 against all who make such additions. Care not for 
 any taunts, then, my brethren. Reason must be used, 
 both by Protestants and Romanists, at one point or 
 another, and in one way or another — either to trust 
 the Church's infallibility, or the Scripture's. Use 
 yours to trust the latter. Christ and His Apostles 
 enjoin men to exercise private judgment. To the 
 Tews, our Lord said : " Yea, why even of yourselves 
 
245 
 
 judge ye not what is right ?" To the Christians of 
 Corinth, St. Paul said : '• I speak as unto wise men, 
 judge ye what I say." On this inalienable privilege 
 of using the reason, in order to judge of the mean- 
 ing of Scripture, hang all the best and dearest in- 
 terests of mankind. You may feel a moral assur- 
 ance — an assurance such as you feel, that when the 
 sun goes down at night, it will rise in the morning 
 — an assurance by which you guide yourselves 
 cheerfully in all the affairs of life, — though never 
 amounting to infallibility, — you may, I say, feel a 
 moral assurance, that you are in the way to Heaven, 
 when you follow Christ, calling you in the Gospel. 
 " Behold," He cries, " I stand at the door, and 
 knock; if any man hear My voice, and open the door, 
 I will come in to him." Only believe — open 
 your hearts — let Christ and the Holy Ghost, 
 and their heavenly train of graces, enter — let 
 self-righteousness and self-love depart. Then 
 you will be safe. You will belong to the true 
 Church — the invisible and blessed Church within 
 the visible. You will be of the communion of saints. 
 You will be holy, and happy, here and hereafter. 
 " My sheep," says Christ, " hear My voice ; and I 
 know them ; and they follow Me ; and I give unto 
 them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither 
 shall any pluck them out of My hand'* 
 
 o 2 
 
NOTES TO LECTURE V. 
 
 (a) p. 204. Dr. Wiseman, in the first of his 
 "Lectures on the Eucharist," delivered a. d.1836, 
 says: " Catholic" (Roman Catholic) " controvertists, 
 " especially in England and Germany, have greatly 
 " erred, by allowing themselves to be led by Pro- 
 " testants, into a war of detail, meeting them as 
 " they desired in partial combats for particular dog- 
 " mas ; instead of steadily fixing them to one funda- 
 " mental discussion, and resolving all compound in- 
 " quiries into their one simple element, church au- 
 •' thoeity." This is fairly stated. The order, then, 
 in which Romanists desire $o discuss disputed ques- 
 tions, is always this : * Begin with settling our au- 
 thority ; for if you will grant that, we will settle all 
 other points for you,' But this is not the order in 
 which St. Paul told the Galatians to proceed, in 
 case he should come to them preaching " another 
 gospel." They were not to ask : * Is it really he ?' 
 — but, ' Is this new gospel such as to subvert the 
 one he preached before ; or if not to subvert it, yet 
 to imply that it was incomplete ?' How were they 
 to procure an answer to this question ? Py asking 
 him to answer it ? — or by asking their own sense, 
 
247 
 
 exercised on the Gospel they had received ? 
 Clearly, the latter is the course pointed out by St. 
 Paul ; the other would have been a mockery. 
 
 (b) p. 205 The Romanists have spent infinite 
 pains in drawing out a list of " notes or marks of 
 the true Church" Bellarmine has nine — univers- 
 ality, antiquity, duration, multitude, succession, 
 primitive doctrine, unity, sanctity, and efficacy. It 
 is not difficult to shew, that these are either not pe- 
 culiar marks of the true Church, or are not appli- 
 cable to the Church of Rome. Dr. Field has done 
 this in his able work on the " Church." It has 
 also been done by several distinguished divines of 
 a later day, that of James the Second, in Bishop 
 Gibson's "" Preservative." The celebrated Rule of 
 Vincentius Lirinensis has been called in to their aid 
 by the Romanists, but with little success. That 
 rule is : That whatever has been held by all Christ- 
 ians, at all times, and in all places, must be true. 
 He laid down this rule, with many deductions, in 
 order to guard the Church against novelties. He 
 would have been indignant, had he lived to see the 
 modern use of this rule, thus laid down 1400 years 
 ago. Its true application is very limited. The 
 Apostolic times present the most perfect, perhaps 
 the only perfect, exemplification of it. Bishop 
 Jeremy Taylor says : " We, Protestants, finding 
 " little or nothing, excepting this, that the Bible is 
 " the Word of God, and that the Bible contains all 
 " the will of God for our salvation, all doctrines of 
 " faith and life, little or nothing else, I say, des- 
 ** cending to us by an universal tradition, therefore 
 •< we have reason to adhere to Scripture, and re- 
 " nounce all pretence of tradition of any matters of 
 
248 
 
 "faith, not plainly set down in the Bible." (2nd part 
 of " Dissuasive from Popery") 
 
 Such was that learned Prelate's application of 
 Vincent's rule. Bishop Stillingfleet speaks of it 
 in the following manner : 
 
 " Wise men who have thoroughly considered it, 
 " though in general they cannot but approve of it, 
 " so far as to think it highly improbable that there 
 " should be antiquity, universality, and consent, 
 " against the true and genuine sense of Scripture, 
 " yet when they consider this way of Vincentius, 
 " with all those cautions, restrictions, and limita- 
 " tions, set down by him (1. i. c. 39), they are apt 
 " to think that he hath put men to a wild-goose 
 " chase to find out anything according to his rules." 
 
 Vincent himself is charged with being a semi- 
 Pelagian. Basnage says that he wrote his treatise, 
 because the semi-Pelagians were embarassed by 
 Augustine s arguments derived from Scripture. So 
 they had recourse to the appeal to Catholic Tradi- 
 tions. The only real Catholic Tradition is that 
 which is handed down in Scripture from those happy 
 days, when " the multitude of them that believed were 
 of one heart and of one soul." (Acts iv., 32) (See 
 Lardner's " Credibility," on Vincent of Lerins.) 
 
 (c) p. 203. A living and distinguished Bishop 
 of our Church, whose works on the Fathers will 
 carry hi3 name down to posterity, thus speaks on 
 the subject of Private Judgment. 
 
 " In the 20th Article of the Church of England, 
 " there is an appeal made from the authority of the 
 " Church to a higher tribunal, which is to determine 
 
249 
 
 " whether that which is ordained by the Church, is 
 " contrary to God's Word written, or not. ' What,' 
 " asks Dr. Wiseman, « is this tribunal ? Ts each 
 " man to judge for himself?' We answer without 
 " hesitation, that he is. ' What then,' he rejoins, 'is 
 " each individual to be a judge over the decisions 
 " of his Church ? Can anything more anomalous 
 "be imagined, than that each individual in a society, 
 " should have greater authority than the whole 
 '* society collectively ?' Let us see, however, 
 " whether the Romish Church is not involved in 
 " the same anomaly. 
 
 " Dr. W. does not claim for his Church the 
 " power of ordaining anything contrary to God's 
 " Word written ; on the contrary, he declares it to 
 " be impossible for the Church to do so. Why ? — 
 " because the Church is infallible. But an inquirer 
 " may, perhaps, ask him to prove the infallibility 
 " of his Church. He will allege in answer words 
 !< of our blessed Lord, recorded in the New Testa- 
 "ment, which, in his opinion, express that doctrine. 
 Sl But the inquirer may, perhaps, contend that he 
 " has given a wrong interpretation of our Saviour's 
 *' words. How, then, is he to justify his interpre- 
 " tation ? Not, certainly, by an appeal to the in- 
 " fallible authority of the Church ; for its infallibi- 
 " lity is the very point in question. He must en- 
 "deavour, by reasoning and argument, to satisfy us 
 " of the correctness of his interpretation ; that is, 
 "he must appeal to the judgment of each individual.. 
 " The difficulty is only shifted ; unless Dr. W. is 
 " prepared to affirm that the Church is infallible, 
 *' because it declares itself so to be." (Remarks on 
 Dr. Wisemans Lectures. By Philalethes Can- 
 tabrigiensis, 1837.) 
 
250 
 
 (d) p. 207. There is a canon of the year 1571, 
 which, though not binding on our clergy, because 
 unconfirmed by Parliament, is capable of a very 
 useful construction. It lays down a rule for 
 preachers, ° that nothing should be taught that 
 " cannot be found in the old Catholic Fathers." It 
 does not say, that everything should be taught, 
 which is to be found in them ; but it says that no- 
 thing should be taught which none of them contains. 
 This absence of all mention of a notion or doctrine 
 would prove its novelty. The early Fathers held 
 " the foundation ," — whatever " stubble' some of them 
 might build thereon. It is impossible, therefore, 
 to think anything fundamental, i. e. necessary to be 
 believed and preached, which is wholly wanting in 
 their writings. 
 
 (e) p. 209. Whilst this Lecture was passing 
 through the press, there has appeared a powerful 
 Sermon, preached on the same text, by Dr. Words- 
 worth, canon of Westminster. It is mainly directed 
 against the addition of a particular new article of 
 Faith, which the Pope has announced his intention 
 of decreeing, namely, that of the Virgins Immaculate 
 Conception; — meaning, that she herself was con- 
 ceived by her mother free from all taint of original 
 sin. 
 
 The learned canon will, I trust, forgive the liberty, 
 if an extract, slightly abridged, is here made from 
 the closing part of his discourse. 
 
 " We have seen that the Church of Rome pro- 
 " poses to decree that the blessed Virgin was not 
 " conceived in original sin ; that is, proposes to 
 " make a new Article of Faith. 
 
251 
 
 " Whether or no she will ratify this decree, is of no 
 " importance to the argument. In putting the ques- 
 " tion as she has done, she assumes authority to de- 
 " cide it, Whichever alternative is adopted, she 
 " claims the power to make new articles of faith. 
 
 " Now, one of the pretensions with which she 
 " dazzles the minds of the unwary, is that of An- 
 " tiquity. She calls her faith the old Religion. 
 " And she denounces us, who are content with the 
 " Gospel preached by Christ and his apostles, and 
 •' who affirm, in the words of St. Paul, that if even 
 " ' an angel from Heaven should preach to us any 
 " thing besides what the Apostles preached, he must 
 "be anathema,' and who believe the words of the 
 " Apostles that they • kept back nothing,' and have 
 11 declared to us ' the whole counsel of God 1 — the 
 •' Church of Rome, I say, denounces us as innova- 
 " tors. Ours, she says is a new Religion ! ' Where 
 " was your faith,' she asks, ' before the Reformation?' 
 " We reply, that it was, and ever will be, where 
 " her faith is not — in the Word of God. And we 
 " prove from Rome herself, that she is the great 
 '•Innovator. We point to the doctrines in her 
 " hands, doctrines unknown to the Apostles, un* 
 " known to the primitive Church ; we point to this 
 " new doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, now 
 " in the 19th century, lying on the papal anvil, and 
 '; about to be forged and hammered into a new ar- 
 ticle of faith. 'Here,' we say, 4 is your old re- 
 " ligion ! here your claim to antiquity ! a thing of 
 " to-day ; nay, not even of to-day, but of to-morrow ! 
 " If you are not dead to shame, you will cease to 
 " speak of Antiquity.' 
 
 ; ' Again : the Church of Rome makes many 
 
252 
 
 •'victims by a claim to sanctity. She calls herself 
 " the Holy Roman Church, and she allows the title 
 "of holiness to none who are not hers." (The Pope 
 is called, « His Holiness.') 
 
 " Now, it is certain, that Christ is Holy ; it is 
 " certain, that the Author of Scripture is Holy ; i'c 
 " is certain, that the Apostles and Evangelists were 
 " Holy. I doubt not that those venerable men and 
 " wise doctors, the Augustines and Chrysostoms of 
 " the ancient Church, were also holy. Did Christ 
 " preach, did they hold, the doctrine — the novel 
 " doctrine, the doctrine not yet elaborated- -of the 
 " Immaculate Conception ? No, they did not, they 
 " could not, hold what does not yet exist. Rome 
 " herself, by allowing that this doctrine is not yet 
 "promulgated, and by proposing now to promulgate 
 " it, admits that they did not. If this doctrine is a 
 " part of our most Holy Faith, it must have been 
 " taught by the Holy Spirit, and received by ' the 
 " Holy Catholic Church.' But this is not the case. 
 " Therefore Rome, by propounding this doctrine, 
 " as not yet ratified ; and by inserting it (as she 
 "has already done) in her Liturgy, as if it were true ; 
 «* separates herself from holy men and holy things ; 
 " and instead of having the saints her own, and 
 "being the Holy Church, convicts herself of unholi- 
 " ness, and cries aloud, like the lepers of old, ' Un- 
 " clean, Unclean /' 
 
 " He that ' hath ears to hear,' let him fly from 
 " her, and escape the plague ! 
 
 " Again : the Church of Rome professes to hold 
 <' the Catholic faith, and calls herself 'The Catholic 
 " Church.' 
 
 41 The word Catholic means universal : and the 
 
;>53 
 
 " Catholic faith is that faith which was taught by 
 " Christ, and has been professed by his true fol- 
 " lowers, in every age. Now let us ask, was this 
 " new doctrine taught by Christ ? No. Has it 
 " ever been taught publicly by the Church in any 
 " age ? No : its novelty refutes the supposition. 
 " Rome herself proclaims that it has never been 
 " taught by the Church, by professing to make it 
 " now an article of faith. And thus she publicly de- 
 " clares (what her other novel doctrines have long 
 " since proved) that she cares little for the Catholic 
 " Faith ; and that she cannot be the Catholic 
 •* Church. 
 
 " Again, the Church of Rome beguiles many by 
 " a delusive pretence of unity. 
 
 " She affirms that all her members speak one 
 " thing, and are united in one body. Grant it were 
 " so ; but if she is not united in the truth, if she 
 " separates herself, in her teaching, from Christ, 
 " from the Holy Ghost, from the Apostles, from 
 " the Primitive Church, what is such unity worth ? 
 u It is as ' sounding brass and a tinkling symbol ;' 
 " nay more, it is a conspiracy against the God of 
 " Unity and Truth. But is she united in herself? 
 " — Let those whom she has canonized and 
 *' worshipped as saints declare. Bernard, Aquinas, 
 "and Bonaventura, — they protested against the 
 "doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, which 
 " Rome has now inserted in her liturgy, (on the au- 
 " thority of the present Pope Pius ix) ; and thus, 
 " while at one time, she invokes the Virgin as con- 
 " ceived without sin, at another time she invokes 
 " as saints, those who taught that the Virgin was 
 " not conceived without sin ! Is this Unity ? 
 
 " But, alas ! there is a characteristic which does 
 
 h 2 
 
254 
 
 " belong to Rome. It is not antiquity, it is not 
 " sanctity, it is not unity : but it is Infidelity. 
 
 " I do not mean that she directly preaches un- 
 " belief, but I confidently affirm that her principles 
 "as illustrated by the present example, lead directly 
 " to it. 
 
 " As we have here seen, she does not pretend to 
 " derive her faith from Scripture ; she sets at 
 " nought the teaching of the Catholic Church. — 
 " Yes, and in a reckless spirit of despotic arrogance, 
 " and in a wild frenzy of desperate abstractiveness, 
 " as if to shew clearly that she imagines herself to 
 " be alone in the world, that * she saith in her heart, 
 "lam, and none else beside me ; I sit as a queen and 
 {i shall see no sorrow ; that there is no law, human 
 " or divine, but her own will ; as if thus to identify 
 " herself more evidently with the proud sorceress of 
 " the Apocalypse ; she casts even her own pretended 
 lf principles to the winds ; — antiquity, sanctity, 
 " unity, — she discards them all. ' The earth is 
 " weak and all the inhabitants thereof ; I bear up the 
 " pillars of it.' I am the atlas of the universe. If 
 " I totter, the heavens fall. Receive this doc- 
 " trine, she exclaims ; receive it, because I publish 
 11 it. Sic volo, sic jubeo. — It is my will, my com- 
 " mand ; let that suffice ! 
 
 V. What therefore remains, but that, if Rome tri- 
 " umphs, men should either believe without reason, 
 " and against reason, or not believe at all ? And 
 " this is Infidelity !" 
 
 (f) p. -209. The Church of Rome insists on our 
 looking to her Credentials, as the proof that her 
 tenets are scriptural. 
 
255 
 
 She says : ' I have the apostolical succession, and 
 consequently an infallible power of interpreting 
 Scripture, and a divine guarantee against misusing 
 my power.' 
 
 We ask : 'How does the succession confer such 
 a power ?' The reply is : " Because Christ said to 
 the Apostles, ' I am with you always to tlie end of 
 the world' This shews that he spoke not to the 
 Apostles only, but to their successors ; and promised 
 to be always with them." 
 
 Now, when we examine not that text only, but 
 also the context, we find that a condition went be- 
 fore the promise. " Teaching them" (i. e. all nations) 
 " to observe whatsoever things I liave commanded 
 you.'* 
 
 The question therefore, is, whether those who 
 claim to be the successors of the Apostles teach 
 the things which Christ commanded. If not, their 
 title to the promise is forfeited. 
 
 And to settle this question, it is necessary to 
 know what those things are, which Christ comman- 
 ded ; in other words, it is necessary to search the 
 Scriptures for the doctrines first. For if any set of 
 men teach what is not commanded, or omit to teach 
 what is commanded, it is superfluous to enquire 
 into their title to be the Apostles' successors, since 
 they have lost their title to Christ's presence. 
 
 St. Paul supposes, Gal. i. 8., that it w T as possible 
 for himself, an Apostle, to forfeit Christ's presence. 
 St. Peter actually fell into temporary error, 
 Gal. ii. 14. It seems, therefore, that even the 
 Apostles were not infallible, except when delivering 
 those truths which were to be written down for all 
 mankind. If the Apostles might fail at times, what 
 
256 
 
 security can there be for their successors, except in 
 strictly adhering to those things, and those alone, 
 which the Apostles thus delivered ? 
 
 CEEEDS. 
 
 (g) p. 210. Bishop Pearson in his " Exposition 
 of the Creed" (" the perfectest work we have/' says 
 Bishop Burnet), quotes, in the Epistle Dedicatory, 
 St. Jude's exhortation, " that we should earnestly 
 contend for the faith once" (i. e. according to the 
 strict meaning of the word in the original, " once for 
 all" J delivered to the saints, 1 ' and adds : 
 
 "In Christianity, there can be no concerning" (i. e. 
 " important) " truth, which is not ancient; and what- 
 " soever is truly new, is certainly false. Look then, 
 " for purity in the fountain. And strive to embrace 
 " the first faith. To which you cannot have a more 
 "probable guide than the Creed, received in all ages 
 " of the Church. And to this I refer you, as it leads you 
 " to the Scriptures, from whence it was firstdeduced. 
 " That while those who are unskilful and unstable 
 " wrest the words of God himself to their own destruc- 
 " tion, you may receive so much instruction as may 
 " set you beyond the imputation of unskilfulness, 
 " and so much of confirmation, as may place you out 
 " of the danger of instability." 
 
 What moderate language is this ! It puts the 
 Apostles' Creed on its proper footing. Creeds do 
 not give us new articles of faith, but enumerate 
 those which Scripture gives. We should not receive 
 the Creeds, could not their articles be clearly and 
 independently " proved by most certain warrants 
 of Holy Scripture," as our Church says, in her 8th 
 Article. Well spoke the present Bishop of London 
 in his charge of 1842 : 
 
257 
 
 •< I think it a mistaken and dangerous position 
 "to maintain, that without the Creeds we could not 
 "have discovered for ourselves, some of the great 
 " doctrines of our faith ; that, for instance, of the 
 "Holy and Undivided Trinity." "I am firmly 
 " persuaded, that if no such formularies had ever been 
 " drawn out, all the essential doctrines of Christianity 
 " would have been discoverable in the Bible. The 
 " implement with which the secrets of God are to be 
 " dug out of the mine of His written Word, is not 
 " tradition; but a plain and rightly informed under- 
 16 standing, guided by an honest and good heart, and 
 " aided by the Holy Spirit" 
 
 THE ROMISH CIRCLE OF REASONING. 
 
 (h) p. 219. To prove the infallibility of the 
 Church of Rome, the following process is used. 
 
 1. It is affirmed, that Scripture has passages 
 which declare the Infallibility of the Church. 
 
 2. If this is denied by those who read Scripture 
 with their own eyes, it is asserted, that the Fathers 
 interpret the passages in the Romish way. 
 
 3. When this again is contradicted by a reference 
 to the genuine works of the Fathers, then the 
 Church flies to the assumption, that she alone can 
 interpret the Fathers. Of course, she interprets them 
 as interpreting scripture in favour of her authority. 
 
 But why this circuitous mode of proving her 
 point ? She might as well assert at once : ' .1 am 
 infallible, because I say so ; and I cannot say what 
 is untrue, because I am infallible.' 
 
 What says Archbishop Whately : 
 
 " It is most important, when the expression is 
 
258 
 
 " used of ' referring to Scripture as the" infallible 
 * standard,' and requiring assent to such points of 
 " faith only as can be thence proved, to settle 
 " clearly, in the outset, the question, ! proved to 
 " whom ?' If any man, or body of men, refer us to 
 " Scripture as the sole authoritative standard — 
 " meaning, that we. are not to be called on to be- 
 " lieve anything as a necessary point of faith, but 
 " only on our own conviction that it is scriptural ; 
 " then, they place our faith on the basis, not of hu- 
 " man authority, but of divine. But if they call on 
 " us, as a point of conscience, to receive what- 
 u ever is proved to their satisfaction from Scripture, 
 " even though it may appear to us unscriptural, 
 " then instead of releasing us from the usurped au- 
 " thority of man, taking the place of God, they are 
 " laying on us two burdens instead of one. ' You 
 " require us,' we might reply, * to believe, first that 
 <l whatever you say is true ; and secondly, besides 
 " this, to believe also that it is a truth contained in 
 " Scripture; and we are to take your word for both\" 
 .(" Kingdom of Christ/' p. 159.) 
 
 " A JUDGE OF CONTEOVERSIES." 
 
 (i) p. 228. Since the necessity of establishing 
 an earthly Judge of Controversies is a mere theory, 
 it suffices for its rejection to shew it to be such ; as 
 is done in my discourse, by appealing to Scripture, 
 which not only preserves entire silence concerning 
 such a judge, but by necessary inference from the 
 text, Gal. i. 8, and other passages, directly opposes 
 the design. To put a law into the hands of an in- 
 fallible interpreter, is to make him practically su- 
 perior to the lawgiver. Thus the Gospel in the 
 hands of the Pope has become " another Gospel." 
 
259 
 
 And the ain of Israel of old, which introduced divi- 
 sion and idolatry, has been imitated under the 
 Christian dispensation — men have "made themselves 
 a king" when God, even our divine Saviour Jesus 
 Christ, was their king. The consequences have 
 been similar ; — and that similarity is likely to be 
 revealed more and more, till Christendom shall have 
 suffered sufficiently, and shall at length fully open 
 its eyes. 
 
 But were we at liberty to adopt Theories in our 
 Holy Religion, and to add to the Gospel of Christ, 
 yet as a Theory, it may be easily shewn to be open 
 to fatal objections. 
 
 The Romanists say, that the necessity of the case 
 demands the establishment of such a Judge. They 
 say that controversies, great and small, must be 
 settled ; and that theirs is the only way of settling 
 them. 
 
 We reply as follows : 
 
 1. Since Scripture is silent concerning the ex- 
 istence of a such Judge, and God has not named him; 
 how shall men be agreed who he shall be ? Sup- 
 pose they disagree, who shall settle the point ? 
 " Thus, our Judge of Controversies," as Chilling- 
 worth says, •' is likely to be our greatest contro- 
 versy." 
 
 2. To have a Judge, and to leave men at liberty 
 afterwards, to obey his decision or not, as they 
 please, would be to make him of no use. How, 
 then, shall his decision be enforced ? This is open 
 to controversy. If he is to decide this point, he 
 will enforce his own decision by persecution. He 
 will necessarily crush all opposition. He will ''pun- 
 ish/or contempt of court.'' If the point is left open, 
 
2G0 
 
 the decision on other points will be in every case 
 rejected by the party against -whom it is given. 
 
 8. If it be allowed him to use persecution, then 
 the good will be the only sufferers. For no power 
 on earth can move a good man to act or speak, con- 
 trary to his conscience. 
 
 But the bad will become hypocrites. They may 
 reject the Judge's decision with secret scorn, but 
 they will pretend to receive it, rather than suffer. 
 Thus they will be in danger of being made infidels. 
 Mr. Blanco White, in his " Internal Evidences a- 
 gaiust Catholicism," distinctly states, that when he, 
 originally a priest of the Church of Rome in Spain, 
 became an infidel, he foand " to his most certain 
 " knowledge, that the history of his own mind was, 
 " with little variation, that of a great portion of the 
 " Spanish Clergy." 
 
 Can we wish to establish a power, under which 
 the good will be made martyrs, and the bad 
 infidels ? 
 
 4. When men go before a civil judge, they trust 
 him, because he is not a party to the suit. He has 
 no interest and bias, one way or the other. Conse- 
 quently, they are ready to abide by his decision. 
 But this cannot happen in matters of religion. We 
 can have no earthly judge, who is not himself in- 
 terested in these matters ; and therefore we can 
 never believe his decision to be impartial. 
 
 For instance, in the controverted question before 
 us — the Pope enjoys immense earthly power by 
 being made the Judge. If we ask him, whether there 
 should be such a judge or not, he will infallibly an- 
 swer that there should. He will not dethrone him- 
 
261 
 
 self. In any other disputed question between us and 
 him, "it is as much as his Popedom is worth to 
 "yield a single point of his religion to be erroneous." 
 How can the decision of so interested a judge carry 
 any weight with reflecting persons ? 
 
 5 . The fact, that they who have established the Pope 
 as the Judge of Controversies, have been compelled 
 to disparage and discard the exercise of reason on 
 Scripture ; in order that they may support him, is a 
 strong proof against their Theory. In our civil 
 courts, the Judge appeals to the law, and gives his 
 reasons. But in the Pope's court the rule is : 
 
 " Sic volo, sic jubeo, stat pro ratione voluntas." 
 
 6. The comparison of a supposed Judge of Con- 
 troversies with the judges in civil causes, suggests 
 another material point of difference. 
 
 If the civil judge mistakes the language of the 
 law, and gives wrong judgment, the legislature will 
 alter the language, so that there shall be no room 
 for mistake, real or pretended, in future. 
 
 But if the Judge of Controversies should make a 
 mistake, wilful or not, what remedy is there ? We 
 can have no new warding of the law, unless we ex- 
 pect a new revelation. The error is irremediable. 
 
 7. With regard to temporal rights or possessions, 
 men go into court, that it may be decided which 
 party shall hold them. Both cannot. But there 
 is no such necessity in the case of religious opinions. 
 " I may hold my opinion," says Chillingworth, "and 
 " do you no wrong ; and you yours, and do me none : 
 " nay, we may both of us hold our opinion, and do 
 " ourselves no harm ; provided the difference be not 
 " touching anything necessary to salvation, and that 
 
 i 2 
 
262 
 
 " we love Truth so well, as to be diligent to inform 
 " our conscience, and constant to follow it." 
 
 Here Chillingworth makes the proper distinction 
 between fundamental things and nonfundamental. 
 And we see why the Romanists wish to destroy that 
 distinction, and to represent all mistakes or igno- 
 rances as equally fatal to faith. 
 
 Lastly, the very idea of requiring a Judge of 
 Controversies is an affront to God's Written Word. 
 " All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and 
 is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, 
 for instruction in righteousness, that the man of 
 God may be perfect." St. Paul congratulates 
 Timothy : " That from a child thou hast known the 
 Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise 
 unto salvation, throughfaith which is in Christ Jesus." 
 To say that they require an infallible interpreter, 
 is to say, that they do not answer their purpose. It 
 is to deny the truth of this account of them. 
 
 In things essential to be believed, the Scriptures 
 are plain. In obscure things, belief is not essential 
 — provided the want of it be not wilful. " They 
 " are perfectly fit, therefore, to end all controversies 
 " necessary to be ended. And for others, which are 
 " not so, they will end when the world ends, and 
 " that is time enough." 
 
 (See the whole question, somewhat differently 
 but more fully discussed in Chillingworth's " Re- 
 ligion of Protestants a safe way," in the chapter 
 headed, "Scripture the only Rule whereby to judge of 
 Controversies." The Romish Theory fails, whether 
 tried by reasoning from the necessity of the case, 
 by Scripture, or by experience.) 
 
263 
 
 (k) p. 223. There is a beautiful Note to this 
 effect iu Archbishop Whately's " Kingdom of 
 Christ," Appendix (D), taken from his " Essay on 
 Omissions." It is too long to insert here ; but is 
 well worth reading and remembering. 
 
 THE INVISIBLE CHURCH. 
 
 (1) p. 227. By this expression is meant, that no 
 eye but that of God can certainly see which are His 
 true children, who form part of that M communion 
 of saints" which stretches back to Adam, and for- 
 ward to those who shall be caught up at the appear- 
 ing of Christ to meet Him in the air. 
 
 Nevertheless, the fruits of the Spirit, which they 
 bring forth, make it not difficult to see some of the 
 members of the Invisible Church, whilst they are on 
 earth. But neither can all be seen ; neither can 
 even these be seen beyond doubt. Holiness may 
 possibly be counterfeit. It is the divine prerogative 
 to read the heart. 
 
 Cranmer says : " True it is, the Church doth 
 " never wholly err, for ever in most darkness God 
 " shineth unto his elect, and in the midst of all in- 
 " iquity He governeth them so with His Holy Word 
 " and Spirit, that the gates of Hell prevail not a- 
 " gainst them." " This holy Church is so unknown 
 " to the world, that no man can discern it, but God 
 " alone, who only searcheth the hearts of men, and 
 "knoweth His true children." (Jenkyn's Cranmer, 
 vol. iii. p. 19.) 
 
 Hooker says : " That Church of Christ, which 
 " we properly term His body mystical, can be but 
 " one, neither can that one be sensibly discerned 
 " by any man, inasmuch as the parts thereof, are 
 
uu 
 
 " some in Heaven already with Christ ; and the 
 '• rest, that are on earth, albeit their natural 
 ''persons be visible, we do not discern under that 
 " property whereby they are truly and infallibly of 
 " that body. Only our minds by intellectual con- 
 " ceit are able to apprehend that such a real body 
 " there is ; a body collective, because it containeth 
 " a huge multitude ; a body mystical, because the 
 " mystery of their conjunction is removed altogether 
 " from sense. Whatsoever we read in Scripture 
 " concerning the endless love and the saving mercy 
 ; ' which Godsheweth towards His Church, the only 
 V proper subject thereof is this Church. Concerning 
 " this flock it is, that our Lord and Saviour hath 
 " promised : ' I give unto them eternal life, and 
 ' ; they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck 
 " them out of my hand.' They who are of this 
 " society have such marks and notes of distinction 
 "from all others, as are not objects unto our sense, 
 " only unto God who seeth their hearts," 
 
 Then distinguishing between the Invisible Church 
 and the Visible, Hooker says : "As those everlast- 
 " ing promises of love, mercy, and blessedness, 
 " belong to the Mystical Church ; even so on the 
 " other side, when we read of any duty which the 
 " Church of God is bound unto, the Church whom 
 " this doth concern is a sensible known company. 
 '•And this Visible Church in like sort is but one, 
 " continued from the first beginning of the world 
 " to the last end." (Eccl. Pol. B. iii, ch. 1.) 
 
 So that God has always had a Visible Church, 
 and an Invisible — the latter within the former — 
 the latter the subject of the promises which pertain 
 to purity and everlasting life — the latter, often con- 
 sisting of a few, whilst the former may be the many, 
 including the Church Rulers. 
 
265 
 
 The late Dr. Miller, author of the " Philosophy of 
 Modern History," in his first Letter to Dr. Pusey, 
 attributes the chief mistakes of the Dr. and his 
 party to their not distinguishing between the In- 
 visible Church and the Visible. 
 
 " Christ did not say : 'whatsoever ye shall de- 
 " cree in My name, shall be implicitly received by 
 "My Church ;' but he limited them to teaching the 
 " things which he had commanded." "This limita- 
 " Hon of the promise can relate only to that Invisi- 
 " ble Church, which is constituted by the union con- 
 " necting each individual with Christ." "That 
 " there will be always a number of such Christians, 
 " however dispersed in place, and even separated, 
 " by being connected with Churches outwardly dis- 
 " united, I can entertain no doubt ; and therefore I 
 " rely firmly on the continuance of the promise, 
 u without any suspension on account of any inter- 
 " ruption of external union." " All the confusion of 
 *' this question" (of Church authority) " appears to 
 " have arisen from the fundamental error of re- 
 "jecting the distinction between the Visible and In- 
 " visible Church of Christ." 
 
 (m) p. 230. Jenkyn's Cranmer, vol. hi, p. 19, 
 from the "Answer to Smythe's Preface." 
 
 (n) p. 232. Hooker says : " It may be said of 
 <' the Church of Rome, she hath yet a little strength ; 
 "she doth not directly deny the foundation of Christ- 
 " ianity." He grants that she denies the founda- 
 tion indirectly, — as did the Judaizing teachers who 
 troubled the Galatians, by making circumcision ne- 
 cessary to Justification. " But although the Church 
 " of Rome hath played the harlot worse than ever 
 
266 
 
 " did Israel, yet they are not, (as now the Synagogue 
 " of the Jews, which plainly deny Christ Jesus,) 
 " quite and clean excluded from the New Covenant." 
 He holds that the Church of Borne stands related to 
 the i: Reformed Churches," as Samaria did to Jeru- 
 salem, hut not as the Heathen did. (" Discourse 
 on Justification.") 
 
 But our " Homily for Whitsunday, second part," 
 (perhaps Jewel's writing) uses severer language 
 than Hooker's. " If ye will compare this" (i. e. 
 what had gone before) " with the Church of Rome, 
 " not as it was in the beginning, but as it is pre- 
 " sently" (i. e. at present), " and hath been for the 
 " space of nine hundred years and odd, you shall 
 "well perceive the state thereof to be so far wide 
 " from the nature of the true Vhurch that nothing 
 "can be more," (i. e. more wide from it). 
 
 By the Council of Trent, the errors, which before 
 were generally, but not universally, held in the 
 Church of Rome, were made binding on all. How 
 far this changed her state from that in which she 
 was, when we received from her our Episcopal and 
 Priestly orders, may be a matter for serious con- 
 sideration. The decision will not affect our orders. 
 
 Dr. Hook, in his late letter to Sir W. Farquhar, 
 says : " The question with respect to the Church 
 " of Rome is not, whether it is Catholic or not ; but 
 " whether it be or be not Antichrist. Let it be re- 
 " membered, that some of the most learned and de- 
 (i voted servants of Christ have regarded the Church 
 " of Rome as Antichrist. I say not whether they 
 *• are right or wrong : I only state the fact. To 
 "*' this opinion the Church of England seems, in our 
 *' Homilies, to incline." The Dr. then quotes the 
 
Homily on Obedience, where it is said : " The 
 " Pope ought rather to be called Antichrist, and the 
 " successor of the Scribes and Pharisees, than 
 " Christ's Vicar, or St. Peters successor ; seeing 
 * that not only in this point, but also in other 
 " weighty matters of Christian religion, in matters 
 " of remission and forgiveness of sins, and of salva- 
 " tion, he teacheth so directly against both St. 
 " Peter and against or Saviour Christ." 
 
 (o) p. 232. That individuals belonging to the 
 Church of Rome, may be saved, none would deny. 
 Fenelon, Pascal, the Port-royalists, in former days, 
 and Martin Boos in our own, suffice to prove it. 
 But the Church herself persecuted these men, and 
 cast out their names and their writings as evil. 
 The Memoirs of Port Royal, by Mrs. iSchimmel- 
 penninck is a most affecting history ; as discredit- 
 able to the Church of Rome, as it is creditable to 
 the members of that religious institution. 
 
 (p) p, 235. " Macaulay's History of England." 
 
 (q) p. 237. Dr. Croly's " England the Fortress 
 of Christianity" contains a striking detail of the 
 blessings, which have accompanied the Reformation 
 to this free and happy country. He shew T s that in all 
 case3 where the principles of the Reformation have 
 not guided the public policy, temporary disaster 
 has ensued. He concludes his examination of our 
 history thus : " Through almost three hundred 
 "years, through all varieties of public circumstances, 
 " all changes of men, all shades of general polity, we 
 " see one thing alone unchanged — the regular con- 
 "nection of national misfortune with the introduction 
 
268 
 
 **■ of Popish influence, and of national triumph with 
 " its exclusion." 
 
 The French Abbe Genoude, in the 2nd edition 
 of his work on the " Reasonableness of Christianity," 
 about ten years ago, exults with a Frenchman's 
 pride over the prospect of the inevitable conse- 
 quences of " England's restoration to the bosom of 
 the Catholic Church," which the Abbe indulged 
 himself in anticipating as near at hand. 
 
 " The true Creed once admitted, and Protestant- 
 " ism restoring the chair of St. Peter, the power of 
 " England will sink. The universe will rouse itself 
 " at the signal from the Vatican ; and England will 
 "find herself in the inferior rank, which nature has 
 "assigned her " 
 
 And again, taking delight in the foresight of our 
 fall, he says : " Protestantism in decline and Ca- 
 " tholicism in the ascendant, England has lost the 
 " grand lever of her power " Absit omen ! 
 
 (r) p. 238. I will here insert a note, taken from 
 my " Defence of the English Reformation," pub- 
 lished in 1843. 
 
 " The Abbe Baruel has proposed to himself the 
 " problem of proving that the French revolution 
 " arose from Protestantism ! How has he en- 
 '• deavoured to solve this extraordinary problem ? 
 " Thus : Voltaire derived his infidelity from the 
 " works of the English Deists, and propagated it in 
 '* France. Suppose this account true for the sake 
 " of argument. — Did Protestantism give Hobbes, 
 " Collins, and others, their Deism ? On the con- 
 " trary, did it not resist it, and that successfully ? 
 " What revolution was there caused by it in Eng- 
 
269 
 
 ** land ? Were the altar and the throne overturned 
 '• here, as they were in France ? Was not infidelity 
 lt unable to contend with Christianity in this Pro- 
 " testant country, and did not the very name of a 
 " free thinker become one of reproach and scorn ? 
 " But mark the difference in the success the French 
 " infidels met with They found all open them to 
 " — nothing but Popery to oppose them — no real 
 " Christianity in France — the Huguenots expelled 
 " by the iniquitous revocation of the Edict of Nantes 
 " — the people disgusted with priestly tyranny and 
 " immorality — religion believed to be a fable — the 
 " victory easy and inglorious." 
 
 (s) p. 241. In the recent controversy between 
 the Romish bishops, Gillis and Brown, and Mr. 
 Baylee, arising out of the secession of Lord Field- 
 ing, both the bishops maintain that the Rulers of 
 the Jewish Church, when officially deciding, were 
 infallible. How can they escape the inference, that 
 our blessed Lord's title was false since those rulers 
 officially pronounced it such ? The Sanhedrim 
 applied to Christ, the passage in Deut. xiii. 1 — 5. 
 
 (t) p. 243. The power of interpreting, without 
 fear of being questioned as to the truth of the in- 
 terpretation, is virtually a power of life and death 
 over the words which are interpreted. 
 
 Chillingworth speaks with his usual vigour of 
 mind, and clearness of illustration on this point. 
 
 " The Pope dethrones Christ from his dominion 
 "over men's consciences ; and instead of Christ, sets 
 " up himself ; inasmuch as he that requires that 
 " his intrepretations of any law should be obeyed 
 
 j 2 
 
270 
 
 " as true and genuine, seem they to men's under- 
 " standings never so dissonant and discordant from 
 " it, which is what the Bishop of Rome does, re- 
 " quires in deed that his interpretations should be the 
 " laws ; and he that is firmly prepared in mind to 
 "believe and receive all such interpretations, with- 
 " ont judging of them, and though to his private 
 u judgment they seem unreasonable, is indeed con- 
 " gruously disposed to hold adultery a venial sin, 
 • c and fornication no sin, whensoever the Pope and 
 " his adherents shall so declare. And whatsoever 
 " he may plead, yet either wittingly or ignorantly 
 " he makes the law and the lawmaker, both stales, 
 " (mere shews), and obeys only the interpreter. As 
 " if I should pretend that I should submit to the 
 " laws of the King of England, but should indeed 
 " resolve to obey them in that sense which the 
 " King of France should put upon them, whatsoever 
 " it were, I presume that every understanding man 
 " would say that I did indeed obey the King of 
 " France, and not the King of England. If I should 
 " pretend to believe the Bible, but that I would 
 " understand it according to the sense which the 
 " Chief Mufti should put upon it, who would not 
 " say that I were a Christian in pretence only, but 
 " indeed a Mahometan ?" (Pref. to " Religion of 
 Protestants a safe way.") 
 
 As the first aberration from the principles of the 
 Reformation often takes place in consequence of as- 
 cribing too much, and almost an independent au- 
 thority, to the fathers, as interpreters of Scripture, 
 I will conclude this note with a quotation from 
 Evans's " Biography of the Early Church." Mr. 
 Evans is too well known to make it necessary for 
 me to say, that he is not one who would withhold 
 
271 
 
 from the Fathers all due regard. But a regard to 
 higher authority compels him to give the following 
 cautions : 
 
 " The reader of the Fathers may enter into this 
 6 new field with much of the feelings of Adam, 
 ° when he quitted Paradise and entered upon the 
 " wide earth ; and if the ground be not cursed, yet 
 "it is, comparatively speaking, unblessed. Far 
 " from plucking from the tree of life in all security, 
 " and gathering his fruit in leisurely gladness, he 
 " has now to eat his bread in the sweat of his brow, 
 " painfully to select wholesome from amid noxious, 
 * and to pass over much ground for but little store, 
 f The apprehension of this contrast (between Scripture 
 " and the Fathers) must be obtained, before he 
 " ventures on the enterprise. He who reads the 
 " writings and lives of the Fathers, must first be 
 " well imbued with the knowledge and spirit of 
 " Scripture, so that he may come to them with a 
 " good knowledge of his own heart, with an enlarged 
 " acquaintance with human nature, with a judgment 
 " and feeling well schooled to discern human from 
 " Divine, with his views of moral excellence . most 
 " lofty, and at the same time, with a meek and 
 " charitable spirit of consideration for the most 
 u frail of his fellow-servants." 
 
 (u) p* 243. Faith is " the gift of God." (Eph. 
 ii. 8.) It is at the same time required from men. 
 (Mark xvi. 16.) It follows, that God gives it to all 
 who ask. " Ye have not, because ye ask not." " Ask, 
 and ye shall have." But it may be said : Does it 
 not require faith, to ask ? It requires only a lower 
 faith — a belief, such as the evidence of Christianity 
 
272 
 
 supplies — a belief, which reason, conscience, fore- 
 sight, desire, may enforce. A man may, by obeying 
 this belief, put himself in the way of a better. He 
 may reflect on his state in this world. He feels 
 pain in body and mind — he may ask the cause. 
 He does what he regrets, yet he does it again — he 
 may enquire, is there a remedy ? He knows he 
 shall die — he may look beyond the grave. He 
 hears that the Bible answers his questions — he 
 may open it and judge for himself. He sees 
 churches attended by many — he may enter one. 
 He is told by those who have tried the effects 
 of prayer, that it brings strength — he may try. If 
 he thus obeys the sense of self-preservation, God 
 will carry him further. The Holy Spirit will give 
 him living Faith, by moving his heart to embrace 
 the Gospel, and by stilling the passions, and the 
 pride, which rebel against it. Thus, if all have not 
 faith — if all bring not forth the fruits of holiness — 
 if all are not saved — it is their own fault ; because 
 they come not to the Word and the Spirit. " The 
 Spirit and the Bride say Come ; and let him that 
 heareth, say, Come ; and whosoever will, let 
 
 HIM TAKE THE WATERS OF LIFE FREELY ! 
 

 LECTURE VI.* 
 
 TRANSUBSTANTIATION 
 
 EXAMINED BY 
 
 SCRIPTURE AND REASON. 
 
 1, Corinthians, xl. '24. 
 M T/iis do tft remembrance of Me." 
 
 This parting command was given under circum- 
 stances which can never be forgotten, as long as 
 earth shall last ; (a) nay more, as long as eternity 
 shall last ; — for doubtless, in the heavenly kingdom, 
 one chief joy of the redeemed will be, to dwell in 
 memory on the scenes connected with their redemp- 
 
 * This Lecture is printed as it was preached, excepting 
 some additions to the closing part. The two preceding 
 Lectures were much enlarged. 
 
274 
 
 tion. The scene exhibited, when the words of the 
 text were spoken, was one of the most affecting 
 which can be conceived. Round a table, on which 
 lay the remains of a lamb that had been eaten, ac- 
 companied with bread and wine, — in a dwelling, pro- 
 bably a very humble one, in the city of Jerusalem, — 
 sat our blessed Lord and his twelve disciples, in- 
 cluding the traitor Judas. They were keeping the 
 feast of the Passover. The lamb which they had 
 eaten, had first been sacrificed in the Temple, as a 
 peace offering, or eucharist, for that merciful de- 
 liverance which their fathers had experienced in the 
 days of Moses ; when the Angel of Destruction 
 passed over their houses, the door posts of which 
 were sprinkled with a lamb's blood, and slew only 
 the Egyptians, — immediately before the Exodus. 
 No commemoration could be more full of joyful 
 thoughts, to the Israelites of the generations after 
 Moses, who, in obedience to the divine institution, 
 sacrificed the Paschal Lamb, as a thank-offering for 
 that deliverance, and then feasted upon it. But 
 this was the last time that the disciples of Christ, 
 who sat with him round that table, were ever to 
 sacrifice and eat a lamb in honour of the Jewish 
 Passover. Behold, a greater than Moses was here ! 
 " The Lamb of God, whose blood cleanseth from all 
 sin," and delivers us from a worse destruction than 
 
275 
 
 that of the body, and out of a bondage harder than 
 that of Pharaoh, was about to be sacrificed on the 
 Cross. Speaking of this event, after it had taken 
 place, St. Paul says : H Christ our Passover is sa- 
 crificed for us, therefore let us keep the feast." There 
 would be no need of their ever offering sacrifice again, 
 of any kind, whether sin-offerings or peace-offerings. 
 The Christian passover would be altogether a feast. 
 This our blessed Lord intimated, when he took, not 
 the flesh of the lamb, but the bread and wine ; and 
 consecrated them as memorials of His love. The 
 typical lamb has vanished from our passover, be- 
 cause a type always vanishes, when its antitype, 
 the prefigured substance, is come. But the bread 
 and wine, the fruits of the earth, simple, but yet re- 
 freshing and strengthening, were never to vanish 
 from the table of the Lord, (b) " With desire" said 
 he to his disciples, u I have desired to eat this pass- 
 over with you, before I suffer." What a world of 
 affecting emotions does this speech summon up in 
 us, now that we know all it meant ! The disciples, 
 doubtless, listened in melancholy silence ; scarcely 
 understanding what his " suffering' signified. Yet 
 he had told them of it before, as they came up to 
 Jerusalem, and in very plain terms (Matt, xx., 
 Luke xviii), but they could not reconcile the literal 
 meaning of his words, with their wrong notions of 
 
276 
 
 the nature of His Kingdom. To make his mean- 
 ing more clear, and to impress it on tbeir minds in 
 a way which would afterwards be indelible, " He 
 took bread, and when he had given thanks, he 
 brake it, and said : Take, eat, this is My body which 
 is broken for you ; this do in remembrance of Me. 
 After the same manner also he took the cup, when 
 he had supped, saying ; This cup is the new testa- 
 ment in my blood ; this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, 
 in remembrance of Me." What can be conceived, 
 as I said before, more touching ; and if not supersti- 
 tiously viewed, more simple ? Tn this kind and 
 gracious manner He spoke of his approaching 
 death, which, he knew, would be preceded by their 
 desertion. When He brake the bread, and called 
 it his body broken, he anticipated by a few hours, 
 that awful scene which realized the prophecy, that 
 "His form" would be " marred more than the sons 
 of men." When He took the cup, and gave them 
 the juice of the grape to drink, he presented to 
 their eyes beforehand, the bloody spectacle which 
 his hands, his feet, his forehead, his side, would 
 soon exhibit to all the world. Their " eating" and 
 'drinking" were to signify their participation in 
 the benefits of his death upon the Cross. " For 
 as often," concludes St. Paul, " as ye eat this bread, 
 and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death 
 
277 
 
 till he come." That is to say, in every age of 
 Christianity, in every clime, — not annually only, 
 but as often as the hearts of Christians lead them to 
 celebrate their Lord's love, till the day of his actual 
 appearing, when his body shall be once more pre- 
 sent here below, — this solemn but joyful feast, thus 
 instituted by our Lord himself, whilst He was yet 
 alive, at his last supper, shall be a perpetual me- 
 morial of the cruel death which He endured for our 
 sakes. Wherever kept, it will be kept in humble 
 and grateful obedience to his parting words : " This 
 do tn Remembrance of Me." 
 
 Now I would ask you, my brethren, whether this 
 is not a sufficient explanation of the object and na- 
 ture of the institution of the Sacrament of the 
 Lord's Supper. Why should we see in it deeper 
 and greater mysteries, than those which are obvious? 
 Is it not sufficieut to do as He bids us — to eat and 
 drink " in remembrance of Him?" He is gone away 
 from us in the body — " He is passed into the 
 heavens" — which have received him, as St. Peter 
 told the Jews, H till the restoration of all things.''' 
 Because He said, when He gave the bread, ** This 
 is my body, which is broken for you," why should we 
 think that He meant, that the bread was really no 
 longer bread, but was his own living body, — which 
 at that time was not broken, but was to be broken 
 
 k 2 
 
278 
 
 on the Cross ? Because He said, when He gave the 
 cup, " This cup is the new testament in my blood, 
 which is shed for you,'* (Luke xxii. 20.) why should 
 we think that He meant, that the cup was no longer 
 wine, but was really the blood, which at that time 
 was not yet shed, but was flowing in his veins ? 
 The form of expression, " This is so and so," for 
 " this signifies or represents such and such a thing," 
 is a very common one, in every language, (c) The 
 form of expression used at that very feast of the 
 Passover, was a similar one : " This is the Lord's 
 Passover." So that the disciples were prepared to 
 hear such a customary form of expression, and were 
 not in any danger of taking it literally. Neither is 
 there any intimation given us that they did take it 
 literally — for then they would have been astonished 
 at it. They saw in the form of expression, nothing 
 to astonish them — nothing to make them imagine 
 that they were eating their living Lord, whom they 
 saw before them. They had heard him on other 
 occasions speak in a similar manner, and had never 
 mistaken his meaning. They had heard him say, 
 "I am the door,'' ^ I am the Vine," — and if they 
 could not possibly, as persons of common sense and 
 understanding, suppose him to mean, that He really 
 and literally was a door, or a vine, much less could 
 they imagine that He meant on this occasion, that 
 
279 
 
 the bread was really and literally his body which 
 they saw before them, and that the wine was really 
 and literally the blood which still gave colour to his 
 cheeks, and caused that heart to beat which was 
 overflowing with tenderness towards them, (d) 
 Especially could they not imagine this, because they 
 were Jews ; and Jews, above all men on the face 
 of the earth, had a horror of drinking blood. Moses 
 had expressly commanded them, in the name of 
 God, never to drink blood, not even that of animals. 
 Could they for a moment imagine, that they were 
 now called, without any notice, to drink human 
 blood, (e) and that too, the blood of their own Lord, 
 to whom they were so tenderly attached, whatever 
 weakness they afterwards shewed ? If such an idea 
 had entered their minds, would they not have given 
 expression to it ? Would they not, as on other oc- 
 casions, have asked for an explanation ? Our Lord 
 always bore with them, when they did so. More- 
 over, we read nothing of their adoring the bread, as 
 they took it from his hands. They sat still — they 
 were not even in a kneeling posture, (f) In short, 
 there is nothing in the whole account, except the 
 brief mode of speaking, namely, " This is my body" 
 and " This is the new testament in my blood" — (the 
 latter of which expressions not even the Komanists 
 desire to take literally, because it would transform 
 
280 
 
 the cup into a new testament) (g) — there is abso- 
 lutely nothing, I say, except the brief form of 
 speech, which can give rise to the idea, that our 
 blessed Lord on that occasion was literally broken, 
 sacrificed, and eaten by his disciples. 
 
 Nevertheless, this is the notion entertained by 
 the Church of Rome — nay, it is made an article of 
 faith ; and many of our forefathers, in the days of 
 Queen Mary, were tried by this question, and by 
 this alone : " Do you believe that the bread is 
 changed into Christ's real body ?" — and when they 
 answered, that they could not conscientiously say 
 that they believed it, they were put to death. Many 
 quiet citizens, who were not accused of any disaffec- 
 tion to the government, were so treated ; and even 
 many women. I mention this, to shew the vast 
 importance, which is attached by the Church of 
 Rome to their dogma, as an article of faith. But 
 let me lay that dogma before you, in their own 
 words; lest some of you, hitherto unacquainted 
 with these things, should suspect that I exaggerate. 
 It is not only just and right, that we should not 
 give a Protestant version, as it were, of Romish 
 tenets, instead of letting them give their own ; but 
 it is also desirable for our cause. I remember an 
 intelligent person once telling me, that he had 
 heard his minister's description of Romanism with 
 
281 
 
 incredulity, thinking that it could not possibly he 
 true ; but when he procured for himself the publica- 
 tions of what is called l< The Catholic Institute of 
 Great Britain", and read them, then he found, to 
 use his own words, " that the half had not been 
 told him." 
 
 I will lay before you the language used by the 
 Council of Trent in its Canons, in the Creed it put 
 forth, and in its Catechism. 
 
 In its Canons it thus speaks : 
 
 " If any shall deny that in the Sacrament of the 
 " most holy Eucharist, (h) there is contained truly. 
 ¥ really, and substantially, the Body and Blood, to- 
 " g ether with the Soul and Divinity, of the Lord 
 " Jesus Christ — let him be accursed." 
 
 Again : " If any shall say that there remains the 
 " substance of bread and mine, together with the 
 " body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ ; and 
 " shall deny that wonderful and remarkable conver- 
 " sion, of the whole substance of the bread into 
 " body, and the whole substance of the wine into the 
 " blood, while only the appearance of the bread and 
 " wine remains, which conversion is called Tran- 
 " substantiation, — let him be accursed." 
 
 Again . "If any shall say, that in the holy Sacra- 
 " ment of the Eucharist, Christ is not to be adored, 
 * and that outwardly — or that He ought not to be 
 
282 
 
 " exhibited publicly to the people, that He may be 
 " worshipped, — let him be accursed." 
 
 You see, brethren, that after consecration, the 
 bread and wine are supposed to be converted into 
 the substantial body and blood of Christ, and that 
 under the form of the wafer He is to be publicly 
 exhibited and adored. 
 
 The Creed of Pope Pius the Fourth, published by 
 order of the Council, speaks to the same effect. 
 " In the most holy Sacrifice (i) of the Eucharist, 
 " there is truly, really, and substantially, the body 
 " and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of 
 '* our Lord Jesus Christ, and a conversion is made 
 " of the whole substance of the bread into the body, 
 " and of the wine into the blood, which conversion 
 " is called Transubstantiation." 
 
 Lastly, the Catechism of Trent, sl fuller exposi- 
 tion of doctrines, put forth under the sanction of 
 the council, — being, in fact, a large book — lays 
 down the following rule for Pastors : 
 
 " It is to be explained by pastors, not only that 
 " the true body of Christ, and whatever appertains 
 '■f to the true nature of a body, as bones and nerves, 
 " but also, that Christ whole and entire is contained 
 " in this Sacrament." 
 
 And again — to make the conversion more com- 
 plete, and to provide an answer if any one should 
 
283 
 
 say, that the canon of the council spoke only of 
 the change of the bread into the body, and of the 
 wine into the blood, the pastors are directed and 
 authorised, to teach as follows: "Under the species, 
 <l or appearance, of bread is contained, not only the 
 " body, but also the blood, and under the species of 
 * wine, not only the blood, but also the body — and 
 M Christ whole and entire under either species" 
 
 These are authoritative declarations and exposi- 
 tions, not to be questioned by any Romanist. 
 
 After hearing them, you cannot, I think, mistake 
 the view which the Church of Rome takes. If it 
 were the first time that we had heard of it, we 
 should think that it scarcely could be a view 
 seriously taken, but was rather an experiment on 
 the credulity of mankind, to see how far they would 
 submit their reason to Church authority ; — but we 
 cannot doubt that millions seriously take this view, 
 and bow down in humble adoration before the con- 
 secrated wafer, as if it were really God. We must, 
 therefore, argue the matter calmly and fairly. The 
 whole question is, whether we are to take the words 
 of our Lord, " This is my body, ivhich is given (or 
 broken) for you ;" "This is my blood of the new 
 testament (or the new testament in my blood), which 
 is shed for you ;" literally or figuartively. In other 
 cases such as those I mentioned, "I am the door" — 
 
284 
 
 "I am the vine" — we are led to reject the literal sig- 
 nification by the improbability of its being true — we 
 are, therefore, confessedly at liberty to do so in the 
 present case, if the literal signification be equally 
 improbable. Now I say, that it is far more impro- 
 bable in this case than in any other, and I will try 
 to prove it. God grant you healthy minds, and 
 honest hearts, and boldness to judge of the meaning 
 of God's Word for yourselves, remembering that 
 this is your probation, and that you will have to 
 answer for yourselves before the throne of God, 
 for what you believe, as well as for what you do. (k) 
 
 To enter, then, on an examination of the impro- 
 babilities, which attend the literal interpretation. 
 
 (1). Is it probable that the literal interpretation 
 is the true one, since in that case we must believe 
 that our Lord held himself and every part of his 
 body in his own hands. Let it be remembered, that 
 our Lord was then alive — He had not yet passed 
 through death, or that change of which St. Paul 
 speaks as rendering our human bodies " spiritual 
 bodies." Whatever properties spiritual bodies may 
 be supposed to have, they do not enter into the pre- 
 sent question, which is : How could our Lord, at 
 the original Eucharist, when He himself consecrated 
 the bread and was yet alive, hold himself in his 
 own hands ? This is the first improbability, or 
 
285 
 
 rather insuperable difficulty, which the literal inter- 
 pretation forces upon our acceptance. 
 
 (2). The literal interpretation demands also that 
 we should believe, that his body was capable of 
 being so multiplied, that each of his disciples could 
 hold it in their hands, and receive it in their 
 mouths, whole and entire. Here again, let it not 
 be forgotten, that on this occasion, that of the first 
 Eucharist, He was still alive. Can a living human 
 body be thus multiplied ? 
 
 (3). And if we agree with the Council of Trent 
 when it declares that " Christ, whole and entire, 
 " exists under the species of bread, and under each 
 "particle of that species, 1 ' (I use the exact words of 
 one of its canons), we must believe that the dis- 
 ciples consumed his living body an infinite number 
 of times, since the species of bread contained an 
 infinite number of particles. 
 
 I feel how much the reverence due to our blessed 
 Lord is violated by the very mention of such things. 
 But the blame must rest on those who compel us to 
 discuss their views in our own defence, and in de- 
 fence of the truth and reasonableness of Scripture. (1) 
 
 (4). If we take the literal interpretation, we must 
 believe that it is possible for Christ's body to be in 
 more places than one, at one and the same time. 
 
 l 2 
 
286 
 
 Now it is the property of body to be only in one 
 place at one moment. 
 
 The consequences of this view, which the Church 
 of Rome would have us to take, are very serious. If 
 our Lord's body could be, literally and substantially, 
 in many different places at one and the same instant, 
 then it would follow, that his body was not com- 
 posed of flesh like ours. The Athanasian Creed 
 says, that He was "perfect man," in his human na- 
 ture, — having taken flesh of the Virgin Mary his 
 Mother. I quote the Creed, because it agrees with 
 Scripture in this point, and uses the clearest expres- 
 sion. Its authority is also allowed by the Romanists. 
 From the doctrine that He was " perfect man," — 
 that is, man in all his essential properties of body 
 and soul, only without propensity to sin, — we derive 
 the precious, inestimable truth, that He really lived 
 in the flesh for us, kept the law, resisted the Tempt- 
 er, endured pain and suffering, and at last really 
 and truly died on the Cross. But if his body was 
 of so different a nature from ours, even whilst He 
 was alive, that it could be in each of the disciples' 
 hands at the same moment, whole and entire, and 
 even in his own hand, we are confounded — we are 
 shaken in our belief, that his death was a reality, — 
 for whilst in species on the cross, his body in sub- 
 stance might be elsewhere. There is danger of 
 
287 
 
 falling into infidelity from such incomprehensible 
 speculations, (m) Who can read the simple scrip- 
 tures, and see anything like them there ? There 
 we are told in plain language, intelligible to all, 
 that Christ our Saviour was made man, was " made 
 of a woman," that He " took our flesh and dwelt 
 among us," that He grew from a little child to 
 maturity, that He hungered like others, that He 
 journeyed like others, that He " was a man of 
 sorrows, and acquainted with grief.''' " We have not 
 an High Priest," says the Apostle to the Hebrews, 
 " who cannot be touched with the feeling of our in- 
 firmities, but was in all points tempted like as we are, 
 yet without sin." But if his body was of so totally 
 a different nature from ours, how could we feel sure 
 of this ? A doubt would invade our minds, though 
 we might strive to hinder it ; and would disturb our 
 peace, nay, might in the end conduct us to unbelief. 
 I will not dwell longer on this, but I thought it my 
 duty to draw your attention to the probable con- 
 sequences of embracing the doctrine of Transub- 
 stantiation, as regards the inference from it, that 
 whenever the Eucharist is administered, and con- 
 sequently at its first administration during our 
 Lord's life, the body of our Lord was capable of that 
 which no other body was capable of, namely, of 
 being in more places than one, at one and the same 
 
288 
 
 time. A more fatal blow to the simple truth and 
 reality of all that our blessed Lord did and suffered, 
 cannot be imagined. 
 
 (5). There is another objection, of the same kind, 
 to the Romish view of the Sacrament, which ren- 
 ders it highly improbable, that we ought to take the 
 literal interpretation of the words, "This is my 
 body." If the bread is really gone — and nothing 
 left but an appearance — the substance having been 
 changed into the very body of Christ — then we 
 must distrust our senses. We still see bread — we 
 eat bread — we taste it, and know the taste to be 
 that of bread — we swallow and digest it as bread — 
 it supports and strengthens us physically — and yet 
 we are told by the Church of Rome, that all our 
 senses deceive us. She bids us have faith. She bids 
 us not doubt in spite of the evidence of our senses. 
 But faith rests on God's Word — for if we do not 
 believe God's Word, we need not discuss the speech 
 of our Lord concerning His body. And why do we 
 believe what God's Word tells us ? Because we 
 believe in the evidence, which the miracles performed 
 by our Lord bore to the truth of all that He utter- 
 ed. I do not mean, that this is the only ground 
 of our faith in God's Word ; but it is a main one. 
 And it would be wholly shaken, if we thought that 
 our Lord's disciples might be deceived by their 
 
289 
 
 senses. For we receive the account of the miracles 
 from them. We depend upon their testimony. 
 Our Lord said: "Blessed are your eyes, for they see ; 
 and your ears, for they hear .'" When John the 
 Baptist sent messengers to ask, "Art thou He that 
 should come . ? " Christ performed many miracles in 
 that same hour, and then hade them " go and tell 
 John again, what things they had heard and seen," 
 how the lame walked, the dumb spake, the blind saw, 
 and the dead were raised. Here the senses were 
 appealed to — and if their evidence were of no value, 
 then is our faith vain, we may have had no divine 
 teacher and Saviour. Even after our Lord's re- 
 surrection, He appealed to the senses, in proof that 
 his body had risen, and that it was He himself, and 
 not a spirit. " Handle Me" He said to the dis- 
 ciples, when they were " affrighted, and supposed 
 that they had seen a spirit" — " handle Me and see, 
 for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me 
 have." The doubts of Thomas have also done us 
 good service in this respect. " Reach hither thy 
 finger," said our Lord to that hesitating apostle, 
 " and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, 
 and thrust it into my side; and be not faithless, but 
 believing.'* But what, in both these cases, was to 
 be the ground of belief? Clearly the evidence of 
 the senses ! Our Lord's words convey but one 
 
290 
 
 meaning, namely, that the}' might safely trust to 
 these ; and that, as to the nature of his body, — the 
 very point we are now discussing. We must not 
 venture to imagine, that our Lord had one meaning 
 for the ear of his disciples, and another which the 
 Church was to find out in after ages. 
 
 (6). If we take the Romish view of the Sacra- 
 ment, there is another striking improbability, 
 namely, that priests in the present day, holy or un- 
 holy, should have such a mighty power intrusted to 
 them, as that of changing by a few words the 
 wheaten bread, into " the body, blood, soul, 
 and divinity of Jesus Christ." This change is 
 supposed to be wholly irrespective of the faith, 
 either of the priest or of the communicants. Of 
 what nature, then, would it be ? — for our Lord him- 
 self has said: ** The flesh prqftteth nothing," that 
 is, if I should really give you my flesh to eat, it 
 would profit you nothing — *i$ is the Spirit that 
 quickeneth ; the words that I speak unto you, they 
 are spirit, and they are life." In accordance with 
 this, our Church says in her twenty-eighth Article : 
 " The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in 
 " the Lord's Supper, only after a heavenly and 
 M spiritual manner. And the mean, whereby the 
 " body of Christ is received and eaten in the supper, 
 ** is Faith." Accordingly, when a sick and dying 
 
291 
 
 man desires to receive the sacrament, but has not 
 the opportunity, our Church says, in her Prayer 
 Book, that he may be comforted with the assurance, 
 that "if he do truly repent him of his sins, and 
 " stedfastly believe that Jesus Christ hath suffered 
 <l death upon the Cross for him, and shed His blood 
 " for his redemption, earnestly remembering the 
 " benefits he hath thereby, and giving Him hearty 
 " thanks therefore, he doth eat and drink the body 
 " and blood of our Saviour Christ, profitably to his 
 "soul's health, although he do not receive the Sacra- 
 " ment with his mouth." And our great divine, 
 Hooker, says : " The real presence of Christ's most 
 
 * blessed body and blood is not to be sought for in 
 V the Sacrament (itself), but in the worthy receiver 
 " of the Sacrament." "I see not which way it 
 " should be gathered by the words of Christ, when 
 " and where the bread is His body, or the cup His 
 u blood, but only in the very heart and soul of him 
 " which receiveth them." (n) So our Catechism 
 says : " The body and blood of Christ are verily 
 
 * and indeed taken and received by the faithful, in 
 " the Lord's Supper." But all this, which points 
 to the benefits of Christ's death, to those who have 
 him in their hearts by faith, and who partake of the 
 bread and wine in remembrance of Him, as the 
 text bids them do, — all this is very different from 
 
292 
 
 the astonishing transaction, which the Church of 
 Eome supposes to take place, every time that one 
 of her priests, however unworthy, utters the few- 
 words of consecration. Then it is supposed, that a 
 miracle occurs, greater than any which our Lord 
 performed previously to the institution of the Eu- 
 charist, (o) A double miracle ! First the amazing 
 change — a miraculous power exercised over the ele- 
 ments ; and next the equally amazing fact, that there 
 is no visible evidence of that change — a miraculous 
 power exercised over our senses ! Is it probable, 
 that God would give this power to unworthy men ? 
 Is it not far more probable, that our Lord spoke 
 his words figuratively ? All these difficulties, all 
 the dangers of our faith which accompany them, 
 arise from the determination to take his words 
 literally. Thus it is believed, that a priest can 
 " make his Maker," can " create his Creator" — 
 language whichhas actually been used by Romanists. 
 Thus it is believed, that a wicked communicant like 
 Judas, really receives "the body, blood, soul, and 
 divinity" of our adorable Redeemer — nay, that if 
 by accident a beast devour the consecrated wafer, 
 he does the same. I am ashamed to mention such 
 things (p) — but they are gravely propounded by 
 great cardinals. The Church of Rome is by no 
 means ashamed of mentioning them ; and it is neces- 
 
293 
 
 sary, my brethren, that you should be aware, what 
 you will have to believe, if you should unhappily enter 
 the Church of Rome. It is required of every con- 
 vert, that he should subscribe to the Creed of Pope 
 Pius the Fourth, which contains the doctrine I have 
 announced to you, with all its fearful consequences 
 — a doctrine, aggrandizing to the priesthood ; but 
 degrading, as I think you will plainly see, to the 
 Redeemer himself — a doctrine, which does away 
 with faith in the heart, the grand principle of the 
 Gospel — a doctrine, which saps the foundation of 
 Christianity, by casting doubt and discredit on the 
 evidence of the senses, and making it uncertain 
 whether Christ really suffered, or whether any of 
 his mighty works were ever really performed. Re- 
 joice and be glad, my brethren, that you were born 
 in a reformed church. Thank God, that the Re- 
 formers were willing to endure death, rather than 
 subscribe to this doctrine. They knew its impor- 
 tance — they knew that the whole of what is called 
 the " opus operatum" system, depends upon it. If 
 once the mind can be brought to lay itself prostrate 
 before this dogma, farewell to reason, farewell to 
 Scripture, farewell to Justification by Faith. Then 
 Church Authority is everything. Priests, instead of 
 being what their name properly denotes, Presbyters, 
 then become sacrificers. (q) They are believed to 
 
 m 2 
 
294 
 
 sacrifice Christ in the Eucharist — they are believed 
 to repeat that one * sufficient sacrifice, oblation, 
 and satisfaction," made upon the Cross, which St, 
 Paul so carefully tells us was made once for all. 
 (See Heb. x.) Then the Eucharist becomes not 
 merely commemorative, but propitiatory, (r) Then 
 the priests are regarded, not merely as sacrificers, 
 but as mediators. The honour of the One Media- 
 tor between God and man is invaded. Every thing- 
 is changed from scriptural religion. Were the 
 Apostles to be allowed to return to earth, they 
 would be astonished to see, how the Christianity 
 they left behind them, depicted and taught in their 
 writings, has been degraded in the Church of Rome 
 by human inventions. All this our Reformers of 
 blessed memory knew — for they had lived under 
 the operation of the system. They were born Ro- 
 manists, and knew what Romanism was. And 
 when the awful question was put to them : * Will 
 you adore Christ in the bread, or die in the flames ?' 
 they preferred death to a denial of the truth, and a 
 return to spiritual bondage. My brethren, let us 
 profit by their sufferings. Let us adhere to the 
 Scriptures* Let us exercise common sense on 
 them fearlessly. There are mysteries in them, and 
 common sense teaches us to expect mysteries in a 
 divine revelation. Reason rejoices to be taught 
 
295 
 
 •what she could never gather from nature, and to be 
 elevated to heights above philosophy. But there 
 are no mysteries, we may confidently affirm, which 
 contradict reason. Christian truth may surpass 
 what reason can discover, but will never oppose 
 what reason has discovered. Let us, then, boldly 
 tell the Church of Eome, that since her doctrine 
 concerning the Eucharist contradicts reason, it can- 
 not be scriptural. This contradiction is sufficient to 
 justify us in rejecting the literal interpretation of 
 our Lord's words, " this is my body" and taking 
 the figurative. But if she says to us, do you make 
 it merely a figure ? we answer, No ! It is a sign ; 
 but it is also a seal. It is a memorial, but it is 
 also the particular memorial instituted by Christ, 
 and therefore it has a special blessing — special in de- 
 gree, if not in kind. But here again, the Church 
 of Home goes further, and says that it is both a 
 memorial of Christ, and Christ himself, which is a 
 defiance of common sense and reason ; for who 
 speaks of remembering a person, when that person 
 is visibly present ? (s) 
 
 Finally, my brethren, you see that a true regard 
 for Scripture, and a desire to shew it real honour 
 by putting upon it a rational construction, must 
 compel you to take our Lord's words figuratively : 
 
296 
 
 11 this is my body." There is even more reason 
 for taking these words figuratively, than for so taking 
 the parallel expressions, '• I am the vine" " I am 
 the door." It is no want of respect and rever- 
 ence, but quite the contrary, which actuates Pro- 
 testants in their mode of interpretation. And they 
 find in this, as in other cases, that primitive an- 
 tiquity is on their side. Nay, they find that though 
 the high-sounding language of the fathers was fre- 
 quently mistaken in after ages, yet the doctrine 
 was not consolidated till a very late period. It was 
 scarcely known, if at all, for six hundred years after 
 Christ; and the first time that ever the word 
 "Transubstantiation"was heard, was twelve hundred 
 years after Christ, in the fourth Lateran council — 
 a council held at Rome by Pope Innocent iii, who 
 trod down equally the rights of kings, and the rights 
 of reason, (t) So that in rejecting this doctrine, we 
 are but doing justice to the simple and reasonable 
 religion of Christ. We are but following the early 
 Church of Christ. We are but denying the au- 
 thority of tradition, and of the Council of Trent ; 
 and listening to the natural meaning of our Lord's 
 command, when He said : " Take, eat, — drink ye 
 all of this, — in remembrance of me /" We doubt not, 
 that when we remember him, He will remember 
 us. He will grant us a special blessing. He will 
 
297 
 
 give us his body broken, and his blood shed — in 
 efficacy, though not in substance. We shall en- 
 joy his real but spiritual presence. Will any one 
 say, that his presence will be less real, because only 
 spiritual ? Is there any reality, like that of spirit ? 
 Are not our immortal spirits far superior to our 
 perishable bodies ? Is not God a spirit ? Let us be 
 ashamed, if for a moment, through the weakness 
 incident to frail humanity whilst pent up in this 
 house of clay, we have imagined it necessary that a 
 body should be present in substance, to produce reality. 
 Whilst, therefore, we utterly repudiate the doctrine 
 we have been considering, we have no intention of 
 flying to the opposite extreme, and renouncing the 
 belief of the Real Presence. When we offer the 
 sacrifice of ourselves, our body, soul, and spirit, we 
 doubt not, that we " verily and indeed take and re- 
 ceive the body and blood of Christ" by faith ; that we 
 shall be " strengthened and refreshed in our souls 
 by his body and blood, as our bodies are by the 
 bread and wine ;" that we shall "dwell in Christ and 
 Christ in us, we shall be one with Christ and Christ 
 with ms." Not doubting this, we need ask no more. 
 We have, in fact, a greater assurance than the Ro- 
 manists can have, — owing to their belief, that the 
 efficacy of the Sacrament depends on the Priest's 
 intention. This is a doctrine laid down by the 
 
298 
 
 Council of Trent. If the Priest, then, should not 
 intend to consecrate the elements, the wafer would, 
 even in the opinion of the Romanists, remain a 
 mere wafer. Then they would receive no hody and 
 blood ! And what is more, they would adore what they 
 themselves would confess it idolatry to adore ! (u) 
 To such doubts and fears does Romanism subject 
 its followers. But Christ, our sole High Priest, 
 subjects us to no such doubts and fears. If we come 
 with the right intention, it will not be the un worthi- 
 ness or wrong intention of the minister that will de- 
 prive us of Christ's presence in our hearts. We shall 
 assuredly be the better, stronger, and happier, for 
 obeying His parting command. We shall in every 
 case find the Sacrament a " communion" — which 
 the Romish Priests rarely make it. We shall be 
 more closely united to our Christian brethren, as 
 well as to Christ himself. And this blessed feast 
 and supper here below, will be an earnest and fore- 
 taste of that glorious " Supper of the Lamb," which 
 awaits the entrance of Christ's believing people, un- 
 worthy as they are in themselves, yet through His 
 perfect worthiness, into the courts and company of 
 Heaven. 
 
NOTES TO LECTURE VI. 
 
 (a) p. 273. The institution of the Sacrament of 
 the Lord's Supper has served the incidental, but 
 not therefore undesigned, purpose of being an evi- 
 dence of the fact of the Crucifixion, amounting 
 almost to mathematical demonstration. The same 
 purpose, as regards the destruction of the first-born 
 of the Egyptians, and the deliverance of the Israel- 
 ites, was served by the institution of the Jewish 
 Passover — of which the Eucharist took the place. 
 In each case, there was a reference to the origin and 
 object of the feast, at every celebration of it — so 
 that it could never be surreptitiously introduced for 
 the first time, and pretend that it was previously 
 well-known. (See Leslie's " Short and Easy Method 
 with the Deists.") 
 
 (b) p. 275. The sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb 
 does not seem to have been a propitiatory one — so 
 that even if the Christian feast had been intended 
 to be sacrificial, it could only be the sacrifice of 
 thanksgiving; — which is signified by the word used 
 
300 
 
 from the beginning by the fathers, "the Eucharist," 
 i. e. thanksgiving. This proves that they did not 
 consider it as containing Christ's real body. 
 
 For the distinction between sin-offerings and 
 peace-offerings (the latter alone of which could be 
 eaten by the offerers), see " Lightfoot's Works," 
 vol. ix. p. 70, &c, Pitman's Ed., — or " Beausobre's 
 Introd. to N. T., Chap, on Holy Things." 
 
 (c) p. 278. Looking at the image on a coin, we 
 say : ' This is the Queen's head.' We use 'is 1 for 
 * represents' 
 
 Delivering to a person the title deed of an estate, 
 we say : ' Here is the property' — meaning, 'by this 
 it is conveyed.' 
 
 A thousand similar cases may be found, in which 
 the sign is said to be the thing which it signifies. 
 
 Much unnecessary labour has been spent on the 
 question, whether the Syriac language, iu which our 
 Lord and his disciples generally conversed, has any 
 word for ' represents.' If it had no such word, as 
 Bishop Jeremy Taylor, Adam Clarke, and other 
 learned men have affirmed, then there was no 
 choice but to use the word ' is.' Dr. Wiseman has 
 written a book to shew, that the Syriac had a dis- 
 tinct word for • represents.' But why labour the 
 point in this case, or any other — such as that con- 
 cerning ' Cephas' for ■ Peter ?' The Greek is in- 
 spired — or rather, to speak more correctly, the 
 writers of the Greek were inspired. It is not a 
 mere translation, such as any man might have 
 made, of the Syriac used by our Lord. It expresses 
 in Greek, what He would have expressed precisely 
 
301 
 
 in the same Greek words, had He used that lan- 
 guage in speaking. We may, in all cases, regard 
 the Greek as the original, and spare ourselves and 
 others the trouble of guessing at the Syriac. 
 
 Tt is enough in the present case to know, that 
 whenever a speech is brief and striking, the most 
 natural way of speaking is such as was adopted by 
 our Lord : "This is my body" for, * This represents 
 my body — behold by this broken bread, given you, 
 what I intend to do with my body, for your sakes, 
 within a few hours/ 
 
 (d) p. 279. It is said by the Eomanists (I quote 
 one of the tracts which they circulate) : "Every 
 " person sees clearly what kind of ' door' or ' vine' 
 " is meant — because our Lord in one case, adds, 
 " ■ By Me, if any man enter, he shall be saved,' 
 " and in the other, ' He that abideth in me, bring- 
 " eth forth much fruit.' " 
 
 True ; and does not every person see clearly 
 what was meant by the words, ' This is my body,' 
 when He added, ' which is broken for you' — know- 
 ing, as He did, that the Crucifixion would soon ex- 
 plain, how it was to be broken and given for them ? 
 The same applies to the explanation contained in 
 the words 'shed for you,' following the words, 'This is 
 my blood.' And in each case it is also added, " Do 
 this in remembrance of Me," — as much as to say. 
 ' You will soon know the meaning of my words, 
 and will find that this feast is to be a commemora- 
 tion of the death which will elucidate them.' 
 
 It was not uncommon for our Lord to speak words 
 not fully understood at the time ; and of which, sub- 
 sequent events furnished the explanation. 
 
 n 2 
 
302 
 
 (e) p. 279. The doctrine of Transubstantiation 
 makes it difficult for the Komanists to convert the 
 modern Jews — -just as their image-worship casts a 
 stumbling-block before the modern Heathen. In 
 the case both of the Jews and the Heathen, Pro- 
 testants are best fitted to effect their conversion, 
 because their doctrine and practice are in harmony 
 with the written word, which they carry in their 
 hands, and which both Protestants and Romanists 
 agree in acknowledging to have been written by 
 inspiration. 
 
 The Reformation, and the spread of the English 
 language, are two events, to which the world will, 
 in due time, owe more, than to any others since the 
 promulgation of Christianity. 
 
 (f) p. 279. Our Church guards herself against 
 any misrepresentation, arising from her direction, 
 that the communicants should kneel. The following 
 is the declaration at the end of our Communion 
 Service : 
 
 " Whereas it is ordered in this office for the ad- 
 " ministration of the Lord's Supper, that the com- 
 " municants should receive the same kneeling, 
 " (which order is well meant, for a signification of 
 " our humble and grateful acknowledgment of the 
 " benefits of Christ, therein given to all worthy re- 
 <( ceivers, and for the avoiding of such profanation 
 * and disorder in the Holy Communion, as might 
 " otherwise ensue) yet lest the same kneeling 
 " should by any persons, out of ignorance and in- 
 " firmity, or out of malice and obstinacy, be miscon- 
 11 strued and depraved ; it is hereby declared, that 
 " hereby no adoration is intended, or ought to be 
 
303 
 
 " done, either unto the sacramental bread or wine 
 "there bodily received, or unto any corporal pre 
 " sence of Christ's natural flesh and blood. For the 
 * sacramental bread and wine remain still in their 
 " very natural substances, and therefore may not be 
 " adored ; for that were idolatry, to be abhorred of 
 " all faithful Christians ; and the natural body and 
 " blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and 
 " not here ; it being against the truth of Christ's 
 " natural body to be at one time in more places 
 "than one." 
 
 (g) p. 280. It may be asked, what is the pre- 
 cise meaning of the words, " This cup is the New 
 Testament in my blood," which the Romanists them- 
 selves cannot take literally, whilst with such 
 marvellous inconsistency they insist on the literal 
 interpretation of the preceding words, " This is my 
 body." The answer is not difficult. 
 
 The Old Testament or Covenant was sealed with 
 blood, as St. Paul reminds us in Heb. ix. Moses, 
 when he had given the law, took blood, " and 
 sprinkled both the book and all the people, saying : 
 This is the blood of the Testament which God hath en- 
 joined unto you." The word for Testament means also 
 Covenant. Our blessed Lord then, meant to con- 
 vey to the disciples and us, that not with the blood 
 of animals, such as Moses used, but with His own 
 blood, represented or signified by the wine, He was 
 about to seal the New Testament — tlie new and better 
 Covenant. 
 
 (h) p. 281. The word " Eucharist" (or Thanks- 
 giving) is very appropriate ; but it does not give 
 
304 
 
 so precise an. idea as the "Lord's Supper." The 
 Komanists are uot fond of the latter expression, 
 inasmuch as it gives the idea of a feast, without 
 that of a sacrifice. 
 
 In the same way, they prefer using the word 
 " Altar" to using the term " the Lord's Table." 
 
 On that account, the word " Altar" was carefully 
 erased from King Edward's first Prayer Book, and 
 was altered into " the Lord's Table" in the second 
 Book, which Cranmer, and the other bishops and 
 clergy, together with the King and the Parliament, 
 representing the laity, established as our Book of 
 Common Prayer. With a few slight alterations, 
 made in it after the Savoy conference, this is the 
 book which we now use. 
 
 (i) p. 282. The word " sacrifice" is here used 
 in the Pope's Creed, whilst the word " sacrament!' 
 was used in the Canons of the Council. Probably 
 this was not done without design. It is always an 
 object with the Bomanists to keep both words in 
 use — that they may have the benefit of both. 
 When they find the fathers speaking of the Eu- 
 charist as a sacrament, and calling the bread and 
 wine " signs," they are thus enabled to say that 
 they speak the same language. How a rite can be 
 a sacrament when the thing signified is present in 
 a visible form, and is adored under that form — or 
 how a sign can be the thing signified — we cannot 
 comprehend. Well does our Church say in her 
 28th Article : 
 
 " Transubstantiation or the change of the sub- 
 u stance of bread and wine, in the Supper of the 
 " Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is re- 
 
305 
 
 "pugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthrow- 
 " eth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given oc- 
 " casion to many superstitions. The body of Christ 
 f is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only 
 J( after a heavenly and spiritual manner. And the 
 " mean whereby the body of Christ is received and 
 11 eaten in the Supper is Faith." 
 
 It may be well to remark, that the Catechism of 
 Trent distinguishes between the words sacrament 
 and sacrifice as applied by itself to the Eucharist. 
 In each case " the body, blood, soul, and divinity 
 of Christ" are supposed substantially present, under 
 the form of the wafer ; nevertheless it is said : 
 
 " The difference between the Eucharist as a sa- 
 " crament and sacrifice is very great, and is two- 
 " fold : as a sacrament, it is perfected by consecra- 
 t( tion ; as a sacrifice, all its efficacy consists in its 
 " oblation. When deposited in a tabernacle, or borne 
 " to the sick, it is, therefore, a sacrament, not a 
 " sacrifice. As a sacrament, it is also to the worthy 
 " receiver, a source of merit, and brings with it all 
 "those advantages which we have already men- 
 " tioned ; as a sacrifice it is not only a source of 
 ° merit, but also of satisfaction. As in His passion, 
 * our Lord merited, and satisfied, for us ; so in the 
 " oblation of this sacrifice, which is a bond of 
 11 Christian unity, Christians merit the fruit of his 
 " passion, and satisfy for sin." 
 
 (k) p. 284. It would be unpardonable, not to 
 direct attention to the masterly work written by 
 Dr. Turton, now Bishop of Ely, in confutation of 
 Dr. Wiseman's Lectures on the Eucharist — if any 
 of my readers are unacquainted with it and can 
 
306 
 
 procure it, — together with the " Observations on Dr. 
 Wiseman's Reply," which left the present cardinal 
 in a very humiliating position. 
 
 Dr. Wiseman discusses in his " Lectures" the 
 6th chapter of St. John's gospel. He uses reason- 
 ing in the ordinary manner — framing, indeed, a 
 system of rules, called " Hermeneutics," or rules 
 of interpretation, by which to evade the conclusions 
 of common sense ; but still appealing to reason as 
 the judge. At that bar, the Cambridge Professor 
 of Divinity met and overthrew him. 
 
 We are therefore at liberty to follow the Cardi- 
 nal's example, and to reason on the meaning of 
 Scripture, with regard to this doctrine — declining 
 the help of his " Hermeneutics." The common 
 sense of Englishmen is much more to be depended 
 on for sound conclusions. 
 
 A short account of the matter in dispute, may 
 not be undesirable. 
 
 Dr. Wiseman allows that thelanguage of our Lord, 
 in the 6th chapter of St. John, from the 26th to 
 the 47th verse, concerning His being " the bread of 
 life," — is wholly figurative. At the 48th verse, he 
 contends that a new topic is introduced, and that 
 our Lord's words on this topic are to be taken 
 literally. 
 
 Dr. Turton, on the contrary, considers that the 
 47th verse very clearly and naturally connects what 
 follows, with that which precedes ; and that the 
 whole discourse is figurative. He cites very eminent 
 Romish Theologians, who do not apply any of our 
 Lord's words exclusively to the Eucharist* which 
 was afterwards to be instituted. Indeed, the 
 
30' 
 
 Church of Home has left it an open question, 
 whether our Lord spoke of the Eucharist or not ; 
 — owing to the difficulty of reconciling His 
 words in the 53rd verse, with her refusal of the 
 wine to the laity. (This is one of the cases in 
 which her Infallibility abdicates its supposed 
 function.) 
 
 Dr. Wiseman supports his view by that which 
 the Capernaites took. He regards our Lord as 
 speaking to persons ready to hear— impressed, as 
 he expresses it, with " wonder, admiration, and 
 reverence." Such an auditory, he thinks, our Lord 
 would not have allowed to continue under a wrong 
 impression. Therefore, he concludes, as they took 
 His words literally, He meant them to be so taken ! 
 
 Dr. Turton shews, that the people of Capernaum 
 displayed such a cavilling, carnal, dishonest dispo- 
 sition on that occasion, that our Lord left them to 
 their own conceptions. They took what He said 
 concerning "the bread" literally. Dr. Wiseman owns 
 that they were wrong in this ; and yet our Lord did 
 not set them right. Then why should He set them 
 right, when they mistook what He said concerning 
 the "flesh?" 
 
 To His own faithful disciples He behaved very 
 differently. To them He gave the key to his true 
 meaning — the 63rd verse. 
 
 Having paid the tribute due to the Bishop of 
 Ely, for his inestimable services on this occasion, 
 let me also mention the short, but convincing 
 " Letters of Philalethes Cantabrigiensis,"— the pre- 
 sent Bishop of Lincoln. And let net a third 
 champion, who came forward to defend the cause of 
 truth against Dr. Wiseman's Lectures in general, 
 be forgotten, Mr. Seeley; — who by his " Essays 
 
308 
 
 on Romanism," and " Essays on the Church," 
 has put the Church of England under great 
 obligations. 
 
 (1) p. 285. It is very grievous, to have to dis- 
 cuss seriously such assertions and representations, 
 as those of the Church of Rome, on this subject. 
 And yet if left undiscussed and undisputed, they 
 must lead men to accept all the fatal conclusions 
 derived from them, connected with the doctrine of 
 masses, merits, satisfaction, purgatory, indulgences, 
 and the amazing power of the priests — all destruc- 
 tive of Christ's honour, and the purity of the gospel. 
 
 How can a " species" have particles ? The Cate- 
 chism of Trent says : "The existence of the species 
 " of bread and wine in the Sacrament without 
 " a subject, is an effect as stupendous as it is 
 " admirable I" And again : " The accidents cannot 
 " inhere in the body and blood of Christ. They 
 " must, therefore, contrary to the physical laws, 
 "subsist of themselves, inhering in no subject." 
 How can such non-existences have particles, — and 
 properties of matter, — such as smell, &c ? Why in- 
 volve men in such absurdities, merely to take 
 the words of our Lord literally, — contrary to all 
 probability that He meant them to be so taken ? 
 
 But the doctrine of the Church of Rome involves 
 irreverence to the body and blood of Christ — as 
 well as puerility. 
 
 The reason given in the Catechism of Trent for 
 refusing the cup to the laity is, that " if the con- 
 secrated wine," (in other words, the blood of Christ) 
 " were to remain unconsumed" — by being kept for 
 the sick and dying, as the wafer is — " it were to 
 
309 
 
 "be apprehended that it may become vapid." (May- 
 nooth Translation, p. 244 ) " Besides," it goes on 
 to say, " there are many who cannot bear the taste 
 " or smell of wine ; lest, therefore, what is intended 
 " for the nutriment of the soul, should prove nox- 
 " ious to the liealth of the body, the church in her 
 *' wisdom has sanctioned the administration under 
 "the species of bread alone." (lb.) Worthy reason 
 for such an act, as that of withholding, on her own 
 authority, that cup which Christ himself gave, and 
 of which He said, " drink ye all of this," and " do 
 this, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me !* 
 The Church of Rome here says, ' You shall never 
 have the opportunity of doing this in remembrance 
 of your Lord and master.' And to comfort her 
 laity, if disposed to complain of the deprivation, 
 she tells them, as we have seen above, that it might 
 injure their stomachs, if she allowed them the 
 species of wine — which yet, at the same time, she 
 commands them to believe, under pain of anathema, 
 to be in reality and substance the blood of Christ ! 
 
 (m) p. 287. St. John seems to have written his 
 gospels and epistles very much for the purpose of 
 declaring, not only the divinity of our Lord, but also 
 His proper humanity. In his epistles he specially 
 opposes the Gnostic Docetae, who said that Christ 
 had not really " come in the flesh," but merely in 
 appearance. 
 
 It is asked by Romanists : ' How did our Lord 
 enter the upper room where the disciples were as- 
 sembled for fear of the Jews, the doors being shut ? 
 How could he do this, except on the supposition 
 that he had a spiritual body after his resurrection, 
 — a body not confined to space? 
 
 o2 
 
310 
 
 We are not concerned, in our argument against 
 Transubstantiation, to answer this question. It is 
 enough for us to remind our opponents, that in the 
 First Eucharist our Lord had not a risen and spirit- 
 ual body, and that nothing can be held to take 
 place in any subsequent Eucharist beyond what 
 took place in the first. So that their question has 
 no bearing on the doctrine we are disputing. 
 
 But in answer to it, we see no reason why we 
 should ascribe any mystical property to our Lord's 
 body, even after His resurrection. He said 
 " Handle Me, and see ; a spirit hath not flesh and 
 bones, as ye see Me have." As to his entering the room 
 unperceived, '\their eyes" might have "been holden, v 
 as they were on other occasions, whilst He opened 
 and shut the door. Whilst He was alive, he passed 
 through a hostile crowd in a way which defeated 
 their intention of stoning Him. (John viii, 59.) 
 
 (n) p. 391. Hooker's Eccl. Pol. b. v., c. 67. 
 
 (o) p. 292. This has been plainly affirmed by 
 Romanists. They refer to John xiv. 12, to prove, 
 that the clergy were to work greater miracles than 
 those which Christ worked ! 
 
 Archbishop Tillotson, in his " Rule of Faith" 
 part iii, quotes a Romish priest, who said : 
 
 " The power of the priest in this particular*' (that 
 of consecrating the elements) "is such a privilege, 
 " that if all the learned clerks that ever lived since 
 " the beginning of the world should have studied 
 " to raise, advance, and magnify some one state of 
 " man to the highest pitch of reverence, and emi- 
 
311 
 
 " nency, they could never, without special light 
 " from Heaveu, have thought of anything compar- 
 " able to this." 
 
 Pope Urban ii, at the Council of Bari, used the 
 following argument for excusing priests from doing 
 homage for their benefices to lay lords : " For it is 
 " a great and execrable thing, that holy hands, ap- 
 " pointed to perform what was never granted to 
 " any angel, to create God the Creator, and offer 
 " Him to God the Father, should be reduced to the 
 " humiliating baseness of slavishly mingling with 
 u profane hands."* To which speech, we are told 
 by Eadmer who was present at the council, all the 
 assembled fathers cried, " Amen ! amen !" 
 
 In the 14th Lesson of the Canon of the Mass, 
 Gabriel Biel says : " Christ is incarnated in the 
 " hands of the priest" — " the priests can create 
 <( their Creator." Fearful language ! 
 
 (p) p. 292. I cannot bring myself to'write down 
 all the rules given in the " Canon of the Mass," 
 for proceeding in the case of accidents which may 
 happen to the consecrated elements. I will only 
 give the following — by no means the worst : 
 
 " If the consecrated host disappear, being taken 
 * away by some accident, as by the wind, or a 
 " miracle, or a mouse, or any other animal, and can- 
 " not be found ; then let another be consecrated ; 
 " and let that animal, if he can be taken, be killed, 
 " and burnt, and his ashes cast into consecrated 
 " ground or under the altar." (The " Mass Book.") 
 
 What can more clearly shew, how closely supersti- 
 tion borders on irreverence ? 
 
 See Du Moulin's " Anatomy of the Mass." 
 
312 
 
 (q) p. 293. The word for sacrificing priests, is 
 that which forms the first part of the word, " Hier- 
 archy." It is never applied in the New Testament 
 to the elders ordained by the Apostles. It is con- 
 tinually applied there to the Jewish priests, because 
 they were sacrificers. It is also applied once to 
 Christians, but then it is to all Christians, as con- 
 stituting the true Israel, and inheriting the spiritual 
 privileges of " Israel after the flesh." St. Peter 
 gives it them, saying: " Ye are a chosen generation, 
 a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar peo- 
 ple" All material and propitiatory sacrifices are 
 done away. (See Waterland's Works, vol. viii.) 
 
 The present Bishop of Lincoln has published a 
 sermon on the Eucharist in which he says : 
 
 " The question, then, which I propose for your 
 " consideration is this. Is it probable that the 
 " Apostles, in the execution of the office assigned 
 " them, that of rearing the fabric of the visible 
 " church, would build again the things which they 
 " had declared to be destroyed ? Is it probable 
 " that in providing that which is essential to 
 "the very being of a visible church, a standing 
 *,* Ministry — an order of men set apart to minister 
 " in holy things, and to teach the people all that it 
 11 concerns them to know and believe for their souls' 
 " health — they would revive, in the order of men 
 " so provided, the sacrificial character of the Le- 
 " vitical Priesthood ? 
 
 " We need not, however, rest upon merely pro- 
 " bable conclusions. We know, from the book of 
 " the Acts, and from the epistles handed down to 
 " us, that the Apostles neither borrowed the titles 
 " which they gave to the ministers, whom they ap- 
 
313 
 
 " pointed in the church, from those of the Levitical 
 " priesthood ; nor enumerated the offerings of sacri- 
 il flees among the Junctions of the ministerial office. 
 " They called them bishops, presbyters, and deacons, 
 " but in no instance do we find that title assigned 
 " them, by which the Jewish priests are designated 
 " in the New Testament, and which is significant of 
 " their sacrificial character. They are spoken of, 
 ** not as priests to offer daily sacrifices, but as 
 "ministers, through whose preaching men are to 
 " be persuaded to embrace the gospel." 
 
 Bishop Kaye appeals to the fathers, as fortifying 
 this view. 
 
 (r) p. 294. The Church of Rome declares that 
 the sacrifice in the Eucharist is propitiatory, and 
 that Christ's blood is substantially present under 
 the species both of the bread and of the wine. And 
 yet she calls it "the unbloody sacrifice!" Is not 
 this trifling with the intellect of her members? 
 
 But the whole Theory of Transubstantiation 
 does such violence to the intellect, that it is super- 
 fluous to find fault with particular points in it. 
 We do not wish to raise the question concerning 
 the possibility of the change, which Bomanism de- 
 clares to be made in the bread, at the word of a 
 priest. We presume not to say what God could do. 
 But we are not called on to determine the question 
 — since the Protestant view of the Eucharist is at 
 once scriptural and reasonable, and delivers us from 
 all such distressing enquiries. 
 
 (s) p. 295. The abuse of language, of which the 
 Bomanists are guilty, is not confined to one or two 
 glaring points in their defence of the doctrine of 
 
314 
 
 Transubstantiation. Like all persons who once 
 quit the path of truth, they are obliged to have re- 
 course to fresh deviations, in order to justify the 
 first step. 
 
 Thus they speak of the body of Christ as being 
 <* impassible" in the Eucharist. If so, how can the 
 sacrifice of it be propitiatory ? Can there be fresh 
 propitiation without fresh suffering ? 
 
 Was Christ's body "impassible" at the first 
 Eucharist? or had He then two bodies, of two 
 different kinds? 
 
 The difficulties in which the defenders of Tran- 
 substantiation are involved are endless. 
 
 (t) p. 296. Cranmer, in his "Answer to Smy the," 
 reminds us, that at the Fourth Lateran Council, 
 " there were 800 monks, friars, and canons, the 
 " Bishop of Home's chief champions, called together 
 ** in his name, and not in Christ's." 
 
 At " that great council," as the Trent Catechism 
 denominates it, the doctrine of persecution for con- 
 science sake, was openly avowed. The third decree 
 ordains : " That the secular powers" i. e. kings and 
 princes, " be admonished, and if necessary, be com- 
 <l pelled by ecclesiastical censures, to make oath, 
 " that they will, to the utmost of their power, strive 
 " to exterminate from their territories all heretics." 
 
 See the " Supplemental Letter to C. Butler, by 
 Dr.Phillpotts,"in which the authority of this decree 
 is established. It rests on the same ground as 
 that of the first decree, referred to and adopted by 
 the council of Trent, the decree on Transubstan- 
 tiation. 
 
315 
 
 At this same council, held under Innocent iii, 
 the establishment of the Inquisition was approved. 
 And the Pope's right of deposing heretical Sovereigns 
 was asserted. 
 
 I have said that " the voice of antiquity is with 
 us," in opposing the Romish doctrine of the Eu- 
 charist. For a history of the rise of that doctrine, 
 the reader may consult Bishop Jeremy Taylor's 
 " Real Presence," Bishop Stillingfleet's " Doctrine 
 of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared," or 
 Mr. Faber's " Difficulties of Romanism." 
 
 To shew that the warm language of the fathers 
 may easily be mistaken, if construed literally, let 
 me present a few extracts from a modern divine, 
 well known for his sacred poetry. 
 
 " The Lord of life this table spread 
 " With His own flesh and dying blood." 
 
 " This soul-reviving wine, 
 
 " Dear Saviour, is Thy blood ; 
 H We thank that sacred flesh of Thine, 
 
 " For this immortal food." 
 
 " We see the blood of Jesus shed, 
 " Whence all our pardons rise ! 
 
 " The sinner views th' Atonement made, 
 * And loves the sacrifice." 
 
 Who would not think that these were words 
 composed by a Romanist ? The flesh, the blood, 
 the sacrifice, are all mentioned as might be ex- 
 pected in sach a case. Yet it is certain that the 
 
316 
 
 writer was no believer in the doctrine of Transub- 
 stantiation, since he is no other than the good non- 
 conformist, Dr. Watts. 
 
 In like manner the language of the fathers, ex- 
 pressive of their feelings, must not always be taken 
 as the index of their doctrinal views. 
 
 (u) p. 298. See the Council of Trent, session 
 vii. can. xi. " If any man shall say, that an inten- 
 " tion to do that which the Church does, is not 
 " necessary in ministers, who consecrate or ad- 
 " minister the sacraments, let him be accursed." 
 
 Besides the possibility that the priest may not 
 properly intend, in which case there is no real con- 
 secration — there are other dangers to be dreaded 
 by those who take the Romish view. The " Roman 
 Missal" states that " there may be defects in the 
 "matter and the form." " If the bread be not 
 " made of wheat, or if a quantity of any other grain 
 "be mixed with it; then there is no Sacrament." 
 " If the priest have before him eleven hosts, and 
 " he intends to consecrate only ten, not determining 
 " which ten, then there is no consecration." These 
 are some of the causes, which may vitiate the Sacra- 
 ment. The communicant, or the worshipper who 
 adores the uplifted host, can never know, whether 
 there has been a consecration or not ! 
 
 What a tyrannical system is Romanism ! 
 
LECTURE VII. 
 
 SAINT-WORSHIP, 
 
 PARTICULARLY 
 
 MARIOLATRY. 
 
 1. Timothy, ii, 5-6. 
 <c There is One Mediator between God and man, the 
 man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom 
 for all* 
 
 An incarnate and crucified Mediator is the great 
 revelation of the whole Bible. 
 
 In Genesis, as soon as sin came in, and the sen- 
 tence of death was passed, and man expelled from 
 Eden, we find the promise of a son of man, or 
 rather one " born of woman" who in due time 
 should contend with the arch-enemy, Satan, and 
 
 p 2 
 
318 
 
 through suffering destroy him. A light springs up 
 in the deep darkness of that first struggle between 
 good and evil ; and at the very moment when evil 
 seemed to have prevailed, a deliverer was seen in 
 the far distance, who in due time would "bruise the 
 serpent's head" (a) 
 
 In the succeeding books of the Old Testament, 
 the " seed of the woman" is spoken of again and 
 again, as destined to come. The night wears away, 
 — the streaks of morning grow more and more 
 bright and frequent, — kings and prophets lift up 
 their eyes, and rejoice to see the Day-star approach- 
 ing, and desire to behold its full and perfect light. 
 But that Day-break, in its fulness and perfection, 
 was reserved for those whose eyes were more 
 blessed than theirs. The humble fishermen of 
 Galilee, who left all to follow Christ, saw the rising 
 of the Sun of Righteousness. And when they left 
 the world, they recorded all they saw, that the 
 light might come down to us, and the glory of the 
 invisible God might dwell in our hearts. 
 
 But how was the true and spiritual glory seen, 
 from first to last ? Only by faith. The glory of 
 God in Christ is only revealed to the soul of the 
 believer. There is nothing in it for the eye of 
 sense to see. Even when Christ appeared in the 
 flesh, He gave no outward manifestation. There was 
 
319 
 
 no beauty for carnal and blind men to see in Him, 
 that they should desire Him. If the disciples had 
 not had faith, they would have seen nothing, though 
 Christ was before their eyes, — " He, in whom dwelt 
 all tJie fulness of the Godhead bodily /" 
 
 Tt is still the same. " The grace of God that 
 bringeth salvation, hath appeared unto all men" — 
 the glory of God may be seen in Christ — but it 
 must be by faith. " The eyes of our understanding' 
 must be " enlightened, that we may know what is the 
 hope of his calling, and what the ricJies of the glory 
 of his inheritance in the saints, and what is the ex- 
 ceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who 
 believe.'" 
 
 Now, whatever intercepts this glory of Christ, 
 must, as we have had occasion to observe before, be 
 most offensive to God, and injurious to men. It is 
 to plunge men again in darkness, by obscuring the 
 Saviour, and removing Him from their view, and 
 putting some earthly thing between the eye of faith 
 and Him, its proper object. It is to undo the 
 work of God, and to do the work of the enemy — it 
 is to afford joy and triumph to the principalities 
 and powers of darkness, who are ever striving to 
 blind meu, that they may " lead them captive at 
 their will." What says the great Apostle? "If 
 our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost, in 
 
320 
 
 whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds 
 of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious 
 gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should 
 shine unto them." 
 
 The Romish doctrine of the intercession of saints 
 in Heaven — especially that of the Virgin Mary — 
 is calculated to have this effect. It interposes some- 
 thing merely human, between us and Jesus. It 
 turns away the eye of faith from its proper object, 
 to fix it on objects not revealed to us in Scripture. 
 This in effect is to put an end to faith ; for faith 
 can only rest on things revealed. Now we are not 
 certain that there are any saints in Heaven* We 
 have reason to believe, with many of the old fathers, 
 and the most learned of modern divines, that the 
 souls of the righteous repose, between the day of 
 their death and the day of Christ's coming, in the 
 place of departed spirits, called " Hades" or 
 " Abraham's Bosom," where they enjoy a happy an- 
 ticipation of that re-union to their bodies, in a 
 glorified state, which will be given them when they 
 " shall rise first and meet Him in the air" It is 
 enough to mention this (I have not time to argue 
 it) in order to shew that " saints reigning in Heaven" 
 may possibly be a mere imagination, and cannot at 
 the utmost be a matter of faith, (b) 
 
 Shall we then turn aside our eyes from the ever- 
 
3'21 
 
 blessed and adorable Redeemer, to fix them on ob- 
 jects which may not exist where we seek them ? 
 Even if we were sure that they are there, what 
 should we gain by transferring our stedfast gaze 
 from Him who is altogether worthy of it, and fixing 
 our regards on such inferior objects ? Would it be 
 wise to look up to beings, once like ourselves, full 
 of darkness and weakness, never perfect in this 
 life, and deriving whatever perfection they enjoy in 
 the world of spirits, from the imparted glory of 
 Christ — would it be wise to do this, or prudent? 
 What should we gain ? We cannot say what we 
 should gain ; but we may with certainty say what 
 we should lose. 
 
 Why should we seek inferior intercessors, were 
 we sure that we could find them? Are we afraid to 
 go to our divine Intercessor at once ? Are we con- 
 scious of our sins, and desirous to hide them from 
 Him? Brethren, he knows them all. If He had 
 not known all the sinfulness of men, He would 
 never have come down from Heaven. He came to 
 save the lost. " God F says the psalmist, " Thou 
 hnowest my foolishness, and my sins are not hid 
 from Thee." Vainly, then, should we think to hide 
 our sins from Christ, by confessing them to others. 
 This would not prevent His seeing them ; but it 
 might stand in the way of His forgiving them, 
 
322 
 
 And why should we be afraid of using direct 
 prayer to Christ ? Why should we ask any to me- 
 diate for us first with Him ? Do we doubt His 
 willingness to receive us, and to grant us whatever 
 is good for us ? This doubt would be an affront to 
 His love. Can we know anything of Him, as we 
 ought to know — can we have read the Scriptures — 
 and be so unbelieving, as to doubt His readiness to 
 "save to the uttermost all who come unto God by 
 Him t" 
 
 But it may be said : Has He not commanded us 
 to pray for one another ? And may we not conclude, 
 that since He commands the use of mutual interces- 
 sion on earth, He will be pleased with the use of that 
 intercession which the saints may possibly exercise 
 in Heaven ? 
 
 This by no means follows. Here below, it is good 
 jor us to intercede for our living neighbours. The 
 act of praying for them stirs up our affection to- 
 wards them. It causes us to seek their welfare in 
 other ways. Having begged God to be kind to 
 them, we cannot ourselves be unkind. Nothing, in 
 fact, opens our hearts more than the excellent, the 
 enjoined, habit of mutual intercession, whilst we 
 are all travelling through this world of snares and 
 trials, and are engaged in one common warfare. 
 It not only increases our love towards the objects 
 
323 
 
 of our intercession, but it often awakens us to a 
 sense of our own wants. Thus our Heavenly 
 Father has consulted our profit, in making it one 
 of our duties. 
 
 But this reasoning will not apply to those, who 
 may be admitted to the Heavenly courts. There 
 will be no necessity for them to pray for their bre- 
 thren, in order either to kindle their affection to- 
 wards them, or to open their eyes to wants of their 
 own. Their love will be always glowing. Their 
 wants will never return. We cannot reason from 
 one state of things to another which is different. 
 We may ask our brethren to pray for us in this 
 world, but it does not follow that we are to seek 
 the aid of those who are gone into the next. 
 
 Neither in this world, are we ever to ask the 
 prayers of others, in order to be excused from offer- 
 ing up our own. If this had been allowed us, it 
 would have been a parallel case to that of seeking 
 the intercession of saints, supposed to be in Heaven, 
 instead of lifting up our prayers with our own 
 voices, and from our own hearts, to the Mercy Seat 
 of Christ. 
 
 Why then, I again ask, should we, when we feel 
 our needs, carry them to any but Christ ? His love 
 is all-sufficient. Tt waits for no kindling, like hu- 
 man love. It ever burns in His bosom. It pleaded 
 
324 
 
 for us before we were born, yea, before the world 
 was — and we need no other pleader with Him. We 
 shall but stifle its pleading, if we entertain so un- 
 worthy an idea of it. (c) 
 
 What do we see in the inspired history of His 
 life and ministry, to warrant the imagination, that 
 He desires to receive our prayers through the me- 
 dium of others, rather than from our own lips ? 
 
 Look at the case which St. Mark (chap, vii) re- 
 lates of the Syrophenician woman. 
 
 The words of one of the Fathers on that case are 
 so important and appropriate, that I will use them 
 in preference to any of my own. 
 
 * Mark the philosophy," says Chrysostom, " of 
 * the woman of Canaan. She entreateth not James, 
 " she beseecheth not John, neither does she come 
 " to Peter ; but she broke through the whole com- 
 " pany of them," (when they would have hindered 
 her, Matt, xv,) ' ; saying, (as it were) — ' I have no 
 " need of an intercessor, but taking repentance with 
 " me as a spokesman, I will go to the Fountain itself. 
 " For this cause did He descend, for this cause did 
 " He take flesh, that I might have the boldness to 
 " speak to Him. Lord ! have thou mercy upon 
 '< me.'" (d) 
 
 Even His own meek and gentle Mother, was not 
 allowed by our Lord to exercise a power of interces- 
 
325 
 
 sion with him. Doubtless, He foresaw the evil 
 which has arisen with respect to Mary's intercession, 
 and intended to guard men from it, if they would 
 but be guided by His Holy Word. I allude to the 
 marriage at Cana of Galilee, where we find Mary 
 venturing to intercede, that they might be supplied 
 with wine by His miraculous power. What was 
 his reply ? " Woman, what have I do with thee ? 
 Mine hour is not yet come." This reply, or rebuke 
 as it may be called, must have been dictated by 
 love to us ; — otherwise our blessed Lord would not 
 have denied himself the gratification of complying 
 with the request of his mother, who was so de- 
 servedly dear to him, and towards whom He shewed 
 such considerate tenderness when He hung on 
 the Cross. 
 
 The words of the text, however, seem to preclude 
 all reasoning. They clearly imply, that Christians 
 are to acknowledge no mediator but Christ. "There 
 is one Mediator between God and Man, the man 
 Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all" 
 These words evidently imply that there is no other 
 — else why should the Apostle use the word "One ?" 
 Moreover, if we examine the context, we shall see 
 that the sense demands it. For he goes on to say, 
 how it is that we have this " One Mediator." It 
 is because He is " the man Christ Jesus," that is, 
 
 Q 2 
 
326 
 
 He is the Divine Person, who took upon Him our 
 nature and " was made man." This is the reason 
 why the word " man" is applied to him by the 
 Apostle- In no ordinary case would it have been 
 necessary. We should be surprised to find the ex- 
 pression, 'the man Peter' or 'the man Paul,' because 
 they were known to be nothing but men. But in 
 the case of Jesus Christ, He was known to be more ; 
 and therefore it is, that the word man was put in, 
 — u the man Christ Jesus' ; — to imply that it was 
 through his incarnation, and the death which that 
 incarnation enabled him to die, that He is the 
 Mediator between God and man. The concluding 
 words of the text distinctly refer to His Death, as 
 the title on which He founds His Mediation : 
 " Who gave Himself a ransom for all." Now, who 
 but Christ has such a title ? Therefore it was, that 
 to the words already quoted by St. John, * We have 
 an advocate with the Father," it was added : " Who 
 is the propitiation for our sins" — the power of advo- 
 cacy depending upon the act which propitiated God, 
 namely, the Atonement. This destroys the distinc- 
 tion, which subtle Romanists make between media- 
 tion and intercession, (e) St. Paul confines media- 
 tion to Christ Jesus, on the ground that " He gave 
 Himself a ransom for all." And St. John confines 
 advocacy, or intercession, to the same divine Person, 
 
327 
 
 on the same ground, because He was "the pro- 
 pitiation for our sins." If any other being, any 
 saint or angel, can set up the same claim to the ex- 
 ercise of mediation or intercession, let it be allowed 
 men to call upon him, and pray to him, and kneel 
 before him — but not else. Let it otherwise be 
 deemed impiety. Let it be deemed rashness and 
 folly at the very least — a throwing away of time 
 and prayers, which might have been more profitably 
 employed in addressing our compassionate High 
 Priest. " Through Him," says St. Paul, " we 
 
 HAVE ACCESS BY ONE SPIRIT UNTO THE FATHER." 
 
 And He himself has said : " No man cometh unto 
 the Father, but by Me ! And again : " Whatso- 
 ever ye shall ask in My name, that will 1 do" — for 
 what reason ? — " that the Father may be 
 glorified in the Son." What can we need more 
 than these invitations, promises, and assurances ? 
 Why should we engage other mediators and inter- 
 cessors? Why should we incur the danger of 
 seeming to distrust our Infinite, Omniscient, Om- 
 nipresent, and ever-loving Saviour ? Why " give 
 His glory to another P If we have no other Re- 
 deemer, let us have no other Mediator or In- 
 tercessor. 
 
 We have thus examined the positive testimony 
 of Scripture, and found it opposed to the notion 
 
328 
 
 that there are any beings in Heaven who are to be 
 addressed as mediators or intercessors, but the 
 Lord Jesus Christ, the "One Mediator," as He is 
 called in the text — who " ever liveth to make inter- 
 cession for us" 
 
 But I must speak a word concerning the negative 
 testimony of Scripture, which, as on former occa- 
 sions, so also on this, is very important. 
 
 There were Old Testament Saints. Did the 
 Jews address any prayers to them ? Did they seek 
 their aid and intercession with God ? Those saints 
 were highly honoured, both by God and man — 
 such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob — Job, Moses, Joshua, 
 — David, Elijah, Daniel. To which of them do we 
 ever find a prayer addressed ? To none. Yet why 
 not, if it had been lawful ? We have no Scriptural 
 reason to think, that they passed from this earth to 
 a less happy, less glorious state of rest, than the 
 servants of God who have lived since the days of 
 Christ. They were saved by His blood, before it 
 was shed ; as the New Testament saints were, after 
 it was shed. Yet no one will venture to say, that 
 any Jew ever sought their intercession. What are 
 we to infer, but that Christians should be at least 
 as careful not to pray to any created being, as ever 
 the Jews were? — especially since we fully know 
 Christ, of whom they had but a dim foresight. 
 
329 
 
 Moreover, there were New Testament Saints, 
 who finished their earthly course, before many years 
 had passed after our Lord's departure. Stephen 
 was soon martyred — and James, the brother of 
 John, not long afterwards. Did any of the survivors 
 pray to these ? Did they make them intercessors 
 — " mediators of intercession" ? We should have 
 heard of it in the Acts or the Epistles, if the early 
 Christians had done so. It is to be concluded, from 
 the entire silence preserved on this point, that they 
 did not. We hear continually of t( One Mediator;" 
 but never of St. Stephen or St. James as exercising 
 any such office. No doubt Joseph, the husband of 
 Mary, was dead before the Crucifixion, as we judge 
 by our Lord's commending His Mother to St. John 
 — and probably Mary herself did not long survive 
 the stroke inflicted by that spectacle of her Son's 
 agony on the Cross. Did any of the Christians 
 pray to her, or to Joseph ? There is not the least 
 mention of such a thing. The only case, in which 
 there is any approach to a practice similar to that 
 of the Church of Rome, occurs, when St. John in 
 the Apocalypse tells us, that he fell down at the 
 feet of the Angel who talked with him, in order to 
 worship him ; but the Angel immediately said : 
 " See thou do it not)' — so that this case settles 
 the question against the Romanists, (f) 
 
330 
 
 Consequently, we must consider the evidence of 
 Scripture, both positive and negative, to be decid- 
 edly opposed to the invocation or worship of Saints, 
 both under the old and new dispensation. 
 
 And now let us look at the information which 
 Ecclesiastical History affords us, regarding the rise 
 of this superstitious and unlawful practice. 
 
 The invocation of Saints is confessed by Cardinal 
 Perron, and other learned Romanists, to have been 
 unknown for the first three hundred years after 
 Christ. He suggests a reason — namely, lest it 
 should have countenanced the Heathen Idolatry. 
 Is not this acknowledging that it resembles the 
 Heathen Idolatry ? 
 
 The invocation of Angels seems to have attempted 
 an entrance before that of Saints. 
 
 Theodoret, one of the early historians, tells us, 
 that some of the Colossians, in the days of the 
 Apostles, were beginning to call upon the Angd 
 Michael. He says that they took to themselves 
 credit for great " humility" in doing this, as it is 
 shewed that they thought themselves unworthy to 
 go at once to God or Jesus Christ. 
 
 The Apocryphal book of Tobit, and the practice 
 of the Jewish sect called the Essenes, probably gave 
 rise to this nascent heresy among the Colossians. 
 
 St. Paul laid his strong hand upon it instantly. 
 
331 
 
 " Let no one," says he (Col. ii. 18.) " beguile you of 
 your reward,in a voluntary humility, and worshipping 
 of Angels, intruding into those things which he hath 
 not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, and 
 not holding the head." He calls it pride, not 
 humility, to take a way of our own, instead of follow- 
 ing that prescribed by God. The Apostle's rebuke 
 seems to have had its full effect. The few who 
 were inclined to follow those who wished to "beguile 
 them "(or as the original might have been rendered, 
 to lord it over them), drew back ; and we hear no 
 more of any faithful Christians indulging in any 
 " will worship" during the first century. 
 
 In the second and third centuries, we hear of the 
 invocation of Angels ; but as being confined to those 
 whom the Church justly called Heretics. Celsus, 
 one of those, not only practised Angel-worship, but 
 boldly defended it. Origen, one of the Fathers, 
 in the early part of the third century, thus ad- 
 dresses him : 
 
 " If Celsus will have us to seek the good-will of 
 " any beside Him that is God over all, let him con- 
 '* sider, that as, when the body is moved, the motion 
 " of its shadow follows it, so in like manner if we 
 " have God, who is over all, favourable to us, we 
 " shall be sure to have all His friends, both angels, 
 M and souls, and spirits, loving towards us." (g) 
 
332 
 
 And again, Origen says : " Away with the counsel 
 " that we must pray to angels, and let us not so 
 " much as afford audience to it. For we must pray 
 " to Him alone, who is God over all ; and we must 
 " pray to the Son of God, and we must entreat Him 
 " that He, as High Priest, would present our prayer.' 
 The Christians of Smyrna, in the previous century 
 relating the martyrdom of their Bishop Polycarp 
 in a very affecting letter, about seventy years after 
 the death of St. John, use the following language 
 " We Christians can never leave Christ, who did 
 " vouchsafe to suffer so great things for our sins 
 " nor can we offer the supplication of prayer to 
 " any other." 
 
 We may consider it, then, as a settled point, 
 that the invocation of saints and angels did not ex- 
 ist in the Church of Christ during its purest era, 
 that of the first three centuries. 
 
 In the fourth century, this practice began to 
 creep in, together with many other false practices, 
 after the conversion of Constantine, — when the sun- 
 shine of prosperity warmed into life, and brought 
 into open day, the serpent-brood of superstition, (h) 
 
 I must refer you to Ecclesiastical Historians for 
 a full account of the changes, which took place in 
 point of practice, during the fourth century. Doc- 
 trinally, indeed, the Church did not exhibit a cor- 
 
333 
 
 responding change. The Fathers could not shut 
 their eyes to the fact, that Scripture rebuked much 
 which the body of Christians, in the weakness of 
 human nature, were beginning to do. They oc- 
 casionally uttered a distinct warning — but it was 
 far too feeble to arrest the growing evil. Thus 
 Wokship was depraved. And in the course of 
 time, as we have already had the pain of seeing, 
 Docteine stooped to countenance and support all 
 which the natural inclinations of men had intro- 
 duced, and which Romanism in our own days has 
 perpetuated, (i) 
 
 The particular practice, into the origin of which 
 we are now enquiring, was probably borrowed, in 
 the way of accommodation, from the Pagan worship, 
 which was displayed in all its magnificence, and se- 
 ducing splendour, throughout the empire — and par- 
 ticularly in the City of Rome. 
 
 The Pagans, we know, in the early ages of 
 Christianity and long before, were in the habit of 
 offering up prayers and incense to a race of inferior 
 deities, so called, who were supposed to occupy a 
 middle place between God and man. These were 
 termed demigods, or demons — the word " demons" 
 having then a different meaning from that which 
 it has now. It did not necessarily mean evil spirits ; 
 it was rather applied to such as were deemed good 
 
 e 2 
 
334 
 
 ones, (k) Hero-worship was a favourite kind of 
 worship. "The legendary warriors or legislators,, 
 whom the poets delighted to hold up to admiration, 
 as the friends and benefactors of mankind, were 
 deified ; and had shrines and altars appropriated to 
 them in the public temples. The Christians were 
 dazzled with what they saw. Human wisdom, and 
 human inclination, suggested to them, that they 
 might accommodate it to Christianity, and adopt it 
 in its altered form. They would thus, they argued, 
 attract the Pagans from their own temples to the 
 Christian Churches. This accommodation-principle, 
 by which Christianity was to a great extent paganized, 
 has been one of the worst evils with which the truth 
 has had to contend. It has much to recommend it 
 to men. It has what the Apostle calls in another 
 case " a shew of wisdom" (Col. ii. 23) 
 
 In modern times, we know that this principle of 
 suffering the false practices of the Heathen to re- 
 main under an adapted form, was tried by the 
 missionaries of the Church of Rome in India and 
 China — but with such melancholy results, as are 
 a warning to us never to follow their example. (1) 
 In like manner, no doubt, the Christians of the 
 fourth, and succeeding centuries, fell into the snare 
 of this false policy. They exchanged the Pagan 
 Heroes for Christian Saints. They took the Pagan 
 
336 
 
 temples, as they stood, and dedicated thein to their 
 new patrons. The shrines and altars still remained 
 — the incense still rose up before them — worship- 
 pers still bent their knees there — prayers were ad- 
 dressed to departed human beings, as before ; but 
 all was done under Christian names ; and in honour, 
 as it was asserted, of Christ. Thus the invocation 
 of saints and angels, after the fall of Paganism, 
 took the place of th,at which had formerly prevailed, 
 the worship of heroes and demigods, (m) 
 
 There was another cause to which we may trace 
 the rise of the practice of saint-worship. I allude 
 to the affectionate and grateful remembrance, in 
 which the martyrs were held by the Christians of 
 the early times. 
 
 At first this regard for the memory of Martyrs 
 shewed itself only in the way, in which ours is dis- 
 played towards the good and great men, whose 
 nanies adorn the annals of our country. The Christ- 
 ians delighted to mention them— they wept, at the 
 thought of jtheir sufferings—they visited their 
 tombs — they kept any relic of . them with a sort 
 of pious care. After a while, they went further 
 than this. They prayed for an increase of their 
 heavenly felicity. Observe, my bret|iren, they 
 prayed. on their behalf— they prayed for them, not 
 to ,tfrem. Jn the old Liturgies, four hundred years 
 
336 
 
 after Christ we find these prayers for martyrs : 
 and not for the martyrs only, but for all the souls 
 of the righteous; and for the Yirgifi Mary among 
 the number, (n) The undoubted fact that she was 
 prmfed for by name, is acknowledged by the Roman- 
 ists — and it is of great importance, because it 
 shews that she was considered as having been born 
 in sin, like the rest of mankind, and needing to be 
 saved by God's mercy through the blood of her 
 Son, the Saviour. The danger, however, of begin- 
 ning practices, not enjoined in Scripture, nor re- 
 ceived from the Apostolic times, is shewn by the 
 next step the Christians took in honour of the de- 
 ceased. In the latter part of the fourth century, 
 we find the saints addressed in a few instances. 
 In many cases it was merely oratorical. But the 
 practice of praying to them certainly existed in the 
 fifth century. Thence it descended to the dark 
 and middle ages. And thence it flowed down to 
 the sixteenth century, when the Church of Rome 
 took the fatal course of confirming all that she had 
 received, and binding herself by a claim of Infalli- 
 bility and unchangeableness, never to let go a single 
 superstition. 
 
 A third cause was the introduction of a notion. 
 quite unwarranted by Scripture, that there is a 
 double rule of sanctity and virtue ; one ordinary. 
 
337 
 
 the other extraordinary ; one for common C hi'Mltim,, 
 
 the other for recluses, hermits, monks, and all who 
 deTote themselves to religion as a profession- One 
 consisted of precepts, the other of counsels. The 
 precepts, they said, were binding on all men, — the 
 counsels were voluntary. They are sometimes called 
 counsels of perfection- These being more than 
 God required, merits ensued from their voluntary 
 performance. By these merits it was supposed 
 that the saints gain admission into Heaven. And 
 it is the application of these merits, for which 
 prayer is made to them. Need I say,how absolutely 
 opposed Scripture is to such a notion? Does it 
 not forbid us to entertain any idea of merit in sin- 
 ful man ? Does it not tell us that " when mm ham 
 dome ad, we are u m mvfitaUr mivamti /" Does it not 
 ascribe ail merit to Christ alone ? (o) 
 
 There remains only one cause more to 
 which has given rise and permanence to the 
 of saint- worship, but it is, perhaps, the 
 becsase it lies deep inhuman 
 practice dear to Mien creatures. It is this: thai men 
 conscious of sin, and dreading the punishment due to 
 it, yet not desirous of forsaking it, find ialse com- 
 fort in going to saints, rather than to Pniiiiii : — 
 thinking, that their hearts will be less dearly seen, 
 and their state less dearly jndgei. (p) Thus they 
 
338 
 
 do but cheat themselves, and defraud Christ of his 
 honour. " God is not mocked." " Unto Iftm all 
 " hearts are open, all desires known, and from Him 
 " no secrets are hid." But men are willing to de- 
 ceive themselves— r they suffer the traitor within to 
 pacify their fears and to delude ithem with false 
 hopes — they will not deal honestly with their souls, 
 because they love their sins. 
 
 I have, perhaps, sufficiently accounted for the 
 rise of the practice of praying; to saints, and its con- 
 tinuance. Let me, as briefly as , I. can, lay before 
 you what the Church of Rome says and does. in 
 the matter. 
 
 The Eighth Article of the Creed , of Pope Pius 
 iv. says : '"I strenuously maintain, that the saints 
 'fwho reign together with Christ, are to be venerated 
 " and invoked, and that they offer prayers for us to 
 "God." Here the Church of. Rome is for ever 
 pledged, this Creed having been put forth by the 
 Council of Trent, so that the invocation of departed 
 saints is made a matter, of faith, not to be .ques- 
 tioned by Romanists. 
 
 Now let us see what* she > doss. 
 
 I open a "Missal, for the use of the Latiy,'\and 
 I read : "May the intercession, 0. Lord, of Bishop 
 "■ JPeter, iThy Apostle, render the, prayers and offer- 
 * ings. of Thy Church acceptable to Thee !" (q)— 
 
J330 
 
 " By the intercession of the blessed Agnes, thy 
 " virgin and martyr, Lord, loosen the bands of 
 " our sins !" (r) — <c Grant, Lord, that we may be 
 " assisted by the merits of St. Joseph, the spouse 
 " of Thy most holy virgin Mother, and that what 
 " we cannot obtain through our own weakness, may 
 11 be granted us by his prayers !" (s) 
 
 I turn to a Breviary, the public Liturgy of the 
 Church of Rome. There I read on the day which 
 is appointed to be kept holy to Pope Pius v., who 
 is a Romish saint, (t) the following words: "O God, 
 " who didst choose Pope Pius to overthrow the 
 * enemies of Thy Church, and restore pure worship, 
 " grant us to be defended by his protection !" This 
 Pope, my brethren, is he who deposed our Queen 
 Elizabeth, and released her subjects from their 
 vows of allegiance. The enemies mentioned are 
 the English nation. 
 
 If we go to their Litanies, we find : " Holy Mi- 
 " chael, pray for us. — Holy Gabriel, pray for us. — 
 ** Holy Raphael, pray for us. — All holy Angels and 
 " Archangels, pray for us." Is not this a distinct 
 defiance of the prohibition of St. Paul, in his Epistle 
 to the Colossians ? Again : * All holy orders of 
 " blessed Spirits, pray for us. — Holy John the 
 " Baptist, pray for us, — Holy Joseph, pray for us. — 
 •'• All holy Patriarchs and Prophets, pray for us. — 
 
340 
 
 " Holy Peter, pray for us. — Holy Paul, pray for us." 
 I need not continue the catalogue. It comes down 
 to saints, with whose names you are probably un- 
 acquainted (u) such as " holy Lawrence," " holy 
 Vincent," "holy Fabian and Sebastian" — with whom 
 I will not weary you. 
 
 Thus millions are taught daily to approach the 
 throne of grace through the mediation and interces- 
 sion of departed saints, instead of coming in " the 
 Name which is above every name,' 1 — " the One Media- 
 tor between God and many — Christ Jesus" 
 
 It grieves me, brethren, to take up your time 
 in this sacred place, by exposing these sayings and 
 doings of the Church of Borne — but it is necessary 
 that you should know them for your own protection. 
 When I have once laid them before you, I trust I 
 shall never need to perform my painful task a 
 second time. Let me beg you, therefore, to bear 
 with me a little longer, whilst I tell you to what 
 unimaginable lengths the Eomanists have gone, in 
 the worship which they offer to their queen of 
 saints, the Virgin Mary, (w) I might have occupied 
 a whole Lecture with the subject of her worship — 
 but it may suffice to give you a few specimens of 
 the language which has been addressed to her. 
 
 In the case of Mary, perhaps, more than in any 
 other case, Christianity has been paganized. In 
 
341 
 
 other cases, the corrupters of our holy religion only 
 imitated the Heathen worship of heroes and demi- 
 gods, by invoking saints and angels. But in this 
 case they introduced a worship parallel to that 
 which the Heathen offered to the " Queen of Hea- 
 ven" 1 and " Mother of the Gods." Conscious of this, 
 the service which is rendered to Mary, whom the 
 Komanists address as Queen of Heaven, and Mother 
 of God, is called " Hyperdidia," whilst that to 
 saints and angels is called "Dulia." (x) 
 
 A canonized saint of the Church of Rome, who 
 stands high in their estimation, Bonaventura, has 
 composed a Litany of Mary, in imitation of that 
 which we use, of our blessed Lord. In the books of 
 Devotion you may also find a Litany of Mary, under 
 the title of the " Litany of our Lady of Loretto." 
 Bonaventura applied the " Te Deum" to Mary, 
 putting her name for Christ's. Thus he uses the 
 words : " All the world doth worship thee, Mary," 
 where we use the words : " All the world doth 
 worship thee, the Father everlasting." He treated 
 the Creed in the same manner. Also the Canticle 
 in the Prophet Habakkuk, — where %.c uses these 
 words ; " O Mary, thou blessed one, our salvation 
 is in thy hands." He did not spare the psalms, 
 but composed^what is called the " Psalter of Mary." 
 In this Psalter there occur the following expres- 
 
 8 -2 
 
S0 
 
 suns : ■ Let Mary arise, and let her enemies be 
 scattered," where the original is, " Let God arise, 
 and let His enemies be scattered" " Into thy hands. 
 O Lady, I commend my spirit*' where tha 
 original is " Into thy hands, O Lord, I com- 
 mend my spirit;* — and in the opening of the 
 ninety-fourth Psalm, (or ninety-third as it stands 
 in the Romish version.) he has not scrupled 
 to use these words, in which the honour of God is 
 to that of Mary: " The Lord is a God of 
 O Mother of Mercy, bendest to 
 be merciful.'' (y) 
 
 It may be said, that BonaTentura has been long 
 dead. In answer to that, his works remain ; and 
 he has been m a on'sod since his death, when all 
 his writings were well-known. But now hear a 
 modern Romish saint, — one to whom, as a saint, 
 prayers are offered. — one who lived in the last cen- 
 tury, and was a great writer ; and whose writings 
 were held in such esteem, that after they had been 
 carefully examined by the College of Cardinals, and 
 pr ono un ced faultless, he was canonized by the late 
 Pope only ten years ago, and his life written under 
 the present Cardinal Wiseman's direction, full of 
 extravagant praises. Hear what language he uses. 
 His name is Alphonsus liguori ; he was an Italian 
 bishop in the last century ; Ins most popular work 
 
343 
 
 is " the Glories of Mary." It may be purchased 
 any where. This work contains the following 
 phrases, amongst hundreds of the same kind — (I 
 quote from a copy in my own possession) : — " Mary 
 " opens at her Pleasure the abyss of Divine mercy, 
 " so that no sinner, however enormous his crimes 
 "may be, can perish, if he is protected by Mary." 
 (ch. 1. s. 1.) Is it only from eternal punishment 
 that Mary is to be invoked to protect the sinner ? 
 No ! she is to be prayed to, in order to obtain 
 spiritual health and strength. Liguori says : "I 
 " hold for certain, according to the common opinion 
 " of divines, that every grace we receive passes through 
 " the hands of Mary ; it is certain, therefore, that 
 " the grace of final perseverance is also her gift." 
 (ch. 1. s. 2.) Again, he says: -'To preserve the 
 " life of grace, we need spiritual strength, which 
 " will enable us to withstand all the attacks of our 
 " enemies, and this strength is only obtained by 
 (t Mary." (ch. 1. s. 2.) Then he invokes her thus : 
 " Queen of Heaven ! Mother of God ! from the 
 " height of your throne, deign to cast your eyes 
 " upon a miserable sinner, and lose not sight of 
 a him, till you render him holy." (ch. 1. s. 1.) (z) 
 
 What words are these which we hear ? Mary 
 usurps the perogatives of God. What has become 
 of the Gospel of Christ?— What of His free m\d 
 
344 
 
 everlasting love? — What of the"blood that cleanseth 
 from all sin?" Surely they who know the gospel, 
 know that there is no room for Mary. " We are 
 complete in Him,' 7 says the Apostle. " Christ is all 
 in all," he says in another place. And in a third : 
 '* Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ 
 Jesus;" — "who" he says in a fourth place, " of 
 God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and 
 sanctification, and redemption" What room then, 
 I ask, is there for Mary ? 
 
 Brethren, I have not told you the half, nor the 
 worst, of what I know with regard to the worship 
 of Mary ; but I will tell you no more. I will not 
 desecrate the place in which I stand, by further 
 details. It grieves me, as I said before, to be thus 
 employed, instead of talking to you altogether of 
 the glorious Gospel of our almighty and all-loving 
 Saviour. But, as the bishop of the diocese has 
 said, — the blame be upon him who has forced us 
 to enter into this controversy, that we may protect 
 and arm our people, (a) 
 
 My brethren, let me again repeat with the Ap- 
 ostle : * Let no man beguile you of your reward 
 in a voluntary humility, and worshipping of angels, 
 intruding into those things which he hath not see?i, 
 vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, and not holding 
 the Head" Yes, as our Church has said in her 
 
345 
 
 twenty-second Article, the worship of saints and 
 angels is " a fond thing vainly invented, and 
 " grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but 
 " rather repugnant to the "Word of God." Turn 
 from it, for it can only divert your minds and 
 hearts from their proper object. It can only lead 
 you to interminable speculations, " intruding into 
 things which you have not seen,"' endeavouring to 
 explain how it is possible for finite creatures, like 
 the imaginary saints, who possess not the divine 
 attribute of omnipresence, to hear your prayers, and 
 tell them to Grod, — who first heard them Himself, 
 and needed not to be told of them, or to listen to 
 any voice of intercession but that of His own dear 
 Son, who sits at His right hand for the very pur- 
 pose of interceding, (b) Oh the folly of men who pre- 
 fer to be " in endless mazes lost,' when they might 
 go by so plain and simple a path to Heaven. Ke- 
 joice, brethren, that you belong to a Church, which 
 leads you in that plain and simple path ; which 
 has but One Head, from whom she derives her 
 faith. But I must also say to you, — beguile not 
 yourselves. Because relatives and friends on earth, 
 of your own kind, are valuable — because it is pleas- 
 ing to call one a mother, another a sister, another a 
 brother, another a friend, and to apply for their 
 sympathy and assistance in earthly distresses — do 
 
346 
 
 not, therefore, venture to people Heaven with such 
 helpers. You have a divine Friend, and Brother 
 there. You have a Heavenly Father, reconciled 
 through His only Son— nay, loving you so much, 
 after the rebellion of your race, that " He gave His 
 only-begotten Son, to the end that all that believe in 
 Him should not perish." And most true is the 
 Apostle's conclusion : " He that spared not His own 
 Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He 
 not with Him also freely give us all things ?" You 
 have the Third Person in the blessed Trinity ready 
 to bear your heart up to "the Throne of Grace" and 
 give you access to the very Presence Chamber of 
 God. What need you more ? Why risk the loss 
 of what is offered you, by seeking more, and thus 
 displeasing God ? Would you have a hope founded 
 on infallible assurance ? Would you have a hope 
 which " as an anchor of the soul, sure and stedfast," 
 may bear you up amidst all storms, temporal or 
 spiritual, in life or in death ? Let it " enter into 
 that within the veil, whither your forerunner is for 
 you entered, even Jesus." Let it enter into the 
 Holy of Holies, where none but the One High 
 Priest sits mediating and interceding for you, and 
 into which He has opened for you " a new and 
 living way through the veil, that is to say, His flesh 11 
 —His flesh given for you on the Cross. If any 
 
347 
 
 other being, clad in human flesh, has atoned for 
 you, as Jesus did, let him share His glory and 
 your prayers. But not else. If any one, born of 
 woman in the natural way, has merit in the sight 
 of God for his goodness here below, let him be es- 
 teemed worthy of wonder — though still not of invo- 
 cation and worship. But where shall we find such ? 
 What says our venerable Hooker? " If God should 
 " yield unto us, — not as unto Abraham, if fifty, forty, 
 M thirty, twenty, yea, or if ten good persons could be 
 " found in a city, for their sakes this city should 
 " not be destroyed, — but and if He should make us 
 *i an offer thus large : search all the generations of 
 " men, since the fall of our father Adam, find one 
 " man, that hath done one action, which hath 
 " passed from him pure, without any stain or blem- 
 " ish at all ; and for that one man's only action, 
 " neither man nor angel shall feel the torments 
 " which are prepared for both. Do you think that 
 " this ransom, to deliver men and angels, could be 
 * found to be among the sons of men ? The best 
 " things that we do, have somewhat in them to be 
 " pardoned. How then can we do anything meri- 
 " torious, or worthy to be rewarded ?" How, then, I 
 may add, can there be such beings as Romish saints? 
 They are supposed not only to have had such good- 
 ness, such perfect purity in their lives, as to have 
 
348 
 
 earned Heaven by their merit, but to have had a 
 superfluity of merit, which they may now impart to 
 those who call upon them in prayer. What shall 
 we think of such a supposition ? What shall we 
 call it ? Let us, at least, dismiss them from our 
 thoughts, as non-existences and vanities, little 
 better than those of the Pagan mythology. And 
 let it not be said of us, when we thus speak of the 
 Romish saints, that we shew disrespect to the 
 memory of men and women, who really lived and 
 were children of God on earth, and examples of 
 piety and faith. Be assured, my brethren, that 
 any who were really such would be the first to say 
 to those who worship them, could they speak from 
 the place of their ineffable happiness, "See ye do it 
 not— worship God /" No ! we hold the article of 
 our Creed "the communion of saints" — but it is not 
 in the sense of Romish saints, beings of unat- 
 tainable perfection ; thrust by schoolmen and coun- 
 cils into the Holy of Holies ; nay, in Mary's case 
 placed on the very Throne of God himself; sharing, 
 nay, taking wholly to herself, the kingdom of mercy, 
 and leaving Him the kingdom of justice alone ! (c) 
 These are not the "saints" meant in the Creed, by 
 those who introduced into it that excellent and 
 scriptural article in the fourth century. They 
 meant only the saints, present, past, or future, who 
 
349 
 
 constitute the true and invisible Church of Christ — 
 whose names are, have been, or shall be, " written in 
 the Lamb's Book of Life," and whom He will wel- 
 come to His supper in the Last Day. Every one 
 of these will be found, when that Book is opened, 
 to have been ready at all times during his life here 
 below to cry with St. Paul, one of the most glorious 
 of the company of saints, " Not as though I had al- 
 ready attained, either were already perfect ;" or with 
 St. John, an equally glorious saint himself, f If we 
 say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves, and the 
 truth is not in us." We rejoice to be one with these 
 — all of them humble, penitent believers in this 
 world — who will joyfully raise that everlasting 
 hymn in the next world : " Unto Him that loved us, 
 and washed us in His own blood, be glory and do- 
 minion for ever, and ever, Amen /" In any other 
 "communion of saints," neither we, nor those who 
 inserted this article in the Creed, (probably as a 
 fuller definition of "the Church," which is mentioned 
 just before it,) have any belief. God forbid we 
 should do such dishonour to Christ, as to give Him 
 any partners in the work of our salvation ! God 
 forbid we should seem to think His mediation and 
 intercession insufficient ! God forbid we should 
 shew distrust of the power and willingness of the 
 holy spirit to " help our infirmities." Why seek 
 
 t % - 
 
350 
 
 other and inferior helps? He helps us in His 
 Word, wherein He " beareth witness with our spirit 
 that we are the children of God" He helps us in 
 our hearts, " revealing Christ in us the hope of 
 glory*' — supporting us in all our trials and tribula- 
 tions, with the prospect of that better state from 
 which so small a space separates us — enabling us 
 to live holy lives, and to love our brethren ; to for- 
 give, even as we hope to be forgiven ; and to give, 
 hoping for nothing again, that we may be the 
 children of our Father in Heaven, who u maketh 
 His sun to shine on the just and on the unjust" The 
 Church of Home teaches a practical denial of this 
 all-sufficient and ever-ready help of the Holy Spirit. 
 She leads her members to other helps. " Miser- 
 able comforters are they all." Christ sent " the 
 holy ghost" to be " the comforter" — and none 
 besides. My brethren, pray for that Heavenly 
 Comforter, and you will abhor the thought of asking 
 saints to aid you. He will bring Christ into your 
 hearts, and with Him all things. " For all things 
 are yours, whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the 
 world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to 
 come, all are yours, and ye are Christ's, and Christ 
 is God's." 
 
NOTES TO LECTURE VII. 
 
 (a) p. 318. The Vulgate Translation has "ipsa," 
 " she," for " it," in the passage of Genesis (iii. 15.) 
 " it shall bruise thy head." If this were interpreted, 
 that Eve should, by means of her seed, Jesus Christ, 
 destroy Satan in the appointed time, the reading 
 would not be so objectionable. But the Romanists 
 interpret the " she" to be Mary. Thus our redemp- 
 tion is ascribed to Mary, as much as to our blessed 
 Lord. 
 
 In the "Three Days Exercise to the Sacred 
 Heart of Mary," which is at the end of the Manual 
 called "The Love of the Heart of Jesus," published 
 in Dublin, 1844, I find the following passages : 
 
 " It was by a generosity more than heroic, that 
 " Mary consented to be the Mother of the Victim of 
 " the human race." 
 
 u She knew well the dolors she entailed upon 
 " herself in consenting." 
 
 " Mary ! what bitterness penetrated y§ur 
 " soul, when you pronounced that fiat, ' Be it done 
 
352 
 
 " unto me according to thy word,' which procured 
 M our redemption" 
 
 This is hut one specimen out of many which I 
 could produce, of the practical interpretation of the 
 reading given in the Vulgate. 
 
 In Holy Scripture, as if to guard against any un- 
 due honouring of the Virgin, our blessed Lord is 
 never called ' the Son of Mary' — but always « the 
 Son of God' or • the Son of Man.' 
 
 (b) p. 320. Stapleton, a great Romish writer, 
 confesses, that "Tertulliau, Irenseus, Origen, Chry- 
 <l sostom, Theodoret, (Ecumenius, Theophylact, 
 " Ambrose, Clemens Romanus, and Bernard, held 
 " a contrary opinion to that of the Council of Flor- 
 " ence, which denned that the souls of the righte- 
 " ous enjoy the sight of God before the Day of 
 " Judgment." (Defens. Eccles. Auctor. L. i. c. 2.) 
 
 To Stapleton 's list Fr. Pegna, on the authority 
 of other writers of his church, adds the names of 
 Justin Martyr, Augustine, Lactantius, and others. 
 
 This makes almost a " Consensus Patruni" a- 
 gainst the Romish view, that the saints are in 
 Heaven ! (See Archbishop Usher's " Answer to a 
 Jesuit") 
 
 (c) p. 324. In the Commentaries on St. Paul, 
 ascribed to Ambrose, it is said, that the Heathen 
 used to cover " the shame of their neglecting God, 
 by this miserable excuse, that " by these (the demi- 
 " gods or heroes) they went to God, as we by 
 " officers go to the king." To which it is replied : 
 
 " Men go to the king by officers, because the king 
 
353 
 
 * is but a man, and does not (of himself) know on 
 "whom he should confer distinction; but to procure 
 " the favour of God, from whom nothing is hid, we 
 "need no introduction but a devout mind." (quoted 
 in Usher's u Answer.") 
 
 (d) p. 324. Chrysost. Op. in Dim. Chanan. 
 
 (e) p. 326. It is said by the Romanists, that there 
 is but One Mediator of Redemption, whilst there 
 are many Mediators of Intercession. We find, how- 
 ever, that the great Augustine did not make this 
 distinction. " Christ," he says, " is the Priest, 
 " who, being now entered within the veil, alone 
 " there of them who have been partakers of the 
 "flesh, makes intercession for us" (In Ps. lxiv.) 
 And writing against the Donatist Parmenian, the 
 same illustrious father, commenting on St. John, 
 (1st ep. ii. 1.) says : " If the Apostle had written, 
 " ' if any man sin, ye have me for an advocate' (as 
 " Parmenian in one place makes the bishop a medi- 
 " ator betwixt the people and God) what good and 
 " faithful christian would endure him ? Who would 
 " look upon him as the Apostle of Christ, and not 
 "rather as antichrist?" 
 
 In these passages it is plain, that mediation, and 
 intercession or advocacy, are not distinguished. 
 Each is ascribed to Christ alone. 
 
 So also Chrysostom says : *' God is always near. 
 " If you intreat a man, you must enquire what he 
 " is doing, and whether he is asleep or at leisure ; 
 ** and perhaps the servant gives no answer. But 
 " not so with God. Whenever you go to call on 
 " Him, He hears." And again : " When we have 
 
554 
 
 " a petition to make to men, we cannot always go 
 "straight to themselves and speak with them; it is 
 " necessary for us first to procure the favour of 
 "their ministers. But with God it is not thus. There 
 " is no need of intercessors of prayer with Him ; 
 " and He is not so ready to hear our prayers and 
 " answer them, when we pray through others, as 
 " when we come and pray to Him ourselves." 
 (quoted in Usher's " Answer.") 
 
 (f) p. 329. Bellarmine and other Eomanists, 
 have the extreme holdness to take this passage, and 
 try to turn it to their purpose. But how, it may 
 he asked, can they possibly accomplish this ? Did 
 not the angel positively forbid St. John to worship 
 him ? Did he not say, that he, being a servant of 
 God, and therefore a " fellow -servant 9 of St. John 
 and of all believers, could not receive worship with- 
 out impiety and robbery of God ? Bellarmine sees 
 no such meaning in his words. • If St. John," he 
 argues, " thought him to be an angel, and yet wor- 
 " shipped him, why are we reproached for doing 
 "what St John did? Do the Calvinists know 
 " better than St. John did, whether angels are to 
 " be worshipped V 
 
 To this Dr. Freeman, one of our divines in the 
 time of James ii , replies : " I answer, if St. John 
 "thought him to be an angel, and yet worshipped 
 " him, why should not we be reproved for doing 
 " that which St. John did, if St. John did that 
 " which he should not have done ? * Do the Cal- 
 " vinists,' asks the Cardinal, ' know better than St. 
 "John, whether angels are to be worshipped?' 
 " I answer : do the papists know better than Che 
 " angel3, whether angels are to be worshipped, who 
 
355 
 
 • expressly forbade it ? See thou do it not ; wor> 
 " ship God:' (Rev. xx. 8, 9.) 
 
 Dr. Newman explains it differently, in his 
 " Essay on Development," under the head " Deifi- 
 cation of the saints /" (p. 403.) He does not, like 
 Bellarmine, doubt that the supposed angel was such; 
 nor does he think that St. John was right in offering 
 worship to him. On the contrary, he thinks that 
 he was an angel ; but that the deification of the 
 saints, as he scruples not to call it, (and which he 
 tries to infer from a passage in Athanasius,) 
 " suggests a reason for the angel's shrinking from 
 " the homage of St. John, the Theologian andProphet 
 « of the Church." In short, he considers St. John as 
 the one that ought to have been worshipped. 
 
 Does not the inspired account convey the plain 
 meaning, that no servants of God were to offer wor- 
 ship to their fellow-servants, be they angels or 
 saints ? Let the reader judge. 
 
 (g) p. 331. See Usher's "Answer;" and Ty- 
 ler's ' Worship of the Virgin," p. 149. 
 
 (h) p. 332. Dr. Wiseman in his " Lectures" 
 ventured to affirm, what Cardinal Perron gave up 
 in despair, that saint-worship existed in the first 
 three centuries. He produced some few passages, 
 from writings which he ascribed to the fathers who 
 lived during that period. 
 
 I can only refer my readers to Tyler's excellent 
 work on the " Worship of the Virgin," for a most 
 extraordinary exposure of Dr. Wiseman's mistakes 
 or misrepresentations. He has invariably quoted 
 writings, which the learned of his own Church have 
 
356 
 
 long ago abandoned as spurious. No modern con- 
 troversialist stands so damaged in reputation, as the 
 new Cardinal. See Tyler, p. 148, 156, 166, 217, 
 229 ; — Dr. Turtons works on the " Eucharist," es- 
 pecially as regards the cardinal's quotations from 
 Tittman and Estius, noticed in the Reply, p. 193, 
 162 ; — Mr. Palmer's u Letters to Dr. Wiseman." 
 
 (i) p. 333. See Mosheim's Eccl. Hist, of the 
 Fourth Century, in proof of this position, that cor- 
 ruption of worship and ceremonies preceded cor- 
 ruption of doctrinal tenets. He draws a dark and 
 monitory picture of the effects that resulted from 
 the new taste for magnificence and shew, which 
 sprang up in that century. 
 
 (k) p. 334. Socrates is well-known to have 
 talked of his having a "demon" who gave him good 
 counsel at all times — warning him of what was 
 wrong and dangerous, and inciting him to what 
 was good and safe. 
 
 (1) p. 334. Francis Xavier was the first Jesuit 
 who went as a missionary to India. He passed 
 from thence to Japan. He ended his days in China. 
 He has had more credit for the number of his con- 
 verts than is his due. Of what quality they were, 
 and whether all of them were to be called converts, 
 may be judged from the Letter he wrote to his 
 friend Mansilla, telling him his mode of proceed- 
 ing. *' You may judge," he says, " what manner of 
 " life I lead here, by what I shall relate to you. 
 "lam wholly ignorant of the language of the peo- 
 " pie, and they understand as little of mine, and I 
 <: have no interpreter, All I can do, is to baptize 
 
357 
 
 "children and visit the sick." Baptizing the 
 children of Heathens, without any instruction ! 
 These are called converts. And one hundred 
 thousand every year for ten years, are said to have 
 been converted to Christianity by this " Apostle of 
 India," as he is called by the Romanists. 
 
 This fact, learnt from the candid confession of 
 Xavier himself, reminds us of a recent account of 
 similar conversions, given by Mr. Hobart Seymour, 
 in his '*' Mornings with the Jesuits." In his seventh 
 chapter (to which I ought to have referred in my 
 last Lecture, to illustrate what I said concerning 
 the unbloody sacrifice, p. 313) he tells us : "I men- 
 " tioned the narrative of a friend of mine, who was 
 ** witness to the conversion of a whole tribe of 
 " American Indians. He told me that the whole 
 " tribe marched down to a river, and that the 
 *'- Roman Catholic priest, without a word of instruc- 
 " tion, sprinkled water on every one in the usual 
 " form ; and that then he hung a little cross by a 
 " string around the neck of each ; and telling them 
 " they were now Christians, he left them. My 
 *' friend told me, that the Indians departed precisely 
 " as they came — heard no preaching — received no 
 " instruction — exhibited no sign of Christianity — 
 " made no profession of faith — and departed, as 
 " naked, as savage, as ignorant and heathen, as they 
 " came, with only this difference, that each had a 
 " little cross suspended around his neck." What 
 was the answer which the Jesuit, one of the dis- 
 tinguished members of the college at Rome, made 
 to Mr. Seymour's statement? u The answer to 
 " this was very striking, as shewing a degree of 
 " credulity which I could never have anticipated. 
 ** He said that I was altogether mistaken, in doubt- 
 
 u 2 
 
358 
 
 " ing the reality of these conversions — that it was 
 " in this the interposition of God was so clearly 
 " manifested — that these conversions partook very 
 " much of the miraculous in their nature ; at least, 
 " could not be accounted for, often, unless on the 
 " principle of a divine miracle. It was the great 
 " and good God, setting His seal to the work of his 
 " own Church. These very Indians, heathen and 
 " savage as they were, were real concerts ; and the 
 "proofs of the reality of their conversion are un- 
 " doubted and convincing, so much so that after the 
 " missionary had left them, after he had remained 
 " absent from them for two years, after they had 
 " been left without further instruction of any kind 
 " beyond the memory of his teaching, after he re- 
 " turned and was again among them, and required 
 " them to come to confession, that they might re- 
 " ceive absolution, he was agreeably surprised, and 
 " indeed overjoyed, to find that not one of them had 
 " any sins to confess !" The reader may judge what 
 kind of instruction they had received from the 
 missionary. It was on a par with the baptism. 
 
 Such are Rome's triumphs in the way of conver- 
 sion ! She still acts on her old adage, " Ignorance 
 is the mother of devotion." 
 
 The priest with whom Mr. Seymour conversed, 
 appears to have been a sincere believer in the 
 miracles which are ascribed to the ministrations of 
 ■Romish missionaries. " He eagerly added, that the 
 " very missionary was now at Rome ; that he had 
 "just returned from America, and was at the Col- 
 " legio Romano, where he had himself heard him 
 " relate the facts. And as a proof beyond question, 
 " of the reality of the conversions, and the holiness 
 
:J59 
 
 " of these Indians, he mentioned what he called a 
 " most wonderful miracle, that had occurred when 
 (i the missionary was administering the Holy Com- 
 "munion to them. He was holding the host in his 
 " fingers, and as the poor Indian was too far from 
 "him, the priest could not place it in his mouth; — 
 " when the host — and here the speaker lifted up 
 "his hands, looked devoutly to Heaven, and 
 '• earnestly and solemnly addressed me — the host 
 "flew out of his fingers, flew over to the poor 
 " Indian, and into his mouth ! ' Oh,' he added, in a 
 '* tone of the most reverential devotion, l the blessed 
 " Lord Jesus so loved that poor savage, that He 
 *.* longed to enter into his heart, and thus mira- 
 •' culously flew into his mouth'." 
 
 What are we to think of the missionary who 
 could relate this story, and of the priest who could 
 believe it ? Surely the one was wicked, and the 
 other weak ! How can we hope to do anything by 
 reasoning with such persons ? 
 
 After Xavier's death, other missionaries succeeded 
 him in Japan and China, who acted as he probably 
 would never have done. Robert de Nobili was a- 
 mong these — the Romanists call him the " Second 
 Apostle of India." There is a sufficient account 
 given of him by Mosheim, in his history of the 
 Seventeenth century. He feigned himself a Brah- 
 min ; shut himself up to study the language of their 
 books, till he might be acknowledged such ; ancl^ 
 then came forth as a foreign Brahmin, from a far 
 country, and a reformer of the Brahminical religion. 
 " To stop the mouths of his opposers," says Mac- 
 laine, " particularly of those who treated his cha- 
 " racter of a Brahmin as an imposture, he produced 
 
360 
 
 " an old dirty parchment, in which he had forged 
 ** in the ancient Indian characters a deed, shewing 
 "that the Brahmins of Rome were of much older 
 " date than those of India, and that the Jesuits of 
 " Rome were descended in a direct line from the 
 " god, Brama. Nay, Father Jouvenci, a learned 
 ", Jesuit (in his Histoire des Jesuites) tells us some- 
 " thing still more remarkable, even that Robert de 
 " Nobili, when the authenticity of his smoky parch- 
 " ment was called in question by some Indian un- 
 " believers, declared upon oath, before the Assembly 
 " of the Brahmins of Madura, that he, Nobili, de- 
 " rived really and truly his origin from the God 
 " Brama. Is it not astonishing that the reverend 
 " Father should acknowledge, is it not monstrous 
 " that he should applaud, as a piece of pious in- 
 " genuity, this instance of perjury and fraud?" 
 (Jouvenci, Histoire. And Norbert, Memoires His- 
 tor. sur les Missions des Malab. ii. 145.) 
 
 Here was the accommodation principle in per- 
 fection ! Nobili forged & fifth Veda, which contained 
 a portion of the Bible, and was intended to prepare 
 the Hindoos for Christianity. He " adopted that 
 " very austere and painful mode of life which the 
 " Sanianes or penitents live." (Soames' Edition of 
 Mosheim.) To the credit of Pope Benedict xiv, the 
 conduct of the missionaries was condemned by him 
 in the year 1744 — a hundred years after Nobili 's 
 death. Ganganelli also, when Pope, issued a Bull, 
 condemnatory of the compliances made by the Jesuits 
 in China — compliances such as the early Christ- 
 ians submitted to be cast to the lions rather than 
 make. All that had been done by Xavier and his 
 successors in Japan came to an end two hundred 
 years ago. The very name of Christianity has ever 
 
361 
 
 since been hated in that Empire. The state of the 
 Christian Cause in China, till of late, has been little 
 better. The divine blessing could not be expected 
 to rest on missionary efforts, which were conducted 
 on a principle distrustful of the power of truth. 
 Consult Hough's " Missions in India." 
 
 (m) p. 335. The reader should consult the cele- 
 brated " Letter" of Dr. Conyers Middleton, " from 
 Rome," published in 1741. He tells us that at the 
 end of the fourth cer.tury, " Vigilantius publicly 
 " charged the ruling clergy with Paganizing, by the 
 •' adoption of Heathenish customs ; especially the 
 " vows of chastity imposed on the clergy, the vene- 
 " ration of relics, and the lighting up of candles in 
 •' broad day." " Vigilantius appears to have had 
 *' several bishops and presbyters on his side, and 
 " particularly Rufinus." Jerome, the bitter enemy of 
 Vigilantius, repined that the Heathen excelled the 
 Christians in some points. i( Vesta," he said, " had 
 " her Perpetual Virgins, and other false Gods their 
 priests under vows of chastity." (Op. T. iv. par. 1.) 
 Accordingly, this reproach was wiped away by im- 
 itating them, and multiplying monasteries and 
 nunneries ! This was due chiefly to Jerome. 
 
 Dr. Middleton s account of what he saw at Rome, 
 (which may still be seen,) is very interesting. He 
 was an excellent classic, and could scarcely persuade 
 himself, that he was not living in the times of the 
 old Latin poets. Churches, which had been Hea- 
 then temples, — with statues of Romish saints, male 
 and female, instead of old Heathen Gods and God- 
 desses, Heroes and Demigods, — and having numer- 
 ous separate altars in each church, all at one time 
 flaming with lights and incense, — and distinct sets of 
 
362 
 
 worshippers at each shrine, — boys dressed in white,- 
 native gifts hanging around, pictures of cures mi- 
 raculously performed through the patron saints, 
 vessels of gold and silver and precious stones, and 
 wealth poured on the altars, — all transported him 
 back to the ages before Christianity, when the same 
 spectacles were presented under the reign of Pagan 
 Polytheism. What is the inscription on the Ro- 
 tunda or Pantheon ? Over the Portico are these 
 words : " The Pantheon — once impiously dedicated 
 " by Agrippa to Jupiter and all the false Gods, 
 " now piously reconsecrated by Pope Boniface the 
 ' ! Fourth, to the Blessed Virgin and all the Saints." 
 
 Mr. Hobart Seymour's recent " Pilgrimage to 
 Rome," gives us the inscription which is on the 
 Cathedral at Lucca : " Christo Liberatori, ac Diis 
 «' Tutelaribus," '•' To Christ the Deliverer, and to 
 " the Tutelary deities," meaning the saints who 
 particularly preside over Lucca. The title of Tute- 
 lar deities is that which the Romans of old gave to 
 their peculiar heroes or gods in each particular city 
 or country. 
 
 Card. Bellarmine does not scruple to denominate 
 the saints, " Gods by participation." 
 
 And Mr. Newman in his "Essay on Develop- 
 ment" heads one of his pages with the startling 
 title, " The Deification of the Saints." 
 
 Well may we consider Romanism as having a 
 considerable identity with Polytheism. And pro- 
 bably, this is principally due to the unhappy adop- 
 tion of the Accommodation Principle. 
 
 (n) p. 336. Mr Newman in his "Essay" ac- 
 
363 
 
 knowledges, that Mary was prayed for, in the early 
 Liturgies, p. 354. 
 
 See Usher's Answer to Jesuit, chap. vii„ where 
 the Liturgies are specified, and the prayers given. 
 
 The Dominicans of former days, all held that the 
 Virgin was born in sin — though some of the later 
 ones were willing to have it believed, that she re- 
 mained in sin only a few hours after her birth. 
 They thought by this to reconcile Scripture with 
 the popular views in favour of her entire sinless- 
 ness. 
 
 Bernard, called the last of the Fathers ; Thomas 
 Aquinas, called the Angelic Doctor ; and Bonaven- 
 tura, called the Seraphic Doctor; were amongst 
 those who stood up for the truth of Scripture, that 
 all of human race, save Jesus, were u born in sin." 
 
 Nevertheless, the present Pope is about to pro- 
 nounce, that Mary, as well as her divine Son, was 
 excepted. Scripture must give way to the Pope's 
 Infallibility. What was denied by all Christians 
 everywhere and at all times in the early ages, must, 
 in these latter days, be believed. The Pope has 
 already put it into the Liturgies. 
 
 (o) p. 337. Mosheim speaks thus of this double 
 rule of sanctity : 
 
 " It is a principle in morals, radically false, and 
 " most injurious to the Christian cause, and one 
 * that through every age, even to our own, has been 
 " infinitely prolific in errors and ills of various 
 " kinds. Jesus, our Saviour, prescribed one stand- 
 " ard and rule of living to all His disciples. But 
 " the Christian doctors, either by too great a desire 
 
364 
 
 u of imitating the nations among whom they lived, 
 "or from a natural propensity to austerity and 
 " gloom, which is a disease that many labour under 
 " in Syria, Egypt, and other provinces of the East, 
 " were induced to maintain that Christ had pre- 
 ' ; scribed a two-fold rule of holiness and virtue ; the 
 " one ordinary, the other extraordinary ; the one 
 " lower, the other higher ; the one for men of 
 " business, the other for persons of leisure, and 
 <v such as sought to attain higher glory in the future 
 " world. They, therefore, early divided all that 
 " had been taught, whether in books or by tradi- 
 " tion, respecting human life and morals, into pre- 
 " cepts and counsels. They applied the name of 
 "precepts to those laws which were universally obli- 
 " gatory, being meant for men of all descriptions ; 
 " but the counsels concerned only those who deemed 
 " it glorious to aim at higher things, and a closer 
 " union with God." " There arose accordingly a 
 " class of persons who professed to strive after that 
 " higher and more eminent holiness than common 
 " Christians can attain ; and who were resolved to 
 •' obey the counsels of Christ, in order to enjoy in- 
 " timate communion with God in this life, and on 
 " leaving the body, to rise without impediment or 
 " difficulty to the celestial world. They thought 
 "many things forbidden to them, which were 
 " allowed to other Christians, such as wine, flesh, 
 " matrimony, and worldly business. They supposed 
 " that they must emaciate their bodies with watching, 
 "fasting, toil, and hunger. They considered it a 
 " happiness to retire into desert places, and by close 
 ( ' meditation to abstract their minds from external 
 " objects and sensual delights." 
 
 (This was but an adaptation to Christianity of 
 the heathen Platonic jmilosophy.) 
 
365 
 
 "Hence," adds Mosheim, "the numerous mala- 
 " dies which still afflict the Christian world. Hence 
 
 * the celibacy of the clergy. Hence the numerous 
 *' herds of monks" (Soames' Ed. of Mosh. vol. i. 
 p. 175, &c.) 
 
 At the end of the fourth century, the monks in 
 Egypt alone are said to have been at least 76,000, 
 and the nuns '21,000. This number in after-times 
 was doubled and trebled. (See Fleury's Eccles. 
 Hist.) Let Ireland beware ! 
 
 Nothing could be worse than the separation of re- 
 ligion from common life. The word " religious" 
 was confined to those who devoted themselves to a 
 ministerial ascetic life. It is still thus applied a- 
 mong the Romanists. In the same way the word 
 
 * church" was confined to the clergy ; and is too 
 often carelessly so applied among ourselves, as when 
 a candidate for orders is said to be about to "go 
 into the Church." 
 
 (p) p. 337. That the Romanists may go in this 
 feeling to saints rather than to Jesus, is not merely 
 a supposition. Gabriel Biel, one of their most 
 famous schoolmen, holds out the following view, a3 
 an encouragement for men to pray to Mary, rather 
 than to the Saviour : '« You are afraid to approach 
 " the Father, terrified by only hearing of Him/' 
 " He has given you Jesus.''' " But even in Him 
 " you fear the Divine Majesty." " Betake yourself 
 " then to Mary, for in Mary is pure humanity." 
 (Tyler, on the " Worship of Mary," published by 
 the Christ. Knowl. Soc. p. 375.) 
 
 In Mr. Seymour's " Mornings with the Jesuits 
 at Rome," one of the Jesuits said to him, that it 
 
 v2 
 
366 
 
 was " the feeling universal among Romanists, that 
 " the Virgin Mary is more gentle, and ready to 
 " hear, than Christ ;" and again, that " they feel 
 " that Mary is altogether of their own nature, and 
 " this ensures a more perfect sympathy, so as to 
 " make Mary more accessible than Christ." 
 
 The subjoined quotation is from " Froude's Re- 
 mains," a Work which excited much attention 
 when it first appeared, being published by Mr. 
 Newman as one of the editors, and written by a 
 man well-disposed to the doctrinal system of Ro- 
 manism. Written from Italy to his English friends, 
 Mr. Froude says : " Since I have been out here, I 
 " have a worse notion of the Roman Catholics than 
 " I had. I really do think them idolators ; though 
 " I cannot be quite confident of my information as 
 " it affects the character of the priests. What I 
 " mean by idolators is, that I believe they look 
 "upon the Saints and Virgin as good-natured 
 " people, that will try to get them let off easier 
 " than the Bible declares, and that as they do not 
 " intend to comply with the conditions on which 
 " God promises to answer prayer, they pray to them 
 " as a come-off!'' 
 
 (q) p. 338. Missal for 18 Jan. Belfast, Stereo- 
 typed Edition. 
 
 (r) p. 339. lb. £5 Jan. 
 
 (s) p. 339. lb. 20 Mar. 
 
 (t) p. 339. Breviary, vol. ii., p. 639, for 5 May. 
 
 (u) p. 340. Some Romish saints seem never to 
 
367 
 
 have had an existence as human beings. St. Am- 
 phibolus is suspected to be a holy cloak. St. Ver- 
 onica to be a holy handkerchief. Ignorance person- 
 ified and superstition canonized them. But these 
 are not the worst saints in the Romish Calendar. 
 
 (w) p. 340. Epiphanius, one of the best of the 
 fathers, in the fifth century, when he first heard of 
 some women offering cakes (collyria) to the Virgin 
 Mary, and giving her the title of '« Queen of Hea- 
 ven," called their worship of her, an " idolatrous 
 heresy." 
 
 See mention of Epiphanius and his zeal against 
 the use of images, in the <; Homily against peril of 
 Idolatry, 7 ' (second part). The whole Homily, pro- 
 bably written by the learned and pious Bishop 
 Jewel, is an admirable historical treatise, as well as 
 a scriptural discourse. 
 
 (x) p. 341. The distinction between the kinds 
 of worship rendered to God, to the Virgin, and to 
 the Saints, is one which the common people cannot 
 understand, or at least in practice must lose sight 
 of. (See Hart's Eccl. Records, p. 263, 2nd Ed.) 
 
 In the " Mornings with the Jesuits," Mr. Sey- 
 mour adduces " the well-known prayer, to the 
 " repeating of which, an indulgence of 300 days was 
 " attached in the year 1817. 
 
 " Jesus, Joseph, Mary, I give you my heart and 
 " soul. 
 
 " Jesus, Joseph, Mary, assist me in my last 
 " agony. 
 
 " Jesus, Joseph, Mary, I breathe my soul to you 
 " in peace.'' 
 
368 
 
 Here is Jesus addressed, to whom Latria is due ; 
 Joseph, to whom dulia ; and Mary, to whom hyper- 
 dulia. How is it possible to distinguish ? It is 
 one prayer — and one worship. 
 
 (y) p. 342. Canon Tyler gives a full account of 
 Bonaventura's perversions of Scripture, &c, in 
 honour of Mary. 
 
 In his " Te Deum" parodied there occurs : 
 
 " To thee the whole Angelic choir proclaim with 
 "incessant voice: Holy, Holy, Holy, Mary, Mother 
 " of God." 
 
 In his " Athanasian Creed" adapted, he has : 
 
 " Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is 
 fl necessary that he hold firm the Faith concerning 
 "the Virgin Mary." 
 
 In his " Litany of Mary," we find : 
 
 \f Spare us, O Lady ! 
 
 " From all evil deliver us, Lady ! 
 
 " We sinners do beseech thee to hear us !" 
 
 In his Works, edited at the Vatican, he speaks 
 of Mary as using more than Intercession : 
 
 " By the right of a Mother command thy 
 ' : Son, that He vouchsafe, &c." 
 
 If modern Romanists disapprove of these things, 
 why are not his Works or parts of them put into 
 the Index Expurgatorius, like Fenelon's, Pascal's, 
 Dante's, &c. ? Why does not the Pope issue a 
 Bull to guard his diocese against the use of them ? 
 
 Are not Bonaventura's impieties more worthy of 
 condemnation, than the following propositions 
 which are condemned in the Bull " Unigenitus" — 
 
369 
 
 which Dr. Murray stated before the House of Lords 
 in 1825, to be in force in Ireland ? 
 
 79. " It is useful and necessary at all times, in 
 " all places, and for persons of every class, to study 
 " and know the spirit, piety, and holy mysteries of 
 " the Scriptures." 
 
 80. " The reading of Holy Scriptures is for all 
 " men." 
 
 82. " The Lord's Day ought to be sanctified by 
 " Christians, by reading pious books, and above all 
 " the Holy Scriptures." 
 
 These propositions are declared false ! 
 
 Surely a Pope's Bull would be better employed 
 in disclaiming what Bonaventura has uttered, than 
 in opposing such holy truths. 
 
 (z) p. 343. Bonaventura was canonized before 
 the Reformation. Let us see what a saint who has 
 been canonized so late as the year 1839, has written 
 concerning Mary. 
 
 Bishop Liguori lived in the last century. His 
 " Life" has been published in England, under the 
 acknowledged superintendence of Dr. Wiseman. 
 His writings were pronounced not only faultless, 
 but worthy of the highest praise, when examined 
 at Rome previously to his canonization. Dr. Wise- 
 man lauds them extravagantly. They are held up 
 to admiring and confiding Romanists by the su- 
 preme authorities of their Church. We may con- 
 clude, that they faithfully reflect the tone of feeling 
 and sentiment prevailing in that Church at the 
 present day. 
 
 Liguori's most common and popular Work is 
 
370 
 
 called, "The Glories of Mary." It has passed 
 through numerous editions, with and without notes. 
 It is in universal circulation, having been translated 
 into all languages. 
 
 Is this modern Work better than Bonaventura's 
 older one ? That the reader may answer this ques- 
 tion, I will present him with some classified quo- 
 tations. 
 
 I. Passages superseding Christ as the Redeemer. 
 
 ' s St. Bernardine of Sienna asserts, that if God 
 " has not destroyed man after his sin, it was in con- 
 " sideration of the Blessed Virgin, and out of the 
 11 singular love He bore her. He even doubts not, 
 " that all the mercies granted to sinners in the 
 * Old Law, have been given in consideration of 
 "Mary." (ch. ii. s. 1.) 
 
 " An angel told St. Bridget, that the Prophets 
 " of the Ancient Law leaped for joy, when they 
 " foresaw, that in consideration of Mary's purity 
 " and humility, God would be appeased, and turn 
 " away His wrath from those who had most irritated 
 "Him." (lb.) 
 
 <l Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant" 
 
 11 Our Lady one day appeared to St. Gertrude, 
 " covered with a mantle, under which, as if in a 
 " place of refuge, were a troop of ferocious beasts, 
 " as lions, tigers, bears, and leopards. She was so 
 " far from driving them away, that on the contrary 
 " she patted them with her hand, and received them 
 "with great pity and commiseration. By this 
 " vision the saint understood, that the greatest 
 " sinners, when they recur to Mary, are saved from 
 " eternal destruction. Let us then enter this Ark. 
 
371 
 
 44 Let us lie hid under the mantle of Mary ; we 
 M there shall find life and salvation." (lb.) 
 
 II. Passages hostile to Christ — misrepresenting 
 Him. 
 
 " "We read in the second book of Kings, that a 
 " woman of Thecura (and she is praised for her 
 " wisdom) having once presented herself before 
 " David, said : ' My lord, I had two sons ; both 
 " quarrelled, and one of them killed the other; 
 " the officers of justice have seized on the former, 
 " and having lost one, I see myself on the point of 
 " losing the other ; have pity on me, and do not 
 'permit them to take his life/ David, greatly 
 " affected, caused the aggressor to be set at liberty." 
 (What an ignorance of the real history ! what a 
 libel on the character of David !) " This is pre- 
 44 cisely Mary's language to the Sovereign Judge, 
 " when she sees Him irritated against sinners, who 
 " fly to her for protection. ' Lord,' does she say, 
 44 4 like Thecura, I had two sons, Jesus and man. 
 44 Man nailed Jesus to the Cross. His blood loudly 
 44 demands your vengeance. Can you deprive me of 
 " the second, after I have already lost the first ?' 
 " Ah no certainly ! God will not condemn the sin- 
 44 ner who has recourse to Mary." (Ch. i. s. 4.) 
 
 (What must be the feelings of those who, by 
 reading the Scriptures, not such poisonous books as 
 this, know that the Blood of Christ is that which 
 saves us, and cleanses us from all sin, and is pleaded 
 by Christ as our High Priest interceding for us, — 
 instead of its doing that which is here represented, 
 * 4 loudly demanding God's vengeance" on us. 
 
 This horrible calumny, directed against Christ, 
 reminds us of the pictures, which Chemnitius tells 
 
372 
 
 us were to be seen in many Churches of his time, 
 wherein Christ was painted casting arrows at sin- 
 ners, and Mary standing between and turning 
 them aside !) 
 
 "Go to find the Mother of Mercy ; discover to 
 " her the wounds of thy soul ; and Mary shewing to 
 ° her Son the breasts whence He drew life and 
 " nourishment will nullify his anger, and appease 
 " His wrath." (ch. ii. s. 1.) 
 
 " We read in the Chronicles of St. Francis that 
 " Brother Leo once saw in a vision two ladders : 
 u one red, at the summit of which was Jesus Christ ; 
 " and the other white, at the top of which presided 
 ''His blessed Mother. He observed that many 
 " who endeavoured to ascend the first Ladder, after 
 " mounting a few steps fell down, and on trying 
 " again were equally unsuccessful, so that they 
 " never attained the summit. But a Voice having 
 '*' told them to make trial of the white Ladder, they 
 " soon gained the top, the blessed Virgin having 
 " held out her hands to help them." (Ch viii. s. 3.) 
 
 (The congregation of the Index who examined 
 Liguori's writings saw nothing to reprehend in this. 
 Indeed, the attention of the Romanists has been 
 called to the Vision of St. Francis again and again, 
 ever since the Reformation, in vain. Riveti Op. 
 T. iii p. 675, may be consulted. At the present 
 moment, they hold the Vision in honour. In 1848, 
 a ft omish Revival was held in a parish in Ireland, 
 where Protestantism was advancing. Many priests 
 attended, and there was a profuse distribution of 
 tracts and trinkets. A miracle-working crucifix 
 was sold in thousands. It had on it an engraving 
 of the Vision of St. Francis. " Two Ladders were 
 
373 
 
 engraved," says the clergyman who communicated 
 the information to the British Magazine, Jan. 1 849, 
 ** one without any steps or rounds in it, and at the 
 " head of this Ladder was the figure of our Blessed 
 " Saviour ; the other Ladder had steps, and at the 
 " head of it was the figure of the Virgin Mary ; in 
 "order to intimate that none could approach to 
 " God, except through the Virgin." 
 
 What shall we think of the Romanists among 
 ourselves, who never petition the Pope to disavow 
 any sympathy with such proceedings and views ? 
 Is it not plain that they have prostrated their un- 
 derstanding ? They see no dishonour done to 
 Christ in this. What hope can there be of a 
 Church in such a state ? 
 
 III. Passages superseding the Holy Spirit. 
 
 " Poor souls ! what are you thinking of, when 
 " you abandon Mary, when you cease crying to her 
 " for protection ?" " St. Francis Borgia doubted, 
 11 and with reason, of the perseverance of such as 
 11 had not a special devotion to Mary. Enquiring 
 " one day of the Novices, to what saint each one 
 " was most devoted, he perceived that some among 
 " them were wanting in devotion to the blessed 
 "Virgin, whereupon he noticed the master of 
 " novices, and desired him to have a particular 
 " watch on these young people. The event justified 
 " the saint's fears ; all those who had not honoured 
 " Mary lost the grace of their vocation, and quitted 
 " the society. St. Germanus, then, had reason to 
 " call Mary the Respiration of Christians, for as the 
 " body cannot exist without breathing, so the soul 
 "cannot live without recurring to the Mother of 
 « God." <Ch. ii. s. 2.) 
 
 w3 
 
374 
 
 " \ Strength is Mine,' says Mary. God has im- 
 " parted it to me, in order that I may bestow it on 
 "my servants.'' (lb.) 
 
 11 St. Philip Neri used to say to his penitents : 
 " ' My children, if you wish to persevere, be devout 
 " to Mary '." (lb.) 
 
 " Christian, whoever thou art, thy life on earth 
 " is a perilous navigation ; if thou dost not wish to 
 " be drowned, turn not away thine eyes from this 
 " brilliant star, look up at the star of mariners, in- 
 i( voke Mary in occasions of sin, in the struggle of 
 " temptation, in doubt, in the midst of danger, call 
 " Mary to thy aid ; let her powerful name be ever 
 " in thy heart, and on thy lips, to inspire thee with 
 " confidence ; trust in Mary, and thou wilt not fall 
 " into despair ; follow her, and thou wilt not stray ; 
 " let her hand protect thee, and thou wilt have 
 "nothing to fear; let her be thy guide, and thou 
 " wilt infallibly arrive at the haven of Salvation ; 
 " This do, and thou shalt live !" (lb.) 
 
 " Prayer : ' Holy Virgin ! deign to manifest 
 " your generosity towards me a miserable sinner. 
 " If you grant me your aid, what can I fear ? No, 
 * I shall no longer apprehend my sins, since you 
 " can repair them ; or the devils, since you are 
 '< more powerful than hell ; or your Son, justly ir- 
 " ritated, since you can appease Him. I shall only 
 " fear myself; and that forgetting to invoke you, I 
 " may be lost. But this will not be the case. I 
 " promise you to-day, to recur to you in all my 
 " wants ; and that during life, and at my death, 
 " your name and remembrance shall be the delight 
 " of my soul. Amen,." (lb.) 
 
375 
 
 (What need of the Holy Ghost, the Comforter 
 and Sanctifier, after this ?) 
 
 IV. Passages, in which Mary is made to take 
 the place of the whole Trinity. 
 
 " From the moment that Mary consented to be- 
 " come the Mother of God, says St. Bernardine of 
 •' Sienna, she merited to receive Sovereignty over all 
 "creatures" (Ch. 1. s. 1.) 
 
 st As many creatures as obey God, so many obey 
 " the Glorious Virgin." (lb.) 
 
 " Reign, Mary, says the Abbot of Guerric, 
 " dispose at pleasure of the goods of your Son ; 
 " power and dominion belong to the Mother and 
 " Spouse of the King of Kings." (lb.) (Not, it 
 appears, by intercession.) 
 
 "Imperio Virginis omnia famulantur, etiam Deus. 
 "That all is subject to Marys empire, even God him- 
 " self, St. Bernardine of Sienna does not fear to 
 " advance." (Ch. vi. s. 1.) (And Liguori does 
 not fear to adopt the sentiment, and the Church of 
 Rome endorses it as her own, by her approbation of 
 all that Liguori has written !) 
 
 V. Passages in which Christ is made a mediator 
 for us with Mary. 
 
 " It is, then, because Jesus has redeemed all, that 
 " Mary loves and protects all." (Ch. i. s. 2.) 
 
 " She sacrificed for us a Son, who was infinitely 
 " dearer to her than herself." (lb.) 
 
 " 'Yes!' says St. Bonaventure, 'Mary has so loved 
 "us, that she gave us her only Son." (lb.) 
 
 Here the incarnation and death of Christ are re- 
 presented as moving Mary, just as Scripture repre- 
 
376 
 
 sents them as moving God and reconciling us to 
 Him. In the popular prayer, so well-known in 
 Ireland, called the " Thirty Days Prayer," Mary is 
 besought "by the Blood of Christ," " by His tears in 
 the Garden," &c, &c.) 
 
 VI. Passage to induce worship of her Image. 
 
 " The Emperor Leo, surnamed the Isauriau, 
 " having raised a persecution against the Worship 
 " of Holy Images, met a most formidable antagonist 
 "in St. John Damascene." He procured that the 
 Saint's hand should be cut off by the Caliph of 
 Damascus, and nailed to a stake in the city. " The 
 u evening of the same day, the Saint begged that 
 k ' his hand might be given him. As soon as he re- 
 " ceived the amputated limb, he went and prostrated 
 "himself before an Image of the Holy Virgin, and 
 " said to her with a lively faith and confidence : 
 "'Mother of my God! assured refuge, and sweetest 
 " consolation of all the faithful, you know that it is 
 "for having defended the worship of your Images 
 " and those of your divine Son, together with His 
 " saints, that I have lost this hand; confound error 
 " this day, and refute calumny, by joining my hand 
 " to the arm from which it has been severed, that 
 " it may evermore be employed in combating your 
 " enemies, and those of Jesus Christ.' In saying 
 " these words, he placed his arm near the hand, 
 " and they were instantly joined." (Ch. i. s. 2.) 
 
 (Is not the intellectual curse, which St. Paul de- 
 scribes as coming on the Heathen, Rom. i. for their 
 spiritual and moral aberration from the truth, sent 
 on men who write and believe such things ?) 
 
 (a) p. 344. See end of the Preface to this 
 "Volume. 
 
377 
 
 Bishop Kaye has lived to see the fulfilment of 
 the prediction contained in his Lectures on Tertal- 
 lian, delivered in Cambridge, a quarter of a century 
 ago : " If we mistake not the signs of the times, 
 " the period is not far distant, when the whole con- 
 " troversy between the English and Eomish 
 " Churches will be revived, and all the points in 
 " dispute again brought under review." (3rd Ed. p. 
 281.) In his subsequent charges, he has discussed 
 several of these points in a masterly manner. The 
 writer cannot forbear to express the hope that he 
 may yet discuss many more. May he yet live to 
 see the Controversy brought to a successful close. 
 
 (b) p. 345. How do the supposed saints hear 
 the prayers of mortals ? 
 
 Spirits are said to move with great celerity. But 
 it is ubiquity which is needed in this case. 
 
 The prayers to saints are not necessarily uttered 
 aloud. Who can " read the heart" but God ? 
 
 Some have imagined, that there is a " speculum/' 
 or mirror, in Heaven, in which the Divine Being 
 shews to the saints the things which go on here 
 below. 
 
 The favourite solution of the difficulty is, that 
 God hears the prayers, repeats them to the saints, 
 and they repeat them to Him, after which He grants 
 them. Can this commend itself to any sane mind ? 
 Does it not disprove the whole doctrine of the In- 
 vocation of Saints, by a " reductio ad absurdum ?" 
 
 (c) p. 348. " Gerson observes, " says Liguori, 
 (Ch. i. s. 1.) "that as the Kingdom of God con- 
 " sists in Justice and Mercy, the Lord has, as it 
 
378 
 
 " were, divided it, reserving to Himself the do- 
 " minion of Justice, and yielding to his Mother that 
 " of Mercy. St. Thomas confirms his explanation, 
 " when he says in his Preface to the Canonical 
 " Epistles, that one half of the Kingdom of God 
 " was given to Mary, when she conceived and 
 " Drought forth the eternal Word, so that she be- 
 " came Queen of Mercy, as her Son is King of 
 " Justice. A learned interpreter, writing on the 
 " verse of the Psalms : ' Lord, give thy judgment 
 " to the king, and justice to the king's son,' says 
 " to God : ' Lord, you have given justice to the 
 " King your Son, because you have reserved Mercy 
 *' for the Queen His Mother.' St. Bonaventura, 
 " and Ernest, Archbishop of Prague, explain this 
 u verse nearly in the same way." (Ch. i. s. 1 .) 
 
 The reader must by this time be convinced that 
 Romanism is practically more the religion of Mary, 
 than of Christ. As Bishop Bull says, in his Sermon 
 on the Honour due to the Virgin, the Romanists 
 should be called "Mariani? rather than "Christiani." 
 
 In the "Mornings with the Jesuits," Mr. Hobart 
 Seymour tells us, that when, during a conversation 
 on the subject of the Worship of Mary, he ventured 
 to say, that Christianity as exhibited in Italy, was 
 practically " the Religion of Mary"- expecting to 
 give offence by what he said, and sorry to be obliged 
 to express the truth — he was relieved from his fears 
 by the surprising response, that indeed it was so ! 
 The learned Jesuit replied, that " coming from 
 " Germany, where Christ on the Cross was the 
 "ordinary object of veneration, into Italy, where 
 " the Virgin Mary was the universal object of re- 
 V verence, it was no more than natural that such 
 
379 
 
 " should be my impression ; that it was very much 
 11 the reality of the case ; and that to his own know- 
 " ledge, the religion of Italy was latterly becoming 
 " less and less the religion of Christ, and the ' de- 
 " votion to the Most Holy Virgin/ as he called it, 
 " was certainly on the increase." 
 
 Well might Mr. Seymour say in relating this : 
 " I was perfectly startled !" 
 
 Here is a return to a Pagan notion — that differ- 
 ent countries have different Gods. Germany may 
 worship Christ, but Italy will worship Mary — and 
 yet in each, the religion shall be considered one 
 and the same. The Pantheon is restored. 
 
 Is it any wonder, that the late Pope Gregory 
 xvi., in one of his Pastoral Letters speaks thus : 
 " That all may have a successful issue, let us raise 
 " our eyes to the most blessed Virgin Mary, who 
 " alone destroys heresies ; who is our greatest 
 "hope; yea, the entire ground of our hope?" 
 And that he should speak of * Her Heavenly in- 
 " spiration ?" 
 
 Or lastly, that the present Pope Should have 
 issued a Pastoral Letter, hr-dting a general request 
 that he would publish a Bull, by which the Im- 
 maculate Conception of Mary may be made an 
 Article of Faith t And that in his Pastoral Letter, 
 Pius ix. should use the following language : " For 
 " you know perfectly, venerable brethren, that the 
 " foundation of our confidence is in the Most Holy 
 " Virgin, since it is in Her, that God has placed the 
 " fulness of all good, in such sort that if there is in 
 " us any hope, if there is any favour, if there is any 
 " salvation, it is from Her that ice receive them V 
 This new Article of Faith contains the only point 
 
380 
 
 wanting to assimilate Mary in every possible re- 
 spect to Jesus. She is now believed by Romanists 
 to have risen from the dead on the third day from 
 her burial — to have ascended into Heaven with a 
 far more visible and glorious assumption than our 
 Lord had — and to share his throne, — nay, to occupy 
 the seat of mercy, whilst He takes that of Justice. 
 She has her own day of the week, Saturday, con- 
 secrated to her. She has the month of May pecu- 
 liarly hers. She has a Service of her own. She 
 more than divides the worship of the Rosary. In 
 short, the Pope's intended Bull will put the finish- 
 ing stone on the marvellous fabric of Marioiatry. 
 
LECTURE VIII. 
 
 THE CONFESSIONAL, 
 
 PURGATORY, &c, 
 
 1. John i. 7. 
 
 " If we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we 
 have fellowship one with another, and the blood of 
 Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin." 
 
 What a bright and happy picture is here drawn 
 of the Church of Christ, if all who belong to it were 
 such as they were meant to be — gathered out of man- 
 kind, as the original word for Church, Ecclesia, sig- 
 nifies — separated from the world in heart, and 
 separated in destiny ! They " walk in the light." 
 In what light? That in which God dwells. That 
 which Christ brought down to earth, in order that 
 believers also might dwell in it, (John i., 4, 5, 9, 
 14 ; and iii., 19.) That which the eye of Faith 
 
 x 2 
 
382 
 
 sees, and no other eye. " Believe in the light," 
 said our Lord, " that ye may be children of light." 
 Faith, then, is necessary to shew us this light. It is 
 a light of no human kindling — not horrowed from 
 fancy or reason, from the senses or the feelings, 
 from Jewish superstition, or heathen philosophy — 
 but shining into the hearts of believers from the 
 pages of the Bible, when the Holy Spirit, the Au- 
 thor of the Bible, has removed the obstructions 
 which prevent the heart from receiving it. 
 
 What are the effects of this light ? It gives 
 knowledge — " the knowledge of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ," — for " the excellency" of which St. Paul was 
 content to bear the loss of all earthly things. If 
 we listen, like children, to the teaching of Christ 
 and his Apostles, contained in the gospels and 
 epistles, we shall have this knowledge in its purity 
 and fulness. But knowledge by itself, might only 
 serve to " puff up " — such is the weakness of our 
 nature. The light, then, spoken of in the text, 
 produces at the same time love. It is not a cold, 
 intellectual light — it is a light which warms, ani- 
 mates, and quickens. It is " light of life." " We 
 love Him, because He first loved us." A divine 
 spark is kindled in our hearts. We "follow the 
 Lamb whithersoever He goeth ;" though the road be 
 rugged, and even though His footprints be marked 
 
383 
 
 by blood. We desire to please Him in the smallest 
 things. " Whether we eat or drink, or whatsoever 
 we do, we do all in his name,"' that He may be 
 glorified. Our hopes and comforts are heavenly — 
 our words and actions breathe of Heaven. We 
 " walk" in the light — where by "walking" is meant 
 that which we habitually and unaffectedly do. 
 
 And " we have fellowship one with another." This 
 is another effect of the light. It reveals our rela- 
 tionship to the Body of Christ. How can we love 
 Christ, and not love also His mencbers ? If we 
 "give a cup of cold water' to one of His fainting 
 " little ones," we give it to Him. Christians are 
 the representatives of Christ, till He shall appear ; 
 what we cannot do to Him in person, we can do to 
 them. His sorrows are over — but not theirs. St. 
 John says : " He that saith hi is in the light, and 
 hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now." 
 On the other hand he says : "We know tltat we have 
 passed from death unto life, because we love the 
 brethren " In the true Church of Christ there 
 must be & family affection. 
 
 li Fellowship' leads to another point, indicative 
 of " walking in the light" — free and unreserved 
 communication. As Christ's people pursue their 
 toilsome journey, they talk to each other of their 
 spiritual hopes and fears, their joys and sorrows. 
 
3B4 
 
 their individual prospects. The weak cling to the 
 strong, the ignorant consult the wise, the inexpe- 
 rienced seek the confirmed, the young confess to 
 the older their temptations. Those who stumble 
 and fall, but wish to rise again and pursue their 
 journey with firmer feet for the future, call for 
 help and advice from their brethren, especially 
 their discreet and holy ministers. In short, Christ's 
 people naturally and gladly obey the injunction of 
 St James : " Confess your faults one to another, 
 and pray for one another." They ask and impart 
 mutual sympathy. We can scarcely conceive of a 
 body of pilgrims going through a strange land, 
 where they are greatly tempted to take up their 
 abode, and not acting in this way. We cannot 
 well suppose, that a band of so Idiers, bent on a hard 
 enterprise, and serving a lord whom they ardently 
 love, would be silent as they marched on through 
 difficulties and dangers, surrounded by secret and 
 open enemies. They receive wounds — they would 
 surely tell of them. They linger behind or stray — 
 when they rejoin the main body, they would talk of 
 the peril they had so foolishly encountered, the 
 goodness of their officers, who by the distant sound 
 of the trumpet had recalled them, whilst there 
 was time, and the best means of guarding them- 
 selves in future from repeating their folly. And 
 
585 
 
 when any of them gained separate victories, they 
 would relate by what means they were enabled to 
 do so. But not to seek other illustrations, it is 
 plainly written of old, for the purpose of encourag- 
 ing and exciting to this ''fellowship' and free com- 
 munion : " Then they which feared the Lord spake 
 often one to another, and the Lord hearkened and 
 heard it, and a Book of Remembrance was written 
 before Him for them that feared the Lord, and that 
 thought upon His name." 
 
 But the greatest comfort of all, during the 
 Christian pilgrimage and warfare, is derived from 
 the final words of the text : " The Blood of Jesus 
 Christ cleanseth usfrom all sin." Vain would be mutual 
 confession and mutual sympathy, without the know- 
 ledge of this most precious truth. For the very 
 light which reveals the glory of the next world re- 
 veals our sins and unworthiness. The very vehe- 
 mence of our aspiring, begets dreadful doubts and 
 fears. It seems too much to hope for. Then comes 
 in the delightful truth, that it is not our worthi- 
 ness, but Christ's, which opens the Kingdom of 
 Heaven. He is the friend of penitent believing 
 sinners. Forgiveness is free — it is complete. The 
 text does not say "shall cleanse" — but "cleanseth." 
 The application of Christ's blood is immediate and 
 perfect. " There is now no condemnation to them 
 
386 
 
 that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the 
 flesh but after the spirit." " Being justified by faith, 
 we have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus 
 Christ." Beautifully does our great divine, Bishop 
 Pearson, speak on this subject : " Glorious, there- 
 " fore, must the goodness of our God appear who 
 " dispenseth with His Law, who taketh off the 
 " guilt, who looseth the obligation, who imputeth 
 " not the sin. This is God's goodness, this is man's 
 " happiness. For blessed is he whose transgression 
 "is forgiven, whose sin is covered ; blessed is the man 
 " unto whom the Lord imputeth no iniquity. The 
 " year of release, the year of Jubilee, was a time of 
 "public joy; and there is no voice like that, thy 
 i( sins be forgiven thee. By this a man is resued 
 " from infernal pains, secured from everlasting 
 " flames ; by this he is made capable of Heaven, 
 " by this he is assured of eternal happiness." (a) 
 Being thus delivered from the guilt and penalty of 
 sin, he is released from a burden which weighed 
 him down. His " heart is set at liberty," by " tlie 
 blood which speaketh better things than the blood of 
 Abel^ and whose voice is louder than even the 
 voice of conscience ; and he " runs the way of God's 
 commandments." He runs it cheerfully, lightly, 
 perse veringly. All fear is removed. " Doubt's 
 galling chain" holds him no longer. The light on 
 
38T 
 
 the top of God's mountain summons him on— it is 
 the harbinger to him of a still more glorious light 
 beyond — it enters his soul — it awakens unutterable 
 gratitude — and this gratitude is the animating prin- 
 ciple of future obedience. " Happy the people who 
 are in such a case ; yea, blessed are the people who 
 have the Lord for their God." M God be praised 
 for His unspeakable gift!" 
 
 But, brethren, what happiness of this kind is 
 there in the Church of Rome ? There the bright 
 picture, drawn by the hand of inspiration, and which 
 I have displayed to you from the text, is clouded 
 and gone. There all is gloom — doubt — penance ; 
 the filial relation is changed for that of slaves 
 driven by terror, and kept in perpetual bondage by 
 self-interested masters. 
 
 Is this too strong ? Let me point to the Con- 
 fessional ; the awful " Tribunal," as it is called " of 
 Penance." 
 
 There sits the priest, in the place of God. All 
 confession must be made to him. Not a single 
 mortal sin, not a thought or desire, must be wilfully 
 omitted. On his decision depends the comfort, 
 the peace, of the confessing penitent. Without his 
 absolution, which it is in his power to refuse, there 
 can be no salvation from what is called mortal sin, 
 the penalty of which is everlasting destruction, 
 
388 
 
 The " Keys of hell and of death" are transferred by 
 the Church of Rome from the hands of Christ 
 (Rev. i. 18) to the hands of the priest sitting in 
 that dread and dark Tribunal. 
 
 You must be made aware of this, my brethren. 
 Priestly absolution in the Church of Rome is not 
 merely a declaration of God's mercy, freely offered 
 in the gospel to all who are truly penitent — (such 
 as it is in our Church) — it is a judicial sentence. 
 All who say the contrary are anathematized. 
 
 ** If any one," says the Council of Trent, " shall 
 U affirm, that the Sacramental Absolution of the priest 
 " is not a judicial act, but a mere ministry of pro- 
 " noun cing and declaring, — let him be anathema." (b) 
 " Unlike the authority given by the priests of the 
 "old law," says the Catechism of Trent, " to de- 
 " clare the leper cleansed from his leprosy, the 
 " power of the priests of the new law is not simply 
 " to declare that sins are forgiven, but really to ab- 
 " solve from sin." (c) And again : "In the minister 
 " of God, who sits in the Tribunal of Penance as 
 " his judge, the penitent venerates the power and 
 " person of our Lord Jesus Christ." (d) 
 
 " If any one," says the Council, " shall deny that 
 " Sacramental confession is necessary to salvation, 
 " let him be anathema." (e) The Catechism of Trent 
 declares : " If the penitent wilfully neglect to ac- 
 
389 
 
 " cuse himself of some sins which should be con- 
 " fessed, and suppress others, he not only does not 
 " obtain the pardon of his sins, but involves himself 
 " in deeper guilt." (f) Much more, we may con- 
 v elude, must he add a new guilt to the old, and re- 
 main under the eternal penalty of both, if he comes 
 not to the Confessional at all. If men cannot be 
 saved, but rather increase their condemnation, by 
 not making full confession, how much worse must 
 their state be, if they make none ! The Catechism, 
 however, leaves no doubt on the subject, when it 
 says : " To penance' (which is the result of confes- 
 sion) " belongs, in so special a manner, the efficacy 
 " of remitting actual guilt, that without its inter- 
 " vention we cannot obtain or even hope for 
 pardon." (g) 
 
 You will notice the word ■' Sacramental" in the 
 quotations you have just heard. This opens a wide 
 view — too wide to enter upon with a purpose of full 
 discussion. You are aware, doubtless, that the 
 Church of Rome has added Five Sacraments, so 
 called, to the two which our Lord instituted, Bap- 
 tism and the Eucharist. Amongst these five, is the 
 Sacrament of Penance. They mistranslate the 
 simple word, " Repent,'" used by our Lord, into 
 ■" do penance'— taking advantage of the Latin, 
 which appears to countenance this translation, 
 
 y 2 
 
390 
 
 though it does not really justify it. But what if it 
 did justify it? — the Latin Vulgate is not the original 
 Word of God, nor is it of equal authority, whatever 
 the Council of Trent may say. (h) This, brethren, is 
 the ground on which their supposed sacrament of 
 penance rests. They represent it as equally essen- 
 tial to salvation with baptism. It is called P the 
 second plank after shipwreck" — baptism being the 
 first. All mortal sins committed after baptism 
 must be remitted, so far as their eternal penalty is 
 concerned, by confession and penance. The priest 
 in the confessional absolves, and then affixes what 
 penance he pleases. Anciently, this process, in 
 case of open sin, was inverted. The penance was 
 publicly endured, and then the Church removed its 
 censures. But this was a very different thing from 
 the priestly absolution practiced in the confessional. 
 All was open in those days. There was no auricu- 
 lar confession. There was no sacrament of penance. 
 There was no purgatory. The whole system which 
 enslaves men in the Romish communion was un- 
 known in the earlier and purer ages of Christianity. 
 Want of time forbids me to enter into proofs of 
 this, or to enlarge on this part of my subject. 
 What I have said will enable you to perceive the 
 origin of this false sacrament. By calling penance 
 a sacrament, (i) the priests have riveted this chain 
 on the necks of the people. 
 
391 
 
 I shewed you, from the declarations of the Coun- 
 cil of Trent, that the power of the priest in the 
 confessional is considered divine. So completely is 
 this the case, that it is laid down in one of their 
 most esteemed books of divinity, (k) that if he 
 should be interrogated on oath in a court of justice 
 respecting what he heard in the confessional, he 
 may deny that he heard what he did actually hear, 
 and that this denial will not involve him in the 
 guilt of perjury — why ? — because he heard it not 
 as man, but as God ; whereas he is interrogated as 
 to what he knows as man. This casuistry is thought 
 sufficient. Whilst it shews how Popery injures 
 the tone of the conscience, it shews also, what an 
 extravagant authority, to use the mildest term, is 
 ascribed to the priest sitting in the Tribunal of 
 Penance. 
 
 Now, my brethren, see how men are delivered up 
 by these doctrines into the hands of the priests. 
 The Scripture says : " Confess your sins one to 
 anotJier," but Romanism says: Confess to the 
 priest alone. 
 
 Suppose he has any secret hostility to the peni- 
 tent, he may withhold the absolution ; then will the 
 penitent be plunged in despair. At least he may 
 inflict a revengeful penance, and impose a burden 
 ■too hard for the penitent to bear. Thus the con- 
 
392 
 
 science may never have its wounds healed, or may 
 have fresh wounds inflicted. 
 
 Suppose he has any purposes of private ambition 
 to serve — or any covetous designs, either as regards 
 himself, or some religious order with which he is 
 connected — what a tempting opportunity does the 
 confessional (equally with the bed-side of the 
 dying) afford him ! 
 
 Or suppose him moved by a sinful passion, listen- 
 ing to the confession of the very object of that 
 passion, extorting answers to questions the most 
 ensnaring and often the most revolting, what a 
 fearful power does he possess of carrying his designs 
 into execution ! (1) 
 
 But I will not enlarge on points scarcely suitable 
 to this sacred place. Only let me add, that these 
 dangers are not imaginary. History bears witness 
 that they have been realized to a tremendous ex- 
 tent. Awful will be the disclosures which the 
 Book of God's Remembrance, when opened in the 
 Last Day, will make. Then will the Confes- 
 sional be found to have been one of the most effec- 
 tive engines for corrupting the minds, destroyiug 
 the peace, and ruining the souls of men. 
 
 Well may we all exclaim with King David, when 
 he had sinned: " Let us fall into the hand of God, 
 for His mercies are great, and let us not fall into 
 the hand of man." 
 
393 
 
 And not individuals alone are, by the invention 
 of the fancied sacrament of penance, and the es- 
 tablishment of the dark confessional, handed over 
 to the priests, but families, communities, and em- 
 pires also. All secrets are known — all hearts are 
 open. The electric wires which connect the happi- 
 ness and freedom of thousands, or even the safety 
 of a throne and the independence of a nation, may 
 convey fatal messages from one, who is bound to 
 hide nothing from his superiors which affects the 
 interests of the Church, or the authority of the 
 Pope. 
 
 Was not the opportunity of confessing, and con- 
 sequently the possibility of receiving absolution, 
 most cruelly denied on a recent occasion, to a 
 minister of state in Sardinia, because in his political 
 capacity he had consulted the welfare of his own 
 native country, in preference to the demands of the 
 Romish priesthood ? Was he not allowed to die 
 unshriven, when in his spiritual ignorance he be- 
 lieved that for want of shri'dng he must pass into 
 eternal perdition ? (m) How mighty an engine of 
 political power is this fiction of the absolute neces- 
 sity of priestly absolution ! 
 
 And what are we to think of priests, who have- 
 known beforehand of crimes to be committed ; and 
 under the plea of not being allowed to disclose. 
 
394 
 
 even by the slightest sign, that which they had 
 heard in the confessional, interferred not to pre- 
 vent the deed, even when human life was about to be 
 sacrificed through their silence ? This was the case 
 with Garnet, the superior of the Order of Jesuits 
 in this Kingdom in the time of James the First, 
 who confessed on his trial, that he had been made per- 
 fectly aware of the design of the conspirators who 
 intended to destroy the Parliament House when 
 the members were sitting, and yet felt himself not 
 at liberty to disclose the conspiracy, or in any way 
 to prevent the destruction of human life which was 
 likely to have taken place, because, as he said, 
 he knew of it only through the confessional ! (n) 
 Surely, the awful tyranny exercised over the people 
 involves in this case the priests themselves ! How 
 miserable must their own conscience have made 
 them, if they could not stifle the doubt, whether any- 
 thing could excuse their standing by and looking 
 on in silence, when a word from them, or even a 
 look, might have arrested the guilty arm, and saved 
 the unsuspecting victim ! (o) 
 
 How strongly also must the confessional operate 
 to produce pride in the priests ! This is another 
 point in which the injury they inflict on the people 
 recoils upon themselves. Cardinal Ximenes, con- 
 fessor to the Queen of Spain, is recorded, in a dis- 
 
395 
 
 pute with a nobleman, to have demanded submission 
 to himself, " as the man who every day had his 
 " God in his hands, and the Queen at his feet ! ,r 
 How can such a man be meek, like his Master ? 
 
 By brethren, where is the blessed " light" in which 
 the text shews us that both ministers and people 
 were meant to walk, within the pale of Christ's 
 Church — where, I say, is that light, when we look 
 at the Church of Rome ? Are not all walking in 
 darkness? — betaking themselves to their fellow- 
 creatures for cleansing (for even the Pope must 
 have his confessor and be absolved), instead of 
 having recourse to " the fountain opened for sin 
 an&foruncleannessV And walking in darkness, 
 not merely of conscience, but in moral darkness 
 also ! For if absolution may be obtained by attend- 
 ing the confessional, is not this liable to be fearfully 
 abused ? Has it not practically been abused ? 
 Have not criminals solaced themselves beforehand 
 with the prospect, that if detected, and brought to 
 an ignominious end, they would be absolved before 
 they died, and thus escape the everlasting penalty of 
 the crime they were about to commit ? Does not 
 this necessarily minister to sin and immorality ? 
 It' may be called an abuse of the Romish doctrine — 
 but is it not an inevitable abuse ? (p) 
 
 But I have not drawn more than half the dark 
 
396 
 
 picture, which the state of things in the Church of 
 Rome presents, in striking contrast with the bright 
 one of Christian freedom, and peace, and mo- 
 rality, set before us in the text. I have not yet 
 told you of Purgatory. 
 
 Truly the devices of those who are engaged in 
 the determined task of enslaving their fellow-crea- 
 tures, are wonderful. Jf any one look into Holy 
 Scripture, from one end to the other, he will find 
 no mention but of two places, prepared for men 
 beyond the grave, Heaven and Hell. But the 
 Church of Rome has created a third, for her own 
 purposes. This intermediate place is called 
 Purgatory. 
 
 She borrowed the idea from the Heathen. The 
 old Romans, in the blindness which the corruption 
 or loss of the traditional religion bequeathed by 
 Noah brought upon the Gentiles (such is the fate 
 of traditions), and unable to conceive of a Saviour, 
 imagined that their souls might be purified hereafter 
 from the defilements contracted here, by passing 
 through a process, either of fire to burn out their 
 dross, or of cold and piercing winds to bleach and 
 whiten them from their spots. We find this men- 
 tioned both by philosophers and poets. But it was 
 little to be expected, that Christians, enlightened by 
 revelation, would take up the wild notion. Never- 
 
397 
 
 theless, such has been the case. Losing sight of the 
 great truth enunciated in the text, that "the Blood 
 of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sm," the 
 Church of Rome, in the middle ages, relapsed into 
 this Pagan figment, or rather wilfully adopted it, 
 because thereby she has been enabled to extend 
 her power over souls in the next world, as well as 
 in this, and to draw a revenue from that invisible 
 part of her dominions far surpassing all she has 
 ever drawn from the visible part here on earth. 
 
 Is it conceivable, that if there really were such 
 a place as Purgatory, — a place which is practically 
 more heard of in Romanism than either Heaven or 
 Hell, — the Holy Scriptures would have been silent 
 concerning it, or have only left the knowledge of it 
 to be gathered from one or two slight metaphorical 
 expressions, such as the faithful being like gold 
 " tried in the fire*' or unwise teachers being saved 
 "so as by fire," that is, with a narrow escape from 
 destruction, out of which men are snatched with 
 difficulty, whilst their works are burnt ? Is it pro- 
 bable, that the Jews would have been left in ig- 
 norance concerning this intermediate state of awful 
 punishment ? What more likely to have acted on 
 their dull minds, had it been true ? Would not the 
 Prophets, — would not the Psalms — have spoken of 
 it ? In the New Testament at least, where motives 
 
 z 2 
 
398 
 
 to action are all drawn from the next world, would 
 not every Epistle have been full of it ? Would not 
 our blessed Lord have told us of its miseries, when 
 He uttered His pathetic warnings against the 
 things that " offend us," that is, cause us to stumble 
 — the " right eye," — the •' right hand," or the 
 "foot" — and bade us beware of Hell-fire ? Well 
 may the Church of Rome endeavour to persuade us, 
 that the Scriptures were never meant to be a full 
 and sufficient exhibition of the Christian religion ! 
 Well may she say, that it was reserved for her to 
 unfold and develope Christianity — that being at 
 liberty to baptize Pagan inventions, or to reason as 
 she pleased respecting Gods justice, and its fancied 
 requirements, she might introduce the belief of 
 " Purgatorial Fire," and terrify men with horrors, 
 from which she alone could deliver them ! (q) 
 
 How has she spoken on this subject ? Let us 
 hear her own account. 
 
 The Council of Trent declares : (r) " That there 
 * is a Purgatory, and that souls there detained are 
 " helped by the suffrages of the faithful, and most 
 " of all by the Sacrifice of the Altar ;" and then it 
 goes on to say : " That the sound doctrine, handed 
 " down by the holy fathers and the sacred oouncils" 
 (not venturing to mention Scripture) "is to be 
 M held and preached ; but that difficult and nice 
 
399 
 
 u questions about it, with the common people, are 
 " to be avoided." A wise caution, arising from a 
 conscious weakness on this point ! Again, when 
 putting forth her canons respecting the Sacrament 
 of Penance, the council declares : " If any one 
 " shall affirm, that after the grace of Justification 
 "received" (i. e. after priestly absolution) "the fault 
 "of the penitent is so remitted and the guilt blotted 
 " out, that there remains no guilt" (reatus, arraign- 
 ment) " entailing temporal punishment, either in 
 " this world, or in the purgatory to come, before 
 " admission into Heaven, let him be anathema." (s) 
 
 The last-quoted words of the council will enable 
 you to understand what is meant by temporal 
 punishment, in the mouths of Romanists, which 
 you might otherwise easily mistake. The time 
 alluded to may extend to thousands of years, to be 
 spent in imagined purgatorial torment. It is op- 
 posed to eternal ages — but is by no means confin- 
 ed to the present life. 
 
 You will also observe, that the fire of Purgatory 
 is reserved for the righteous ; as it is said, "after the 
 grace of Justification received." There are none 
 exempted from this fire but absolute saints, who 
 are supposed to have done so much more than God 
 required from them in this world, that they are ad- 
 mitted at once into Heaven — the imaginary beings, 
 
400 
 
 of whom I spoke in my last Discourse, whom the 
 Church of Rome canonizes, and to whom Romanists 
 direct their prayers 
 
 How painful must be the dying scene in the 
 Romish communion ! The relatives and friends 
 who stand by, believe that the departing spirit is 
 about to pass into a place of inconceivable torment. 
 A good father, a beloved partner, or dear child, is 
 on the eve of excruciating misery ! No degree of 
 excellence and piety, short of the saintly, can avert 
 the impending doom. The period may be curtailed 
 by their suffrages after death has taken place, and 
 by the masses which their liberality may induce the 
 priests to offer. But meanwhile the soul must 
 suffer. How horrible the prospect ! How melan- 
 choly the scene ! What Romanist can say with St. 
 Paul: " Death, where is thy sting? Grave, 
 where is thy victory . ? " 
 
 In using the term, the Jire of Purgatory, I only 
 use that which the Church of Rome herself habit- 
 ually uses. The Catechism of Trent says : " There 
 * is, amongst the abodes in which souls are de- 
 " tained, the Fire of Purgatory, wherein the souls 
 "of the just are cleansed by temporal punishment, 
 " in order to their admission into the eternal 
 country." (t) A caution is added with regard to 
 the preaching of this doctrine, that it should be 
 
401 
 
 " proportioned to the circumstances of the times in 
 " which we live, when men endure not sound doc- 
 " trine." This manifests the consciousness, of which 
 I have before spoken. You would not wonder at it, 
 were I to tell you all that I have read, connected 
 with this subject. 
 
 In accordance with this spirit of caution, the 
 pains of Purgatory are not particularly described, 
 either by the fathers of the council, or the com- 
 pilers of their Catechism. I will not distress you 
 by quoting what Romish writers have set forth, 
 with the view of terrifying their readers. Suffice 
 it, that the Fire suggests the idea of dreadful tor- 
 ments, (u) 
 
 And now you will naturally ask : Why are the 
 souls of all the righteous, of all who are dear to 
 God and destined to Heaven, with the exception 
 of those few superhuman beings who are called 
 saints by the Church of Rome — why are all these 
 condemned to such torments ? Why are they to 
 suffer in the flames, and that for unknown years 
 or ages ? Does not the Church of Rome believe 
 the text : *' The blood of Jesus Christ deanseth 
 from all sin ? " 
 
 No ! she does not believe it. She denies 
 that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all 
 sin. She limits its cleansing power to the guilt 
 
402 
 
 •of mortal sins. She takes away its efficacy in the 
 case of venial sins. 
 
 This appears to be an act of great presumption 
 as regards Christ, and of great cruelty as regards 
 men. It is difficult to contemplate it patiently. 
 But we must restrain our feelings, in order that 
 we may properly examine it. 
 
 What is the distinction between mortal and ve- 
 nial sins ? 
 
 The Catechism of Trent uses these expressions, 
 but does not define them. We must, therefore, go 
 to other Romish Catechisms. 
 
 The Catechism known in Ireland under the 
 name of Dr. Doyle's, defines a venial sin thus : "A 
 " sin which does not break charity between man and 
 " man, much less between man and God, such as 
 " the stealing of an apple, &c." And in answer to 
 the question : <: By what kind of sins are the com- 
 mandments broken ? " it says : " By mortal sins 
 only." After which, to the questions : " When is 
 a theft a mortal sin?" "When is a lie a mortal 
 sin?" it teaches the children to reply: "When 
 " the thing stolen is of considerable value, or causeth 
 " a considerable hurt to our neighbour ;" or " when 
 " the lie is a great dishonour to God, or notable 
 " prejudice to our neighbour." Dr. Bailly's Book 
 -used at Maynooth, has the following question and 
 
403 
 
 answer : " How great must be the quantity of the 
 " thiug stolen, to constitute the theft a mortal sin ? 
 " The quantity cannot easily be determined, since 
 " nothing has been decided on this point, either in 
 " natural, divine, or human law." " They sin mor- 
 bidly, who pilfer a considerable quantity; venially, 
 "who pilfer a small quantity." What is small, 
 when taken from a rich man, is considerable when 
 taken from a poor man. Such is the uncertain 
 line which divides mortal sins from venial, and 
 consequently the pains of eternal death from the 
 pains of purgatory. Romanists can scarcely know 
 which sins they have committed. But this un- 
 certainty serves to put them more completely in the 
 power of the priest. It compels them to reveal 
 everything to him in the Confessional, small or 
 great, leaving it to him to determine which sins 
 are mortal and which are venial ; lest if they con- 
 ceal anything, under the impression that it was 
 venial, they should, by mistaking its character, and 
 receiving no absolution for it, remain under the 
 awful conde mnation of mortal sin ! 
 
 What disparagement is here done to the efficacy 
 of Christ's blood ! By that blood, it is supposed 
 indeed, that the priest's absolution is made effectual. 
 And yet it is supposed to absolve only from mortal 
 sins. And even in absolving from these, it is al- 
 
404 
 
 lowed to remove only the eternal punishment, 
 leaving the temporal pains still to be endured. 
 But with respect to venial sins, it does not affect 
 them at all. Consequently there is a vast amount of 
 purgatorial pain accruing every day, partly from 
 the mortal, and partly from the venial sins, as the 
 future portion of the best and holiest of ordinary 
 men. And the blood of Jesus Christ is represented 
 as not immediately delivering from this. It can 
 do the greater, therefore, but not the lesser ! It 
 can cleanse immediately from the guilt which 
 would plunge the soul into eternal fire, but not 
 from that which plunges it into purgatorial fire ! 
 men are directed to look to other means for their 
 deliverance from Purgatory ; — to which means, my 
 brethren, I will proceed to direct your attention. 
 
 The first of these is Masses. In the service 
 called the mass, the bread is consecrated and 
 changed, according to the Romish view, into the 
 body of Christ, after which the body is offered as a 
 sacrifice for the sins of living and the dead. Thus 
 the mass differs from a communion I mentioned 
 in my Discourse on Transubstantiation that the 
 Catechism of Trent distinguishes between the Eu- 
 charist as a sacrament and as a sacrifice, and says 
 that it is sometimes the former without being the 
 latter. To the mass, then, in particular, belongs 
 
405 
 
 the fatal aiid unanswerable objection, that it pre- 
 tends to do that often, which St. Paul in the 
 strongest language, again and again, says was done 
 only once, — " once for all," as his language in the 
 original is — it pretends to offer up Christ as a sa- 
 crifice, oblation, and satisfaction for our sins. It is 
 true the Romanists call their sacrifice the unbloody 
 one — though they affirm that the bread is changed 
 into both the body and the blood. But this in- 
 volves them in another difficulty. For " without 
 blood there is no remission." And moreover, it 
 adds to the guilt of the disparagement which they 
 have already done, as I have shewn, to the efficacy 
 of Christ's real blood. For it supposes that the 
 Priest's offering of the unbloody sacrifice, does that 
 which Christ's own offering of His blood upon the 
 Cross fails to do. Yes ! the Mass, in the hands 
 of the priest, delivers, by degrees or at once, from 
 the temporal pains" due to mortal sins and to 
 venial. Whatever beneficial effects may be im- 
 agined to attend the purgatorial purification — on 
 which rests the only defence that can be made for 
 introducing into our religion a place of punishment 
 not mentioned in Scripture— whatever good effects, 
 I say, might be supposed to result from the torments 
 endured in purgatory, they are abridged or done away 
 at the voice of the priest. Surely, this system of 
 
 a3 
 
406 
 
 human invention is too transparently inconsistent 
 to commend itself to any but those who have been 
 bred up to believe it. It could never have been 
 brought into being in any but the dark ages in 
 which it originated. It first denies to our adorable, 
 almighty, and benign Redeemer, the power which 
 it gives to the priest. It repeats the sacrifice made 
 on the Cross, calls it unbloody, and then ascribes 
 to it more virtue than belonged to the sacrifice it- 
 self when the blood was poured out. It does this 
 on the ground that there is need of a purification 
 from certain parts of our sins, and then it empowers 
 the priest to abridge the term of that wholesome 
 purification. Such, my brethren, is the doctrine of 
 the Mass. Such is the nature of that labour in 
 which the B omish priests are engaged more than 
 in any other,- nay, to which they are specially or- 
 dained ; on which account, our forefathers in the 
 sixteenth century, who knew Romanism better 
 than we do, usually called them " Mass Priests."(v) 
 
 What is worst of all, and most abhorrent from a 
 Christian mind, is, that masses are said, generally 
 speaking, only for money. The rich have thus an 
 advantage over the poor. Large bequests are made 
 by persons to pay for masses to be said for their 
 own souls, or for those of departed friends, (w) 
 
 It has been naturally asked, and never answered : 
 
407 
 
 If purgatorial pains be so terrible, and if it be right 
 to shorten them, why do not the Romish clergy- 
 out of mere charity and pity, spend all their time 
 in offering the sacrifice of the mass for the suffer- 
 ing souls of the righteous ? Why, at least, is there 
 not a special order, amongst the numerous orders, — 
 into which, to cover their real disunion by not 
 breaking their outward unity, they are divided — 
 why is there not an order, infinitely the largest of 
 all, specially and exclusively employed, day and 
 night, in saying masses for the dead ; and to whom 
 the poor might look with comfort, false comfort as 
 it would be, when they tremblingly look forward to 
 those unknown pains, from which their poverty de- 
 nies them the meaus of purchasing deliverance ? 
 
 There can be mothing more calculated to cause 
 discredit to Christianity, and consequently to pro- 
 duce Infidelity, than the Romish doctrine of 
 Masses. 
 
 Let me now turn to the other means, whereby 
 it is supposed that the duration of the fire of Pur- 
 gatory may be abridged. I allude to Indulgences. 
 
 The theory of Indulgences is this. Those who 
 are called " The Saints" performed " works of su- 
 pererogation" that is, more than were required; 
 and the " merits'* of these good works, together with 
 the merits of Christ, constitute what has been termed 
 
408 
 
 a bank or treasure in Heaven. The Pope alone keeps 
 the key of this treasure-house, (x) The effect of 
 communicating the merits stored up in it, is the 
 remission of temporal punishment — where "tempo- 
 ral" applies, as I have before remarked, not merely 
 to this life, but also, and far more importantly, to 
 Purgatory. In the primitive Church, indulgences 
 were confined to this life, and meant the remission 
 of the censures or excommunication of the Church, 
 inflicted on notorious offenders. The Council of 
 Nice gave the bishops the power of granting these. 
 The Pope, when he was able to usurp the title of 
 Universal Bishop, and after the belief in the ex- 
 istence of a purgatory had been established, took 
 away from the other bishops the power of granting 
 Indulgences, so far at least as regards deliver- 
 ance from purgatorial pains, (y) 
 
 The first Indulgence in the modern sense was 
 that granted by the legate of Pope Hildebrand, to 
 those who would assist him against the Emperor 
 Henry iv. Afterwards Pope Urban granted In- 
 dulgences to all who joined the Crusades, for the 
 recovery of the Holy Land from the Saracens. 
 Pope Leox., offered them largely in return for 
 money, to be spent in the completion of the build- 
 ing of St. Peter's at Rome. It was the sale of 
 these last-mentioned Indulgences, which struck 
 
409 
 
 the spark in Luther's breast that lighted up the 
 flame of the Reformation. The celebrated " Theses," 
 or propositions for public discussion, which Luther 
 affixed to the Church door at Wittenberg, challeng- 
 ing Tetzel to defend what he was preaching con- 
 cerning the Indulgences committed to him for sale, 
 may be considered the first blow struck at the 
 Papal usurpation. (z) The memory of that fact has 
 not been lost ; and the open sale of Indulgences 
 has not been so common in Europe since the Re- 
 formation, as it was before. 
 
 Plenary Indulgences remit the whole debt of 
 temporal punishment, (a) Non-plenary remit only 
 a part of that debt. 
 
 The validity of Indulgences, depending as it 
 does on the Pope's intention, which can be known 
 only to God, (as the validity of sacraments does on 
 the Priests* intention, according to the Council of 
 Trent, which I have before mentioned), and de- 
 pending also on several delicate points, must de- 
 tract materially from their value, in any particular 
 case. Such is the poor comfort which Rome has 
 to bestow. How different from that bestowed by 
 the gospel ! " Doubt's galling chain" is worn by 
 the Romanist from the cradle to the grave. What- 
 ever boasts may be uttered to the contrary, the 
 truth is, that there is no certainty of faith in the 
 
410 
 
 Church of Rome ! The more a Romanist under- 
 stands the doctrines of his Church, the more he 
 must be involved in dismal apprehension. He 
 "walks not in the light." He sees not the only 
 sure ground of a sinner's hope, that which the text 
 contains : "the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from 
 all sm." Of all the appliances to a wounded con- 
 science and a trembling heart, afforded by Rome — 
 indulgences, masses, prayers for the dead, alms- 
 giving, Ave Marias, holy-water, and such like — 
 destructive of the great doctrine of Justification by 
 Faith, the only source of assurance and true holi- 
 ness (b) we must repeat again and again, till men 
 shall be sufficiently aware of a fact in which they 
 are so deeply concerned : " miserable comforters 
 are they all I '' 
 
 The time forbids my dilating on the subject of 
 Indulgences, what I have said will suffice to pre- 
 vent your being deceived by statements concerning 
 their having reference only to time, and not to 
 eternity. This does not prevent their having re- 
 ference to the next world, according to the Romish 
 view of that world, with its four great gulfs, one 
 for the lost, another for the righteous undergoing 
 purification, a third for unbaptized infants, and the 
 fourth for the just who died before the coming of 
 Christ, (c) Indulgences, by the application of the 
 
411 
 
 merits of the Saints, open the second of these abodes 
 of the dead, and more or less diminish the time 
 decreed to be spent in it. Some remit a space of 
 purgatorial pains, amounting to hundreds or even 
 thousands of years — some to a few years only — 
 some to less than a year. In all these cases, if the 
 Indulgences be valid, the temporal punishment is 
 supposed to be remitted to the extent which is 
 specified. 
 
 The third and last means for shortening, or es- 
 caping, the imprisonment of the souls of the righte- 
 ous in the fearful fire of Purgatory, are Satisfactions. 
 
 These are either voluntary — such as self-morti- 
 fications, or contributions to religious objects ; — or 
 they are the discharge of penances imposed by the 
 priest in the confessional. In both cases, the 
 Trent Catechism declares that they atone for sin. 
 " Theologians," it says, " make use of the word 
 " satisfaction, to signify the compensation made by 
 l< man to God, by doing something in atonement for 
 "the sins which he has committed." (d) Can any 
 declaration be more at war with the Gospel — the 
 record of Christ's atonement — where it is pro- 
 claimed : w Christ, by one offering, has perfected for 
 ever them that are sanctified," and " their sins and 
 iniquities God will remember no more ? n Self- 
 denial, and alms-giving, are undoubtedly duties, 
 
412 
 
 but they are to be done out of love to Christ and 
 gratitude for his sufferings. Good works, pleasing 
 to God, are the fruit of justifying faith, according 
 to Scripture and our twelfth and thirteenth Articles. 
 To make them the means of Justification, instead 
 of its fruits and evidences, is to invert the order of 
 spiritual things. It is to contradict, in such things, 
 the truth set forth by our Lord himself, that we 
 must first " make the tree good," and then " the 
 fruit will be good.' 1 (Matt. xii. 33.) With regard 
 to the involuntary satisfactions, the discharge of 
 penalties imposed, the Church of Rome declares, 
 that if they are perfect, they " exempt from the 
 temporal chastisement due to sin" (Trent Catechism) 
 — that is, from the unremitted part of mortal sin. 
 But as the satisfaction is rarely perfect, and as 
 there are fresh breaches of the Commandments or 
 fresh mortal sins, and as there are continual venial 
 sins, there is ample need of masses and the other 
 means of delivering a man from Purgatory. 
 
 Thus, my brethren, I have set before you a pic- 
 ture of the bondage and gloom, in which all are 
 enveloped who adhere to the Church of Rome. 
 That Church stretches her domain over the invisi- 
 ble state. She wields the thunders of both worlds. 
 She pours a fresh darkness over " the valley of the 
 shadow of death." What misery is theirs, who are 
 
413 
 
 born and continue in her communion ! What mad- 
 ness theirs, who quit the light and liberty of a pure 
 Protestant communion for hers ! 
 
 And this mighty structure which shuts out 
 Christ from view, and denies any direct access to 
 Him, is all built on one false position — that the 
 promises which are made in the New Testament to 
 the Invisible Church, are made to the Visible 
 Church. This is at the base of the whole edifice. 
 
 Pray for a sound mind, my brethren. And 
 pray for your fellow-christians, who are content 
 thus to be deprived of their understanding and 
 their most valuable privileges. Pray that their 
 eyes may be opened to the Truth, and that " the 
 truth may make them free ! " 
 
 I have fulfilled my promise, that I would ex- 
 amine some of the practical fruits of the alleged 
 Infallibility of the Romish Church and its supreme 
 Pontiff. I particularly engaged to lay before you 
 the doctrines of Transubstantiation, the Invocation 
 of Saints, including Mariolatry, and the tenets and 
 practices connected with the Confessional. This I 
 have now done. Shall I do more ? Need I ? The 
 task is a very painful one, and I wonld fain decline 
 it. Let me sum up rapidly the chief points which 
 remain in the system of Romauism — each of which, 
 
 b3 
 
414 
 
 to be fully discussed, would require a separate dis- 
 course. 
 
 There is the Celibacy of the Clergy. This is a 
 cruel and self interested Church -ordinance. The 
 cruelty lies in administering an oath, and leaving 
 the clergy no liberty. The self-interest lies in 
 separating the clergy from society at large, and 
 marrying them as it were to the order to which 
 they belong ; thus they are more zealous for eccle- 
 siastical power and honour ; but they are less fit to 
 counsel and benefit the people, having no sympathy 
 with them as husbands and parents. At the Coun- 
 cil of Nice it was proposed, that it should be re- 
 quired of priests to be unmarried, but the proposi- 
 tion was rejected. St. Paul says : " Marriage is 
 honourable in all." But the Church of Rome in 
 opposition to St. Paul, says : " Not so in priests." 
 St. Peter had a wife, whom he led about ; as is 
 manifestly to be inferred from 1 Cor. ix 5. Yet 
 the church which professes to have at its head the 
 successor of St. Peter, treats marriage as a defile- 
 ment of the sanctity of its meanest ecclesiastic. A 
 bishop or presbyter might be " the husband of one 
 wife" at Ephesus or Crete in the days of the 
 Apostles — but this is considered unseemly at 
 Rome, since the days of Pope Hildebrand, who first 
 bound this yoke upon the clergy. So that this 
 
415 
 
 Church-ordinance is a novelty, as well as a cruelty 
 Indeed, whatever is cruel must have been unknown 
 to the early times of Christianity. Then all was 
 free and happy. Church order was established and 
 respected, but it was only such order as provided 
 general liberty. Christians '* walked in the light, 
 and had felloicship one with another." And as there 
 was more liberty, so there was more holiness. To 
 what immorality the ordinance of Clerical Celibacy 
 has led, let history testify. I leave you to consult 
 it. (e) 
 
 The refusal of the cup to the laity is another ty- 
 rannical exercise of Church power. Christ said : 
 " drink ye all of this" And that this was not said 
 to the Apostles as such, but simply as disciples, is 
 clear by the succeeding practice of the Apostles. 
 St. Paul speaks to the Corinthians of their all 
 M drinking of the cup of the Lord" Pope Gelasius 
 spoke of communicating in one kind only, as a great 
 sacrilege. Cardinal Bona confesses, that for twelve 
 hundred years after Christ, the cup was given to 
 all. Indeed, the Church of Rome at the Council 
 of Constance in the fifteenth century, when the 
 wine was first taken away from the laity by a for- 
 mal decree, did not deny, that in previous times all 
 Christians partook of it. " Nevertheless" said the 
 Council — using this strong word " nevertheless" — 
 
416 
 
 any priest henceforth giving the cup to a layman 
 shall be excommunicated ! And the Council of 
 Trent followed the example of the Council of 
 Constance, (f) Thus this blessed Sacrament 
 has been mutilated. Its significance has been de- 
 stroyed. Men are not allowed to do that which 
 their Lord commanded, and which would have re- 
 minded them of His blood shed. But this depriva- 
 tion of significance in the rite, by taking away the 
 cup, is only in keeping with the omission of break- 
 ing the bread. The use of the unbroken wafer pre- 
 vents them thinking of Christ's body broken fox 
 them. In every way, violence is done to the 
 Saviour's institution. Private masses are as incon- 
 sistent with it as can be conceived. Yet the Church 
 which does all this, professes peculiar reverence 
 for the Eucharist. 
 
 What shall we say of the Veneration of Belies ? 
 It is certain that no such veneration was paid them 
 during the first three hundred years after Christ. 
 But to what a height it has grown in later and 
 modern times, there is no traveller in foreign lands 
 who will not inform you. Bodies arc venerated in 
 various places, each of which is said to have be- 
 longed to one and the same saint. And instead of 
 being ashamed in such cases, the Romanists bo]dly 
 affirm, that the saint's body has been miraculously 
 
417 
 
 multiplied ! Miracles are said to be performed by 
 these relics, (g) But one circumstance is to be 
 noted ; the miracles are always performed in Popish 
 countries, and for the satisfaction of those who are 
 already convinced of the lawful authority of Popery, 
 Why are they not done in our sight, to convince us 
 of unbelief ? Our blessed Lord worked his wonders 
 in the sight of all the people. So did St. Stephen. 
 St. Paul speaks of the signs and wonders he was 
 allowed to work, to " make the Gentiles obedient " 
 to the faith. (Rom. xv. 18.) And why are not the 
 miracles, performed by relics or other means, in the 
 Romish Church, such as cannot be accounted for 
 by the force of imagination acting on the nerves, 
 or by the use of fraud ? Why will they not bear 
 the same tests, as the miracles of our Lord and His 
 Apostles ? I must refer you, my brethren, to the 
 celebrated work written on this subject by Bishop 
 Douglas, which has never been answered. 
 
 What shall we say of the Worship of Images ? 
 " Through the Images which we kiss," says the 
 Council of Trent, " and before ichich we uncover 
 " our heads and lie prostrate, we adore Christ and 
 " pay veneration to the Saints." And what more 
 did the Israelites, when they bowed before the 
 Calves at Dan and Bethel ? They meant to wor- 
 ship the God of Israel, as Aaron did when he 
 
418 
 
 m.ade the molten calf, and called the people to "a 
 feast to the Lord.'' But they worshipped Him in 
 an unlawful way, and' He condemned it, and called 
 the calves " Idols." (1 Kings xii. 28. compared 
 with Exod. xxxii. 8. and Acts vii. 41.) Little, 
 therefore, does ' it avail the Romanists to say that 
 they worship not the Image in itself, since they 
 break 'the second commandment by bowing down 
 before it. All the sensible Heathen of old protested 
 that it was not the images, that they worshipped. 
 Did this excuse them from the charge of wor- 
 shipping idols ? Do not the Romanists ascribe 
 more virtue to one image than another, of the same 
 saint? And are they not desirous in Popish 
 countries, of concealing the Second Commandment? 
 (h) How, above all, can the worship of the Cross be 
 defended ? Thomas Aquinas declares that the high- 
 est kind of worship, Latria, due only to the Divine 
 Being, may be paid to the Cross. Cardinal Bellar- 
 mine hesitates to agree with him — " to tell the 
 people so," he says, " is not without danger." Well 
 may he say this ! But if, my brethren, you could 
 consult a Missal, or the Roman Pontifical, that is,' 
 the book of services in which the Pops engages, 
 and could see the solemn ceremonial for blessing a 
 new cross, and read of the Pope " kneeling before 
 it, and devoutly adoring it" (i) you would be filled 
 
419 
 
 with astonishment and grief. I cannot refrain from 
 transcribing a portion of the Pope's prayer, pre- 
 vious to the adoration : M May the blessing of that 
 "wood, on which the holy members of our Saviour 
 " were suspended, be in this wood, that they who 
 "pray and bow themselves on account of God 
 11 before this cross, may find sanctification both of 
 " body and soul, through the same Jesus Christ 
 " our Lord." It is common for Romanists to say, 
 and we may believe that it is truly said by in- 
 dividuals, that they only use images to remind 
 themselves of the invisible beings represented. But 
 in saying this, they fall under the censure of the 
 second Council of Nice, which by the Council of 
 Treut was acknowledged to be a General Council, 
 and therefore infallible, and which declares : 5 As 
 * 3 for them who say that it is sufficient to have 
 •■ Images for the sake of exciting a livelier remem- 
 "brance of the prototypes, and not for worship, 
 " they reject one part of the truth while they admit 
 " the other — and are mad." 
 
 To turn to other matters, in which we find cause 
 to stand aloof from the system which admits them. 
 For instance, the use of Latin Prayers, in all ex- 
 cept Protestant countries, — though the Latin has 
 long been a dead language, — what can be more op- 
 posed to common sense, and to the express prohi- 
 
420 
 
 bition of St. Paul ? (1 Cor. xiv. 8. 9.) The con- 
 tinued use of Monasteries and convents, in an age 
 when all external violence has ceased, and there is 
 no need of a retreat for unprotected weakness, as 
 there was in ages long past — what can be more 
 superstitious ? But a heavier charge than that of 
 mere superstition lies against them. Who can tell 
 how many broken hearts there are in such abodes, 
 bound by a cruel vow, which all have not the sense 
 and courage to treat as an unlawful one, as Luther 
 did ? Was it right to take advantage of tender 
 years, or momentary excitement, and by administer- 
 ing an oath, cut off the victims from the world to 
 which they might desire to return ? (k) Why require 
 a vow, if the probability of repentance were not 
 considerable ? And if it were so, how inhuman, 
 how unchristian, to make that repentance vain, 
 since in itself it is not sinful ! Has God given 
 such power to man ? Can the interests of a par- 
 ticular visible Church justify such a proceeding? 
 But what humanity can be expected from a Church 
 which invented and established the Inquisition ? 
 That inquisition is still in existence at Rome itself. 
 It is true, there are no " Auto-da-fes " now exhibited. 
 But the engine of cruelty is not abandoned. The 
 Reformation gradually introduced a spirit adverse 
 to persecution, as is evidenced' by the liberty given 
 
421 
 
 to Romanists in this Protestant land, so strikingly- 
 contrasted with the denial of such liberty to Pro- 
 testants in countries under the immediate influence 
 of the Pope. Though Italy is thus unlike to Eng- 
 land, yet the mild influence of the new spirit avails 
 to prevent, even there, those horrible spectacles, 
 when men suffered for their religious opinions in 
 the flames kindled by their fellow-creatures. It 
 avails by the force of shame. I fear that more can- 
 not be said. The old spirit survives, and I fear 
 that circumstances may yet arise which will call it 
 forth. God forbid ! I shall rejoice to be convinced 
 of my error, even though I be proved to have been 
 guilty of uncharitableness in what I have just said. 
 But we must speak what we believe to be the truth. 
 And looking as I do, and as I have shewn suffi- 
 cient reason for you to do, by all that has been 
 laid before you in this and former discourses, on the 
 whole system of Romanism as an auti-christian 
 system, it would be indulging a false hope, to ex- 
 pect that it has changed its nature and its prin- 
 ciples! I say its 2^ nc H^ es — f° r nere lies the 
 difference between Popish persecution for con- 
 science sake, and Protestant. When princes in 
 the Romish obedience have persecuted, they have 
 done so in accordance with the dogma that it is 
 lawful to " compel iften" to confess the faith, and to 
 
 oS 
 
423 
 
 incapacitate them from influencing others if they 
 deny it — a dogma which Popes Hildebrand, Inno- 
 cent iii., and others, wrote in characters of fire 
 before the whole world. They have persecuted in 
 accordance with the Decrees of Councils, such as 
 those of Lateran, and the Bulls of Popes, such as 
 those against theAlbigenses. But when Protestants 
 have persecuted, they have done so in opposition to 
 the very principle of Protestantism; which is, liberty 
 of conscience, so far as it interferes not with the 
 liberty of others. Luther, in Germany, set the 
 example of deprecating the use of force in support 
 of religion. Fox, the Martyrologist, in England, 
 warmly embraced Luther's view. If all the Re- 
 formers did not espouse it, we must remember that 
 they were born Romanists, and could not at once 
 emancipate themselves from an error which is pe- 
 culiarly tempting to earnest men. A well-known 
 writer, a philosopher rather than a religious man, 
 has summed up the whole in a few words : " It is 
 remarkable that tolerant Romanists have no where 
 been discovered, except in Protestant countries*' (l) If 
 this be so, the inference is inevitable : — that the 
 spirit of Romanism is persecuting, whilst that of 
 Protestantism is tolerant. And this inference is 
 borne out by comparing England with Italy, as it 
 is — or even with Ireland as it is, in the Romish 
 
4^3 
 
 parts. What English Protestant can preach in 
 Italy as Romish priests can do in England ? And 
 from what English Communion-table are ever 
 heard denunciations of individuals, such as are heard 
 too often from Irish "Altars ?" 
 
 But where shall I end, if I enumerate all the 
 particulars, which go to make up the darkness that 
 reigns in Romanism ? 
 
 The book of the ** Scapular" published in Ire- 
 land by the Provincial of the Carmelites, under the 
 eye of Dr. Murray, will give you a clearer view of 
 the pitiable superstition which is still kept up, than 
 any words of mine could do. 
 
 The " Lives of the Five Saints," who were can- 
 onized by the late Pope, published under the super- 
 intendence of Cardinal Wiseman, will display a 
 prostration of intellect, which could scarcely be be- 
 lieved on inferior evidence. 
 
 If we look abroad, we shall see the votaries of 
 false religions equalling, or even surpassing, Ro- 
 manists in outward devotion and self-mortification 
 — a point on which they boast of their superiority 
 to Protestants. The Fakirs in India — the priests 
 of the Lama of Thibet — the Bhuddist Hierarchy — 
 appear from all accounts to rival them with success. 
 So that even their sanctity is of a suspicious kind. 
 It is in fact a Jewish bondage — the fruit of self- 
 
424 
 
 righteousness. It is not the cheerful, holy " liberty 
 wherewith Christ maketh His people free." It has 
 a fictitious glare, which does but add to the real 
 gloom when contemplated by an enlightened eye. 
 
 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole 
 Mattee. 
 
 After seeing the unscriptural doctrines, and cor- 
 rupt practices, of the Church of Rome, by which she 
 is distinguished from our own and other Reformed 
 Churches — after hearing the pretensions of her 
 Pontiff to nothing less than divine authority— after 
 contemplating the hostility of the whole system to 
 the Gospel, to liberty, and I may add, to morality 
 —we are driven to this conclusion, that either we 
 must renounce our reason, or we must condemn the 
 Pope as Antichrist, and his system as utterly to be 
 abhorred by all faithful Christians, who know the 
 truth, and feel for the honour of Christ, and the 
 welfare, temporal and eternal, of their fellow-crea- 
 tures. We have no choice but this. We can come 
 to no half-way conclusion. Nothing less than a 
 surrender of our powers of reasoning, is the alterna- 
 tive of an entire condemnation of Romanism. 
 
 And have we nothing but reason, exercised on 
 the doctrines of Scripture and the evidence of an- 
 tiquity, to guide us to this verdict ? Have we no 
 
425 
 
 intimation in the prophetic parts of Scripture, to 
 prepare us for the rise and establishment of a great 
 Usurpation, like that of the Pope and the Church 
 of Rome ? Do we see nothing in the predictions 
 of St. Paul and St. John, foreshadowing what is 
 now before our eyes ? It would be strange, if this 
 were the case. It would be unaccountable, if pre- 
 dictions and visions, professedly preparing Christians 
 for the things that were to come upon the Church 
 of Christ, in the interval between His first and 
 second Appearing, were silent respecting a power, 
 such as never existed on the earth before. It would 
 shake, if anything could, our faith in the inspira- 
 tion of Scripture. The omission of all allusion to 
 the awful spectacle which we behold, of the corrup- 
 tion and change of Christianity, would fill us with 
 almost as much amazement, as the spectacle itself. 
 But, God be praised ! cur faith is not thus tried. 
 To say nothing of St. John's visions, in the Apo- 
 calypse (especially that in the 17th chapter), con- 
 cerning an anti-christian and persecuting power, 
 to be established in a particular place which he 
 calls " Babylon" and which the Romanists acknow- 
 ledge to mean Rome, the city of the Seven Hills 
 — to say nothing of this, for want of time to enter 
 properly into it; there is St. Paul's prediction 
 (2 Thess. ii) respecting the apostasy or "falling 
 
426 
 
 away*' as it is correctly rendered, since the original 
 word does not necessarily signify an open and 
 direct denial of the faith, as the word Apostasy 
 does in English, but a departure from it. (m) The 
 same word occurs in 1 Tim. iv. 1., where the 
 Apostle says : " Now the Spirit speaketh expressly 
 that in the latter times some shall depart from the 
 faith." Let us look a little at St. Paul's prediction 
 to the Thessalonians. What does it teach us to 
 expect ? Was there to be continued serenity and 
 holiness in the Church ? No, the Apostle fore- 
 shadows something very like that which has taken 
 place. He speaks of " the man of sin," who was to 
 "be revealed" after the removal ofa certain hindrance. 
 What was this hindrance, and why did he not 
 speak more plainly of it ? Jerome gives us the 
 answer to these questions. He says, as a matter of 
 fact, that the Fathers before him unanimously 
 interpreted it to be the Empire of Rome, (n) This 
 persuasion was such, that they even prayed that 
 the Empire might not be removed in their days, 
 lest they should see with their own eyes the revela- 
 tion of " the Man of Sin." And the reason why 
 St. Paul did not speak more plainly was, because 
 the Pagan Romans believed that their Empire 
 never would fall, and they would have had additional 
 cause to persecute the Christians, and destroy their 
 
427 
 
 writings, had they heard of a plain prediction to 
 the contrary. According to this view, then, which 
 is the only satisfactory solution of St. Paul's unac- 
 customed reserve, the revelation was not to take place 
 till after the fall of the Roman Empire. None, 
 therefore, of the persecuting Pagan Emperors could 
 be the man of sin. For St. Paul says : " And then 
 shall the man of sin be revealed." Not till then. 
 Now the hindrance has long been removed. Has he 
 not appeared ? Have a thousand years elapsed since 
 that removal, and no revelation ensued ? To answer 
 this question, let us examine the characteristics, by 
 which this power (for the word " man" is often put 
 for a succesion of men, wielding the same power) 
 would be discernible by eyes not dazzled. I say, 
 by eyes not dazzled — for one characteristic is, that 
 there would be a general delusion accompanying his 
 appearance — a delusion, without which it would have 
 been impossible for him to establish himself on tho 
 necks of kings and emperors. How, in any other 
 way, could he " exalt himself" as St. Paul says he 
 would ? He would " exalt himself above all that is 
 called God, or that is worshipped." The expression 
 " that is called God" is a frequent Scriptural one 
 for the great ones of the earth. (John x. 35., 
 1 Cor. viii. 5. &c.) And the word for "worshipped" 
 in the original is a peculiar one, not the common 
 
428 
 
 one used in Scripture for " worshipped" but rather 
 referring to that kind of worship, which the Pagan 
 Romans paid to their Emperors. So that the 
 man of sin was to raise himself above all the great 
 ones of the earth, even the Emperors. Has any 
 one ever done this, but the Pope ? Who since the 
 fall of the Civil Empire, can be pointed out as even 
 pretending to such superhuman authority, but the 
 Pope ? Could it be any of the Barbarian Kings 
 and Conquerors ? That supposition is negatived 
 by the circumstance, that the man of sin would 
 " sit in the temple of God." None of these con- 
 querors did this. The Power described by St. Paul 
 is evidently a nominally Christian one. The 
 original word used for " Temple" is not the one 
 applied in the Acts or the Epistles to the Temple at 
 Jerusalem ; it is that which is applied to the whole 
 body of Christians, when it is said : " Ye are the 
 Temple of God." The man of sin, then, would be 
 Christian in profession — " opposing himself" to 
 Christ in reality. On this account the prophecy stamps 
 on him the mark of delusiveness, to which I have 
 already alluded. He would be a " mystery." He 
 would combine in himself characteristics the most 
 opposite, and the most favourable to his purposes 
 — apparent holiness, and secret f iniquity." Thus 
 he would perplex and delude men. " The mystery 
 
420 
 
 of iniquity,"" says St. Paul, "doth already work;" 
 but it would not be developed till the hindrance 
 was removed, and the "falling away'* of Christians 
 in general took place. Consult the prophecy your- 
 selves, my brethren, and see if this is not plain. 
 Lastly, there is a most extraordinary circumstance, 
 which would mark "the Man of Sin" He would 
 ** shew himself that he is God" — or a God, as the 
 original has it. Who of all mankind, since the 
 coming of Christ, has called himself a Christian, 
 and yet done anything of this kind? One would have 
 thought beforehand, that it would be utterly impos- 
 sible for any one to do it, without coming out openly 
 from the Temple of God and renouncing Christianity. 
 Here is " the mystery .'" The bishop of Rome has 
 found out a way to accomplish this. He has re- 
 tained the character of a Christian bishop, and yet 
 has persuaded men to speak of him as the canon 
 law actually does, as " bearing the authority, not 
 of a mere man, but of the true God upon earth." 
 These, you will remember, are the very words of the 
 canon law. Now, my brethren, have we not here a 
 sufficiently distinct picture of the Papal power (p) 
 making allowance for the necessary obscurity at- 
 tending every unfulfilled prophecy, by which, to a 
 certain extent, faith is always put to the proof? 
 Have we not enough to comfort us, and sustain us 
 
 d3 
 
430 
 
 with the assurance, that all has been foreseen, is 
 permitted for wise purposes, and will be set right 
 in its season ? Much as the awful phenomenon of 
 Popery may afflict us at present, God's purposes of 
 love and mercy will be forwarded in the end. " All 
 things work together for good to them that love God." 
 When St. Paul tells us concerning the man of sin, 
 that he would delude men, he does not say all men 
 — his coming would be " with all power and signs 
 and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness in them 
 that perish, because they received not the love of the 
 truth." Even within the Church of Rome, there 
 have always been some who have protested, though 
 they have not come out — such as Pascal and Fene- 
 l on — whose works have been proscribed, and who 
 more or less suffered persecution. We wonder and 
 lament that all such did not hear and obey the call 
 of God : " Come out of her, my people, that ye be 
 not partakers of her sins, arid that ye receive not of 
 her plagues." They remained to their own pain 
 and loss. But how happy are we, my brethren, 
 that we have been saved, through the instrumental- 
 ity of our Reformers, from being deluded by " the 
 mystery of iniquity ! " How happy are we in a pure 
 Church, where there is primitive order with Apo- 
 stolic doctrine ! Shall any of us exchange " the 
 light in which we walk*' for the darkness, spiritual 
 
451 
 
 and intellectual, of Popery? Shall we run the 
 risk of sharing that destruction, which the Apestlc 
 says is reserved for the Man of Sin — " whom the 
 Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth, 
 and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming ?" 
 Shall we enter the doomed Babylon, where sits the 
 Church of Rome, described by St. John as a Woman 
 in purple array, (the sign of supreme power,) and 
 " drunk with the blood of Saints ? " I have not 
 time, as I said before, to shew you the striking 
 correspondence between St. Paul's prediction and the 
 Apocalyptic Vision of this woman, sitting on the 
 Beast " with seven heads," which are declared to be 
 *i seven hills,' 1 and with " ten horns" which are declar- 
 ed to be " ten kingdoms," such as those into which 
 the Empire was divided by the Barbarians. I must 
 refer you to Commentators. Among older ones, 
 to Mede and Newton ; among recent ones, to Davi- 
 son in his celebrated Warburton Lectures ; (q) to Dr. 
 Wordsworth in his University Sermons ; and to Mr. 
 Elliott in his learned Volumes. Consult these, 
 and you will find cause to believe, that Scripture 
 has not been silent respecting the existing state of 
 things in the Christian world. On the contrary, 
 you will probably conclude, that to the inspired 
 sight of Daniel, of St. John, and of St. Paul, the 
 struggle in which we are engaged for ourselves and 
 
482 
 
 our children, and which may yet become more 
 severe and put our constancy to the extremest test, 
 was prophetically present. You will find cause to 
 agree with our forefathers in the days of the Re- 
 formation, who with one voice declared their con- 
 viction, that the Pope was the Man of Sin and Anti- 
 christ. There are no better or wiser guides than 
 these, for us to follow. Learned in the Scriptures and 
 the Fathers, and deeply concerned to ascertain the 
 truth, because maintaining it at the price of their 
 lives, they may safely be trusted. They adopted 
 no hasty opinions. They prayed, as well as studied. 
 They read the Scriptures on their knees. Thus 
 the light from Heaven visited their souls ; and 
 they communicated that light to others. God 
 grant, it may never be lost among us ! May we 
 consider ourselves as resembling the torch-bearers 
 among the ancients in one of their solemn festivals, 
 who ran in a race, bearing each his torch, bound to 
 keep it lighted whilst he ran, and to hand it lighted 
 to others, when he finished his course ! In our 
 last hour, may we have joy and thankfulness in 
 the thought, that by God's grace we deserted not 
 our beloved Church and country, when " Popish ty- 
 ranny and arbitrary power" strove once more to ex- 
 tinguish the light of divine knowledge and truth, 
 re-kindled by our martyred Reformers ! 
 
NOTES TO LECTURE VIII. 
 
 (a) p. 
 
 386. 
 
 Pearson 
 
 on the Creed. 
 
 
 (b) p. 
 
 388. 
 
 Sess. xiv. 
 
 Can. ix. 
 
 
 (c) p. 
 
 388. 
 
 Trent Cat 
 
 . Donovan p. 258, 
 
 
 (d) p. 
 
 388. 
 
 lb. "260. 
 
 
 
 (e) p. 
 
 388. 
 
 Sess. xiv. 
 
 Can. vi. 
 
 
 Archbishop 
 
 Usher, in 
 
 his " Answer to a 
 
 Jesuit," 
 
 shews that auricular confession was never used till 
 the time of Pope Leo, in the fifth century ; and 
 argues convincingly, that the previous variations 
 and experiments made in the matter of confession, 
 whether public or private, entirely disprove the 
 sacramental nature ascribed to it by the Romanists, 
 
 (f) p. 389. Trent Cat. p. 279. 
 
 (g) p. 389. lb. p. 261. 
 
 (h) p. 390. The original Greek word for *' re- 
 pent," or as the Romanists render it, "do penance," 
 means, " change your disposition." 
 
 The innocent Latin phrase, " agere pamitentiam" 
 is used by Quintilian and Valerius Maximus, and 
 has no meaning like that which Romanists affix. 
 Probably it occurs in the Italic version, from which 
 Jerome formed the Vulgate. 
 
434 
 
 (i) p. 390. By making all religion sacramental, 
 and all sacraments effectual M ex opere operato," 
 the priesthood reign. 
 
 The Douay Catechism defines a " Sacrament," 
 to be " an outward sign of inward grace, ordained 
 by Christ, conveying grace to the soul." What 
 outward sign, then, is there in the supposed sacra- 
 ment of Penance ? The words of confession, says 
 the Council of Trent, are the " quasi materia ! " 
 But in what way do they resemble the absolution ? 
 
 (k) p. 391. Dens's Moral Theology ; published 
 in Ireland with the sanction of the bishops. 
 
 (1) p. 392. It is enough to refer to the most 
 popular of all books among the English Romanists, 
 the " Garden of the Soul." There is much that is 
 devoutly written in that book, but in one or two 
 pages there are questions which must pollute the 
 minds of the young beyond anything that Pro- 
 testants could conceive possible. Such things can- 
 not be read without coming to the conclusion, that 
 the priests in whom they originate and by whom 
 they are applied, have not a proper conception of 
 purity themselves. In confirmation of this, see 
 Crosthwaite's " Modern Hagiology," Vol. i. p. 26, 
 99, &c. As the precautions and suspicions of 
 Eastern jealousy serve generally to defeat their own 
 end, and render wives and daughters less worthy 
 of confidence ; so it happens, it is to be feared, 
 with priests and celibates of the Romish com- 
 munion — they are in danger of becoming less pure 
 from the very oath which is intended to secure 
 their purity. The principle is a false one. Nature 
 has its " Nemesis." 
 
435 
 
 (m) p. 393. See an article in a recent number 
 of the Edinburgh Review, which will well repay 
 the perusal. It details the disgraceful and cruel 
 conduct pursued by the Archbishop of Turin 
 toward Count Santa Rosa, because as Minister of 
 State he had co-operated in passing a law, that Eccle- 
 siastics should be tried for civil crimes in the civil 
 courts. The English reader will be reminded of 
 the contest between Becket and King Henry ii, 
 respecting the immunity of the clergy. The Church 
 of Rome never really changes. 
 
 (n) p. 394. See the second volume of" Criminal 
 Trials" published by the Useful Knowledge Society, 
 containing the account of the i{ Powder Plot," by 
 Mr, Jardine, a barrister of liberal principles. Gar- 
 net is condemned by him, as worthy of his fate. 
 
 (o) p. 394. Dr. Mc. Neile, recently, in explain- 
 ing words of his which had been misconceived, 
 gave some thrilling extracts from the writings of 
 the late Mr. Nolan, who was a converted Irish 
 priest, in which that gentleman declared that twice 
 had he been made aware in the Confessional of an 
 intention to murder, and in vain endeavoured to 
 divert the murderer from the intention confessed. 
 In each case, he saw, and might have saved, the 
 unsuspecting victim in the interval ; but the dread- 
 ful anathema of Trent prevented his giving the 
 slightest warning. In each case the deed was done ! 
 Mr. Nolan expresses his agony, felt at the time 
 and ever afterwards. 
 
 (p) p. 395. The late General Sir John Elley 
 gave me, on two several occasions, with the same 
 
436 
 
 precise particulars, an account of his having, when 
 holding a military command in Ireland, visited a 
 condemned murderer in prison, who confessed to 
 him his crime. The next day, repeating his visit, 
 he heard the man say, that he was innocent. 
 " What ?'' said the General, " Did you not tell me 
 that you were guilty ? " " Yes," replied the man, 
 " I did the murder." " Then why," was the natural 
 question, u do you call yourself innocent ? " *'• Have 
 1 not had the priest ? " answered the murderer, 
 " And does that make you innocent ? '' said Sir 
 John. " To be sure," said the man, " as innocent 
 as a child unborn." " Suppose you were let out 
 of prison, and committed another murder, would it 
 be your first ? " " To be sure it would ! " was the 
 instant and undoubting reply. 
 
 (q) p. 398. Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, in the 
 time of Henry viii, and one of the most learned 
 Romanists, says : 
 
 " No orthodox person now doubts whether there 
 " be a Purgatory ; and yet by men of old times there 
 " was no mention made of it, or the rarest possible. 
 *' Nay, by the Greeks even to the present day purga- 
 * l tory is disbelieved. Let any one who will, read 
 " the Commentaries of the Greek Fathers, and he 
 " will find, that they never, if I mistake not, or at 
 <s any rate very seldom, speak of Purgatory. Nor 
 " even did the Latins all at once receive this 
 « truth." 
 
 And speaking of Indulgences, which he acknow- 
 ledges derive their chief force from the belief of 
 their delivering people from purgatory, he says : 
 " Since, then, Purgatory was so late in being known 
 
437 
 
 " and received by the Universal Church, can any 
 " man wonder, that of a practice connected with the 
 u belief of it" (that of Indulgences) " there was no 
 "instance to be found in the early Church?" 
 
 Here is a confession from a candid and learned 
 Romanist, in the work he wrote M Against Luther' 1 
 of the novelty of the doctrines of Purgatory and 
 Indulgences I 
 
 (r) p. 398. Sess. xxv. Decret. de Furgat. 
 
 (s) p. 399. Sess. vi. Can. 30. 
 
 (t) p. 400. Cat. Trid. Art. v. of the Creed. 
 
 The original Latin of the Catechism, which Mr. 
 Donovan has rendered by "cleansed," is ' l cruciatw" 
 u excruciated." 
 
 (u) p. 401. Cardinal Bellarmine in his Treatise 
 on Purgatory gives a terrible description of its 
 horrors. Amongst other things, he tells a tale of 
 a certain saint, named Christina, which he devoutly 
 believes, whose soul, while she was alive, was al- 
 lowed to visit Purgatory, and who saw unutterable 
 misery endured there, by " the souls of the jpzows," as 
 the Trent Catechism calls them, — " those who hav- 
 "ing truly repented" as the Council of Florence says, 
 " die in the love of God" yet are condemned to 
 Purgatory. (Labbe Concil. s. xiii.) The Cardinal 
 also quotes another saint, called Ludgardis, who 
 had a dreadful vision, in which she saw the soul of 
 Pope Innocent iii awfully tormented in Purgatorial 
 Fire. " This instance," says Bellarmine, " always 
 " affects me with the greatest terror. For if a Pon- 
 " tiff, entitled to so much praise, and who, to all 
 
 e3 
 
438 
 
 " human observation (?) was not merely upright 
 11 and prudent, but eminently, nay exemplarily,holy 
 " — if even he must suffer the most excruciating 
 "torments, what prelate is there who does not 
 "tremble?" 
 
 . 
 
 (v) p. 406. Luther in his Treatise " On Private 
 Mass, and the anointing of the Priests," questions 
 the validity of Ordination such as the Komish : 
 ** Take thou power to sacrifice for the living and the 
 dead." Christ left no such orders. The Eucharist 
 is a Communion. 
 
 (w) p. 406. Mr. Whiteside, in his " Italy in th» 
 Nineteenth Century" tells us : " The number of 
 " ecclesiastics of all sorts in Naples (some say 
 "10,000,01-12,000), naturally attracts attention ; 
 "and we enquired of the Neapolitan Advocate, in 
 " what the utility of such an army of priests con- 
 " sisted ? He quietly replied : ' For the business 
 " to be done, we have not priests enough.' ' How 
 " can that be ? ' 'I will explain,' said he, 'briefly. 
 "If all tbe ecclesiastics in Naples were engaged 
 " from morning to night, they could not say even 
 "half the masses for the dead, which they ought 
 " and are bound to say.' This statement surprised 
 " us exceedingly. The advocate resumed : * Tbe 
 " population of Naples is immense, aud there is 
 " hardly a family, the members of which have not 
 * fora long course of years bequeathed sums of money, 
 " to ensure the saying of masses for the repose of 
 " their souls. In process of time, the number of 
 " masses to be said in one year, has accumulated 
 " to such an amount, that now 10,000 priests could 
 " not say them. A principle source of revenue to 
 
439 
 
 4< the priesthood is derived from legacies, often 
 44 charged ou laud, bequeathed for these purposes. 
 " These charges are recognized and enforced by our 
 44 tribunals, and it will sometimes happen in two or 
 44 three generations that the greater part of the 
 " rents of a moderate property will be appropriated 
 " to the payment of the priests for saying the ap- 
 " pointed masses for dead. This has actually oe- 
 " curred in my own case ; the rents of my smalt 
 44 paternal property were so appropriated. But the 
 -" Pope will never permit the priesthood to abstract 
 ,{ more than one half, or one third, of the annual 
 " rental.' 4 With respect to the masses for tli9 
 44 dead, said and unsaid, a tabular statement is sub- 
 " milted to the Pope each year ; and he, taking 
 "into consideration all circumstances, pronounces 
 4 « his decision, that the masses remaining unsaid 
 " shall be considered as said ; and so they are 
 44 accordingly '." 
 
 " A fearful question has to be put : What have 
 " the 90,000 priests, monks, friars, and nuns, done 
 "for the education of the Neapolitan people ? " 
 
 *' With respect to morals, notwithstanding the 
 u ceremonials of religion are^celebrated with frequency 
 " and splendour, Naples is admitted to be one of 
 ■' the most profligate capitals in Europe. And I 
 ,f gvieve to add, questions are sometimes put to pas- 
 sengers in the streets of this brilliant city, calcu- 
 '* lated to make a man start with horror." (Vol. 
 iii. p. 83.) 
 
 (x) p. 408. The Council of Trent uses the ex- 
 pression : *' calestes hos Ecclesice thesauros." (Sess. 
 xxi. c. 9.) The Bull against Luther, issued by 
 Leo x., condemns the denial of the proposition that 
 
440 
 
 " the Treasures of the Church, whence the Pope 
 " grants Indulgences, are the merits of Christ and 
 " the saints.*' 
 
 (y) p. 408. The power of granting Indulgences 
 for the dead, seems to be confined altogether to the 
 Pope. 
 
 Jubilees are a great occasion for granting Indul- 
 gences. Boniface viii instituted the first, a. d. 1300. 
 The massacre of St. Bartholomew's furnished occa- 
 sion to Pope Pius v. to ordain a Jubilee ! (See 
 Mendham's " Life of Pius v.") 
 
 Presents made to certain Churches, or contribu- 
 tions to certain religious objects, are frequently 
 rewarded by Indulgences. Cardinal Cajetan ac- 
 knowledges that they are not of any ancient date. 
 " No sacred Scripture," he says, •' no authority of 
 " ancient doctors, Greek or Latin, has brought the 
 " origin of them to our memory/' (Opusc. t. i. 
 Tract, xv. c. I.) 
 
 (z) p. 409. Of Luther's Theses, the first was : 
 " When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, 
 " ' Repent,' He meant that the whole life of His 
 " faithful servants upon earth should be a continual 
 " repentance." 
 
 The 62nd was : " The true and precious treasure 
 " of the Church, is the holy Gospel of the glory and 
 " grace of God." 
 
 (a) p. 409. " A Plenary Indulgence is granted 
 " to all who stand before the gates of St. Peter's, 
 "whilst the Pope gives his solemn blessing to the 
 " people on Easter Day." So says Bellarmine, and 
 finds it difficult to assign the cause why so great a 
 reward should attend so slight a work. 
 
441 
 
 The present Pope is said to have granted an In- 
 dulgence, not plenary, for the offering of a prayer to 
 the Winking Madonna. 
 
 (b) p. 410. See Hooker's •* Discourse on Justifi- 
 cation," c. 5. 
 
 (c) p. 410. These are Bellarmine's divisions of 
 the next world. 
 
 (d) p. 411. Trent Cat. p. 285. 
 
 (e) p. 415. Claudius Espencceus, a Romanist, 
 commenting on Tit. i. 7., says of the bishops : 
 44 What is most base of all, they permit them (the 
 44 clergy) for a certain fixed rate of payment, to live 
 44 with concubines." 
 
 The 44 Centum Gravamina" or 4 ' Complaints of 
 the Germans," abounds with the mention of such 
 things. Claudius appeals to it ; and speaks also of 
 the " Taxa Camera sen Cancellarm Apostolicce ; " 
 44 in which," he says, "you may learn more of crimes, 
 44 than in all the summaries of vices that can be 
 44 named." It contained the prices of dispensations, 
 or licenses, to be vicious. 4 ' In it," says Claudius, 
 44 there is set forth to very many even a license, 
 " but to all who will pay for it, an absolution.'-' 
 
 (?) p. 416. Trent Cat. p. 244. 
 
 (g) p. 417. Mr. Whiteside gives a conversation 
 held with a young nobleman at Naples, on the sub- 
 ject of the annual liquefaction of St. Januarius's 
 blood. 
 
 44 « May I ask, what is your belief as to the Mi- 
 44 racle of St. Jauuarius' ?' The Neapolitan 
 " replied without a moments hesitation : 4 1 believe 
 ** if to be an imposition, of course.' J Does any man 
 
442 
 
 *' of your rank in Naples believe it ? ' ! Not one,' 
 •' be replied. * Permit me then to enquire, bow 
 •• do you justify witnessing the imposture, and ap- 
 " peariug to sanction what you know to be false V 
 " He coloured slightly, and then gave a reply never 
 " to be forgotten by me. • Siguor, you are a stranger, 
 44 and evidently unacquainted with the state of 
 " things in this kingdom. There exists a compact 
 "between the government and the priests, each to 
 " support the other in their abuses. The priests 
 " will sustain the government so long as it sustains 
 " them ; and when this imposture is acted, it is 
 u part of the bargain that the king and the court 
 u shall attend, and so must I and every one who 
 " holds a place under the king, be present — for if 
 " the nobility and sovereign were absent, the people 
 " might suppose this proceeded from unbelief— 
 " therefore the priests insist on our presence. But 
 " you mistake in supposing this has anything to do 
 " with the Roman Catholic Religion." (Italy, 
 vol. iii , p. 91.) 
 
 (h) p. 418. I have in my possession a copy of 
 Cardinal Bellarmine's "Dottrina Christiana Breve," 
 or " Short Christian Doctrine," composed by order 
 of Pope Clement viii., (edition of 1836). It is the 
 Catechism most in use at Rome. When we come 
 to the '* Ten Commandments ; " it omits the Second! 
 
 There are Catechisms in abundance used in Ire- 
 land, which omit it. 
 
 There are Churches abroad, which omit it from 
 the Commandments painted on their walls. 
 
 (i) p. 418. *' Turn Pontifex, flexis ante Crucem 
 genibus, ipsam devote adored et osculatur." The 
 
443 
 
 '■ Pontificale" is spoken of by Bossuet, as of un- 
 doubted authority. 
 
 (k) p. 420. See Blanco White's " Internal Evi- 
 dence against Catholicism," Letter v. He was a 
 Priest, and his two sisters became nuns. Read his 
 heart-rending history of them at the end of that 
 Letter. 
 
 That Celibacy may be esteemed a state holier in 
 itself than Matrimony (which is a strange position, 
 seeing that matrimony is the type of the union be- 
 twixt Christ and His Church ; so that celibacy 
 might appear to be typical of an insulated and un- 
 catholic state), the Virgin Mary is represented, in 
 one of the popular books of the Romanists, as 
 positively stipulating with the Angel for the pre- 
 servation of her virginity. " When the Angel pro- 
 " posed to Mary to become the Mother of God. he 
 41 did not explain to her, whether that sublime pre- 
 " rogative was compatible with her vow of virginity. 
 " Therefore she suspended her consent.'" "0 precious 
 " virtue ! since the purest of all creatures preferred 
 "'thee to divine maternity ! " (" Imitation of the 
 B. Virgin," Dub!. 1844, p. 25.) It is by such 
 effusions as these, that young and imaginative 
 females are filled with a desire to abandon the 
 happiness and duties of life, for a miserable and 
 useless existence in nunneries ! It may be wise to 
 administer an oath to such — but is it right or 
 merciful ? 
 
 (l) p. 4*23. The elder Disraeli, in his *' Life of 
 Charles the First." 
 
 (m) p. 42G. Dr. Wordsworth's " Man of Sin," 
 p. Si7-,' 
 
444 
 
 (n) p. 426. Medes Works, Fo. p. 657. 
 
 (o) p. 427. That the word " Man" may mean a 
 succession of men, occupying the same station, was 
 allowed by Lainez, the General of the Jesuits, who 
 spoke thus of the Popes power at the Council of 
 Trent : 
 
 " These things, being perpetual offices, must be 
 " conferred on a perpetual person, that is, not on 
 " the first only, but on all his succession ! " 
 
 (p) p. 429. The superhuman pride of the Pope 
 is most demonstrated, when on his election to the 
 Popedom he sits on the High Altar, and is adored ! 
 Even Mr. Eustace, the Romanist traveller in Italy, 
 lifted up his voice against this spectacle. (" Clas- 
 sical Tour," vol. iv. p. 398, " Remarks on the 
 Adoration of the Pope.") 
 
 In Dr. Cumming's " Apocalyptic Sketches," 
 avowedly founded on Mr. Elliott's Work, there 
 occurs, among a crowd of beautiful passages, one which 
 is intended to illustrate the Pope's union of the 
 highest spiritual claims with the most earthly- 
 minded selfishness. — 
 
 " I have seen the eagle rise, and soar with out- 
 stretched wings, until he seemed to touch the fir- 
 " mamental ceiling, and bathe his plumage amid 
 " sunshine— it seemed as if his heart was set on 
 " something beyond the sky, and bis eye kindling 
 ,; to catch a vision of it ; but in reality his heart 
 " and eye were riveted upon the prey or quarry, 
 " that lay below. So has it been with antichrist — 
 " he seemed to aim at Heaven, only to enable him 
 "to possess more surely the earth ! '" 
 
445 
 
 (q) p. 431. Grotius, being anxious to negociate 
 an union between the Reformed Churches and that 
 of Borne, was one of the first to deny that the Pope 
 was the " Man of Sin." To have owned it, would 
 have been to condemn his project. 
 
 Those, generally speaking, who have no such 
 unhappy bias — who reverence the Reformers, with 
 Jewel at their head — who follow Hooker, Sir Isaac 
 Newton, Bishop Van Mildert, with the writers men- 
 tioned in the Discourse, and a crowd of others (see 
 an excellent Charge published last year by Archd. 
 Browne) — who perceive in the Establishment of 
 Popery a phenomenon equally amazing, and equally 
 needing prediction, with that of the Dispersion of 
 the Jews — all these find a fit expositor of their sen- 
 timents in Mr. Davison, as the following passage 
 will testify. 
 
 "The Hierarchy of Borne has in its day fulfilled 
 " every iota of St. Paul's prophetic description. The 
 " claims of Infallibility, which the Roman See has 
 " arrogated to itself ; the demand of an implicit 
 11 faith in its doctrines, many of them the most 
 "contradictory to Christianity; the tyranny of its 
 " tribunals over the consciences of men ; the blas- 
 " phemous titles of address, and impious homage, 
 •' which its Pontiff has heretofore extorted, or ac- 
 " cepted ; the dominion over other Churches, 
 *' which it has assumed; assumed without justice, 
 " and exercised without reason or mercy ; perfectly 
 " agree with the PBIDE of that rival enemy of God, 
 " seated in God's temple, figured out by the 
 " Apostle. For these inordinate pretensions are 
 " all of them, in the strictest sense, invasions of the 
 " honour and supreme rights of God, due to Him 
 " alone, or to the authority of his inspired word. 
 
 f3 
 
446 
 
 " Romish Infallibility disputing precedence with 
 " His inspired Truth ; traditions disfiguring his 
 " attributes and his worship ; a servility and pro- 
 " stration of the conscience to man, dethroning 
 " God from his dominion over the believer's under- 
 l * standing ; these are the usurpations of the Roman 
 " Hierarchy, concentrated in its Head, which fall 
 " nothing short of ' that man of sin who opposeth, 
 " and exalteth himself above all that is called God 
 " or worshipped' either God or Jesus Christ his 
 ; ' Son ; * so that he as God sitteth in the temple of 
 " God, making a shew of himself that he is God ; ' 
 " a character which might have defied credibility, 
 " had it not been as truly verified, as accurately 
 " foretold. 
 
 " Again, the multiplied DELUSIONS of the Ro- 
 " mish system of debased Christianity, and its ma- 
 " chinery of pious frauds, pretended prophecies, and 
 " miracles, have corresponded but too correctly with 
 " the second member of St. Paul's prophetic deline- 
 " ation. For Christian faith could not be supported 
 ** and conducted without the instruments of a suit- 
 " able policy. These instruments were taken from 
 " the only forge which could supply them. They 
 " were to be ' after the working of Satan' (who is 
 " the father of falsehood) ' with all power of signs, 
 * and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of 
 " unrighteousness.' Nor is it easy to see, what other 
 " words could more faithfully describe the practices 
 " and arts, which have been made the chief resources 
 " of the Papal power. Its legends, its relics, its 
 " meritorious pilgrimages, its indulgences, its dis- 
 " pensations, its liturgy in an unknown tongue, its 
 " images, its spurious miracles, its mediator-saints, 
 " its purgatory, and others its plausible or its re- 
 
447. 
 
 " volting superstitions, were set up as much against 
 " the genius of the Gospel, which teaches the 
 " worship of God ' in spirit and in truth' in the 
 " faith of ' one Mediator,' as against the moral 
 " honesty and godly sincerity, which are the glory 
 " of the Christian ethics. And these delusions 
 " have been the work of a See and Priesthood, 
 " which having made a kind of religion too corrupt 
 " to bear the light of Scripture, and too incredible 
 "to be examined by Reason, have with sufficient 
 " consistency prohibited, or discouraged, the use of 
 " the one and the other; and obtruded the phantom 
 il of their infallibility, in the very height of its 
 " errors and abuses, as the substitute or compensa- 
 " tion for both. This ' mystery of iniquity,' ' in the 
 " temple of God,' had its reign. If Christian Faith 
 11 was well nigh extinguished by it, the truth of 
 " Christian prophecy has thereby been the more 
 "illustrated." 
 
 Perhaps with no testimony more weighty could 
 these Notes and this Volume conclude. 
 
 J. W. BOWDEN, PKINTEE, GAINSBOROUGH. 
 
THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW 
 
 AN INITIAL PINE OF 25 CENTS 
 
 WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN 
 THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY 
 WILL INCREASE TO 50 CENTS ON THE FOURTH 
 DAY AND TO SI.OO ON THE SEVENTH DAY 
 OVERDUE. 
 
 REG 7 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 / 
 
fB 30i II 
 
 3 5 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
I 
 
 It! 
 
 m 
 
 flip 
 m 
 
 I 
 
 ifflfl 
 
 J&K 
 
 HIP* 
 
 # 
 
 Iki 
 
 i ilk''' 
 
 i ! .