successor. The apostle Peter was a married man; the scriptures speak of "his wife's mother" being ill; to be a complete successor of St. Peter, you must have every jot and tittle of St. Peter's character, and circumstances, and position; but by a law of the Church of Rome (a law, I admit, springing from its discipline), celibacy is enforced upon its clergy; and, therefore, in one point at least, the Pope of Rome cannot be the successor of Peter. Certainly in one respect the Popes may be called his successors; Peter denied his Lord and master, and confirmed the denial with an oath; and this succession the Church of Rome has sacredly cherished and fearfully developed, in everv age and act of that deep and dark "mystery of iniquity." Would to God she may one day succeed Peter in his repentance, and return to Christ.

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

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

You have heard what Popery is, as stereotyped by the Roman Catholic Church; I must now lay before you what is the Popery disseminating, I grieve to say, by men that wear the robes and eat the bread of a Protestant Church: disseminated by men distinguished for their talents, and some of them for their erudition: heretofore distinguished for the consistency of their outward walk in the world; but branded and chargeable, I solemnly believe, with the most desperate and decided effort ever recorded in the annals of the Church, to extinguish the principles which have been sealed with the blood of martyrs, and to bring in a deluge of soul-destroying errors, for the designation of which no language is sufficiently strong. I have carefully selected from the writings, and other documents of these individuals, their leading sentiments; and as you have heard pure Popery, as it is taught and practised under the auspices of the Church of Rome, you will see now, by the following quotations, that the whole difference between what are called the Tractarians of Oxford and the Papists of the Vatican, is solely in the matter of consistency. The Roman Catholics consistently carry out their principles to their full extent; Dr. Pusey, and Newman, Hook, and Keble, keep their principles in reserve, waiting for the occasion when they may be developed with impunity, and taught beneath the auspices of authority and influence, at present not fully on their side.

I will take, first, their views of the rule of faith. With Protestants, the Bible alone is the rule of faith; and, 1 may observe, that the `whole safety of the Protestant Church lies, under God, in the unimpaired maintenance of that principle. Within the boards of the Bible, you are on a Protestant and impregnable foundation; but, go beyond them for one single article of your creed, and you are on Popish ground, aye, on an inclined plane, and you are not to be surprised if you soon find yourself within the bosom of the western apostacy. The rule of faith given by Mr. Newman, is in these words, in his Lectures on Romanism, pp. 327, 343, "These two, the Bible and tradition together, make up a joint rule of faith ;" again, "Where the sense of sacred Scripture, as interpreted by reason, is contrary to the sense given to it by Catholic antiquity, we ought to side with the latter." p. 160. Professor Keble, in his Sermons, third edition, p. 82, says, "The rule of faith is made up of sacred Scripture and tradition together.' The British Critic, the great organ of the party, speaks thus: "The Bible is in the hands of the Church, to be dealt with in such a way as the Church shall consider best for the expression of her own mind at the time." (British Critic, No. LX. p. 453.) In other words, the Bible is a mere nose of wax, to be shaped, and moulded, and directed, by a convenient phantom that has never yet been defined or condensed, called the Church, as may be most palatable to her taste, and best suit the expediency of the moment. And, again, says The British Critic, "There is altogether sufficient evidence, independent of the sacred Scriptures, that the Apostles taught as divine and necessary certain doctrines, and inculcated as essential certain practices." I say there is not; and we defy them to produce evidence, and to prove any such thing. After such sweeping announcements of the leading Tractarians, instinct with pure and unadulterated Popery, I cannot understand why they do not, in a body, follow Mr. Sibthorp, Mr. Wackerbath, and Mr. Bernard Smith, into the bosom of the Church of Rome. Mr. Sibthorp has shown manliness, consistency, and honesty, in carrying out to their full and legitimate extent and development, the principles which he dishonestly taught for six years; and all I hope is, that those who hold his principles, and have more than his longings, may have the consistency to follow his example. But, as a priest remarked, on the continent, "one Newman is worth twenty Sibthorps."

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

us? The Mother Church has been long waiting, with open arms, to receive you; and the Holy Virgin, with extended arms, is ready to embrace you. Why do you longer waver in the declaration of your faith? Why do you not make the piccolo pass which separates you from us?" The friend who related this to me said, he could swear that these were the very words of the Padre, or the full sense.

Mr. Newman writes, respecting Scripture, in his Lectures on Romanism, p. 325, "We have as little warrant for neglecting ancient consent as for neglecting Scripture itself." "We agree with the Romanist, in appealing to antiquity as our Great Teacher." Immediately after these purely Papal announcements, and almost in the very language of Popish Councils, we are favoured with Tractarian views of Bible circulation-" Scripture was never intended to teach doctrine to the many ! !”

As if to plunge our population in the gulf of infidelity, should they fail in precipitating the Church of England into the Papacy, this writer, -still Vicar of St. Mary's Church,-still a Fellow of the University of Oxford,-states "The Catholic doctrine of the Trinity, Incarnation, and others similar to them, are the true interpretations of the Notices (!!), contained in Scripture, of these doctrines respectively." "To accept Revelation at all, we have but probability to show, at most; nay, to believe in the existence of an intelligent Creator.”

These are the painful proofs of the spread of Popery. The progress of undisguised Popery was as scattered clouds, either growing and dissolving, or driven by the winds; but this progression looks like an evening twilight, that deepens every minute, and threatens to issue in a moonless and starless night.

I will now refer to the Tractarian views of the Eucharist, which go the length of transubstantiation. Mr. Newman writes, in Tract 90, "It is literally true, the consecrated bread is Christ's body. So that, there is a real super-local presence in the holy sacrament." Dr. Pusey, in his Preface to Hooker, says, " Antiquity continually affirms the change of the sacred elements." Tract 85, says, 66 If baptism be

a cleansing and quickening of the dead soul, to say nothing of the Lord's Supper, Christ's ministers work miracles ;" and Tract 86, contains these words" A happy omission it is from the Communion Service, of a half ambiguous expression against the real and essential presence of Christ's natural body at the communion."

Let us now turn to the great doctrine of Justification. Mr. Newman says, in his Lectures on Justification, page 167, "Christ is our righteousness, by dwelling in us by the Spirit; he justifies us by entering into us, he continues to justify us by remaining in us." I am sure, no Scottish Christian would ever commit so painful and unscriptural a blunder; and, I believe, no Christian, schooled under an evangelical ministry, would ever dream of such a wretched perversion of that great doctrine of the word of God. Justification is Christ's righteousness imputed to us; sanctification is the Holy Spirit working within us. Justification is an act, whereby we are made righteous in the sight of God; sanctification is a work, whereby we are renewed in the image of God, more and more. Mr. Newman, ignorantly or designedly, confounds them; Dr. Pusey writes in his Letter to the Bishop of Oxford, "The Anglican doctrine conceives justification to be, not

imputation merely, but the act of God's imparting his divine presence to the soul, through baptism.'

Let us next hear the Tractators' views of the atonement. Tract 80 says, "The prevailing notion of bringing forward the atonement, explicitly and prominently on all occasions, is evidently quite opposed to what we consider the teaching of Scripture." How the writer can have made this statement, with the full knowledge of Scripture, is to me surprising; for you will recollect, when the Apostle Paul sums up the doctrines which he had taught to the Corinthian Church, he introduces the recapitulation of his theology by the beautiful statement— "I delivered unto you first of all, how that Christ died for our sins." And yet, Tract 80 says, that the Scriptures do not bring forward the atonement "first of all;" that it is a doctrine to be kept in "reserve,' and only to be taught to the faithful, amid the esoteric mysteries of their, so called, Christian faith.

"The

With respect to the invocation of saints, Tract 71 speaks thus:"When it is said that the saints cannot hear our prayers, unless God reveals them to them, we are certainly using an unreal, because an unscriptural argument.' Mr. Newman says, in Tract 90, practice, not the theory, of the invocation of saints, should be considered in reference to the Church of Rome:" meaning, that it is only the grosser excesses of practice that amount to idolatry. Again, says Mr. Newman, "The Tridentine decree declares, that it is good and useful suppliantly to invoke the saints:" quoting it, apparently, as an example for imitation.

In the sixth place, worship of images. "The words of the Tridentine decree," says Mr. Newman, "that the images of Christ and the blessed Virgin, and the other saints, should receive due honour and veneration,' go to the very verge of what could be received by the cautious Christian, though possibly admitting of a honest interpretation." And again, says the same writer, "There was a primitive doctrine on all these points, so widely received and so respectably supported, that it may be well entertained as a matter of opinion by every theologian

now.

Let us turn to the marriage or celibacy of the clergy. "That the Church has power," says Mr. Newman, "to oblige the clergy either to marriage or to celibacy, would seem to be involved in the doctrine of the Homilies." "As far as clerical celibacy is a duty, it is grounded, not on God's law, but on the Church's rule." I believe that their benefices and their wives are, with not a few of the Tractarians, the sole obstructions to visible union with Rome.

Again: "The age is moving towards something; and most unhappily," says Mr. Newman, in his Letter to Dr. Jelf, "the one religious communion which has of late years been practically in possession of that something, is the Church of Rome. She alone, amid all the errors and the evils of her practical system, has given free scope to the feelings of awe, reverence, tenderness, devoutness, and other feelings, which may be especially called Catholic." And, says The British Critic, for July, 1841, "WE TRUST that active and visible union with the See of Rome is not of the ESSENCE of a Church,"-as much as to say, we believe it to be highly conducive to the well-being of a Church, but we trust it is not absolutely essential; "at the same

time we are deeply conscious, that in lacking it, far from asserting a right, we forego a great privilege. We are estranged from her in presence, not in heart." This is as true a statement as Mr. Newman ever uttered. "The great object thus momentous," continues the same British Critic, "is the UNPROTESTANTISING of the national Church." And again, says the same writer, "We must go backward or forward, and it will surely be the latter; as we go, we must recede more and more from the principles, if any such there be, of the English Reformation." I believe, that this is one of the most sensible, but one of the most ominous remarks, ever made by the party. I fear, a disastrous majority of the clergy of a Church, once distinguished by its scholarship, illustrious for its martyrs, venerable for its liturgy, and many a day (as I believe) for its primitive and apostolic piety, are at this moment in such a position, that they must either go onward and land in the arms of the Roman Catholic Church, or they must retrace the steps they have taken, eat up the propositions they have announced, and cling to the ancient, scriptural, and evangelical religion,-just such as is preached in Surrey Chapel, and which, I trust, will be long the glory of English Dissenters and Scottish "Samaritans," whom, however, the Tractarians have consigned to the uncovenanted mercies of God. "The Reformation, that deplorable schism." "The Reformation is the scandalous and cryingly sinful schism of the sixteenth century.' "As to the Reformers, I think worse and worse of them." "Jewel was an irreverent Dissenter."

You have heard how they speak of the Church of Rome; speaking of her in almost sensual terms, as their dear mother; longing for active and visible union and communion with her, and grieving that they are severed from that centre of unity. Now hear how they speak of Dissenters. I quote from Mr. Palmer, whose zeal for Rome, and antipathy to Episcopal as well as Presbyterian Protestantism, is perfectly glowing. "The very breath of the Protestantism of Dissenters has something sulphureous in it, and is full of self-assumption and pride." So well have they learned the spirit of cursing, distinctive of the Church of Rome, that Mr. Palmer says, "Anathema to Pro testantism." "We firmly believe," says The British Critic, "that the very tone of thought of Protestantism is essentially antichristian. Again: "Protestantism is, in all its bearings, the religion of corrupt human nature."

Contrast with this the way in which they speak in Tract 71, of "the majesty of the Chair of St. Peter," and "Rome's high gifts, and strong claims to our admiration, love, and gratitude." They say, "We sigh to be one again with her." Mr. Newman says, that she alone has, of late years, been practically in possession of the deep and true; and we must at present, for want of assimilation to her, he adds, speaking of the Anglican Church, "work in chains." Dr. Pusey says, "We are a living, though a torn member of the one, true, Caholic. and Apostolic body." Already," he observes again, earnest has been given; and the almost electrical rapidity with which these principles are confessedly passing from one breast to another, and from one end of England to another, the sympathy which they find in the sister or daughter Churches of Scotland and America, might well make men suspect that there is more than human agency

66

66

an