proclaim, and will proceed to examine the ground on which they are made. We must, at the outset, carefully guard ourselves by the distinction between the Roman Catholic religion, as one form of Christianity believed in and practised by the great majority of the inhabitants of Europe; and the papal system founded on that religion, and evolved from it into a corporation of a mixed hierarchical, political, and military power. As we claim for ourselves perfect freedom of thought and judgment in these discussions, we invite the lay members of the Roman church to exercise the same in the analysis of our propositions, and we desire to enter into calm discussion with them on the reasons for the faith that is in them. With respect to the claims of pre-eminence and infallibility, put forward by the Bishop of Rome and his priestly orders all over the world, we will not hesitate to question them, and expose the pretensions of the episcopal banner, that symbol of the agglomerated powers which issue mandates from an Italian city, or fortress, or convent, or palace, to suppress thought among men of all nations and tongues.

The demand made by the bishops of Rome on the credulity and faith of mankind is, to be acknowledged and obeyed as the successors of Saint Peter and the representatives on earth of Jesus Christ, with the power of the keys to bind and loose on earth and in heaven. These extravagant claims are acknowledged by their priests and followers. By the creed of the bishop, surnamed Pius IV., concocted after the Reformation in the sixteenth century, prelates and priests most solemnly swear "I acknowledge the holy Catholic and apostolic church as the mother and mistress of all churches, and I promise to swear true obedience to the Roman

L

Pontiff, the successor of blessed Peter, prince of the apostles, and the vicar of Jesus Christ."

In the apostolic letters of English popish bishops in the present day, addressed to the clergy and laity, "the bishop of Rome is acknowledged as the lawful successor of Saint Peter, inheriting from that holy apostle the same divine commission which was given to him by the Supreme Pastor of feeding, governing, and directing the whole flock of Christ." In an address sent to the Bishop of Rome early in 1851, by the laity of the archdiocese of Westminster, there are the following expressions, conveying Asiatic sentiments of prostration at the feet of a fellow mortal :-" We, the laity of the archdiocese of Westminster and Southwark, prostrate at the feet of your Holiness, beg your Holiness to accept the expression of our profound veneration, and dutiful attachment to the Holy See." If the men who signed the document, of which the above is an extract, were of genuine Anglo-Saxon blood, the fact proves the debasing influence of the papal system over the spirits of men; for it sounds very strange to hear men of that race falling prostrate at the feet of a foreign priest. Let Englishmen think of this, and also of the demand made by that foreign priest, for his foot to be kissed by his humble followers who approach his person. This debasing ceremony was plagiarized by the bishops of Rome from Caligula, one of the greatest of the imperial monsters of pagan Rome, and it is recorded that a general indignation was felt by the people to see themselves reduced to such a degradation. +

* The Tablet newspaper of 8th March, 1851.

+ "A Letter from Rome," by Conyers Middleton, D.D. Republished by Grant and Griffith, St. Paul's Churchyard, in 1847.

The pretensions thus made by the bishops of Rome are so extraordinary, and are so tremendous in their consequences to society, as to demand the deepest attention and the most searching inquiry of thoughtful lay members of the Roman church. The world is weary of shams and false pretences, and will not now take things for granted, or accept men merely on their own unsupported word. Mere assumption of authority is vain, and traditions are in most things worn out. No man of sense, and of independent intellect, approaching this question of Roman episcopal pretension, will believe the assertion of the head bishop and his conclave of cardinals, that the chief bishop is the ecclesiastical descendant of Peter the fisherman, and the apostle and vicar of Jesus Christ. Three facts, as the foundation stones of the claims of the bishops of Rome, must be clearly proved for the support of those claims. These facts are:

First. That the power of the keys, of whatever nature it consisted, was given to Peter, and that he was constituted vicar of Christ.

Second. That the divine power, as expressed in "THE KEYS," was possessed by Peter, and was vested in his successors.

Third. That Peter appointed that successive bishops of Rome should be the vicars of Christ, possessing the same divine power conferred on himself.

If it can be proved that Peter was constituted vicar of Christ, with authority to appoint his successor, what proof is there that he nominated the bishops of Rome, when there is no evidence whatever from the Scriptures that he ever was at Rome?

When our Saviour made the memorable announcement to Peter and the rest of the apostles, to which the bishops of Rome give such an exclusive interpre

tation, it was at a deeply-interesting period of his career previous to his transfiguration, and to finish the great work that brought Him into the world. His communications to his apostles were earnest in unfolding to them the nature and object of his sufferings, and He occasionally charged them to tell no man that He was the Christ. It was in one of those confidential communications that Peter received that severe rebuke for his rashness in speaking to restrain his divine Master from going to Jerusalem and suffering many things.

In order to see at a glance the very words of the historical passage on which the bishops of Rome rest their claims to the possession of a power so extraordinary, we bring in juxtaposition the accounts given by Matthew and Mark; and we copy from the Douay English version of the Bible, published in 1845, with the approbation of the Roman Catholic archbishop and primate of all Ireland.

Matthew xvi. 13-24.-" And Jesus came into the quarters of Cesarea Philippi; and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of Man is? But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets. Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon BarJona; because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That

Mark viii. 27-34.-And Jesus went out, and his disciples, into the towns of Cæsarea Philippi; and in the way he asked his disciples, saying to them: Whom do men say that I am? Who answered him, saying: John the Baptist; but some Elias, and others as one of the prophets. Then he saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? Peter answering, said to him: Thou art the Christ. And he strictly charged them that they should not tell any man of him.

And he began to teach them, that the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the ancients, and

Luke, in narrating the interesting event, says nothing of the delivery of the keys to Peter, and abstains from recording the rebuke which Peter received on his rash

*The Douay English Version. Matthew xvi. 13-24.

+ Douay English Version of the Gospels. Mark viii. 27–34.