an inferior state, that for this very reason, as the readiest, safest, simplest solution of their difficulties, not surely the fairest, but the readiest, as cutting the knot and extricating them at once from their position, they have pronounced Romanism to be the Antichrist; I say, for the very reason that so much may be said for it, that it is so difficult to refute, so subtle and crafty, so seductive,-properties which are tokens of the hateful and fearful deceiver who is to come1. Of course I do not mean to say that this perplexing aspect of Romanism has originally brought upon it the stigma under consideration; but that it has served to induce, people indolently to acquiesce in it without examination.

In these remarks, I have appealed to the common opinion of the world; which is altogether confirmed when we come actually to compare together the doctrinal articles of our own and of the Roman faith. In both systems the same Creeds are acknowledged. Among other points in common we both hold, that certain doctrines are necessary to be believed for salvation; we both believe in the doctrines of the Trinity, Incarnation, and Atonement; in original sin; in the necessity of regeneration; in the supernatural grace of the Sacraments; in the Apostolical succession; in the obli

1

Vide Mr. Bickersteth on Popery, ed. 5, pp. 17—20, 52.

gation of faith and obedience, and the eternity of future punishment. 97dfab

કે

'In conclusion I would observe, that I have been speaking of Romanism, not as an existing political sect among us, but considered in itself, in its abstract system, and in a state of quiescence. Viewed indeed in action, and as realized in its present partizans, it is but one out of the many denominations which are the disgrace of our age and country. In temper and conduct it does but resemble that unruly Protestantism which lies on our other side, and it bears without reluctance to be allied and to act with it towards the overthrow of a purer religion. But herein is the difference of the one extreme from the other; the political Romanist of the day becomes such in spite of his fundamental principles, the political Protestant in accordance with his. The best Dissenter is he who is least of a Dissenter; the best Roman Catholic is he who comes nearest to a Catholic. The reproach of the present Romanists is that they are inconsistent; and it is a reproach which is popularly felt to be just. They are confessedly unlike the loyal men who rallied round the throne of our first Charles, or who fought, however ill-advisedly, for his exiled descendants. The particular nature of this inconsistency will be discussed in some following Lectures; meanwhile I have here considered Roman

1

ism in its abstract professions for two reasons. First, I would willingly believe, that in spite of the violence and rancour of its public supporters, there are many individuals in their communion of gentle, affectionate, and deeply religious minds; and such a belief is justified when we find that the necessary difference between us and them is not one of essential principle, that it is the difference merely of superstition from religion, not of unbelief from religion. Next, I have insisted upon it, by way of showing what must be the nature of their Reformation, if in God's merciful counsels a Reformation awaits them. It will be far more a reform of their popular usages and opinions, and ecclesiastical policy, or a destruction of what is commonly called Popery, than of their abstract principles and maxims. On the other hand, let it not be supposed because I have spoken without sympathy for popular Protestantism in the abstract, that this is all one with being harsh towards individuals professing it; far from it. The worse their creed the more sympathy is due to their persons; chiefly to those, for they most demand and will most patiently suffer it, who least concur in their own doctrine, and are held by it in an unwilling captivity. Would that they would be taught that their religion, whatever it is, never can satisfy their souls, and does not admit of reform, but must come to nought. Would that they could be persuaded to transfer their misplaced and most unrequited affection from the systems of men to the

One Holy Spouse of Christ, the Church Catholic, which in this country manifests herself in the Church commonly so called as her representative! Nor need we despair that as regards many of them this wish may yet be fulfilled.

LECTURE II.

ON ROMANISM AS NEGLECTFUL OF ANTIQUITY.

WE differ from the Romanists, as I have said, more in our view of historical facts than in principles; but in saying this, I am speaking, not of their actual system, nor of their actual mode of defending it, but of their professions, professions, which in their mouths are mere professions, while they are truths in ours. The principles, professed by both parties, are at once the foundation of our own theology, and what is called an argumentum ad hominem against theirs. They profess to appeal to primitive Christianity; we honestly take their ground, as holding it ourselves; but when the controversy grows animated, and descends into details, they suddenly leave it and desire to finish the dispute on some other field. In like manner in their teaching and acting, they begin as if in the name of all the Fathers at once, but will be found in the sequel to prove, teach, and conduct matters