ral.

"Among the sects (he says) which still are, or have been, there is not any more pernicious to the church, than that of the Leonists-and this for three reasons:-The first is, because it is older; for some say it hath endured from the time of Pope Sylvester-others, from the time of the Apostles. The second is, because it is more general; for there is scarce any country, where this sect is not;-Thirdly, because when all sects beget horror in the hearers, by the outrageousness of their blasphemies against God, this of the Leonists hath a great show of piety; because they live justly before men, and believe all things rightly concerning God, and all the articles which are contained in the creed; only they blaspheme the church of Rome, and the clergy, whom the multitude of the laity is easy to believe." Chap. ivth, against heretics.

Thuanus the historian says,(see book vi. sec. 15.)-" The fixed opinions of the Waldenses were said to be these.-That the church of Rome, because she hath renounced the true faith of Christ, is the whore of Babylon, &c.—therefore we must by no means obey the Pope, nor the Bishops who cherish his errors; that the monastic life is the sink of the church, its vows are vain; the fire of purgatory, the sacrifice of mass, the worship of saints, and propitiations for the dead, are inventions of Satan."

So also Mazery says of these heretics, "avoient a peu prés mesmes opinions que ceux qu'on nomme au jourd'huy Calvinistes." "They had almost the same opinions as those who are now called Calvinists." Let it be remembered that all these are Roman Catholic authors-and to say the least, have not given too much age, or honour, to these heretics.

How far this throws the Protestant system of opinions back be

of the strictures determine-300 years before that date, this people. were in the height of their influence, and were so numerous that it is related by the same Thuanus, that a war, like that against the Saracens, was waged against them; and Mede computed the slaughter of one crusade against them, under the Pope's pious care and tender mercies, as amounting to one million!

And another writer just quoted, carries these principles and people back to Pope Sylvester, in the 4th century-relating a rumour, at the same time, of their being coeval with the apostles!

He adds, also, his testimony to their good character, to their numbers and their antiquity.

Without enlarging on this point, we think it very plain, Papists themselves being judges, that for ages before the Reformation, the principles of the Evangelical Protestants of the present day, were abundantly held; and by people of the best character.

2. My second remark is, that if, instead of ascending you descend, the church of Rome is not the oldest church, and therefore, on her own principles, not the true church.

The Jewish church, for example, was an older church; was older than any other church professing to come from God. This was, without contradiction, once a true church of God; it was the original church of God, having all the essential marks of a church, and without a rival, the oldest.

-Hence do the Jews use this very argument against Christians, (against the Papists themselves,) that as theirs was the oldest church, it was the only true church of Godand therefore the Christian church was heretical, and its author an impostor.

They contend "that in Moses, and still earlier, in Abraham, the true God established the true

church—that its antiquity was as supreme, as its institutions and standards were true; that it was promised that in the seed of Abraham, all the nations of the earth should be blessed-that the moral law was given as a perfect rule of duty-that their sacrifices (masses?) and purifications, were a real atonement for sin; that men could not be saved out of their churchand therefore the promised bless ing to the nations of the earth, in Abraham's seed, was conversion to Judaism.-Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved."

Yet God did cast off the Jewish church, and it is now in ruins. (See Romans, xith chap. from 1st to 25th.) Such is the commentary of an inspired Apostle on this subject. Does he not clearly prove, that the Jewish was the true church of God once, and long before the Roman church had, or even professes to have had, a being?—That it was the oldest church of God, the natural branches of his own Olive tree?-and that it was broken off when the Gentiles were grafted in? So that, while God has had a church in the world at least from the days of Abraham, and his church is essentially one, in the various changes and dispensations that occur, yet one whole system of administration has been laid aside, (and that the oldest) and a new one adopted in its stead.

If then the Roman church rests its claims on its antiquity, merely, or in any measure, it cannot be the true church. Again, if we look to the Christian era, the Roman church is not the oldest among those called Christian.

The church at Jerusalem was established before the church at Rome. This is not denied; and here it is confessed that Peter, the professed head of the Roman church, did aid in planting a church, a true church; and under the Christian dispensation! Whereas,

we have no proof that Peter ever was at Rome. Why then, if age is the mark, was not this the true church? If age is the test, it must be so-and the church of Rome is therefore herself, heretical. The same may be said of several other churches planted in the East.And how remarkable that Peter, in writing (see 1 Peter, i. 1,) to the various branches of the Christian church, should address those in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bythinia, and not once name the church of Romer

It being then incontrovertible, that the church of Rome was not the most ancient of those established by the Apostles, or by Peter, the claim of antiquity must fall to the ground.

In the next place, we remark that even if the church originally planted at Rome, had been the mother church, and as the oldest, the true church--the present church of Rome is not that church. Such have been its corruptions-in doctrine, in worship, in government, and in life-that it has no claim to be considered its true successor, and is virtually unchurched.

We refer in proof of this to the close of these remarks, under the head of Difficulties. But it may here be proper to mention a few things by way of example-Thus, Auricular Confession is as young as Innocent the 3d-say, 1215.Boniface the 3d was the first universal bishop, hundreds of years after the church was established at Rome! Transubstantiation was not publickly enacted until 1216.Marriage was first prohibited about 1070-the communion administered to the laity, in one kind, not until the Council of Constance, only about three centuries ago. Chrism was brought in by Hygenus; and in a word, the history of the church of Rome is a history of innovation; and it is less like the primitive church, on which it charges its corruptions, than a

child ever was to its professed parent; and, though it retain the fragments of a former day of truth and glory, it is itself a new,.an altered church

"Stat nominis umbra!"

Finally, we remark on this head, that even Papists themselves allow those principles, on which rest the evidence of a true church among Protestants.

Tertullian, whom they claim, says, "Heretics are not to be convinced by their novelty, but by the truth. Whatsoever savoureth against the truth is heresy, be it never so ancient."-Apol. con. gens.

Panormitane, their great Canonist says, "wherever good Christians be, there is the church of Rome," that is, the true church: and again, "with one only believer, though a woman, true faith may be resident;"-and he refers to the Virgin Mary during the interval between Christ's death and resurrection; and he says the church is proved, not only to have being, but to have well-being. "Si remanet vera fides in uno solo"-"if true faith remains in one alone!" Another old book says, that while Christ was in the grave, and the Apostles had denied him and fled, "Christ, that is the true faith, dwelt in the blessed Virgin, alone." Now, we hold that the true church has existed, and does now exist, and will to the end of time; that at last it will fill and rule (not temporally and despotically, but spiritually,) the world; but that numbers do not constitute the true church; that, as in the days of Elijah, so afterwards, the church might have been reduced to a few persons. After Christ's resurrection, how small was it? An upper chamber held its sacred flock! But was it not the true church? Afterwards, before the church at Rome was known to be planted, the church at Jerusalem

(see Acts, 1st chapter,) elected an Apostle, at Peter's instance, (surely he was not their Pope); and by the approval of the Apostles and Elders, &c. &c. (see Acts, xv. 6. 32.) an epistle was sent by the church at Jerusalem to the church at Antioch, (see Acts, xiii. 1.) containing instructions as to the will of God. Here then was a true church, though small; and it was not the church of Rome. If the church of Rome then existed, why was it not the only true church; if it did then exist, which none will, I suppose, contend, then the Apostles, with Peter, (the claimed Pope) passed acts, and sent an embassy to a church at Antioch, without consulting the church at Rome! Are the claims of the Papists, to exclusive antiquity and rights, credible, in view of these facts?

Now, the church at Jerusalem was a specimen of what we suppose to be a true church, in every age: they had the word, and ministers, sacraments, members, ordinances, character, &c., of the church, with Christ for its head. Such a church has existed ever since, and is found, we suppose, extensively through the world; and may now be in the bosom of the church of Rome, in spite of all her corruptions. So charity, which hopeth all things, unfeignedly hopeth.

But it is time we had passed to other subjects.

The next in order we notice, is the difficulty raised by the writer, against Protestants, for want of unity. He says, "What is meant by the Protestant Church? What is a Bible-Christian? Arians, Socinians, Unitarians, Southcotians, Muggletonians, Hullsensonians, Brownists, Baxterians, Quakers, Moravians, Puritans, Independents, Presbyterians, Shakers, Episcopalians, Jumpers-and hundreds of other sects, have all protested against the corruptions of the church of Rome-they all profess

to take the Bible for their only rule of faith? Are they all Bible-Christians?" The author begs the question, in setting out on his crusade against this herd of poor Protestants. He gives his own construction of "the church," and then applies it to the case at issue between him and Protestants. If, as he supposes, the church of Christ must, to be true, be under one visible head, and in one visible fold, then we ask, which one of the many claimants is the true one? for to that we must flock, and believe in it alone. But we deny this. He assumes it without proof. We say, that many of these sects mentioned by him are very corrupt. But not like him do we class Episcopalians, and Puritans, and Independents, and Moravians, and Methodists, and Presbyterians, &c.with Shakers, and Jumpers, Socinians, &c. We say that the church of Christ is visible, is catholic, is universal, and consists of all those throughout the world, that profess the true religion, together with their children. Whereas, the papists hold, in addition to this, that it must all be under one visible, human head-and that that head is the Pope. "We owe an entire obedience to his decrees and orders, in all things relating to religion." (Bishop Hay's Abridged Christian Doct., page 31.)

Now, it is quite apparent, even admitting this definition to be just, that the early churches, (as stated above,) could not have had such a head. The church at Jerusalem, was a true church. Who was its head? Not Peter. Though Peter mingled with the Apostles, Paul had to withstand him to the face; and he put down his error and set him right!-see Galatians, ii. 11. Rome had yet no church, and of course no head. Then the church at Jerusalem, the primitive and apostolical, was not a true church: and yet it is called by the fathers,

the "Mother-Church; and the Mother of all the churches."

It is also clear from indisputable facts, that no universal, earthly head was acknowledged, until several ages after the days of the Apostles.-Of course, according to the definition, there was no true church during this time.

Now, the scriptures speak of Christ as the head of his church, and the only head.-"We are to call no man Master, or Lord; for we are all brethren." There is one fold, and one Shepherd; and that is Christ. There are under-shepherds, but they are many-not one. Peter speaks of himself as one of the under-shepherds, holding office under the Chief-Shepherd; and the flock of God he represents as one, in and under God alone. We, as Christians, hold, that there is such unity in the church as Christ prayed for in the 17th chapter of John: we suppose all his people, though not of this or that particular fold, have one sheep-fold, and one Shepherd, in essential things-that they are one in spirit, one in fundamental faith, one in union by faith, (spiritual union,) to a common, but that a divine head-one in having a common father, a common image of that father, and a common, eter nal home. But of a union that may be called politico-religiousunder a Pope, a vicegerent of God, there is no mention in the word of God: no direction as to the founding of the Christian church after such a model; and it did not begin to be claimed by any man, or any church, until ages after the resur rection of our Lord. And yet the early churches, at Jerusalem, Antioch, and in Ásia generally, also in divers parts of Europe, primitive, were model, yea, in certain respects, mother-churches!

were

The fathers also make it a spiritual union alone. Tertullian says, (in his Praescript, chap. 20.) "Therefore, such, and so many

churches, are but the same with the first Apostolical one, from which all are derived; thus they become all first-all Apostolicalwhilst they maintain the same unity; whilst there are, a communion of peace, names of brotherhood, and contributions of hospitality among them; the rights of which are kept up by no other means (no inquisition here) but the one tradition of the same mystery."

Clemens Alexandrinus says,(Strom. vii. p. 549.) "The ancient and Catholic church, doth unite and combine altogether, all those who are before ordained, whom God hath predestinated, as knowing that they would be just persons, before the foundation of the world:"-and again, “The church is a people gathered together out of Jews and Gentiles, into one faith, by the giving of the testaments, fitted into unity of faith."

So do the fathers at large agree, that it is a spiritual and not a temporal and visible union: the union of principle and love, not forced uniformity, and a surrendered conscience, to believe whatever others dictate.

But still farther-if the union claimed by the Roman church, be a test of the true church, then she has lacked it, egregiously herself. In reference to degree of unity, I appeal to matters of fact when I say, that the Greek church, which is at least as pure as the church of Rome, has been less divided than the church of Rome; and it is no less true of the Ethiopic churches than of the Greek. In the bosom of the church of Rome, what frequent, and great divisions have there been? About nine Popes, one after another, in the 10th century, may afford a specimen. Stephen repealed the decrees of Formosus; and even took up his dead body, cut off two fingers of his right hand in derision and rage, and buried him again.-Then Romanus, Theodorus 2d, and John Ch. Adv.-VOL. X.

10th, confirmed the decrees of Formosus, reversing, of course, those of Stephen. Then Sergius, who disannulled their acts in turn, took up the body of Formosus, cut off his head, and threw his body into the Tiber! Now, is this unity? and who was the true Pope? who was right, and who is to be followed?

Pope Urban and Pope Clement had a civil war; fought many battles, and slew many thousandsfighting for peace! Clement the 5th reversed the acts of Boniface 8th. Benedict reversed the acts of the same Boniface; and he all the decrees of Calestinus-and John 2d, the decrees of Gregory 10th.Here let the definition already given, be borne in mind, viz. "that we owe entire obedience to the decrees and orders of the Pope, in all things relating to religion;" and let it also be remembered that the Jesuits contend that the decrees of the Popes agree one with another. But still farther-there were once three Popes at the same time—and if we are not mistaken, a woman was once Pope! And the question is not settled among themselves, whether the Pope shall be subject to the councils, or the councils to the Pope. The councils of Basle and Constance decreed the former; and their decisions were afterwards reversed, by other councils.

This becomes the more clear, when this disunion is seen to relate to the most important points of order and doctrine-as, for example, to the question whether the Pope or general council be head; to divorce; to the marks of the true church; the nature of Christ, &c. &c. &c.

And who has not heard of the bitter contests of the Scotists and Thomists-of the Dominicans and Franciscans, and their fearful conflicts, terminating in burning four of the former for heresy, at Berne? Did not the spirit of party, again and again, rend and agitate the

2 Y