Rome itself seemed, at the commencement of the century, placed at the mercy of a profligate woman, who by her influence seated John X. in the Papal chair. He was soon cut off by the still more profligate daughter of his patroness, who at length succeeded in securing this venal dignity for another Pope of the same name, the fruit of her own illicit intercourse with a preceding vicar of Christ. We ask, dear Sir, with all seriousness, as in the sight of Him to whom you and we and we "must give account," Was this the age, and were these the men to furnish the world with a clearer perception of the designed succession to St. Peter, than could be traced in the Apostolic, or in any intervening age?

Your concession that this centre of Unity has not produced "unmingled good," was perhaps intended to anticipate the kind of observations we have just made: but it is quite insufficient for that purpose. We have taken the precise age to which you refer as the example of your system in its perfection and we have shown that no previous century ever equalled, and we may add that no subsequent century ever exceeded it in religious, moral and intellectual degradation. If then, your previous assumption that this was the pattern age of Roman Primacy be admitted, the conclusion is incontrovertible, that, out of your own mouth, the Papacy stands charged with an enormity of guilt, as a system productive not of the greatest

66

good, but of the greatest evil. No enemy of Rome ever uttered a more severe sarcasm against it, than you have involuntarily done, by holding up the tenth century to the admiration of the world. Speak no more of the Primate as a pilot sent from heaven" to bring to bring men thither, till you can prove that the Pontiffs of your boasted tenth century, the Johns and the Sergiuses, were themselves walking in the way that "leadeth unto life." Proclaim no more "the holy order and discipline " of that church which has created more wars, desolated more provinces, destroyed more lives, and diffused more vice, error and ruin, than any of those mighty empires which have in turn vanquished the world.

Your exaggerated representation of the harmony existing in the Romish Church, gives you the opportunity of adverting, by way of contrast, to the discords of Protestants, and to the unhappy effects which follow them. A few of these misguided men, you represent as getting safely on board the Romish vessel; (p. 20.) " but the most partsome on boards, and some on broken fragments, and some in solitary effort, struggling for lifepresent a sad spectacle of the distress, danger and ruin, which men bring on themselves by contempt of that order and rule, which God himself has sanctioned." The condition in which

us, appears indeed pitiable enough;

it is not so desperate as it seems.

you describe but after all We thank you

for the allusion to St. Paul's shipwreck, and are glad to find, that in the storm you do not deprive us of a plank. We only desire that the comparison may hold to its close, and that at last, though it be some on boards, and some on broken pieces of the ship, yet we may all come safe to land." This is, we are sure, more than you can say of the entire crew of your gallant vessel.

66

Yet do not imagine that we are in love with divisions, or glory in them as advantages, or cease to pray for their removal. for their removal. And we believe that our prayer shall be heard; but not as you suppose, by our return to Rome. To a salutary union, truth is indispensable. God forbid that we should unite ourselves with a church whose creed is whose power is usurpation, whose government is tyranny, and whose end is destruction. There is, you know, at least one solemn command for separation, in the oracles of God: "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.' Union with such a head and such a body we utterly disclaim.

error,

We would not however, shrink from a consideration of the comparison at which you have hinted; and we are prepared to prove by a mass of evidence which cannot be overborne, that there is more true union among Christian Protestants than

*Rev. xviii. 4.

there now is, or ever has been among Romanists. You once thought as we do: and though you have changed your opinions, you have not destroyed your arguments. We will therefore, quote from a Sermon published by you, fifteen years ago, some reasoning more convincing, in our judgment, than any contained in your recent publication; and if in your words, we repeat any sentiments previously delivered in these pages, we shall only be the more glad to find our own positions confirmed by your former reasonings. Having referred to several passages in the New Testament, (Eph. iv. 4, 5; Col. i. 18; ii. 18, 19.) you proceed: "In these and many other passages one Head of the church and one only is spoken of, i.e. Christ, and there is not the slightest reference to any other. Surely it is, to say the least, singular if such a visible head existed as the Pope, designed by Christ to fulfil such an office in the church as to preside over it, that no reference should be made to him in those epistles, which as the church of Rome herself admits, were written to instruct men in the things which regard their salvation. It is most remarkable, that not one Apostle, in his letters, should ever refer to, or remotely hint at the existence of such an authority even in passages which naturally and almost necessarily led him to mention it. St. Paul, speaking of the church of Christ says, 'Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. And God

hath set some in the church; first, apostles; secondly, prophets; thirdly, teachers; after that, miracles: '* compare with which a parallel passage, 'He gave some apostles, and some prophets,' &c. It is extraordinary indeed, that in enumerating the overseers and instructors of the church, the Apostle should totally omit all mention of that authority which, if the Romanists are right, had been given by Christ and set in the church to be his own representative on earth, the chief overseer and ruler of bishops and pastors, the head of his body the church, and the recognition of whom is now held to be, and must ever have been, on their showing, essential to salvation. I call upon any Roman Catholic to produce one single passage from the Epistles of the New Testament which will admit of fair reference to any such supreme authority or visible head of the church as the Pope or Bishop of Rome, or of any other city. And this silence of these inspired writings speaks volumes against the divine right of supremacy claimed by the Popes.”‡

Thus speaks the Mr. Sibthorp of 1827; little did he then imagine that Mr. Sibthorp of 1842, would meet him with such a reply to this reasoning as the following. St. Paul knew nothing about the primacy; how should he? It was not fully developed till the ninth and tenth centuries. And

* 1 Cor. xii. 27.

+ Ephes. iv. 11—13. Sibthorp's Character and Tokens, p. 13.

E