showing a tendency, instead of approximating, to recede; adopting, instead of conciliatory measures, an offensive procedure; cultivating, instead of that holy catholicity, so accordant with the genius of the Gospel, the exclusiveness of Sectarianism, instead of that friendly intercommunion, so becoming in disciples of the same Master, the alienations of prejudice; striving rather to foment discord, than heal divisions, and to prolong separation, than 'keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.'

Our conclusion, then, is, that Sincerity in a profession of Religion is not the whole of what is required. Its absence, indeed, implies, notwithstanding the most pleasing exhibition of what is seemly and graceful in the exterior, the destitution of Christian principle; and, consequently, infers the utter worthlessness both of the character assumed, and of the service rendered. The preceding observations, however, are designed to show, that the mere presence of this quality, or that the possession simply of Sincerity, irrespective of every other consideration, is far from sufficient. The position we have attempted to confirm by a reference to facts, rather than by a process of reasoning. The former are level to vulgar apprehension, and the plainest understanding can perceive their application, and feel their force; whereas, in the latter many might not be disposed so readily to concur. It is, therefore, of importance to ascertain, what it is that constitutes the value of Religious Sincerity; or, what is essential to its acceptableness in the Divine sight. This we reserve as the theme of a few remarks in a succeeding Number. On behalf of our readers we offer up the Apostolic prayer for the Philippians: That ye be sincere, and without offence, until the day of Christ!'

MUTABILITY OF HUMAN ENJOYMENTS.

Y.

How uncertain is the tenure by which we hold our earthly enjoyments! One day, we see a man rolling in affluence, and taking his fill of worldly pleasure; the next, some unforeseen accident deprives him of his possessions, dashes the cup of pleasure from his lips, and reduces him to a state of poverty and misery. Look at that youth. But a few days ago, he was flushed with health, and fired with vigour; his eyes sparkled with joy, his heart danced with gladness, his pulse beat high with expectation, and his cheeks were covered with roses; his bodily powers were uninjured, and his mental faculties were unimpaired; he looked forward to

are

the future with pleasing anticipation—laid his plans for life, and expected to live many years in the enjoyment of domestic happiness, social comfort, and worldly prosperity. Now, alas! his expectations are cut off, his hopes are withered--' nipt in the wind's unkindly blast'-his countenance is emaciated, his nerves enervated, his frame is decaying, the pins of his tabernacle are loosened, a consumption is preying upon his vitals, and death, the skilful archer, is preparing to shoot an arrow at his heart. That female, lying beneath yonder turf, the account of whose hopeless tale is inscribed upon her monument, was once distinguished for the gracefulness of her form, the loveliness of her complexion, the elegance of her manners, and the modesty of her deportment;

once, she was the fond hope of her parents, the joy of her friends, and the rival of her sex. Soon, alas! she was stripped of all her glory-the lovely flower, ah! how soon it faded! Affliction came, and, with it, all its ravages. The shrouded countenance soon wofully changed. Survivors, taking their last look, shrieked, and turned away with horror! The body, 'fearfully and wonderfully made,' soon became an offensive mass of putrefaction. All traces of former beauty vanished. We hastened to pay the last tokens of respect; and, hurrying the lifeless corpse out of our sight, we consigned it in sorrow to the tomb. Behold that illustrious Patriarch -a striking monument of earthly mutability! The greatest man in all the East' is suddenly stripped of his glory, bereaved of his childen, deprived of his wealth, and left a prey to bodily disease, hypocritical censure, and mental anguish! Surely, all flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as a flower of the field; the grass withereth, and the flower thereof fadeth away, but the word of the Lord endureth for ever.'

We live in a changing scene, and are liable to perpetual fluctuation. How often, and how soon, have the faint echoes of renown slept in silence, or been converted into the clamours of obloquy! The same lips, almost with the same breath, cry Hosanna!' and 'Crucify!' Have not riches confessed their notorious treachery a thousand and a thousand times ?-either melting away, like snow in our hands, by insensible degrees; or escaping, like a winged prisoner from its cage, with a precipitate flight. Our friends, though the medicine of life; our health, though the balm of nature, are a most precarious possession. How soon may the first become a corpse in our arms; and how easily is the last destroyed in its vigour ! We have seen the songsters of

the grove, perching on the trees, and sporting in the meadows. We were pleased with the lovely visitants, that brought beauty on their wings, and melody in their songs. But could we ensure the continuance of this agreeable entertainment? No, truly. At the least disturbing noise, at the least terrifying appearance, they start from their seats-they mount the skies, and are gone in an instant, for ever. Would you choose to have a happiness, which bears date with their arrival, and expires at their departure? If you could not be content with a portion enjoyable only through a fortuitous term, not of years, but of moments, O take up with nothing earthly; 'set your affections on things above;' there alone 'is no variableness, or shadow of turning.'-Anon.

TEKEL;

OR,

POPERY WEIGHED IN THE BALANCE, AND FOUND WANTING.

POPERY is a subject which, in the present conjuncture especially, deserves, and should receive, the most serious attention of Protestant Christians. It is not, as some have been disposed to represent it, a matter of mere speculative curiosity, which may be attended to or neglected as we please, but a point of great practical moment, connected with the most vital interests of religion, and the ultimate destinies of the Church. Religious persons, affecting to despise it, have too long sat down and folded their hands in indolent repose, while it has been throwing out its roots and spreading its branches in every direction. The time past, therefore, should more than suffice' for culpable neglect, or criminal indifference, in reference to this all-important subject. All ought to begin forthwith to make themselves acquainted with a system, which aims at nothing less than the subjugation of the globe,

There are two ways of looking at Popery, in order to the forming of a proper judgment regarding it. The one is, looking at its history observing how it originated, and how it grew to its present portentous form and size: the other is, looking at its principles-those elements of doctrine which give its character to the system. The history of Popery is a most interesting and instructive subject of study. Even to a mere philosopher, it must be interesting to trace the progress of a power which, from small beginnings, grew into an empire; spiritual, indeed, in its character, but rivalling, in authority and wealth, in extent and splendour, the empire of the Caesars, and rendered Rome Papal what Rome Pagan

had been-the mistress of the nations, and the metropolis of the world. To a Christian, however, it is an especially interesting, though a painfully interesting exercise, to trace the progress of a corruption, which has so changed the entire system of Christianity, and the whole framework of the Church, as to transform the greatest good into the greatest evil, and turn Heaven's best gift to a sinful world into a universal plague and curse.

But, our present object is simply to look at the system of Popery as it existsto glance at a few of its leading principles, and holding them up in the light of Scripture, to expose their unscriptural and antiscriptural character. In the Popish system, indeed, there is a substratum of truth. The great principles of the Christian system are there. But there is so much error mixed with the truth, so much that is Pagan blended with what is Christian, that the character of the whole is changed; as poison mixed with the purest water, renders the whole mass poisonous. The errors of Popery are of two classes: those which have a reference to GodFather, Son, and Holy Ghost-the Object of worship-the Mediator of sinners, and the Author of Inspiration; and those which have a reference to man, interfering with his intellectual liberty, encouraging cruelty on his person, and doing violence to his nature. We shall, in the present Paper, glance at the first class of erroneous principles, comprehending among others the following: The obscurity and imperfection of Scripture, the invocation of saints and angels, Papal infallibility, transubstantiation and the sacrifice of the mass, and the doctrine of penance and purgatory. These principles we shall present as they are exhibited in the acknowledged creeds of the Church of Rome, more particularly, in the canons of the Council of Trent.

We would, first, call attention to the asserted obscurity and imperfection of Scripture. This is a first principle of Popery, and the prolific source, we may say, of all the absurdities and errors which characterize and disfigure the system. This error was the key which opened the bottomless pit, and allowed that thick smoke of superstitious and idolatrous doctrine to issue, which has covered the face of the Roman earth. According to the Romish Church, the Scriptures are so obscure, that they cannot by themselves be understood, nor with safety perused by a common reader. Thus, in one of those documents called a Papal bull, which the priests subscribe, or make an acknowledgment of, as binding, it is declared that the reading of the Bible by the people in the vulgar tongue is heretical and pernicious. In a bull of Pope Pius VII., too, against the

Bible Society, it is declared, that 'it is evident from experience, that the holy Scriptures, when circulated in the vulgar tongue, have, through the temerity of men, produced more evil than good;' and still further, 'that no version of the Bible in the vulgar tongue, shall be permitted, except such as is approved by the Apostolic See, or published with annotations extracted from the writings of the holy Fathers of the Church.' What a reflection do these statements cast upon God, who gave the Scriptures! They, in fact, just represent Him as setting a spiritual sun in the heavens to give light upon the earth, but that sun shining so uncertainly, that men are under the necessity of using a candle in order to illuminate it.

But the Bible, according to the Roman Catholic Church, is not only obscure, but, as it stands, imperfect. It is not, if we are to believe Popery, a complete revelation of the will of God. Not only are there in it many things which we could not have properly understood without extrinsic aid, but there are wanting in it many things which, without extrinsic aid, we could not have known at all. The Roman Catholic Bible contains a great deal more than the Old and New Testaments. The Catholic rule of faith,' says Dr Milner, a Catholic writer of great authority, in his End of Religious Controversy, is not merely the written Word of God, but the whole Word of God both written and unwritten; in other words, Scripture and Tradition, and these propounded and explained by the Catholic Church. The decree of the Council of Trent on this subject, is in these words: 'That the Synod doth receive with equal veneration all the books of the Old and New Testaments, together with the unwritten tradition belonging both to faith and manners, as proceeding from the mouth of Christ, or dictated by the Holy Ghost; that, among these books, Tobit and Judith, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, Baruch and the Maccabees, together with the parts of Daniel and Esther, ought to be numbered; and that, if any person doth not receive them all as sacred and canonical, let him be accursed.' It may be necessary to explain, that by the unwritten Word of God, is meant those explanations and statements of Christian doctrine, supposed to have been heard from the mouths of the Apostles and other inspired men, and which, handed down by tradition, are found embodied in the writings of the primitive Fathers. So that the works of the Fathers are, by these decrees, placed on a level with Holy Scripture, nay, virtually raised above it; for, says the Creed of Pope Pius IV., to which every priest subscribes, 'you are not to interpret Scripture, unless according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers."

Now, we might say here, in the first place, to what an inconvenient size is the Bible by this means extended, from a small portable volume, which any one can read, to volumes sufficient to make a library, and which would require the labour of a life-time. We might say, secondly, what an uncertainty does this introduce into revelation; for how can we be sure that the Fathers, fallible and erring men, on whose interpretation we are called to depend, never forgot, never misunderstood, nay, never wilfully altered, what they are sup posed to have heard? But, passing these things, we would say, in regard to this subject, to Roman Catholies, what our Lord said in regard to the Pharisees, Ye make the commandments of God of none effect by your tradition.' Tenets, which are not in the Scriptures at all, are introduced from tradition, such as praying for the dead, venerating relics, worshipping images; and tenets, which are taught in Scripture, are neutralized and subverted, such as justification by faith, and regeneration by the influence of the Spirit. And is it nothing to add to the Word of God, and especially in such a way as virtually to nullify it? If, even adding to the one Book of the Apocalypse, is declared to draw after it such a dreadful curse as is recorded, what must adding to the whole Bible do, and adding to it so as to declare it imperfect, and make it void?

But a second distinctive feature of Popery, to which we would call attention, is, the invocation of saints and angels. The Council of Trent requires all Bishops, and others whose office and business it is to teach, that they 'diligently instruct the faithful concerning the intercession and invocation of saints, who, reigning with Christ, do offer up their prayers to God for men; that it is good and profitable, humbly to invocate the saints, and to fly to their prayers for help and assistance for the obtaining blessings from God, through His Son Jesus Christ.' Thus the Council of Trent commands. But it is denied by the advocates of Popery, that what is commanded is idolatry. In Dr Doyle's Catechism of Christian Doctrine, the following question is asked-' Is it lawful to honour the angels and saints?' And the answer is-'It is, with dulia, an interior honour, proportioned to their excellency, which they have from God. It is God we honour in them.' Now, in explanation of this, we remark, that Roman Catholics distinguish worship into two kinds-inferior, which may be rendered to a creature, and which they call dulia; and superior, which is to be rendered exclusively to God, and which they denominate latria.

That, however, we may see what is meant by this worship of dulia, we add the

following prayer addressed to the Virgin Mary, taken from authorized books of devotion, and which may be considered as an example of the prayers addressed to the saints and angels generally. We fly to thy patronage, O holy mother of God. Despise not our petition in our necessities, but obtain our deliverance from all dangers, O ever-glorious and blessed Virgin. Pray for us, O holy mother of God, that we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ. Again, 'O holy Virgin, deign to manifest your generosity towards me, a miserable sinner. If you grant me your aid, can I ever fear? No; I should no longer apprehend either my sins, since you can repair them; or the devils, since you are more powerful than hell; or your Son justly irritated, since one word from you will appease Him. I shall only fear myself, and that forgetting to invoke you, I may be lost. But this will not be the case. I promise you to-day to recur to you in all my wants; and that, during life and at my death, your name and remembrance shall be the delight of my soul.' Again, Hail, holy Queen Mother of mercy, our life, our sweetness, and our hope to thee do we cry, poor banished sons of Eve, to thee we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears: turn then, most gracious advocate, thy eyes of mercy towards us; and, after this our exile ended, show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus, O clement, O pious, O sweet Virgin Mary.'

6

Now, the first remark which naturally occurs after reading these prayers addressed to the Virgin is, if this be inferior worship, we know not what is superior. In what different terms, we ask, could our Lord be addressed? In such prayers, it is supposed, not only that the person addressed is possessed of a species of omniscience and omnipresence, so that she can, at one and the same moment, hear prayers addressed 'from Greenland's icy mountains, and India's coral strand;' but that she can mediate, protect, guide, save. The distinction between inferior and superior worship is a distinction without a difference. But, a second remark we would make is, that such worship as is rendered to saints and angels has no countenance in Scripture. Search the Scriptures from the beginning to the end, and you will not find a prayer addressed to a glorified saint, or holy angel. You never read of a Jew praying to Abraham or Moses; or of a Christian praying to the martyred Stephen or James; and this, we think, should be held decisive. But the Scriptures are not merely silent. The Apostle Paul expressly says, 'let no man beguile you of your reward, in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels.' When, too, the Apostle John, under a feeling of

excessive veneration, fell down at the feet of the angel who showed him what he saw, the angel, rebuking him, said,' See thou do it not, for I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the prophets: worship God.' But a third and last remark we would make is, that if the practice of praying to saints and angels is not idolatry, because there is not offered to them supreme adoration, neither was the worship of the Pagans idolatry. Their gods and goddesses were not regarded by them as supreme deities; but, for the most part, as only deified mortals, holding a position inferior and subordinate to the king of gods and men. The more enlightened, indeed, of the heathen, regarded them precisely in the light in which the Roman Catholics do their canonized saints. The truth is, the Church of Rome vindicates the ancient Pagan worship, by copying it. The names are only changed-the things remain. She has churches dedicated to the saints, as Ancient Rome had to her gods; and altars erected to the wor ship of the one, as Rome had to the worship of the other.

Ac

We would now, in the third place, call attention to another distinctive feature of Popery, namely, the doctrine of Papal infallibility. The doctrine is thus stated by one of the Church of Rome's own authorities: The Church of Rome is infallible in all the definitions concerning faith and manners, that she shall ever make.' So that, according to this doctrine, what she calls truth is truth, and what she pronounces error is error; and this notwithstanding the most incontrover tible deductions of reason, and even the plainest declarations of Scripture. The ques tion, What saith Christ? must yield to the question, What saith the Church? cordingly,' says Dr Milner, I must protest against your right to argue from Scripture, and, of course, must deny that there is any necessity for my replying to any objections which you may draw from it. For I have reminded you that no Scripture is of any private interpretation, and I have proved to you that the whole business of the Scriptures belongs to the Church. She has preserved them, she vouches for them, and she alone, by confronting the several passages with each other, and by the help of tradition, authoritatively explains them: hence it is impossible that the real sense of Scripture should ever be against her and her doctrines; and hence, of course, I might quash every objection which you might draw from any passage in it by this short reply, The Church understands the passage differently from you; therefore you must mistake its meaning.'

But, to expose this claim of Papal infallibility, we have only to call your attention

to the following statements. In the first place, it is impossible to point out where it resides-whether in the Popes, or in a general council, or in the consent of the Fathers. All these different opinions have been held; nor among Roman Catholics is the point yet determined. The truth is, that whatever alternative is taken, Roman Catholics are encompassed with insuperable difficulties; and, surely, the uncertainty with regard to the locality, so to speak, of this asserted infallibility, is a strong presumption against its existence at all. But, in the second place, there is no evidence which can be produced for the infallibility claimed. Such a claim ought certainly to be substantiated by the most unequivocal evidence. But is there such evidence, miraculous or scriptural! We answer, none. There is not miraculous evidence-evidence, at least, which will bear examination. The Church of Rome cannot say truly, regarding her Popes, or members of Councils, as Paul does regarding the New Testament writers, 'God bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to His own will.' Neither is there scriptural evidence. The Scriptures hold forth themselves to be infallible; but they tell of no infallible interpreter of their doctrines to arise among men. The Holy Ghost is the only interpreter promised, and He is promised to all disciples. Besides, to appeal to Scripture evidence in support of Papal infallibility, is to reason in what is called a circle. The Roman Catholics, as we have said, receive the Scriptures on the credit only of the Church: how absurd, then, in support of that credit, to appeal to the Scriptures! But, in the third place, this doctrine of Papal infallibility goes to nullify the prophetical character of Christ. It does this, inasmuch as it requires the Church's consent and approbation to every truth revealed in the Scriptures, before it can be believed. Christ's signature, so to speak, to authenticate a truth, is not sufficient, unless it be also countersigned by the Church. The portentous doctrine of Papal infallibility, says Robert Hall, stamps an entirely new character on the Christian religion, substitutes a new object of faith and dependence, deifies what is human, hides and cancels what is divine, and transfers our allegiance from God to mortals.' But, in a word, this claim of infallibility, set up by the Romish Church, is disproved by fact. The Church of Rome not only may err, but has erred. Infallibility, it is evident, does not admit of diversity of views, still less of contrariety. But, in the Church of Rome, we find Popes contradicting Popes, Councils decreeing contrary to Councils, Fathers teaching doctrines in opposition to Fathers. The

claim of infallibility, in such circumstances, is a fiction.

The fourth point to which we would call attention, is, the doctrine of transubstantiation, and the sacrifice of the mass. As by the doctrine of infallibility, Popery opposes itself to, and exalts itself above, Christ as a Prophet; so, by this doctrine now stated, it does the same in reference to Christ as a Priest. We have mentioned the two together, because they are intimately and inseparably connected, being just two related aspects of the same object, namely, the Lord's Supper. In the Lord's Supper, as dispensed among us, there are two things. There is, first, bread and winethe signs and symbols of the body and blood of Christ, but mere signs and symbols-the bread continuing mere bread, and the wine mere wine: there is, secondly, the giving on the part of the minister, and the eating and the drinking on the part of the people, of the symbolic bread and the symbolic wine; thus both together showing forth the death of Christ, and their interest in that death, 'till He come.' This is with us the whole ordinance-nothing less, nothing more.

But, very different is the Lord's Supper, as administered and received in the Church of Rome. In the first place, it is maintained, that the bread and the wine are, by the consecrating words of a priest, changed into the real body and the real blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; so that nothing remains of the bread and wine but the appearance,-which is called the doctrine of transubstantiation. In the second place, it is maintained, that when the priest, after consecration, elevates or lifts up in his hands the elements, he offers a real sacrifice to God, the sacrifice of Christ-as real as He Himself offered it upon the Cross. This is called the sacrifice of the mass. We shall state both these doctrines in the words of the Council of Trent. In reference to the first, it says, If any shall deny that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, there is contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, but shall say that He is only in it in sign, figure, or power, let Him be accursed.' In reference to the second, it says, 'If any shall say that in the mass there is not offered to God a true and proper sacrifice, but one only of praise and thanksgiving, or a bare commemoration of the sacrifice which was made upon the Cross, or that what is offered is nothing else than that Christ is given us to eat, let him be accursed.' Now, it being evident, we remarked, that the latter of these doctrines is built upon the former, all that is necessary to disprove the doctrine of the mass, is to