Is Popery increasing in this country? Is there any danger of its regaining ascendency among us? These are questions which, during the last few years, have been often answered in the affirmative, and often in the negative, without adequate attention either to the facts and principles which are most conducive to the spread of the Romish delusion, or to those which are best adapted to check it. Respondents who have taken an alarming view of our prospects, and those who have taken a tranquillizing one, have both confined their thoughts too much to the aggressive measures of professed Romanists, and the means of repelling them. Whether the extension of civil rights, to the professors of Popery, has a tendency to attach them to their religious system, or to win them to the equitable principles of Christian policy; whether the number of their chapels recently erected has been greater than might be accounted for by the general increase of population, and by immigration from Ireland; whether any of the Continental sovereigns have been secretly placing large sums of money at the disposal of Rome to promote its designs upon Britain; these, and similar inquiries, have had too much influence on the decision. As in the days of our Lord, the Jews who were discussing the probable approach of the kingdom of heaven, did not discern it, while eagerly listening to one who cried Lo here! and to another who cried Lo there! so the greater part of those who have been looking out for the triumphs of Romanism, have been misdirecting their attention. Popery has been growing up with unsuspected rapidity in the very quarters in which the most determined opposition has been made to the civil liberty of avowed Ro

VOL. I.-FOURTH SERIES.

man Catholics. And now it begins to be apparent, that the source of real danger is not in the proselyting zeal of Rome, or Austria, or Ireland, but in the high church opposers of religious freedom. Unperceived, not only by those who slept, but by many who were looking out for foreign invaders, an invisible enemy has been awake and active in the midst of us, for lo! the poisonous weed is flourishing luxuriantly throughout the field.

It is time that all who value liberty of conscience, or evangelical truth, should know, that some of the most eminent men, both in talent and in station, belonging to the National Church, have embraced, and that the most influential publications conducted by the Episcopal clergy, are zealously advocating the essential principles of Popery. Our reference is not merely to such tendencies towards the Roman Catholic system, as might always be traced in the English hierarchy, to the leaven of Popish doctrine contained in the book of Common Prayer, or to ceremonial observances derived from Rome, whether habitual or recently adopted; we refer to a deliberate renunciation of the Reformers of the sixteenth century, and of the principles on which they acted, those principles which have always been supposed to distinguish the Protestant Churches of Europe from the ancient and corrupt Church of which the Bishop of Rome is the head. We believe that the number and rank of the clergymen are by no means insignificant whose views and feelings correspond with those expressed by one recently deceased, who writes, "Really I hate the Reformation and the Reformers more and more.' They do not of course call themselves Papists, or

3 T

66

profess allegiance to the Bishop of Rome, but they say "the very name of Protestantism, cold, and negative, and sceptical as it is, ought to be abolished among us.' The designation which they choose is, "the Anglo-Catholics;" the system they extol is, Anglo-Catholicism; the Church for which they plead is, the Anglican Church;" the " Anglo-Catholic Church," the "Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church." The chosen epithets by which that Church which is connected with the State has been distinguished in the panegyrics of its warmest advocates, are now disclaimed as inadequate to the just expression of its dignity; and the course which has been pursued by its guides and patrons is condemned as tame and grovelling. "The Church," says the Quarterly Review, "is once more beginning to organize her powers, and rise up to the fulness of her stature.' "The English people," says the British Critic, in a number which has issued from the press within the last few days, "have had all along the privilege of the Church's presence among them, but their governors have done their best to hide her characteristic badges. At no time, indeed, could they really rob her of what was part of herself, the stamp of features, and the royal stature which her Maker gave her; but they have kept her out of the light, that she might not be seen, or have put tawdry or homely attire upon her, that she might not attract attention. They have shut her up within walls, that, if so be, she might cease to be 'Catholic;' have made her eat and drink with sectaries, that she might forget her 'Apostolic' birth; and, as she could not appear 'Holy' while she suffered the latter indignity, neither could she seem 'One' while she suffered the former. Indignity indeed has seldom been added, they knew she was too dear to the nation to admit safely of such experiments upon her, so they gave her golden chains, and fed her, not with bread and water of affliction, but in kings' palaces, and at kings' tables. However, any how, they hid her divine tokens, and in their stead they gave her some of their own special devising. For 'One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, they have substituted National,' or 'by law established,' and with this spell they have thought, nay, even still think, to work for her those miracles which her divine gifts accomplished of yore. She is, it seems, in the judgment of the day,

not the Catholic Church,' but the mere 'Church of England,' or the national religion,' or 'the religion of the majority,' and hence it has sometimes happened, that even divines, who held the doctrine of the Apostolical succession, have deemed fit to hold it only in their closets, as true indeed, but not an influential or practical truth-a truth which little concerned the multitude, which had no charm in it, which the many could not understand, which was no topic for the pulpit; in short, not as a 'Note of the Church:' and in place of Catholic and Holy, they have substituted ́our venerable establishment,' 'part and parcel of the law of the land,'' the National Church,' 'Protestantism,' the glorious memory, Martin Luther,' and 'civil and religious liberty all over the world.' In short, it has taken tavern toasts for the Notes of the Church."

But names and epithets, ceremonies and details of doctrine, are all insignificant in comparison with the fundamental question with regard to the Rule of Faith. Is the rule which the Most High has given for our guidance, the Bible or the Church? That able advocate of Romanism, the late Dr. Milner, Vicar Apostolic, has justly remarked, that on the question respecting the right rule of faith every other depends; and he tells us what the rule of faith is, according to the Romish theory. Having spoken of private inspiration as the rule of some erratic classes, and of the Bible as the rule of the more regular sects of Protestants, he says, "The third rule is the word of God at large, whether written in the Bible or handed down from the Apostles in continued succession by the Catholic Church, and as it is understood and explained by this Church. To speak more accurately, besides their Rule of Faith, which is Scripture and tradition, Catholics acknowledge an unerring judge of controversy, or sure guide in all matters relating to salvation, namely, The Church." Now, with this compare the doctrine of the Rev. W. Palmer, M.A., of Worcester College, Oxford, in a Treatise on the Church of Christ. designed chiefly for the use of students in theology," in two volumes, which is reviewed in the British Critic, just published; and of whom we are told in the critique, that "he has opened the windows which were blocked up, and let in light upon our prison-house, and showed us the fair and rich country which is our

portion by inheritance." He teaches that God has blessed us with a message from him, the Gospel, to teach us how to please him and attain to heaven; he has given us directions what to do. So far all parties, Romanist, Sectarian, and Anglo-Catho.ic agree; but now,' adds the reviewer, 66 comes the turning question, where those directions are, ard what? The Ultra-Protestant says they are in the Bible, in such sort, that any individual taking it up for himself, in a proper spirit, may, by divine blessing, learn thence without external help 'what he must do to be saved.' On the other hand, Mr. Palmer (without of course infringing upon his reverence for the Bible, as God's gracious gift to us, as inspired, and as the record of the whole revealed faith,) maintains, that not the Bible, but the Church is, in matter of fact, our great divinely appointed guide into saving truth, under divine grace, whatever be the abstract power or sufficiency of the Bible. As the Ultra-Protestant would say to an inquirer, Read the Bible for yourself,' so we conceive Mr. Palmer would make him reply,' How can I, except some man should guide me?' He would consider the Church to be practically the pillar and ground of the truth;' an informant given to all people, high and low, that they might not have to wander up and down, and grope in darkness, as they do in a state of nature. Then comes the question at once, where is the Church? we all know where the Bible is; it is a printed book, translated into English; we can buy it and use it; but where are we to find the Church, and what constitutes consulting and hearing it? Thus we are brought to the first subject which engages Mr. Palmer's attention, viz., the Notes of the Church, the criteria by which she is discriminated and known to be God's appointed messerger or prophet."

6

After some illustrative remarks, the reviewer adds, "Such are Mr. Palmer's initial principles, that the Gospel is to be learned by the individual from the Church; and that the Church is to be known by certain Notes or tokens; and that these Notes are of an obvious and popular character. We come next to the question, what these Notes are? and, taking the Creed for his guide, he has no difficulty in answering. Thence he learns that the Church must be One, must be Holy, must be Catholic, and must be Apostolic. These characters he

sets down as her Notes. That existing body, in any country, which bears these marks, he would determine to be that Church, once for all, set up from the beginning, from which Christ has willed that individuals should learn the words of eternal life." With these views the reviewer expresses his concurrence.

In another article of the same number, we find an earnest protest against any such evidences of religion as those which are furnished in the most popular works on the subject, "against any evidences whatever which are to draw off men's minds from the true basis of their belief." And what is the true basis? Testimony and Authority! Against the danger of universal scepticism "there is but one security-Testimony and Authority, and if the Church will consent once more to take its stand here, nothing can shake it." And the degree of enlightenment possessed by the best churchmen, and most suitable for the community, is thus described :

But

"6 The very best of the present race of Christians, even those most attached by habit to the Church, if asked why they believe in its doctrines, will answer, because they are true. And so far there can be no dispute, for no one can believe what he holds to be false. The reason is but another form of the conclusion. It is good for nothing. ask them why they believe it to be true? and of those who are able and willing to give a reason, not one in a hundred would assign the right. The poor ignorant uninstructed peasant will probably come nearest to the answer of the Gospel. He will say, because I have been told so by those who are wiser and better than myself. My parents told me so, and the clergyman of the parish told me so; and I hear the same whenever I go to Church; and I put confidence in these persons, because it is natural that I should trust my superiors. I have never had reason to suspect that they would deceive me. who contradict and abuse them, but they are not such persons as I would wish to follow in any other matter of life, and therefore not in religion. I was born and baptized in the Church, and the Bible tells me to stay in the Church, and obey its teachers; and till I have equal authority for believing that it is not the Church of Christ, as it is the Church of England, I intend to adhere to it.' Now," adds the reviewer, "such reasoning as this will appear to this

I hear of persons