it is not with any feeling of despondency-far from it--but it is that we may be stirred up to faith and energy, to watchfulness and prayer. And the times are, my brethren, critical.

The

(1.) Consider, first, the movements of the Roman Catholics themselves in this country. For several years past they have been straining every nerve to advance their system. They have put forth astonishing vigour, and have prosecuted their plans with the utmost perseverance. They have erected chapels, and colleges, and nunneries throughout the kingdom; and though in many places, as I think it were not difficult to show, they have utterly failed of success, still they have an immense machinery at their command. Every possible engine is made use of to compass their designs. The most attractive and subtle advocates are studiously put forward. Every avenue whereby they may gain access is readily taken advantage of. The making converts is never lost sight of. Jesuits expelled, even from Roman Catholic countries, because of their intriguing and dangerous practices, land here in great numbers, and make the country that affords them an hospitable asylum the scene of their proselytizing labours. principles of Romanism are carefully represented as mild, and moderate, and attractive, as if the honied accents of individuals seeking to advance their system were more conclusive than documents uncancelled and acts unrepented of. On the other hand, the statements of those who are not willing to judge of any church by what either friends or foes say, but by what the church herself promulgates, and who, consequently, are dogged enough to have recourse to decrees of councils, and bulls of popes, and authorized books of devotion (which, after all, is the only legitimate way of settling a doctrinal matter of fact), such statements are described, in the liberalism of the day, as antiquated notions, and the offspring of bigotry and uncharitableness. The worst of it is, that many persons calling themselves Protestants take this view of the matter, and appear in the not very consistent position of upholding an individual representation against a

D

documentary proof. All this favours the Romish movement. And now she takes some bold steps in advance. She consecrates her gorgeous cathedrals in the metropolis of England and elsewhere, with bishops from abroad attending the scene, and with ceremonies and sermons calculated to ensnare the unwary and the unstable. Nay, for the first time since the Reformation, the Pope of Rome has not been satisfied simply with appointing bishops for the Roman Catholics in England, but has constituted episcopal sees with titles derived from the territories of Queen Victoria. This is, I think, an act of intolerable assumption. Many other things, too, in their mode of advancing their cause, I look upon as highly reprehensible. But in regard to the general question of effort for the propagation of what they believe to be truth, in that I blame them not. If, as I believe, they are propagating grievous error, they are accountable to "God the judge of all;" but the principle of exertion for the cause of religion is praiseworthy, and I refer to it, not so much to cast reproach on them, as to stimulate you to zeal and activity.

(2.) We may also contemplate our gradual national approximation to Rome of late years. I do not mean a feeling in favour of Romanism as a religious or political system, for, I believe, this great country is Protestant at heart, and that the expectations of the votaries of Rome will be grievously disappointed. But, still, there is much in our national acts calculated to favour their designs. We are desirous of more intimate relations with the Pope, as if he were a mere temporal sovereign, and not one who, by virtue of his spiritual office, claims, to this day, as we have seen, a temporal authority over all states. The titles of Romish prelates are officially acknowledged, and a system of precedence has been established whereby, in our colonies, bishops consecrated in our Church, and appointed to sees founded by the Queen of England in her own possessions, are made to rank after any individual in those colonies whom the Pope of Rome may please to nominate as an archbishop!

The Government of

this country, some time ago, decided upon establishing three provincial colleges in Ireland, which are now in course of erection. I do not enter upon the question as to the soundness or unsoundness of the principles on which they are founded. I merely speak of a matter of fact. The measure has given birth to a violent controversy within the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland-some considering them, in the main, as good institutions, and others, as nurseries of infidelity. Roman Catholic bishops have been ranged on both sides. The stability and success of the colleges is thereby endangered. Now, what is the course pursued by the Government in this difficulty? Is it, assuming that the colleges are proper and needful, and bearing in mind that the principle on which they are founded is that they are open to all, Protestant as well as Roman Catholic, to go on with them as they have begun; or if, because of the prevailing divisions, their success be impracticable, to give them up of their own free accord? By no means. But a negotiation is opened with the Pope, through a Roman Catholic archbishop, submitting to him the amended statutes, and soliciting his favourable reception of them. The representative of the British Government, instead of acting independently of Rome, professes a "profound veneration for the character of the Pope," and places this country in the humiliating position of being a supplicant to him who claims to be the "ruler of the world, and the vicar of Jesus Christ." But the humiliation does not end here. Another Roman Catholic archbishop, of considerable notoriety, and who takes a different view of the subject, being in Rome, has succeeded in gaining over the Pope, so that, even in the face of our national petition, a formal condemnation of the colleges has been sent over recently. These are sad things. For years there has been a gradual concession to the principles of Rome. It is seen in the fostering of Romanism by national support in the colonies. It is seen in the manner in which the question of education is treated in Ireland. It is seen in the gratuitous endowment of

the College of Maynooth. And now, if rumour speak truth, (and its correctness seems to be generally admitted,) we are to consummate our national patronage of a system we believe and declare to be false by a state endowment for the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland. If this were a mere political thing, I should not venture to refer to it; but it is a grave religious question, and who is to deal with such questions if not the national clergy, who are sworn to "banish all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God's word?" The advocates of such a measure, for the most part, do not, I firmly believe, support it from any attachment to Romanism as a religious system. Many, on the contrary, wholly repudiate its principles. But either, as with some, there is a lax indifferentism to all religion, or, as with others, the religious question is set aside, and the whole is settled on the ground of mere political expediency. They think it may work well as a political measure, and they do not feel a conviction that what is religiously or morally wrong cannot be politically right. Whether, even as a political measure, it would prove successful, may seriously be doubted, after the palpable failure of all measures of conciliation. Concession, though of course, in a certain sense, it is a proper thing, seems, in this instance, to make things worse rather than better. It emboldens to greater daring and more absolute assumption. It is regarded as a victory achieved, rather than as a benefit conferred. It binds not with links of love, but seems, in too many cases, to inspire with a more unmitigated hatred. Persons may, therefore, well question the political wisdom of the proposed course: they may foresee in it nothing but disappointment and failure. But we cannot deal with it merely in this light. If this were the view to be taken of it, we should not deal with it at all, at least in this place. We feel there is something more sacred in the question. We feel that to give national sanction to a religion which we have declared to be superstitious and idolatrous cannot but be displeasing in the eye of Heaven. To set our seal to all that the Articles of our Church and

the oaths of our senators have affirmed respecting the Church of Rome, and then to give it the footing of an ecclesiastical establishment, seems an inconsistency of a most extraordinary character. To endow a system, and thus give it strength and stability, with which some of the most melancholy passages in our national history are identified, and which has worked for ill to the consciences and liberties of men wherever it has been invested with sufficient power, seems an act the most suicidal. It is not required on any principles of toleration. Toleration is one thing, patronage is another. To give free and full toleration to all is a Christian principle; to give direct support to falsehood is an anti-christian error. We desire freely to concede the former-we cannot but enter our solemn protest against the latter.

(3.) And there is yet another feature in the present times which renders it peculiarly expedient that the character of Romanism should be kept in mind-I mean, the course of events in regard to many amongst ourselves, who, first imbibing principles too nearly akin to Romanism, have at last apostatized to Rome itself. We have seen a system rise up amongst us, even within the bosom of our Protestant Church, which claimed at first to be peculiarly founded on Church principles, but which has gradually developed itself in naked and undisguised Popery. That Church principles, properly understood, should be explained, illustrated, and enforced, is only what is right and becoming in members of the Church. We cannot look upon these things with indifference, or assent to the theory that definite opinions upon such points are not of importance. But this is widely different from the mere affectation of a Church tone, while there is the reality of a Romish spirit. Is it not melancholy that persons solemnly set apart to the sacred ministry of our Church should have used their position and their influence to further the designs of Rome? that, while ministering in our sanctuaries, they should not only have introduced unwarranted novelties in the service, but, what is far worse than