tinction from the rival pretender to the same title attempts to persuade an American audience, that "the mixture of civil and ecclesiastical power in the governments of the middle ages" was favorable to liberty, we need some champion of religious freedom and truth, with the promptness and ability with which Mr. Cheever has come forward, to expose the sophistry and fraud, and to exhibit the church of Rome in its true historical character, as a hierarchical despotism.

But a knowledge of the history of the Reformation, or rather a familiarity with its great principles and events, is indispensable to all who are to engage in the great controversy. The mere fact of the existence of this controversy, the fact, that it is necessary again to debate those points upon which the minds of Luther, and Calvin, and Zuingle, exhausted their strength, shows us that, notwithstanding their wisdom, piety, and zeal, there was some serious defect in their manner of conducting the great controversy of their age. We must study the history of those stirring times, we must ascertain what were the errors of the Reformers, what the peculiarities of their situation, what the difficulties which encompassed them, why it was that the church, which had been delivered from the yoke of despotism by a mighty arm, and led forth into the light and liberty of the Gospel, turned back from the very borders of the land of promise, and wandered in the wilderness; why it was that she had not faith and courage to complete the work of her redemption, so aus

piciously begun. Surveying these things in the calm, clear light of history, and gathering wisdom from experience dearly purchased, we can conduct the reformation of our times to an issue more glorious and enduring, than was ever anticipated by the Reformers of the sixteenth century.

The last suggestion which we have to offer, and the most import ant, is, that ministers should culti vate a higher tone of spirituality in their lives and in their preaching. The true antagonist to formalism is spirituality-spirituality not in words and opinions, but in life and power. This great foe to the Gospel must be vanquished by the power of prayer and holy living, rather than by force of argument. True Christianity must be put in contrast with that which falsely bears its name, in the lives of its profes sors. The "sons of God" must be "blameless and without rebuke, shining as lights in the world, holding forth the word of life." It should be borne in mind, that the errors of Romanism are deeply seated in the depraved heart of man; that they have their "origin in hu man nature,' "* and can therefore be uprooted only in the complete renovation of the soul by the Spirit of God. Let then the evangel ical ministry of our land, become yet more emphatically evangelical; more evangelical not only in doctrine but in life, not only in preaching but in practice; let them ex hibit to their people the necessity of eminent holiness; let them pray and labor every where for the revival of pure and undefiled religion; let them deal in faithfulness and love with the souls of men, and soon will the true church of God "arise and shine," and error, su perstition, and sin, will flee before her as the mists of the morning.

* See Archbishop Whateley's profound treatise on this subject.

THE Rev. Thomas Brainerd of Philadelphia, some three years ago, maintained in a sermon before the presbytery of which he is a member, the proposition, that "existing causes furnish no ground to fear, that Romanism will ever become the prevailing religion of this country." Within a few months past the sermon has been published; and we find it so much in accordance with our own way of thinking on that subject, that we are constrained to commend it very earnestly to the attention of our readers. In what we are now intending to say about Romanists in the United States, and the duties of Protestants in regard to the Roman Catholic controversy, we shall make free use of the materials and hints afforded us by Mr. Brainerd's judicious and timely pamphlet: The question, How ought Roman Catholics in this country to be regarded and treated? and the more general question, What ought we to do in respect to the efforts which are made for the advancement of the Roman Catholic religion here are worthy of a serious consideration.

Roman Catholics, particularly in this part of the United States, are generally foreigners-strangers in birth and lineage, strangers to our history and our religion-marked to some extent by a distinctive physiognomy, and to a greater extent by differences of language, or at least of dialect. In every country, the foreigner as such, and especially

the foreigner of another religion, is liable to become the object of prejudice and of popular hatred. It is in the character of foreigners that the Roman Catholics present themselves to our consideration, when we inquire what kind of treatment is due to them. How ought we to treat strangers, of a religion hostile to our own, who are brought to our country in the providence of God-fugitives, as our fathers were, from the oppressive institutions of the old world?

The Hebrew national law, with its ecclesiastical establishment, is the great storehouse of proof-texts for the doctrine and discipline of intolerance. Were we writing for any other than American readers, it would be necessary for us to begin with the refutation of the argument drawn from the supposed pertinency of such proof-texts. But where, as with us, the principle of ecclesiastical establishments, and all distinctions between lawful and unlawful religions, are renounced on all sides, we have no occasion to touch upon a topic so elementary. We will rather begin by citing from those Mosaic Institutes-so little understood, and so greatly abusedone simple precept, the principle of which is universal, and the application of which to our immediate purpose is too obvious to be disputed. "Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him; for ye were stran gers in the land of Egypt." The "stranger," in the land of the Israelites, was not of course a proselyte or convert to the national religion. The proselyte indeed ceased to be a stranger; he became in all respects one of the chosen people. We find then in this command, a precept pertinent to our inquiry. It teaches us how we ought to treat

foreigners of another religion, who come to enjoy here the blessings with which our religion has enriched our country and made it the glory of all lands.

How evangelical Christians, of various names and various ecclesiastical connections, ought to treat each other, is coming to be pretty well understood. The Methodist, the Baptist, the Congregationalist or Presbyterian, and the Episcopalian, can treat each other kindly; and while they differ in various degrees on certain points of doctrine and of ecclesiastical regulation, and are thus separated more or less distinctly in respect to some formalities of church communion, they can feel toward each other as neighbors and friends, and can freely interchange all acts of good neighborhood. Notwithstanding many counteracting influences, they are grad. ually getting over those sectarian animosities which once interrupted the intercourse of fellow-citizens.

Even toward those who are regarded as under serious and fatal delusions, there is much of a reasonable tolerance. The opinions and doctrines of such men are denounced as dangerous to the individual and to society; they them selves, as embracing those doctrines, are naturally looked upon with a somewhat closer scrutiny; their claims to the Christian name are even rejected; yet in society, the Socinian, the Universalist, and the Deist, are judged individually by their personal characters, rather than by their religious opinions. No social proscription is exercised against them for their opinions merely. No religious test is made a condition of fair standing in society. This is as it should be. Argument, discussion, instruction, the manifestation of the truth in love-these are the methods by which error is to be suppressed, and truth is to win its

rious reasons, do not seem to enjoy, in some quarters, the full benefit of this tolerant disposition. They are, as a body, foreigners. Their religion is in every relation hostile to every other form of Christianity. It is associated, in history, to a great extent, with the most arbitrary principles of government, and with sweeping and bloody persecutions. Their ecclesiastical system owns for its head a foreign potentate, who has a temporal as well as a spiritual jurisdiction, and who, in other ages, has given away thrones and realms at his discretion, and has put his feet upon the necks of kings. Their priests, cut off from those sympa. thies that bind other men to home and country, are invested with indefinite power. Their worship shocks our moral sense with its childish mummeries and gross idolatries. And withal they entertain, and are not very reserved in exhibiting, the most sanguine expectations of making their religion, at no very distant period, the predominant religion of the whole country. For such reasons as these there is, in some quarters, a feeling towards Roman Catholics altogether unlike the feeling towards the adherents of any other form of religion.

In attempting to show how they ought to be regarded and treated, it may be necessary for us to forestall a possible misapprehension of our views, by saying, in the first place, that the nature and bearings of the questions between the church of Rome, and the great catholic communion of evangelical churches, ought never to be overlooked. If all positive religion is not a delusion--if all systems of religious faith are not equally false and worthless-the difference between that Christianity of tradition which is held by the Roman Catholic church, and that Christianity of the Bible which is held by Protestant Christians, is such as admits no compromise. He who intelligently and

heartily admits the one, can not, without hypocrisy, profess any sympathy with the other. No Roman Catholic asks you to admit-no Roman Catholic who understands his own system, can but be offended if you pretend that the differences between his religion and the religion which Protestants profess to deduce from the New Testament, are unessential. What are the questions at issue between the two systems? They are such as these. Whether the living oracles of God in the Scriptures, or the traditions and decisions of the church, are to command our faith? Whether we are to address our prayers to God alone, or to saints and angels? Whether we are to worship God in spirit and in truth alone, or with the aid of images and pictures? Whether the penitent sinner may safely commit his soul to Christ alone, or must have absolution from the priest, and experience the justifying and sanctifying power of sacraments? Whether the dying believer, trusting in the Redeemer, goes, like the believing malefactor from the cross, to be with Christ "this day in paradise," or sinks into a pit of purgatorial fire, there to abide till the priests can be hired to pray him out by saying masses at so much apiece? Whether true personal religion consists in repentance and faith, a heart cleansed by the word and Spirit of God, and a life devoted to the service and the imitation of Christ-or is made up of such matters as making the sign of the cross, repeating prayers in Latin, confessing to a priest, wearing an agnus Dei, and' eating fish on Friday? Such questions as these can not be treated by an intelligent and honest man as if they were of little consequence. To him who

takes the Bible alone for his authoritative standard, the religion of Rome is polytheism; for instead of worshiping only the one living and true God, it sets up a thousand infe

rior divinities to whom the suppliant looks in prayer-the tutelary saints of temples, cities, countries, and of individuals; and to them it offers. more petitions and vows than to the Father of spirits. It is idolatry; for it bows down to graven images; it deals in amulets and incantations; it worships a piece of bread, not as symbolically representing, but as actually being, the Supreme Divinity. It is a system at war with the Bible; for it forbids men to search the Scriptures for themselves; and it requires them to surrender their judgment and conscience to the church and to the priest, instead of permitting God's word to come into their own minds as the law of liberty. With such a system, the believer of the simple Gospel can have no fellowship. It was with reference to such departures from the truth as it is in Jesus, that the Apostle wrote, "If there come any to you and bring not this doctrine" -the doctrine of Christ-" receive him not into your house," as you receive the preachers of the Gospel to help them on their way; "nei. ther bid him God-speed; for he that biddeth him God-speed is a partaker of his evil deeds."

We say then, it is plainly wrong for Protestants to unite with Roman

Catholics in their worship of images, of saints and angels, or of the consecrated wafer. To go into one of their churches as a mere spectator, gaping and wondering perhaps, but refusing to kneel when they kneel, or to stand when they stand, is to treat them and their worship with an unnecessary incivility, and with an incivility which they feel to be offensive. To give an external conformity to the service there offered, is to partake in their idolatry.

We say farther, it is wrong for a Protestant to place his children under the moral and religious training of Roman Catholic schools. He who places his daughter in a nunnery boarding school, or his son in