Rome, are certain proofs of the truth of the Christian religion; inasmuch as they are exact completions of the prophecies which were delivered by Daniel, St. Paul, and St. John, concerning that apostacy from the faith, which was to take place in latter times. I have known the infidelity of more than one young man happily removed, by showing him the characters of Popery delineated by St. Paul, in his prophecy concerning the Man of Sin' (2 Thess. ii. 1) and in that concerning the apostacy of latter times (1 Tim. iv. 1.)

Bishop Hurd, in his seventh sermon at Warburton's Lecture, has given a concise history of the charge of Anti-christianism, which has, at different times, been brought against the Church of Rome. Dr. Whitaker, Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, in his exercise for his degree at the commencement in 1582, supported this Thesis-Pontifex Romanus est ille Antichristus quem futurum Scriptura prædixit;' i. e. The Pope of Rome is that Antichrist whom the Scripture foretold as to come.' He had, before that time, refuted the forty arguments by which Nicholas Sanders boasted that he had demonstrated that the Pope was not Antichrist. Whitaker's works are very well worth being looked into by those who would know what can be said for and against the other principal points in controversy between Protestants and Papists, as well as against this PRIMARY PILLAR OF THE REFORMED FAITH -That the Hierarchy of the Church of Rome is the Little Horn of Daniel, the Man of Sin of St. Paul, and the Antichrist of St. John. The evidence arising from the completion of the prophecies relative to the Rise, Character, and Fall of the Man of Sin, is an increasing evidence. It strikes us with more force than it struck our ancestors before the Reformation; and it will strike

our posterity, who shall observe the different gradations of his decline, and his final catastrophe, with more force than it now strikes us.

There is one serious disadvantage under which Protestants labour in engaging in controversy with the Romanists, which it gives me pain to notice, but which cannot, in justice to the cause of truth, be overlooked. The professed morality of the former is pure and strict; whereas, that of the latter is radically corrupt and evasive. The doctrine, that "no faith is to be kept with heretics;" and that it is lawful to "do evil that good may come;" in other words, that there is no harm in denying, equivocating, concealing, deceiving, and uttering direct falsehoods, for the sake of bringing men into the “true Church," or defending the character of that Church, is a doctrine so well known to be practically adopted by the advocates of the Papacy, that they require to be as diligently watched as a highwayman, or an assassin in the dark. The late controversy with the Romanists, as conducted in our principal cities, afforded specimens of these profligate and dishonorable arts, as numerous as they were revolting. Misrepresentations the most gross were not only made, but after their falsehood was demonstrated, were persisted in with a recklessness truly astonishing. With such adversaries, it is difficult for men of truth and of delicacy to carry on a contest. To employ their own weapons is inadmissible: while to follow them in all their subterfuges of evasion and falsehood, is as painful as it is tedious; and may, after all, fail of satisfying those

* Theological Tracts, Vol. V. Prefatory Remarks on Benson's Essay on the Man of Sin.

who are of such a temperament, as to be borne down by a brazen and insolent front.

I am aware that some, who profess to be fully convinced that Romanism is a corrupt and a mischievous system, are prejudiced against all controversy, as such, and deny that it is useful to employ it even in defence of the truth. They imagine that all animadversion on the religious tenets of others, and especially all denunciation of them, as unscriptural and dangerous, tend to evil only, and ought to be avoided. If the eye of any such Protestant should light on this page, he is earnestly entreated to ponder well the following questions.-Are there not really fundamental errors, which amount to "another Gospel," and which the inspired apostle has pronounced "damnable heresies?" If this be so, ought not our children and neighbours, who may be assailed sooner than we imagine by these heresies, to be distinctly put on their guard against them? Is not all error mischievous in its tendency, and therefore to be avoided and opposed? Are we not enjoined to "try the spirits whether they are of God, seeing many false prophets are gone out into the world?" Nay, are we not expressly commanded, to“ contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints?" Can we, therefore, without unfaithfulness to our Master in heaven, suffer mischievous error to be propagated around us, without an effort to oppose and refute it? Does not the word of God represent the children of men as, universally, by nature, disposed to embrace error rather than truth; and does it not represent one great object of the institution of a Church on earth, as being to lift up a Standard, and bear a solemn, and a constant testimony against corruption in principle and practice? Have not Christians been called, in fact, in all ages to defend the truth against

gainsayers; and has not controversy been ever the principal means, under the power of the Holy Spirit, of supporting and extending Gospel truth? Is it not manifestly, then, one of the most important duties which we owe to God, and our fellow men-"to prove all things;" to “hold fast that which is good;" to warn the ignorant and unwary against the "instruction that causeth to err;" and to be well established in the truth? Nay, is it possible to avoid controversy, in such a world as this, without a dereliction of duty? Truly, if there be any lesson taught in the Bible, it is, that Christians cannot witness the prevalence of corruption, whether in principle or practice, without lifting against it a warning voice, and employing for its overthrow all the authorized weapons of their hallowed warfare, unless they would sin against God, and "offend against the generation of the righteous."

With regard to the ensuing "History of Popery," my engagements as well as my situation in regard to the manuscript, and the press, have prevented my giving it an entire perusal. But my knowledge of the truly respectable character of the Author, as well as the cursory inspection which I have been able to give to some detached parts of the work,-satisfy me that it may be read with entire confidence, and that it is adapted to do much good. So far as my observation has gone, I am persuaded that no statement is made but on the best authority; that in a number of cases, the picture might have been made darker without injustice; and that the whole is executed in a manner, which, while it reflects honor on the writer, is well worthy of the careful perusal of all who wish to be able to “give a reason of the hope that is in them," and to warn their children, and others around them, against those delusions which destroy the soul.

SAMUEL MILLER.

Princeton, March 28, 1834.

AUTHOR'S PREFACE.

It will not be denied by any correct observer of the signs of the times, that the inhabitants of this land have occasion to inform themselves thoroughly respecting the merits of popery. This would be true, if we consider only the intrinsic importance of the subject. Popery has deeply affected the greater part of the visible Christian world, and spread its influence far and wide in the earth. Wherever it goes, it strikes its roots, deep into all the interests and relations of life. It takes hold on civil as well as religious concerns: it insinuates itself into the retirement of social and domestic intercourse: it thrusts its meddling fingers into every transaction, and claims the right to control all that pertains to the body or soul, to time or eternity. Popery, therefore, it must be confessed, involves the interests and happiness of the human race to an immeasurable extent. For this reason it certainly ought to be well understood. If it is good, and calculated to promote the best interests of social and moral beings, then by all means let it be well known, that all may partake of its blessings. But if it be bad, it ought no less to be known, that its baleful influence may be avoided, and its dominion dissolved. Any cause which exerts so powerful an influence on the interests of man as popery, ought to be thoroughly explored and fully disclosed, that every one concerned may be able to form a correct opinion of its merits. And in this age, and this land of free inquiry, popery can expect no less. Her votaries will not be summoned before the tribunal of the inquisition, nor will they be examined by rack and torture. This regimen is peculiar to popery; but they are summoned to the bar of public opinion, from which there is no appeal. Let popery then prepare to lay off her cloaks and pretences, and to appear in her true character.

In addition to the above mentioned considerations of universal application, the people of this land have still more urgent motives to investigate the length, breadth, and depth of popery. Our country is blessed with a government of