AT the close of this brief manual, it may perhaps be useful to state the question as it now presents itself. I. Upon those who _assert_, rests the duty and incumbency of _proof_. Yet, in regard to what by a single comprehensive word may be styled _Popery_, the question stands _negatively_, in manner following. _The peculiar doctrines and practices_, _which the Clergy of the Roman Church pertinaciously inculcate upon their Laity_, _and to which they would proselyte the unthinking and uninformed Protestant_, CAN NOT BE TRACED UP TO CHRIST AND HIS INSPIRED APOSTLES, _either by the evidence of God’s Written Word_, _or by the subordinate testimony of the successive ecclesiastical writers of the three first centuries_. II. But this circumstance, bad enough even in itself, is by no means the worst part of the matter. _Scripture and the early Fathers_, _not only_, _negatively_, DO NOT ESTABLISH _the apostolicity of the peculiarities of Popery_: _but they also_, _positively_, CONTRADICT AND CONDEMN _those same peculiarities_. III. Hence, if I mistake not, the sober inquirer, who demands _proof_ instead of _assertion_, will at length find himself irresistibly brought to the following very important conclusion. IN ADMITTING THE PECULIARITIES OF THE LATIN CHURCH AS ARTICLES OF THE CHRISTIAN REVELATION, THE ROMANIST BELIEVES, NOT ONLY WITHOUT EVIDENCE, BUT EVEN AGAINST EVIDENCE. THE END. * * * * * GILBERT & RIVINGTON, Printers, St. John’s Square, London. * * * * * FOOTNOTES. {7} Such, avowedly, has been the language of Dr. Norris, of Stonyhurst; such also, unless my memory altogether fail me, has been the language of Dr. Doyle. _Roma locuta est_: _causa finita est_. Which, being interpreted, Is: _Rome hath spoken_:_ the cause_, _therefore_, _is determined_. These two divines seem, either _themselves_ to have forgotten, or to have expected _their opponents_ to forget; that the theologians of Trent, not only define DOCTRINES, but assert FACTS; not only assert FACTS, but assert them as THE AVOWED BASIS OF DOCTRINES. The defined DOCTRINES being thus _professedly_ made to rest upon the asserted FACTS, we should feel ourselves greatly obliged to Dr. Norris, and Dr. Doyle, if they would distinctly teach us; _What becomes of the defined_ DOCTRINES, _when the asserted_ FACTS _themselves turn out to be mere shadowy non-entities_? Will a house continue to stand, when its foundations are removed? Can doctrines remain secure, when their _professed_ basis of facts proves to be nothing better than the fabric of a vision? {8a} Concil. Trident. sess. xiii. a 3. p. 124. {8b} Ibid. sess. xiv. c. 5. p. 148. {8c} Ibid. sess. xiv. c. 7. p. 153. {8d} Ibid. sess. xxiii. c 1. p. 279. {8e} Ibid. sess. xxiii. a 3. p. 280. {8f} Ibid. sess. v. p. 12, 13. {8g} Here let the reader mark the circumstance, alluded to in a preceding note.