Nor is it marvellous t?at Protestants shouid be generall T, unaco ?luainted with ?r F. Its ?ue s?m is comp?hend? in. th? huge Latin ? ?rcek tomes of the cotmoils, the bulls of writings o? ?e fathers, ? ?e ponderous relies o?
- ?11 of which require much ?me and ?sea?h in order to asce?iu
their con?nts. Besides, the Pro?s?nt world h? been asleep re?rd to pope? for nearly two hundred ye?; while ? has !?en wake?!ly using eve? s?? and means of prese?ation ?d extension. A careful expiation of ?he papal system will termi- na? iu the conviction, that though it h? v?ied i? me?s of attack ?d defence, it has chang? none of its essen? p?ciples. F?rthly. The infidel ?d proffigate ?ion of the comm?ity are easily misl? by po?. It lays no res?n? on the? lus?; i? f? for ?em is comprehended in ?is sho? creed, ?e reli?on or superstiti? ? ? g? ? a?t?. ?ese ?ons find ? the popish scheme a sympathizing ?eli?on, so that they easily f?l in with its supe?ti?ous and cla?s. Such ?e ?so at v?ce wifi? the setf-den?g reli?on of Chrisk as ?ht ?d pm?sed by evangelical Proustants. Hence ?ey ? e?ily ensn?d wi? the delusions of ?. To'con, nee ?d reform such ? ?ese is of vast impo?ce, bo? to ?em and the public. F?tMy. It is believed also by some, ?at young m?s? may fi{?d this work convenient, not only for the sake of refe?nce, but also as a source ?om which to collect authentic d?en? and profs, by which they may ? aided in mee?ng ?e ?en? of ?heir opponents. The cons?t ?ference to ? of eminence, and ?e quo?ons ?om the st?d?s of Rom?i?, it is thought will be acceptable and use?l at ?s time, in o?er to ?cover jesuitical sha? into which ?pe? is n? mould?. The system of Romanis? is here dellheard as fo?d in '?eir c?eds, catechisms, councils, papal bulls, ?eir ?owl?d the? lo?ans, the ?co?s of ?sto?, &c., &c. Besides the above, author has employ? ?e best ? wi?in his ?ach. These were limited. He has avail? himself l?gely of B?ow in the chapte? on the supsmacy. He is cons?fiy mfe?d to and pa?cularly cr?i? where it co?d be done. During ?e whole time in which the ?ter was en?g? in pa?ng ?is work, he h? ?s ?l s? of ?er du?es ? pesos, either as pas?r of a fi?k, ? professor in a cohen, ? ?' ?i?r of a ?'eekly sh?t. For ?e m? pa,, o?y sm?l fr?en? of ?me, I
�
