it schism to come out? Against such corruptions in doctrine and radical morals, is it heresy to protest?

66

3. As you have several times alluded to my statement," that indulgences were a bundle of licenses to commit sin," I will next present that doctrine. The wanton and unprincipled traffic of Tetzel in indulgences, under the sanction of the Pope, may be considered the salient point of the Reformation. This, as you, know was Pope Leo Xth's way of paying for the immense Apostolical, edifice of St. Peters, which is estimated to have cost $60,000,000. He published Indulgences and plenary remission of sins, to all such as should contribute money towards it. The form of these indulgences, drawn by the authority of the Pope, shows their nature. May our Lord Jesus Christ have mercy upon thee, and absolve thee by the merits of his most holy Passion. And I, by his authority, that of his blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul, and that of the most holy Pope, granted and committed to me in these parts, do absolve thee, first from all ecclesiastical censure, in whatever manner they have been incurred, then from all thy sins, transgressions, and excesses, how enormous soever they may be; even from such as are reserved for the cognizance of the Holy See, and as far as the keys of the Holy Church extend. I remit to you all punishment which you deserve in purgatory on their account; and I restore you to the holy sacraments of the Church, to the unity of the faithful, and to that innocence and purity which you possessed at baptism: so that when you die, the gates of punishment shall be shut, and the gates of the paradise of delight shall be opened; and if you shall not die at present, this grace shall remain in full force, when you are at the point of death. In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." It was in the use of this daring and scandalous commission that Tetzel set up heaven for sale; and it was in resisting this infamous traffic that Luther began the work of reformation. The Council of Trent teaches that whoever shall affirm that when the grace of justification is received, the offence of the penitent sinner is so forgiven, and the sentence of eternal punishment so reversed, that there remains no temporal punishment to be endured, before his entrance into the kingdom of heaven, either in this world, or in the future state in purgatory let him be accursed." It is also an article of faith in the creed of Pius IV. "that the power of indulgences was left by Christ to his church, and that the use of them is very helpful to Christian people." Bellarmine's second and third chapters of book 1. on Indulgences, are headed: "That there exists a certain treasury in the church, which is the foundation of indulgences; that the church has the power of applying this treasury of satisfactions, and thus of granting indulgences." And he proceeds to tell us that this treasury is made up of the merits of Christ and of the Saints. The merits of the Saints are called works of supererogation, or what a man does beyond his duty. As lately as the year 1825, the Pope of Rome in publishing a jubilee, uses the following language: "the authority divinely committed to us (the Pope,) to open as widely as possible that heavenly treasury, which, being purchased by the me rits, passions, and virtues of our Lord Christ, of his virgin mother,

and of all the saints, the author of human salvation has entrusted the distribution of it to us," &c.

In fine, that there may be no doubt of the fact, that the church of Rome still holds this article of faith in all its force, we point our readers to the plenary indulgence, published in the Catholic Herald, on the 2d of May, 1833, on the authority of his present Holiness, Gregory the XVI. and signed JOHN HUGHES, SECRETARY. This document we shall examine at large hereafter. The above history and extracts from the standards of the church, might suffice without further proof or comment, to show the anti-christian character of this doctrine.

(1.) Here we see that the Pope, a finite and sinful creature, usurps the power to forgive sins. But the word of God (in Mark ii. 7—13. Luke v. 21-26. Isaiah xliii. 25; xliv. 22. Acts x. 42., and a crowd of other passages,) teaches us, that it is the prerogative of Infinite and Almighty God alone to forgive sins.

(2.) This doctrine teaches that there is need of adding merit to the merit of Christ, viz: that of the Saints. But the Scriptures teach us that Christ's merits are infinite; that his righteousness is perfect; that he who believeth on Him is justified from all things; that Christ's satisfaction is a perfect satisfaction; and that he that believeth on Him has passed from death unto life: "that there is no other name under heaven, given among men whereby we must be saved, but the name of Jesus, neither is there salvation in any other." (See 1 John i. 6-10. Acts xiii. 39. Acts iv. 12. Ephes. ii. 8. 2 Cor. v. 21. Rom. iii. 23-29. Rom. viii. 2-4., &c. &c.) Away then with the wretched impiety of attempting to add to this divine and perfect satisfaction!

(3.) The doctrine of Indulgences supposes that a creature, and he a fallen one, can do more than his duty; and have works of supererogations for others. But what saith the Scriptures, (I quote from our version.) "Be ye therefore stedfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord." (1 Cor. xv. 58.) Is there any room left beyond abounding;" or any time beyond" always?" "So, likewise ye, when ye have done all these things which are commanded you, say we are unprofitable servants; we have done that which was our duty to do." (Luke xvii. 10.) "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength; and thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself!" Mark xii. 30, 31. Is there any place here, to render satisfaction for another, even if we had any merits of our own? But in this fallen world no man ever yet rendered any meritorious satisfaction for himself, much less for another.

(4.) This doctrine supposes money may buy pardon, and remission of sins. Hence the abundant sale of indulgences; and the moneys still paid for souls in purgatory! If this doctrine has antiquity on its side, it looks for parentage to Simon Magus ;-and surely Peter, your first Pope (as you say) was against it; for it is written (Acts viii. 18-20.) When Simon (Magus) saw that through laying on of the Apostle's hands, the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, saying, give me also this power that on whomsoever I

lay my hands he may receive the Holy Ghost. But Peter said unto him, thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money!"*

Room is wanting to add to these particulars. We hope hereafter to pursue the proof thus begun. In the mean time, the following contrast may show the difference between your religion and the religion of Christ.

PROTESTANT CHURCH. The Gospel Preached. The word of God says, "Thou shalt not make a graven image, or bow down to it."

The Gospel of Christ says, "There is one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus."

The Gospel of Christ says, "Christ was ONCE offered to bear the sins of many."

The Gospel of Christ says, " Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus."

The Gospel of Christ says, "The heavens must receive Christ until the restitution of all things."

The Gospel of Christ says, "It is a mark of apostacy to forbid to marry, for marriage is honourable in all."

The Gospel of Christ says, "We should not pray in an unknown tongue, we should pray with the understanding."

The Gospel of Christ says, " Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord, for they rest from their labours."

The Gospel of Christ says, "though we or an angel from heaven preach any other Gospel unto you, than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."

I have now shown, as far as the space allowed me would admit, the anti-christian, character of several of your leading doctrines.

The following statement which was stuck up a few years ago in the churches of Madrid, may serve as a practical illustration of this subject:

"The sacred and royal bank of piety has relieved from purgatory from its establishment in 1721 to Nov. 1826,

1,030,395 souls at an expense of £1,720,437 sterling.

11,402 {do. from Nov. 1826 to

1,041,797

Νον. 1827.

14,276

1,734,703

"The number of masses calculated to accomplish this pious work was 558,921 ; consequently each soul cost about half a mass, or thirty-three shillings and four pence."

So true is it that the real character of Romanism is but half disclosed in this country.

Here observe, that infallibility is lost, if but one error is detected. But I have brought proof of many.

II. Having thus shown that several of the leading doctrines of the church of Rome are anti-christian, I proceed next to prove that they are novel doctrines also. Your church lays great stress on her antiquity; and you say in your 1st objection, "that the Protestant religion is only 300 years old." But, Sir, it is as old as the religion of Christ. I proved in my last letter that divers churches besides those called Protestant, had dissented from many of the cardinal doctrines of the Roman Catholic church; and pointed you to the Syrian church which had never been subject to her. You choose, however, for good reasons, not to notice these facts. I will now point out the novelty of some of those doctrines which you call apostolical, and prove them innovations.

46 • For

1. The very canon of your church is an innovation; for you include in it many books that were for centuries rejected by the ancient Christian church, as I have heretofore proved. Cardinal Cajetan called" an oracle" in your church, thus writes, in his Commentaries, &c. (composed at Rome,) on the Bible. "That what books were canonical or not canonical to St. Jerome, the same ought either way to be so with us." "And that the whole Latin church is hereby very much obliged to St. Jerome, who by severing the canonical books of Scripture from those that are not canonical, hath freed us from the reproach of the Hebrews, who otherwise might say, that we had forged a new canon for ourselves, or parts of books, which they never had." "For this reason he excluded from his volume, all those which Jerome counted Apochryphal." Judith, Tobit, and the Maccabees, are placed out of the canon, and are placed among the Apocrypha, with the books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, by the blessed Jerome." "These books are not canonical, that is, are not according to rule, for establishing the faith; (Non sunt hi libri canonici, hoc est, non sunt regulares ad firmandum ea quæ sunt fidei,) but yet they may be called canonical, that is, they are according to rule, for the edification of the faithful." "Neither be disturbed by the novelty, if at any time you should find these books numbered among the canonical, either in the Councils or sacred Doctors:" and he adds "that Augustine and the Council of Carthage are to be reconciled with Jerome, and the Council of Laodicea, by this distinction." (1 Cap. Epis. Heb.; and Epis. ded. ad Pap. ante com. in Lib. V. T.) This is most decisive. Erasmus is still more strong. And I could bring fifty testimonies, in the different ages, to prove that your canon is a corrupted and new canon.

2. The claim of the Pope to be universal Bishop and Vicar of Christ is a novelty. The title of universal Bishop was not conferred on, or claimed by the Bishop of Rome till the 7th century. Phocas (not Christ) who murdered his predecessor, and who waded to the throne through his blood, conferred this title on Boniface the 3d in the year 606, after a criminal collusion between them on the subject. We have seen above, that Gregory, Bishop of Rome, had resisted the bestowing of this blasphemous title on the Bishop of Constantinople as the forerunner of Anti-Christ. This very fact shows

that He had no such title, and claimed no such headship. And it is notorious that the Bishops of Constantinople and Rome long contended for the supremacy; that it was first tendered to the Bishop of Constantinople; and taken from him to be given to the Bishop of Rome. The present Pope of Rome is as unlike the first Bishop, as a common justice of the peace is unlike an emperor. The Apostle John survived Peter, the pretended 1st Pope, some forty years. Either then there was no pope in the world for forty years, or else an apostle of Christ was subject to him! Pope is a name synonimous with father-and was given to all bishops until the time of Gregory the VII. Even the succession of the Bishops of Rome, on Papal principles, cannot be made out. If it could, they were like other Bishops-and most unlike the present Pope: they had nothing above other Bishops: they were wholly inferior to all the apostles : Peter was never Bishop of Rome: and the church of Rome instead of being the oldest church, was established long after the church at Jerusalem, Antioch, &c. So clear is it that the supremacy of the Pope is a novelty and an innovation.

3. Transubstantiation is an utter novelty. This doctrine was so far from being held by the Primitive church, that we know its date and age. It is an absurdity so great that it required implicit faith to believe it, and "is incapable of proof, by sense or reason, Scripture, miracles, antiquity, or by any testimony whatever." That it is a

novelty is clear from this, that the famous Roman Catholic Scotus affirms that it was not an article of faith before the Lateran council (A. D. 1215) and that it cannot be proved from the Sacred Scriptures. Bellarmine owns (book 3 chap. 23, on the Eucharist,) that Scotus says so, and he admits "though the Scripture quoted by us above seems clear to us, and ought to convince any man who is not froward; yet it may justly be doubted whether it be so (i. e. proved by Scripture) when the most learned and acute men, such as Scotus in particular hold a contrary opinion." Ocham, Biel, Bishop Fisher, cardinal Cajetan, and Melchior Cane hold the same belief. Now if it be not taught in Scripture, surely it is not an ancient doctrine; and if it be doubtful, then it "was not one of those fixed stars in the firmament of revelation" of which you speak, or a positive fact or truth, such as you contend every Roman Catholic doctrine is. Yet the Council of Trent decreed in all the fierce spirit of fanatical zeal, Whosoever shall deny that in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist, there are truly, really, and substantially contained the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, together with his soul and divinity, and consequently Christ entire, but shall affirm that he is present therein only in a sign, or figure, or by his power, let him be accursed." Here then, on the one hand, is history, and the testimony of your own chosen writers, proving the novelty of this doctrine, and a grave Council cursing and damning all who say it is not the very truth of Christianity, on the other.

4. It is an antichristian novelty to deny the cup to the people, in the eucharist. The canon of Trent says, "whosoever shall affirm that the Holy Catholic church has not just grounds for restricting the laity and non-officiating clergy to communion in the species of