shall be burned he shall suffer loss, but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire." Is it not a loss, and a severe one, to the martyr of the pure religion of Christ, to witness the destruction of his labours by fanaticism and cruelty; and though the vindictive malice of fiends in human shape destroy "the earthy tabernacle of his soul," yet his immortal spirit is beyond their reach, as Paul says, in the very next verse (16,) "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the spirit of God dwelleth in you?" But the Pope says, the holy Fathers interpret the text above "of Purgatory:"it would have been much more to the purpose if he could have found one single sentence wherein Christ, the Prophets, or the Apostles, taught the belief of such a doctrine throughout the whole Bible; and which we deny it possible for him to have done. As to the opinion of the "holy Fathers," it is at best but secondary when we have the "Book of Life" open before us, and on this alone we rely for our refutation of Popery. But Pope Pius and Dr. Challoner (although there has lived about five-and-twenty Popes between, from the death of the one to the other,) both knew that of those called holy Fathers," by Papists (none of which could surely be more holy than infallible Pontiffs?)-yet even of these the above gentlemen both knew the, by far, greater part were the most unholy monsters in existence *. 1 To We have noticed the text quoted from Matthew, (ch. v. 25. see p. 24,) but that the Pope should have been so indiscreet as *Jurieu, although not the most quotable of theological writers himself, in quoting Petrarch, (who wrote in the fourteenth century,) says, "He reckons up all the villanies of the Neros, Heliogabaluses, Sardanapaluses, and Caligulas he addeth the esses, as feigned by poets, &c. &c. &c.,-and finds all these too little to afford idea of the corruptions of the Church of Rome in that age; so that he requests the return of Nero, and the resurrection of the greatest monsters of impurity and cruelty, as a less misery than that the Church was oppressed by," It cannot be disproved (however it may be sought to disguise the fact,) that since Popery insisted her "infallibility" all Christian charity has been rooted out of her Church. Her supremacy has tagged all her canons and edicts with anathemas--she has openly avowed herself the damning Church, by cursing all the world, herself only excepted none other who shall be saved; but from her "Child's First Catechism,' to her decrees canonical, we are struck with astonishment and contempt at the impotent thunder of her denunciations. we to have introduced it above for the purpose of proving his Purgatory by Scripture is rather surprising, even though he addresses himself to Papists; since, although they are taught to believe every thing they are desired to believe, yet the fewer contradictions to the evidence of their senses (we should have thought) the better. The Pope, however, certainly knew the calibre of the consciences of his followers better than we do, Still, we must say, that had he applied the above text to those whom his Church denounced as heretics, when seizing upon their estates, and afterwards clapping them into her Inquisitions, we think he might have handled the subject better: as it is, could it have been managed worse? The chapter from which the extract is taken, (Matt. v.) is the beginning of Christ's Sermon, in which he declares who are blessed, exhorting all to labour after perfectness, &c. However the Pope, or St. Cyprian, may have applied the doctrine of " Agree with thine adversary quickly whilst thou art in the way with him," &c., to Purgatory, God blessed others of his creatures with common sense as well as St. Cyprian* and the Pope; but the cause must be weak, indeed, whose advocates are compelled to the tergiversation of reducing so explicit a command of Christ to a mere Popish figure! The next quotations (Matt. xii. 32.) as the Pope tells us "imply,”—and then comes his "otherwise, why," followed by the logical, “Now, if," and then his own conclusions as positive facts. We deny his proposition; if we disprove it, his conclusion falls. Our Saviour undoubtedly used these words: "Whosoever St. Cyprian, although an early father, and an ornament of the Christian Church, was not "infallible." He was converted from Paganism A. D. 246. In 248 the Bishop of Carthage dying, Cyprian succeeded him in the Bishopric, and ultimately suffered martyrdom A. D. 258, twelve years after his conversion. Mosheim says of him, that "he would have been a better writer, had he been less attentive to the ornaments of rhetoric-and a better Bishop, had he been able to restrain the vehemence of his temper, and to distinguish with more acuteness between truth and falsehood." The Pope, we think, had better have quoted some other Holy Father. Cyprian denied the supremacy of Stephen, Bishop of Rome, whose excommunication he treated with contempt; he also wrote against the vanity of idols, &c.; speaking of the arrogance of Victor, when Pontiff, he says (Epist. ad Maximus, 54,) "This is proud obstinacy and sacrilegious presumption, and proceeds from a wicked madness." speaketh against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." We have already said (p. 113,) the Scriptures are addressed to us in a language adapted to our capacities: in such a language did Christ and his Apostles preach. But why did neither the Pope nor the Doctor tell their followers (whom we so often feel it necessary to observe, know no more of the Scriptures than Popish doctors do tell them,)-who it was to whom Christ used the expressions quoted above? Was it not to the Pharisees? Those who determinately resisted the authority of his heavenly mission, and yet, who declared that in "the world to come," both soul and body was to be affected by prolonged rewards or punishments according to their lives on earth? This people did deny Christ, and the power of the Holy Ghost in him; to whom Christ, knowing their professions and their hypocrisy, said, that such a sin should not be forgiven them in this world, (and, as they professed a belief in an indefinite term of rewards and punishments hereafter,) "neither in the world to come." How, we ask, in his human nature, could our Saviour have adapted his language more clearly to the comprehension of those to whom he addressed it? We are next referred to 1 Pet. iii. ver. 18, 19, 20, but before we say anything further on this subject, we must beg here to remark on the inconsistency of so repeatedly referring those to the Scriptures who are absolutely forbidden to peruse them; and those who might persist in doing so, after the prohibition of a priest, would be denied a participa *At the time of the birth of our Saviour, the Jewish Doctors had many disputes concerning how the (old) law ought to be expounded. Their opinions being divided, they formed themselves into various sects, of which the three principal were the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes. The two former are frequently spoken of in the New Testament: the tenets of the latter are recorded by Josephus, Philo, (an Hellenistic Jew,) &c. The Essenes believed that future rewards and punishments extended to the soul alone, which was imprisoned in the body, and which they deemed corrupt. The Sadducees assigned the same period of existence to both soul and body as concludes this mortal life. Whilst the Pharisees contended that divine rewards and punishments affected both the soul and body, and that their duration was prolonged beyond the limits of this transitory state.Mosheim. tion in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, which is by that overy priesthood made an essential to salvation *! Even some Papists may feel somewhat curious to know the cause of the Scriptures being only thus referred to instead of being quoted, if they have not yet discovered it; and to those who have not, -We beg, once for all, to explain the "mystery," it is this the Pope could not extract fairly from Holy Writ without overturning his own arguments; either on the subject in hand, (whatever it be,) or some other of the mysteries "sof his " Church." Thus Peter's affirmation, as that of Christ and Paul, the "quickening of the Spirit," is always evaded, 9 if possible, lest it should sound with conviction on the ears of those taught to believe that their soul's health is secured by real flesh and blood! The verses alluded to are these:— Ver. 18. "Christ also hath ONCE suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being -put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit. Ver. 19. By which also he went and preached unto the ✓ spirits in prison. d Ver. 20. Which some time were disobedient when once the long suffering of God waited in the days of Noah while the ark was preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water." This prison, the Pope says, "could be no other place than Purgatory; for as to the spirits that were in the prison of * We hazard no assertions, as facts, which we are not fully assured of being so. Not only would Popery deny what she calls her cup of salvation to any of her flock who presumed to read the Scriptures against the command of her Priest, but to those guilty of what, we suppose, a still less crime in her own eyes, namely, an intention of going, under any circumstance, if it could be avoided, into a Protestant Church to hear the service performed. Thus, if a wife be a Romanist, and her husband a Protestant, (however great a libertine,) it would be, by Popery, accounted sinful of her to reclaim him if, in so doing, she voluntarily accompanied him to hear a Protestant sermon, (though he would not have gone to church without her) however fraught with pure Christian charity it might be. The purity of her object would be no extenuation of her guilt in listening to the most edifying discourse on the excellence of Christian charity, preached by a Protestant Divine; and, did she not pledge herself to forsake so "contaminating a heresy," (husband and all!) she would be denied what the Priest would assure her was the only means of obtaining salvation; viz. his baked wafer, and pardon of sins !!!-Our readers may rely upon this fact, however it may surprise or disgust them, hell, Christ did certainly not go to preach to them.?? Are we to believe the bare assertion of Pius in preference to St. Peter? This we cannot do; but as the Pope declares himself (p. 52) to have "derived his lineage " direct from the Apostles, his predecessors ought, we think, to have been better informed upon the subject than to have left it to himself to bungle through it in the best way he could. But does ཟཱ་, Popery teach one doctrine to young children, and another to those who are older? If not, how is it we hear nothing of Limbo throughout this whole chapter *? As this is the place of “rest” in hell, where Popery intends to go (supposing she would not wish a more uneasy situation), she should not have forgotten to speak of it altogether whilst in the midst of her own Purgatory, seeking scriptural proofs ? Her traditionary allusions are by no means of the most convincing kind, and might have carried more weight even in the minds of those to whom they are addressed, had she manufactured and sworn to the truth of one of her own invincible miracles. Instead of this, however, here is a solitary reference to an apocryphal composition—a book rejected by the Jews from their canons, and from whom we received them, with the acknowledgment of that fact by Augustine, to whom an appeal is made †!—The last paragraph of this Popery having " decided" that she would have a Purgatory for the purification of the Saints of her own making (the necessity of which was obvious whilst they were here on earth) was obliged, in her own defence, to insist upon all holy men who lived before the time of our Saviour sojourning there also. This arrangement was attended with some difficulties-(as in the case of the holy Prophets to whom the SUPREME delivered his commands, &c.)-but the Infallibility of Popery surmounted every obstacle. She made a place of "rest" for Saints, in hell, which she calls Limbo: a place, however, that we seldom hear her speak of; nor, indeed, do we find it in any of her modern books save when instructing (!) children. We copy the following brief account of it from the approved " Child's First Catechism":Q. Whither did the soul of our Saviour go after death? A. His soul went down into that part of Hell called Limbo. Q. What do you mean by Limbo? A. I mean a place of rest where the souls of the Saints were. A. No; they expected him to carry them up thither. It will not be denied, we presume, that Popery, by her own shewing, is as well versed in the "mysteries" of Hell, as though she had originally emerged from thence. + As Pius thought it might suit his purpose to refer to what St. Augustine said the Church accounted in his day, we will refer our Popish readers to a more ancient |