I These extracts are sufficient to prove, that, although Popery makes no difficulty of painting God the Father under the figure of a venerable old man," it would be a more difficult task than she could accomplish to provej by the Scriptures, it is not an act of idolatry forbidden by God, his Prophets, and Apostles. The Pope has, however, made a somewhat desperate attempt to do so in his reference to Daniel to whom, he says, the Almighty appeared as a venerable old man. In speaking of his vision, the words of the Prophet (ch. vii. 9) are these: "I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the ANCIENT OF DAYS did sit, whose gar! ment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool."-The Pope's false quotation from this vision is all that can be offered for the impiety of attempting to represent the Almighty God!-There is not one Papist, capable of understanding, who would risk his life by drawing the picture of his king, were it made treason to do so; yet how many risk their souls, if the Scriptures are to be relied upon, by affecting to portray the likeness of God, and casting aside His holy word for the legends, ordinances, and vain unscriptural doctrines of Popery!

The origin of image-worship commenced in, as Mosheim says, "a preposterous desire of imitating the Pagan rites, and of blending them with the Christian worship, and that idle propensity which the generality of mankind have towards a gaudy and ostentatious religion ;"—and " many imagined that this worship drew down into the images the propitious presence of the saints or celestial beings they represented." Platina says, that in the fifth century, Pope Sixtus III. prevailed on the Emperor Valentinian to place upon the altar of St. Peter a golden image of our Saviour, enriched with jewels. Gregory I. permitted them in churches, but condemned their worship; in the two succeeding ages, they were set up or thrown down, according to the caprice of the reigning infallibility, when (A. D. 712) Pope Constantine decreed that there

should be great adoration paid to them, in opposition to the Emperor Phillipicus, who had ordered them to be removed from the churches, and whom this Pontiff caused to be condemned and excommunicated as an apostate to true religion— a revolution followed, and the Emperor lost his crown. Similar disputes and results were carried on between the Greeks and Latins. Leo, the Isaurian, prohibited image-worship in 726, Pope Gregory II. enforced it; and thus tumult, excommunication, and the sword, settled these disputes, whilst some of the most learned of the Prelates wrote with all their force against the idolatrous worship which the most violent of the Popes maintained: hence, in the ninth century, through the exertions of Claudius, Bishop of Turin, that city and its neighbourhood" was less infected with superstition than the other parts of Europe." Disputes on this subject continued until the eleventh century respecting images which, however, all parties of those who worshipped them agreed in declaring to possess wonderful miraculous powers. In the golden age of Popery (which was the iron age of ignorance, as some of her own writers have been compelled to admit, but which those of the present day would fain deny)-the images, crosses, &c. chatted familiarly with their favourites:-one crucifix approved of the writings of Thomas ; a second addressed Bridget; a third conferred (in Latin) with Bernard; a fourth talked to Francis, saying, "Go, and build up my house;" a fifth to Dunstan (deciding in favour of his argument that the Priests should not marry), &c. &c. &c. Images of stone, brass, &c. have been (quite) as eloquent as others of wood; but as we do not now often hear of their verbal communica tions in England, and thinking it would be a loss of time to repeat what they used to say, we will conclude with Father Crasset's opinion of their claims to regard:-" God hath in every age, and still continues to work innumerable miracles by the images of Saints, and especially by those of the Virgin."

!

ཝཱཉཱ

CHAP. X. OF INDULGENCES.

What do you mean by Indulgences?

Not leave to commit sin, or pardon for sins to come: but only a releasing, by the power of the keys committed to the Church, the debt of temporal punishment, which may remain due upon account of our sins, after the sins themselves, as to the guilt and eternal punishment, have been already remitted by repentance and confession.

Can you prove from scripture, that there is a punishment often due upon account of our sins, after the sins themselves have been remitted?

Yes, this evidently appears in the case of King David, 2 Sam. xii. where, although the prophet Nathan, upon his repentance, tells him, 4. ver. 13, "The Lord hath put away thy sin," yet he denounces unto him many terrible punishments, ver. 10, 11, 12, 14, which should be inflicted by reason of this sin, which accordingly afterwards ensued. What is the faith of your Church touching Indulgences?

1

It is comprised in these words of our profession of faith: Iaffirm that the power of indulgences was left by Christ in the Church, and that the use of them is most wholesome to christian people. Upon what scripture do you ground this?

66

The power of granting indulgences was left by Christ to the Church; Matt. xvi. 19, I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven." And we have an instance in Scripture of St. Paul's granting an indulgence to the Corinthian whom he had put under penance for incest: 2 Cor. ii. 10, "to whom ye forgive any thing" (he speaks of the incestuous sinner whom he had desired them not to receive), "I forgive also; for if I forgive anything, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ:" that is, by the power and authority received from him.

"What do you mean by Indulgences?" is a very plain question; but before we are enlightened upon this " mys→ tery," we are first informed what (as it is asserted) it does not mean a somewhat peculiar method of Popish reasoning. However, these indulgences are, if we properly comprehend the intent of the invention, a sort of ready-reckoners, framed for the purpose of striking a balance in the punishments due to those who keep running accounts of crime with the men who assert that they alone possess the power of giving a receipt in full to Sin, whatever be the amount of her iniquity.

دو

Whenever Popery declares that anything "evidently ap pears in the Scriptures, so sure is she to be most tenderly cautious in her quotations and references (as in the present case) even as though she felt it might not be quite conve nient so to prove the various and innumerable assertions she has made. From the "evident" proofs of the comfortable doctrine of indulgences*, in which she commands her adherents to believe, she has modestly selected but one line of the Old Testament, and referred to the preceding verses, and the succeeding one (the 14th.) Had the Pope quoted the latter instead of referring to it merely, dit would have shown wherefore David was to be punished by other Almighty, although he had " put away his sin." The judg–1 ment denounced upon him by Nathan was to afford a signal proof to the Heathens that the offence of which he had been

J

Mr. Townsend, in his Accusations of History, says, "The prices of the pardons of offences were demanded according to the supposed gradations in the guilt of the criminal. They were paid, therefore, as fines, on the same principle as in the common law of England a lesser sum is demanded by the magistrate for prophane swearing, and a larger sum for seduction, or defrauding the revenue, neither of which sums are required as fees of office." Mr. T. refers to Baron Maseres and Dr. Hales for the List of Prices of the Dispensations; also to "the Table of the Impositions (prices of pardons for sin) of the Chancery of Rome, published by Antony Egane, the Confes sor-General of Ireland, after his conversion to Protestantism." By this we learn that the pardon of a heretic was rather dear, as the crime was heavy, amounting to no less than 367.98.-Venial, or slight offences were, however, pardoned at a propor tionately reasonable rate; thus a man who married a second wife-after murdering the first!-washed his hands of the blood in the holy water of Popery at the small charge of 81. 28. 9d.! 'Protestants," says Mr. T., "either do not know, or they cannot believe even the possibility, much more the certainty, of the crimes of which your Church has been guilty."- See Tenth Letter to Mr. Charles Butler.

to

We quote the following most wholesome" comforts, as the Pope says, “tổ Christian people," as being of a later date than those noticed above :—“ In the year 1800, a Spanish ship from Europe, was captured near the coast of South America, by Admiral Harvey, then Captain of the Southampton frigate. There were on board large bales of paper, valued in her books at 75007. It was a matter of surprise to him to see them rated so highly, and to hear the master of the captured vessel speaks of them with great admiration. He examined them, and found them all filled with large sheets of paper, printed some in Spanish and some in Latin, the seals of the Ecclesiastical Court of Spain, or at Rome. These were Indulgences, i or pardons, various sins mentioned in the (Roman) Catholic Rubric, and the price, which varied from half a dollar to seven dollars, was marked upon each. They had been bought in Spain, and were intended for sale in South some Dutch merchants bought the whole for 2007,

smuggle them among the Spaniards in America (a).",.

with

with America. At Tortola,

(a) These comfortable things for " Christian people" were to be had with blan to be filled up by the names of the purchasers.

1

A

guilty was an abominations in the sight of God. Howbeit, because by this deed (said the Prophet, Nathan) thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme? the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.-Does not Popery blaspheme in referring to this text as a warranty of her indulgences?" The power of granting Indulgences,'' we are informed, is claimed by Popery, by virtue, as she says, of holding the key's of heaven (it is to be hoped she will be able to use them on her own account?)-and as this is her vain excuse for whatever sins she commits on earth, it would have saved both herself and us much trouble if she had relied solely upon this power, without further argument, for enforcing upon mankind whatever doctrines pleased her best. Christ addressed all his disciples when he asked, whom say ye that I am?and of whom Peter replied to the question: but as the keys of heaven were then promised, the promise of our Lord was fulfilled when he confirmed his vicarious power to his Apostles jointly (John xx. 23). The text above (of the "keys"), though? quoted before, must be again repeated; for Popery well knows it is only by persuading mankind that she can open the gates of heaven when and to whom she pleases, that can induce them to submit themselves to her dominion. Her keys are, and ever were, employed in locking up the minds of her disciples, lest they should, in the language of the Apostle, serve God with a zeal according to knowledge. We are next told of St. Paul granting an indulgence (why not have said St. Peter?) to a Corinthian whom he had put under penance. As a falsehood cannot be a fact, neither can invective be argument; we will not, therefore, call the above assertion the most shameless falsehood Popery has made, shocking as it is to see the word of God corrupted to establish every lie put forth by an anti-christian spirit-deeply as it ought to be felt by every iudividual professing the hope of salvation through the REDEEMER of the world!

We seek not by argument to persuade, but by the most

1