Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

Whenever Popery declares that anything “ evidently appears ” in the Scriptures, so sure is she to be most tenderly çautious in her quotations and references (as in the present case) even as though she felt it might not be quite convek nient so to prove the various and innumerable assertions she has made. From the “evidentproofs- of the comfortable doctrine of indulgences *, in which she commands sher adherents to believe, she has modestly selected but ionel line of the Old Testament, and referred to the preceding verses, and the succeeding one (the 14th.) 4 Had the Pope quoted the latter instead of referring to it merely, it would have shown wherefore David was to be punishedziby thes 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

ور

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 Confese! 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 361.98.--Veniul, 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 smal!| charge of 81. 2s. 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. We quote the following" most wholesome" comforts, as the Pupe says,

saus.com 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 75001. It was a matter of surprise to him to see them rated so highly, and to hear the master of the captured vessel speaks large sheets of paper, printed some in Spanish and somerin , bem ' seated with

These were 1 Indulgences, i or pardons, for various

mentioned in (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 America.

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

А я 181ная.Я ist (a) These comfortable things for “ Christian people” were to be had to be filled up by the names of the purchasers

...!

per had with blanks

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;'í we are informed, is claimed by Popery, by virtue, as she says, of holding the keys 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 ful

filled 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! z We seek not by argument to persuade, but by the most

[ocr errors]

91.

positive evidences of Scripture to convince. The 10th verse of the Epistle to the Corinthians, quoted by the Pope, is preceded by these :-" But if any have caused grief, he hath not grieved me, but in part, that I may not overcharge you all. Sufficient to such a man is this punishment which was in flicted of many; so that, contrarywise, ye ought rather to forgive him and comfort him, lest, perhaps, such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow; wherefore, I beseech you, that you would confirm your love towards him; for to this end did I write, that I might know the proof of you, whether ye be obedient in all things.”-Is there any Christian who reads the Scriptures who dare deny that this exhortation of St. Paul is to prevail on the Corinthians themselves to forgive their offending brother ?-The person alluded to had sinned with his step-mother (1 Cor. v.); and, as we have shown what Popery has been pleased to call an indulgence for sin, we will now see the penance inflicted on the culprit by St. Paul. In the first place, be it observed, that St. Paul neither saw him nor named him; but (ch. v. 1.) tells the Corinthians that it is reported that the occurrence, as above, had taken place; and that (ver. 10, 11, 12), although they could not upon all occasions shun evil persons whilst in this world, yet not to keep company with any man called a brother who was guilty—and this is the penance inflicted by St. Paul!—The Pope has forgotten to tell us to whom the sinner's confession was made, since without confession it is said that there can be no remission, and, consequently, no indulgence can be granted ?—To what wretchedly impious tergiversations are those reduced in supporting the falsehoods of Popery, whilst the celestial light of the Gospel shines with full lustre upon the whole Christian world !-Mark the fol lowing verses of the above chapter (which we have quoted in the early part of this work), and with which it concludes ! Let any Roman Catholic, capable of even reading them, apply them to the infliction of a penance if he can:--v. 12, 13, For

[ocr errors]

what have I to do to judge them also that are without ii Do not ye judge them that are within ; but theni that are with out God judgeth.”

; 11. The origin of Indulgences commenced in the twelfth century *, for the purpose of filling the coffers of the Popish clergy at the expense of a deluded multitude; for all the various ranks and orders of the clergy had each their peculiar method of fleecing the people.The Bishops commenced the traffic in Indulgences; whilst the Monks and Abbots, who were not qualified to grant them, “ carried about carcasses and relics of their Saints, which the million were allowed to look at, touch, or hug, at stated prices; and who thus often gained as much by this raree-show, as the Bishops did by their indulgences. When the Popes saw the business to be done in this way, they limited the power of their Bishops, and engrossed the whole trade to themselves, making “ the Court of Rome the general magazine of Indulgences ;” and, at length, they“ not only remitted the penalties - which the Civil and Ecclesiastical Laws had enacted against transgressors, but audaciously usurped the authority which belongs to God alone, and impiously pretended to abolish even the punishments which are reserved in a future state for the workers of iniquity: a step, this, which the Bishops, with all their avarice and presumption, had never once ventured to take.”- The penitentials f were now sup pressed, by which a loose rein was given to every description of vice.” In the following century, “ to justify these scandalous measures of the Pontiffs, a most monstrous and absurd doctrine was now invented, supported by Thomas, a Papal Saint, and which contained the following enormities I:

* The whole account of these Indulgences is quoted from Mosheim.

+ Books in which were registered the penances considered to be due to each crime respectively.

John Tetzel, the Dominican, was chosen by Albert, Archbishop of Mentz, for his uncommon impudence, to preach and proclaim those famous Indulgences of Leo, X.,

"That there actually existed an immense treasure of merit, composed of pious deeds and virtuous actions, which the Saints had performed beyond what was necessary for their own salvation, and which were, therefore, applicable to the benefit of others; that the guardian and dispenser of this precious treasure was the Roman Pontift ; and that, of conse: quence, he was empowered to assign, to such as he thought proper, a portion of this inexhaustible source of merit, suita able to their respective guilt, and sufficient to deliver them from the punishment due to their crimes !It is a most deplorable mark of the power of superstition, says Mosheim, that a doctrine so absurd in its nature, and so pernicious in its defects, should yet be defended in the Church of Rome*.

At the conclusion of the thirteenth century, Boniface VIII. introduced the Jubilee, as it is called, to the other rites of the Romish Church. He issued a mandate, enjoining all Papists to confess their sins, &c., visit the churches of SS. Peter and Paul at Rome, by which, he asserted, a plenary remission of all sins and offences were to be obtained; and that this jubilee should take place every hundred years.

The first festival, however, of this sort proved that it was not a bad speculation, since the city of Rome was filled with the most wealthy visitors from all parts, so that fifty years after the first jubilee, Clement VI. enacted that it should take place every fifty years. This period was, however, of too long a date where so rich a harvest was to be obtained by merely a few Indulgences for sin to be disposed of by those who declared they had the power of granting them; and Urban VI. lowered the term for dispensing them to twentyfive years.

We cannot step out of our course to state the

ut supra.

which administered the remission of all sins, past, present, and to come, however enormous their nature, to those who were rich enough to purchase them. Mosh.

* The second section of the Bull of Leo XII., 1825, says__"The year of universal jubilee, when the infinite treasure of the precious merits of our Saviour and his saints, which the divine mercy had intrusted to our dispensation .... so long kept shut, was again, through our feeble ministry, to be laid open," &c.

« ForrigeFortsæt »