•1 ilr (^aY^ f Mnp / O^^t-*^'^ LETTERS TO A MKM15KK OK IIIK WKSLEVAN MKIIIODIST CHURCH ; IN WiUt II ( KKIAIN RKFT.r.CTIONS AGAINSr rkOTKSTAN F ISM, AND VARIOl S ASSL'MITIOXS L\ F\\<)1 K Ol- KOMAN'ISM, PI I FORTH \\\ AN KCCLF.SIASTIC OK ROMK. Aki: KXAMINFH AND RKFITFD. BY RHVI). JOHN BORLAND, I'V'iTijR oi- THK Wksi.kvan Mkiikjuisi Cm r< ii, St Jt)iiN>. Can\i)\. MUNTRKAI.: ••WIINKSS" l>ll(NII\>. »l «0 S K i«73 ^ / LETTEES TO A MEMBF:R of the WESLEYAN METHODIST CHURCH; IN WHICH CERTAIN REFLECTIONS AGAINST PROTESTANT- ISM, AND VARIOUS ASSUMPTIONS IN FAVOUR OF ROMANISM, PUT FORTH BY AN ECCLESIASTIC OF ROMK, ARE EXAMINED AND REFUTKD. BY REVD. JOHN BORLAND, I'AsroR oi niK Wkslkyan MKiiioDisr Church, Si. Johns, Canada. MONTREAf, } •'WnSKSS" FRINTIN(i HUUSK, aiH ANl> J20 ST. JAMKS STRKKT, «873. ADVERTISEMENT. A member of the Methodist Church of this Town has lately been addressed by an ecclesiastic of the Church of Rome, on the danger of his condition as a Pro- testant, and of the great desirableness of his speedily seeking admission into that Church. The means employed were letters, two in number, which, when received, were shown to the writer of this, because of the fact, doubtless, that he was pastor to the person aihlressetl in them. The first letter was devoted to an explanaticm of the unbecoming and danger- ous conduct of I'rotestants in refusing to render, as was thought, the homage ami veneration due to the Virgin Mary, and that the conduct of Romanists herein was in striking contrast to that of the Protestant. A suitable reply was prepared and sent to this communication, when it was soon intimated that a second letter might be expected, in which subjects in controversy would be handled at greater length and in greater fulness. After several weeks the looked for epistle arrived ; and was found to be in length at least, — extending as it did over twenty-five pages, foolscap, — all that was promised. In it was discussed directly, the differing " Rules of Faith " of tlie Protestant and Romanist Churches ; while, iucidcntly, a number of other jiarticu- lars were introduced and dwelt upon of much moment in the points of controversy between the two Churches. The whole matter now assumed a form and dimension of ci)n>.irm for him a soU-nui and sacred duly, as I wish hin« to «lo for nj •. Antl sincerely do I trtist that the tinu- will yet come, when in a spirit of Christian candour and fairness religious truth, as afl'ecting any party, can be, and shall be, discussed and eiKpiired into by persons of all shades of dif- ference, especially when those dirterences involve fundamental principles, until all the chaflOf error is fully blown away, and nought shall be found to remain but the wheat of truth which may supply to every hungry soul the bread of eternal Ule. LETTER I. CONDUCT COMMENDED — PARTICULARS OBJECTIONAHLE — KNoWI.ElXih DEFEC- TIVE — NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR SOCINIANISM — RULES OF 1 AITII STATED AND CONSIDERED — ABSURD SUPPOSITION — NUMEROUS SECTS IN THE CHl'RCH OF ROME — FANATICISM AND EXTRAVAGANCE — CASES REFERRED TO — REA- SON FOR WITHHOLDING THE SCRIPTURES EXPOSED — SHOULD HE WITHHELD FROM THE PRIESTHOOD. My DEAR L., — In reflecting upon the professed object of your "friend," as stated in his letters to you, viz., to induce you "to go back to your Mother Church," I cannot but commend his zeal to do you what he doubtless believed to be an essential service ; for, however plain and f)bvious his error in asking you to go back to where you never had been ; and in styling the Church of Rome your Mother Church, when to her you were never indeltled lor anything, —yet his design evidently was to rescue you from a condition which he regards as eminently perilous, and to introduce you where only, as he thinks, you can be forever safe. I commend, I say, his zeal to serve you ; for it cannot in any sense be considered Christlike to leave a fellow creature under the influence of fatal and destructive error — for in this light Romanists regard Protestantism, and f/Vt* zr;'.rn mv — assuniing that he has written on it as he understands it — his in- formation might and ought to be very much improved. It is ensy to imagine from the restrictive rules and regulations <>l the Roman Church, that l)ut a very limited, and therefore a very imjierfect, knowledge of the Protestant faith tan be acquired by any o» its members. Ihit surely no such obstacles are in the way to a full and proper knowledge of their own faith. (^n the part of the I'^cclesinstics o( the Church the probability is, that he tloes not say all he knows of his systen», but that only which on this occasion would ^uit his purpose with you. Vou should, at any rate, have a fuller cxi)osiiion of Romanism than your *' friend '' has given you, and that service 1 wUI render you ere I put down my pen. Your " friend " begins his last and longest letter by a comparison of the I'ro- testant with the Romanist rule of faith ; ami the conclusion which he reaches is evidently most satisfactory to himself. What it would be to others, who really understand the questions at issue, is quite another thing. This each thoughtful reader will decide for himself. He speaks of three rules of faith as existing amongst Protestants in the follow- ing manner : — "Of the three rules of faith. I. The Socinian rule of faith, they hold that reason is the interpreter of that divine revelation" (the Bible) ; II. "Private inspiration," which he says is "the rule of faith adopted by the Anabaptists, the Quakers, the Moravian Brothers, and the Methodists, which consists that Clod inspires each one of them" ; III. "The Bible, which is your third false rule of faith." The above, to go no farther, .shows that your "friend " needs very much to be mlightened on that on which he seeks to enlighten you ; and that ere he attempted to instruct a Protestant on the subject of his faith he should have become more fully informed on that subject himself. But this is one of many instances, ever and anon occurring, which .shows a remarkable defectiveness of knowledge of the leading characteristics of the Protestant laith on the part of Ro- manists ; and it forces upon us, Protestants, the conclusion that either they will not do justice to themselves in studying it, or that they purposely misrepresent it in order to prejudice all minds they can influence against it. But this they should know is no way to advance the interests of truth : and he certainly must feel that he has a bad cause to uphold who resorts to it. Of Socinians or Unitarians, and their rule of faith, I'rotestants might well excuse themselves from making any reference, much less a defence ; for with them, in their faith and religious life, the Protestant proper can have no bonds of sym- pathy or union. But as their nile of faith, as it is called, is held up as strikingly improper, and as their condition is supposed to be confirmatory ot that conclu- sion, I will bestow upon it a yiassing notice. And in doing so, I observe, there are two extremes in the religious world on this very subject, reason, in interpreting the Word of God. The Socinian is at one point, and the Romanist at the other. The one gives too great a scope for reason, the other too little. For instance, the Socinian presumes to bring to the bar of his reason the nature of certain truths with which his reason, oi that of any finite creature, is altogether incompetent to deal. Were he to employ his reason with the stntt'fui'tits, simply, of such .ScrijUures as, for instance, those profoundly mysterious truths of the plurality of persons in the Oodhead, the hypostatiial imion of natures in the person of Christ, iSic, then would reason have its true and legitimate field of action, and no exception could consistently lie against him. For, assuredly, God Himself a])peals to the use of reason in man, and calls for its exercise in a mnuber of instances; indirectly, in His many remonstrances and counsels given for thoughtful consideration antl action ; and, directly, when, as in Isaiah i : i8 He says : "Come now, and let us reason together, sailh the Lord." Nor does the Romish hierarchy fail to recognize the existence and use of rea- son when by argument, supported by Scriptural (juotations, they would sustain their assumiitioiis aiul dcman is u])on the people. Then why, it surely tn.iy be askeJ, refer to it in one instance and ignore its use in the other ? The only reply i)f which this question is susceptible is, because they have engrafted so many absurd and unscriptural dogmas and practices upon the faith and usages of the primitive church, that they greatly fear detection, with its attendant and necessary consequences. So great and glaringly inconsistent with every office of reason is the conduct ot the Church of Rome in many particulars, that we may not wonder at the at- tempt it makes to stifle its voice. Yet they ought to know that they are the last people in the world to point a finger even at the Socinian, or, by any means, to stir up an enquiry into the office and use of reason in matters of religion ; for to a properly enlightened mind it must ever be held as a monstrous supposition that Gotl should cause a book to be written which even in its incomplete condition, as under the Jewish dispensation, was found worthy of the most lavish praise, and to be commentled to all classes of men for constant reading and application, — as by holy men of God it was so praised and commended, — should now in its perfected form be found to be so dangerous, yea, even so fraught with deadliest evils, that to denounce it, to burn or otherwise to destroy it, and to punish most severely any who should read or circulate it, should be reganled by any, as by the Church it has long been so regarded, a solemnly imposed and imperative duty. This, I repeat, is a monstrous supposition, and could never be entertained by any people who had not abandoned the right use of their reason in matters so clearly within its office and their solemn and never to be abandoned responsibilities to God, their Redeemer and Judge. Your " friend" objects to the Bible as a rule of faith because such a license, he considers, begets Socinianism and multitudinous sects and parties, &c., &c. But if even this were so, no judicious mind but would hesitate ere he took a step so manifestly in opposition to the order of God, as seen in all ages of the past. But is it so, as your friend asserts ? Does the proper use — I say proper use for that is the light in which the thing is to be viewed— of God's Word lead to such a result ? I say no — emi^hatically no ! — and demand the proof of such a charge, yea, such a reflection, on the wisdom and goodness of God ; for if (iod has given us His Word by which to enlighten and bless us, then to bring forward such a charge, and to make it a reason for treating the Bible as the Church of Rome has long been known to do, is c>k you, is there any good thing which Ciod has bestowed upon man that is not susceptible of abuse, or that has not been abused? And yet has any sane man made the altemjit to set aside the Divinely-bestowed blessing in onler to do away with the man-created evil ? Many men take the grain which God has given us for our sustenance, and convert it into alcohol ; but do we, therefore, because of this, advocate the destruc- tion of the grain or the suppression of its growth ? But ere your "friend " shouhl have thought of urging this |)lea, — M<- usf of the Bible as ii rulf of fait h^ — he should have felt able to prove that no such evils have ever attended the Romanist Rule »)f faith. Does he not know — for assuredly he ought not to be ignorant of facts so clearly recorded in history, and that by author- 8 ities of his own Church— that anterior to the reformation by Luther, there were, as since that period there have been, and still are, sects and parties in the Roman Church as numerous and as widely divergent in principle and practice one from another, as there are or ever have been amongst Protestants ? You have only to look over any respectable ecclesiastical dictionary to be assured of this. As you may not, however, have such at hand, I will give you a list which I rather hur- riedly gather from one lying beside me. In the Church of Rome are the following sects, or orders, as they call them : — The Augustinians, the Annunciade, the Ar- medians, the Apostolina, the Benedictines, the Harnahites, the Hartholomites, the Bcrengarians, the IJeguincs, the liernardines, the Ik'thlehemites, the Bogomites, the Bollandists, the Bourignonists, the Bridgetines, the Calendarum Fraters, the Camaldolites, the Caperolans, the Capuchins, the Caputiati, the Carmelites, the Carthusians, the Calharists, the Celestines, the Cellites, the Cistercian Monks, the St. Clare Nuns, the Cenobite, the Confalon, the Convolutionists, the Cordeliers, the Dominicans, the Kocpiinians, the Eremites, the Feuillantes, the Flagellants, the Franciscans, the Cilliertines, the Ciyrovagi, the llebdomadarie, the Henri- cians, the Ileysichasts, the Hospitalers, the lUuminati, the Jansenists, the Jesuits, the Jesuates, the Joachimites, the Jovinians, Leucopetrians, the Mendicants, the Molinists, the Sarnbaites, the Sctists, the Servites, the Synodites, the Theateries, the Thcmiists, the 'IVappists, the Urselines, &c., &.C., Sec. Now here is a string of sects — -and I feel assured that a little industrious research wouUl very nuich en- large it — found in the Church of Rome. And yet such men as your " friend" are ever casting up to Protestants the number of sects into which they are split, and the sad evils that are said to result therefrom. I am aware that your *' friend " and his co-religionists will here lift their eyes with affected ast(mishment at what I now say, and exclaim, with nuich real or j>reten/>eas their only Aead, who is ~'isi/>le. A slight difference in one respect, but a great and im]M»r!:,iU difference in another. Another fact which ought to be known in this connection, is : that for wild hnn- ticism and extravagance, no sects that have ever risen up among Protestants can be coujpared to many in the Church of Rome. I may instance, for exaniple, the Bollandists, the Flagellants, and the Convolutionists. Well authenticated accounts of these, and that by autlu>rilies of their own Church —as with various other author- ities, see Kdgar's *' Variations of Popery," (a work of profound and extensive ri- search, in which not less than one hundred and fifty Komanisl authors of highest standing are cpioted), can be readily given, if your •' friend" or any of hisfricMJs^ entertain any duubth as tu the corrcetiicHii of my statement. On this subject Edgar remarks : " Arianism, Swedenborgianisni, Flagellism, Southcottianism, and other errors have erected their pretentious and fantastic heads. The clamor of Arianism, the nonsense of Swedenborgianism, the ravings of Southcottianism, have blended in mingled discord and in full cry," " But all these or similar kinds of schism and heresy appeared, in all their enormity, many ages before the Reformation. Division arose in the Church from its origin, in the days of apostolic truth and purity, Irenanis, who flourished in the second century, attacked the errors of his day, and his work on this subject fills a full volume in folio. These errors, in the days of K})iphanius, in the fourth cer.tury, had increased to eighty, and in the time of Philaster to an hundred and fifty. Their number continued to augment with the progress of time, and their systems ecjualled those of the moderns in extravagance. Schism and heresy prevailed to a more alarming extent before than since the establish- ment of l*roteslantism in its jiresent form. Later are Init a revival <»f former errors and tlelusions, which flourished at a distant period, and, preserved from oblivion by the historian, swell the folios of ecclesiastical antiquity. "These ilhisions, however, the reformers never countenanced, but on the contrary opposed. * * * "The Romish priesthood and people, on the contrary, have in every age fostered fanaticism and absurdity. Every foole.y of sectarianism, which, though uncoimected with I'rotestantism, arose since the Reformation and disgraced re- ligion, has nestled in the l)osom of I'opery, and been cherished by its priesthood and people. Arianism, an afijiiateil branch (jf Socinianism, claims the hon(jr of antit[uity, and was patronized by Liberius (Pope) and by the councils uf Sirmium, Seleucia, and Ariminum, The extravagance of Monlanism, as 'I'cr- tullian lelates, was patron i/.ed by the contemporary pope and rivalleilthe fanaticism of .Swedenborgianism. The I'ontifl', says (iodeau, gave Montanus letters of peace, which showed that he had been admitted to his conununion ((lodeau's words are : " Le I'ajie lui avait donnC* des lettres patifi(iues, (jui moiitraient qu'il I'avait admis a sa conunimion." His holiness, says Khenan, A/otitanhiu/. Victor, says Uruys, approved the prophesyingof Montanus, i'riscilla, and Maximilla. The mania of Joanna Southcott in motlern times is eclipsed by the dreams of Ik-ata Clara, and Nativity." Edgar, V'ars., pp. 33 ^: 34. The ravings of these Romish ladies is an astonishing conunent on the conduct of Rome in dealing with cases of religiv»us fanaticism and madness. 'Ihat they should have been coiniten.mced by authorities in the church is marvellous intleed, and should forever shut their mouths against any extravagance in the shape of religious excitements whenever ur by whomst)ever exhibited. Your "friend's" renjarks on the "absurdity of an ignorant countryman pretend- ing to interj>rel the Holy Scriptures," are quite beside all the f;\cts of the case. The instances are very rare indeetl in which any such thing is atteinplcil, for the illiterate of the Protestant churche*, generally as a rule, hmk up to their imstorn fur expository lessons on the Word of (»liESTloNS SKED EIEUMI ON THE Kfl.E OF FArni ROMA.v»:Ts' KtM.E I NM AN ACEaIU.E AND IM I'OSSllUK — TRorESlANT ONE SIMPLE— EASY OF .MM'I.ICA HON— SCRIl'Tl' RES IJENK- RAI.l.Y HEFORE, AT, ANU KTC, SCH.SEgirKNT TO UltR l,ORl)*S TIME. .\lV HEAR L., — The Church of Koui" 1^ remarkable for its assumptions. It asMunes most conlulenlly Itt be the trm' Chunh «tf (mmI the only tr»ie Church of (lod and as iiuch the only source uf autliurity to settle the mvaning uf the Holy Scriptures, aiul n thus to lay before the world the absolutely certain rule of faitli ami of practice. Nor do their assumptions end here ; for, virtually at least, they assume that Pro- testants have neither books nor brains by which to detect the emptiness of such assumptions, and the frail foundations on which they rest ; and, therefore, they may as a conse<]uence present them when and as they please without any fear of detection or of exposure. "Your friend" r pears to partake largely of this, to them, common spirit, and he therefore presumes to take liberties with, as he doubtless thinks, uninformed and unsophisticated I'rotestants, vainly supposing that they have no means wherewith to meet and refute him. IJut he shall be met, and his statements and arguments examined and sifted ; when we shall see M'hat of them, as wheat, will remain ; and what as chafl' will be blown away. lie states his own nde of faith to be as follows : " All truly inspired ,-^cripture and divine tradition interpreted, not by the ignorant, nor even by the learned, l)ut by the pastors sent and ordained by the true Church of Clod." If he were asked what he means by "divine tradition," his answer, I apprehend, would be amus- ing ; especially as required to show where such tradition was formed, and how ])reserved. The term "divine" is foisted in to prepare the way for giving to tra- ilition an equal authority with the " insjured Scri]iture." For why should the " inspired Scripture" be put above "tradition?" If the one be divine, the other, although insj ired, is but divine also. There is sophistry here, and therefore I call you to note it. Then, again, the definition is (at from being complete ; as by consulting the decrees of the Council of Trent may at once be discovered. And, further, it should have stnu-k your " friend " that since the last council, which declared the Pope infallible, the whole thing is changed. Now the rule of faith should be understood to be : " All truly inspired Scripture and divine tradition as interjireled by the Pope ; together with all and sundry ailditions, emendati(ms, and rorrec* tions, which he from time to time may deem it right and propertomake to them." If, however, he prefers his own definiticm to the one that accords with the now altered state of his Church, and which in one respect is much more simple anne shall f faith and morab, and whatever relates l(» the maintenance of Christian tloetrine, no one confidijig in hi* own judg- ment shall dare to wrest the sacred Scriptures to hik own scnhc of them, concrary 12 to that which hath been hehl ami slill is held by holy mother Church, whose right it is to judge of the true meaning and interpretation ot Sucred \Vrit, contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, even though such interpretation should never be publislied. If any disobey, let them be denounced by the ordinaries and punished according to law." liut here before we can proceed a step we have ar imjiortant a use, and as urgent a call, for tlie exercise of the Pope's infallibility as any that can well be conceived. This you will admit, I am sure, when I tell you that there is no dogma which the Church of Rome considers essential as distinctive of her faith from Protestantism, that has ever had the unaiiimous consent of the Fathers ! Let your " friend " try his hand and supi:)ly us with for the sense which the Church now desires all to hold of it. We have had an instance of this in the recent adoption of the dogma, that infalli])ility rested in the Pope, and not in the Pope and Council, as heretofore was maintained by the great majc^rity of the Church. We know that there were many who argued against the dogma as well as fo- it. A number still hold out ; but will any sane mine they were convinced that their argunuuts had been set aside by the rebutting ones of their opponents ? They have yielded to save aiipearances, and that only; but then, if so, does the dopna of tlie Pojjc's infallibility rest upon " ///(• unanimous consent of the Fathers 'f " No more than it does upon tlie concurrence of the jiatriarch of Constantinople. On the sul)ject of Transubstantiatit)n, which was discussed and a settlement attempted at the Council of Trent, Dr. Kdgar shows the same want of unanimity to exist. He says : " 'i'his statement of tiansubslantiation is couched in general terms, in which its jiatrons seem to liold the same faith, 'i'he doctrine, expressed in this manner, obtains the assent of every juofessor of Romanism. All these .igree in principles, but in many respects differ in details, 'i'his agreement and difference appeared in a striking light at the celebrated Coiuuil of Trent. " The doctors of that assembly wrangled on this topic in tedious and non- sensical jargon. An attempt was made, but in vain, to satisfy all in the ct)niposi- lion of the camuis. N( me were pleased. The dogma, in conseiiuence, had, for the sake of peace, to be prop()undee, in ihc theology of this f.utiun, neither renuiins, as say the Kraiiciscaus, nor ch.ingis, .iccording to the Dominicans, but ceases to exist either by annihilation, ruHoIuti(m or corruption. The substance of the sncramental elements i.s rcducetl to nulhing ; or by analysis or j ml refaction, returns lo its former 13 principles. This opinion, says Fabcr, was held l>y Henry, Cajetan, ami many other abettors of Catholicism." A fourth class liiffers from the preceding ones, led by Paris, Rupert, /Egidius, Durandusj Goffrid, Mirandula and Solo. To this a fifth class is given by Dr. Edgar, who differ from the others as they do one from the other. So much for the " unanimous consent of the Fathers." Then we have, according to Dr. Edgar's cases, cited a wonderful exhibition of differences of opinion on the proper renderingof Jolui VI., on which the doctrine ot transubstantiation is said mainly to rest. Cardinal Cajetan and l*oj)e Pius 11. say this passage cannot refer to the communion, for it was not then instituted. The Cardinal is (|uite Protestant in his judgment on this passage, for he says "Our Lord sJ>oh\' of/aith, as he Had not yet appointed the :>aerameHty Augustine, lionavenlure, and Aquinas conteml that these words (John vi,, 50, 56) "signify spiritual eating by faith and love." Here is Protestantism for you in earnest. Surely your " friend " will not after this tell you, as he has done, that Protestantism is but three centuries old. But while this is Protestantism, what shall we say of these fatlier'iand their opponents ? Are they not a fine illustiationof the unanimity of the Fathers ? Nor less so of the correctness of y«)ur " frieml's " statement : " We have the whole world for us during the fifteen centuries that preceded Luther." But what shall we say of the infallibility as well as the unanimity of the Fathers of the Church <»f Rome, in the light of the following from Edgar? " Pascasius, in the ninth century, seems to have been the father of this tle- formity (transubstantiation), which he hatched in his melancholy cell. His claim to the honor and improvement of this paradox is admitted by Sirmond, Hellar- mine and btuys. 'Pascasius,' says Sirmond, ' was the first who, on this (piestion, explained the genuine sense ot the Church.' This .Monk, according to Bellarmine, ' was the first who in an express and copious manner, wrote on the truth of the Lord's body and blood.' Men, says Mabillon, 'were, from reading his work, led to a more full and profound knowledge •)rthe subjec'.' Hmys candidly confesses ihat tiansubstantiatitm was a discovery of the ninth century, and unknown in the darker ages of antiquity. Scotus acknowledges that transubstantiation was no nrficle of faifh before the Council of Lateran in 1215 " ! I ! Fiuther, observes Edgar, "The Pascasian innovation was opposeil by nearly all the piety and eruditii)n of the age. A constellation ol theologians rose in arms against the absurdity. Kaban, Walafrid, Hcrebold, Rudentius, Florus, Scotus and Bertramn, the ablest theologians, arrayed themselves against the novelty." Here again we sec anything raihet than unanimity among the Kathcrn ! What then, I again ask, about your "friend's " averment of the no|>cs, and the many ami flagrant contradictions and oppositions of the «»nc to the other, we would at once conclude that to talk of the Church of Romr being able to lettle on its own authority a rul.- of fuith. much 14 less to make such rest on tradition and the unanimous consent of the fathers, with that of inspired Scriptures, is not only the greatest piece of presumption, but the most striking exhibition of folly anil arrant nonsense that it is possible to con- ceive of. Elliott, in his Delineations of Romanism, has the following on that which con- stitutes the rule of faith in the Roman Church : '* The Protestant rule is the Scrip- ture. To the Scripture the Roman Catholic adds (i.), the Apocrypha ; (2.), tra- ditions ; (3.), Acts and discussions of the Church, embracing numerous volumes of the Pope's Bulls ; ten folio volumes of Decretals ; thirty-one folio volumes of Acts of Councils ; fifty-one folio volumes of the Acta-Sanctorium, or the doings and say- ings of the saints ; (4.) add to these at least thirty-five volumes of the (Ireek and Latin fathers, in which he says is to be found the unanimous Consent of the fathers ; /5.), to all these one hundred and thirty-five volumes folio, add the chaos of umvntltH traditions which have floated to us down from the apostolical limes. lUit we must not stop here ; for the expositions of every priest and bishop must be added. The truth is, such a rule is no rule ; unless an endless and contradic- tory mass of uncertainties could be a rule. No Ropiinist can sol)erly Mit'rr, much less ttv/fi, his own rule of faith." — /> rg. Dr. Cumming, in his celebrated discussion with Mr. French, has wittily but truthfully said, *' If you were to take one of the largest spring vans on the B. Rail- roat of corruptible seed, I'Ut of incor- ruptible, by the l\'ot\i of (JoJ, vvhich liveth and abideth ftHCvei." -Peter 1. 2}. 15 What but that o{ a happy and sweetly assured believer of the reality and powei' of the grace of Clod that has brought him salvation, and of the divinely attested character of those means which he had used so successfully thereto. This experience is doubtless that inspiration to which your " friend " referred as constituting what he calls the second rule of faith as held by Methodists, Sec, &.C. Nor of this will Methodists feel ashamed, as it shows rengion in common sense agi'eement with any of the proper professions of life in which men are mov- ing ; for whether a man study the profession of medicine or that of ag iculture, or indeed any other science or profession, he has first the theory to master end learn ; then, that theory to apply in practice ; and then, as a consequence, certain results, l)y which he tests the correctness of his theory, or the method of its application he has followed. If the results are satisfactory, he will feel assured ; nor will any one be able to shake his confidence in the conclusions he has reached. Inasmuch, therefore, as the grace of Ciod in the Gospel of His .Son is designed to be a remedy for sin, and when as such it is applied and efiects follow which we were taught to look for and expect, then those effects sjjeak for themselves, being just such as should arise in order to justify the claims of the (iospel upon our credence and respect. In this instance, therefore, as in the former, no power should be per- mitted to shake our confidence in the faith we profess, and in the application we were induced to make ot its principles. Kre I close this letter I will call your attention to a fact which your "friend" and his co-religionist;» seem not to have perceived. It is the clearly .admitted cus- tom or habit of the Jews, in our Lord's d.ays, of reading and applying the Holy Scriptures as individuals or in conmiunities. To this practice our Lord in several instances alludes, but never in the way of reproof, much less of condemnation. This is the more remarkable, as He many times reprehended them for things wrcng in their creed atic yc not rctui that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, &c." — Matt, x.xii. 29 31. Then in another remarkable instance in the narrative of the rich man and l.azarus, he tatight : "Aliraham saith unto him, they have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them." . . . *' If they hear not .Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose frouj the dead. Mult. •Wi. 29 31. Again, and still more striking, is the following s •' And many other signs truly ditl Jesus in the presence of His disciples which are not written in this hng ll»e churches of aiutsiolic times. Put the <|uestions are: Is she to-day what she then was? l>oes slie maintain, in funda- mentals at least, the faith and the Usages of the primitive Churches? l-'ur if she has dcparled from these, then having so departed she has lost her status, and is in wliole 01 in pari a novelty and not the primitive Church founded by St. I'.iul and addrcsbctl by iiim in his memorable Euislk, (I >ay nothing o| St. Peter as 18 connected with the Church of Rome ; for it recently has been demonstrated in an able discussion in Rome itself, what was long believed by many, that he never was in Rome, therefore never could have been its first IJishop or Pope ; and so all the chain fancifully linked on to this hook falls to the ground and it. broken to pieces. ) A careful comparison of these books with the princi])lcs and doings of the priesthood of Rome will show a marked and striking difference between them and (lie primitive Churches. For instance, in those days a penitent seeker of mercy was directed at once to the Saviour in faith, as thus he would receive the forgiveness of his sins, the gift of the Holy S|)irit and adoption into Cod's family, as see Acts ll, 37, 38 ; xvi. 31 and Rom. I IF. 24, 26, &c., &c. In those instances we sec no confessional, or any nse for if, no insi>ting upon a full cox\- fession of sin, under the threat that if every sin was not confessed the whole service would be vitiateii:; by the Apostles to sound the depths of the heart and the history of the life, especially in all its wickedness; no, nor do we sec an instance in which the aposlles assumed th{^ authtirity to for;^i7f God, showing himself that he is (Jod." This, commencing in the changes in faith and jiractice which the clergy (»f Rome have from time to time effected, changes tlie //('//-observance t)f which involves the penalty of a cursr, and the observance of which is essential, according to their teaciiing, to salvation ; the suppression of the Word of GimI, and the entire submission to themselves which they ilemand, being a part --an important part— of them, and which have now culminated in the investiture of the Pope with iitjU//il>ilify ! These together put the Church of tlic Romanist before us in an appalling light, and suggest to all thoughtful minds the most serious cfmsiderations and consetjuences. Nor do tliese particulars complete the picture. The a|)p!ieatii)n niaile of thnn by the clergy of Rome conducts us to the startling conclusion that if they are right. then must G

;^ity became heretical. Innocc-nt IH. annulled this decisiim. Hadrian VI. called Celestine a heretic for giving it." (pp. S4SS-) Wonderful agreement in the infallibles of an infallible Chu'*ch truly ! " And thus the perplexing spectacle was afforded the church of one pope une- quivocally charging another with false doctrine. What Nicolas III. and C-leinent V. had soloumly comnien- mitted to the inevitable, they subscribed the anathema, and themselves undertook to see that the heretic Ilonorius was condemned in the west as well as throughout the east, and his name struck out of the Liturgy. //. 7J, 7^. " Nobody thought of getting dispensations from Church laws from the Roman bishops, nor was a single tax or tribute pai'l to the Roman See, for no court as yet existed." (The fifth century) "To make laws which could be dispensed for money would have appeared both a folly and a crime. The power of the keys, or of binding anil loosing, was universally held to belong to the other bishops just as 26 much as tr) the bishoj) of Rome."/. S/. " For a lonij time nothint; was known in Rome of defmite rights bequeathed by Peter to his successors." — //'/ity and intelligence. His holiness, therefore, was con- victed on the best authority, and indeed confessed his own criminality. "The allegations against him were twofold. One respected faith and the other morality. On the former he was convicted of schism, heresy, deism, infi- delity, heathenism, and profanity. He fostered schism by refusing to resign the popedom for the sake of unity. He rejected all the truths of the Gospel and all the doctrines of Christianity. He denied the immortality of the soul, the resur- rection of the body, and the responsibility of man. He disregarded all the institu- tions of revealed religion. " The other imputations on morality were seventy, twenty of which were sup- pressed for tlie honor of the Apostolic See. ' John,' says L'Abbfe, * was convicted- of forty crimes. The Constantian fathers found him guilty among other crimes of piracy, robbery, murder, perjury, fornication, adultery, incest, constupration and sodomy, and characterized his supremacy as the oppressor of the poor, the persecutor of the just, the pillar of iniquity, the column of simony, the slave of sensuality, the alien of virtue, the dregs of apostacy, the inventor of malevolence, the mirror of infamy, ami, to finish the climax, an incarnated devil.' 'The accusation,' says Nieni, 'contained all mortal sins and an infinity of abomi- nations. ' " Alexander VI. in the common opinion, surpassed all his predecessors in atrocity. This monster, whom humanity disowns, seems to have excelled all his rivals in the arena of villany, and outstripped every competitor in the stadium of miscreancy. Sannazarius compared him to Nero, Caligula, and Ileliogabalus ; and I'opc (a Romanist let it be remembered) in his celebrated ' Essay on Man,' likened IJorgia, his family name, to Cataline. His debauchery, perfidy, ambition, malice, inhumanity, and irreligion, says Daniel, made him the execration of all Europe. Rome under his administration and by his example, became the sink of filihiness. the headquarters of atrocity, and the hotbed of prostitution, murder. 32 and robbery. " Les ddbordemens publics, les perfidies, I'ambition d6m6suree, Tavarice insatiable, la cruaut6, Tirrtligion en avoient fait Tolijet de I'exdcration de toute rEuropc." — Daniel, 7.84. Some idea may be formed of his excesses when it is stated that the infamously celebrated I^ucretia was at once his daughter, his 7oife and his daughter-in-law . "He murdered the majority of the cardinals who raised him to the popedom, and seized their estates. lie had a family of spurious sons and daughters and for whose aggrandizement he exposed to sale all things sacred and profane, and violated and outraged all laws of God and man. His death was from poison which he had prepared for certain rich cardinals whose estates he had purposed to seize." The above extracts are taken from Dr. Edgar's work, already referred to. They could be extended to any length, not only trom his work but from others which abound on this and kindred subjects. And l)e it remembered that Dr. Edgar's book contains quotations from at least one hundred and fifty Romanist loriters of unquestionable authority. The instances of doctrinal error and fearful immoralities given are supplied to show : First, that theideaof ;., '-^l infiillibility, whether referring t(j the pope, or to the pope in council, or in whatev^er method the Church of Rome chooses to settle it, is a figment, worthless and absurd, and which no sane mind would utter that was not blinded by presumption, or that did not imagine the world strangely oblivious of the testimony of history. Second, that the Romanist's " rule of faith" is seen to l)e both from its nature and its results, just as impracticable as it is unprofitable ; and that for all good and useful purposes it might as well have never been propounded. And third, that if it is essential to salvation — and the Church of Rome says it is — that we should believe, first, that the Church of Rome in its pope and council and concurring clergy ; or, secondly, now in the Pope alone, is inlallible ; or, in other words every one who will not believe that white is black, and that a lie is the truth, should make up his mind to sail for purgatory or some worse place ; and be satisfied to allow all the noodles and things, in the shape of rational beings, who will say and believe whatever is told them, how. ever contradicted by facts and figures, by reason and common sense, to go to- gether to the pope's paradise, and sing of a salvation, not to God and the Lamb, but to the pope and his clergy, to whom God had long ago abandoned His power to save and His will to bless ! ! ! Then as the Church of Rome is seen to have been wrong, fearfully and unmistakably wrong, in the past, may she not be wrong in certain instances in the present ? And is not such a strong and sufficient reason why each one should take a Bible and prayerfully read it for himself? In this course he should re- solve to act : 1. Because the Bible was given by God for this very purpose. 2. Because, while Protestants have followed this plan, they neither have, nor have had, so many and reprehensible differences and conflicts among them as have been, and are now, among the Romanists, and 3. Because that while the Roman Church supplies nothing that can be ])ro- perly cimsidered a rule of faith nothing but a lilind and unreasoning, and 33 lheref()rc an unmanly, submission to men proved to he fallible and iinrdiabh, and liecause the Protestant Rule of Faith is i)()th practicable and safe, and ujion all fundamental particulars when properly used incrrabh', it should be adopted by all persons, with an earnest purpose of seeking aid from Him who has promised "wisdom to all who ask," see James i. 5 ; as then having "an unction from the Holy One" (the Holy Spirit) they "shall know all things,"— (all things essential to salvation, I John 2, 2o.). and then practicing those truths in a sincere anil believing spirit, the gracious fruit, see Gal. v. 22, 23 and vi. 8, 9, which is sure to follow, will furnish an unerring, an ////??///7V(.' evidence that they " havt not believed in vain,^^ nor ^'^ folhnoed cunningly dez'ised fables. '''' Here is infallibility in man, and here only, fust as he who having sown his field with wheat, and now sees it growing and ripening to its natural perfection, is infallibly sure of the correctness of his action and anticipated conclusion, so is he infallibly sure of his present and hopeful future, who has sown to the spirit, and is now reaping life and peace, and that as an earnest of richer life to come. And does not the Saviour call us to the exercise of this course when He addresses us in the following words : " Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather graj)es of thorns, or figs of thistles ? Even so every good tree l^ringeth forth good fruit, but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fnait. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit, therefore by their fruit ye shall know them." Matt. vii. 16, 20. "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God. bediuse many false prophets are gone out into the world. I lereby know ye the spirit of God : Every spirit that confesseth that. Jesub Christ is come in the flesh is of God. " " Hereby know ye the spirit of truth and the spirit of error." " If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love isjierfected in us." John iv. i, 2, 6, 12, and then as to our own state we exclaim if real Christians, with St. John, I John, 2,3 : " Beloved now are we the sons of Ciod, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, as he is pure" ; with which the doctrine by St. Paul is equally clear and satisfactory : "In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the Gospel of your salvation, in whom also, after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest rjf our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession ' unto the praise of his gloiy." Eph. I. 13, 14. Nor should I forget to mention here that the sail and lamentable cases of defection which have been given of the popes, — and the same may be said of the great body of the clergy, bishops, <.\:c., go to disprove the dogma of ajjostolical succession, as held by the Church of Rome and by a portion of the Protestant Church — if it be right to call such in the proper sense of the vord Protestants. To supix)se that God would keep up a chain of ministerial succession through wicked and Christless men,- but especially though such monsters of error and wicked- ness as were many of the popes and their leading clergy, — is itself a monstrosity in belief only fit to be placed alongside ut suppose all he says of difficulty were fully admitted, would such mnke his rule of faith less impracticable and impossible ? I have shown his rale of fiiitli to be altogether impracticable, that it never has been applied and never can be, so that, if he were to succeed, as he thinks he has, in proving as much of the Protes- tant's, what then ? Why, that either there was no such thing as a rule of faith at all and it was God's purpose that mankind should do \vithout any, and l)e like the ship sent to navigate the sea without compass or chart, or that neither the Romanist nor the Protestant had yet found what that rule was. I maintain that in my previous letters I have shown that we Protest- ants have the true and infallible rule of faith ; whilst Romanism, in her great changes since the ninth century, has gone drifting over the sea of doubt and uncer- tainty, and Ijcing completely in a fog thinks every one else is as badly off as herself. But these objections of your " friend " against the use of the Scriptures as a rule of faith are met even by Pope Clement 14, who '\nvol. i. xix. letter 40, says : "The Gospels contain the religion of Christ, and are so plain that the meanest capacity can comprehend them. '''' And Dr. Manning in his "Moral Entertainment " observes: ' ' The answer of Christ to the young man who w ished to know from him the way of salvation, saying, 'How readest thou?' teacheth us that if we will be rightly instructed in the ways of salvation, we must go to the divinely inspired •ivritin;^s. The Gospel is that which we must follow ; by it we must be judged, and l)y it stand or fall in that day ; and happy is he that shall be found able to meet that awful (juestion c,f the great Judge, IFoTiU readest thou ? " Taking now the reasonings of your "friend" against the reading and sub- mission to the teaching of Holy Scriptures, what a nice instance of unanimitv between him and the authorities he 7urites under (and they are many) and the adot'e authorities 7i'liose words I i^ive ! Hi error, real or apparent, is in supjiosing that because Protestants contend for the use, — free, frequent, and individual — of the Holy Scriptures, that there- fore we set aside, or in any way undervalue, the preaching of the Word, and our duty in hearing it. Preaching we regard as the leadiui^ instrumentality (didering thereby fnmi the i)rcsent Church of Rome, who think the performance of Mass 38 to be such), appointed by God for the conversion and salvation of the world. But inasmuch as by such words as those of^^St. Paul, Gal. i : 8, " Though we or an angel from heaven preach any other Gospel to you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed," we are exhorted to the exercise ot per" so nal judgment, — and that as to the doctrinal preaching, — not of popes, bishops, or priests, but of those immeasurably above them, even apostles or angels, — we need something to guide our judgment by, we take as the next best to the Saviour himself OJ his divinely inspired apostles, the word which they have left us. And as in compliance with their express or clearly implied commands we were rendering the required obedience, should we not be more than a little surprised in being met by men assuming to be the only authoriz-^d exponents of the divine will, who forbade our act, and threatened us with imprisonment and pains, even unto death, if we dared by obeying God to disobey them ? We doubtless would have many surmisings under such circumstances, but not certrinly of such a character as would redound to the honor or ci'edit of these obstructionists. One more misapprehension your "friend" evidently labors imder, I will re- move and then pass on. He writes you, as though it were if the whole Bible was not possessed, and that with a certain knowledge of its divine character and import, saving faith could not by any one be attained or exercised. To this it would be a sufficient reply to ask. Did our Lord or His apostles propound and establish the w//c;/t' truth of each book of the Holy Scriptures ere they demanded the hearty reception of and faith in the Saviour's divine character and mission? We believe the 7oholc Bible valuable, and important " for doctrine, for reproof, for correcti. .., and for instruction in righteousness; " but even as it is not essential to the main- tenance of natural life that we should eat of every kind of fruit, grain, vegetable, and (lesh, which God in His gracious providence has given to us ; that a chemist or naturalist should demonstrate to us the life-giving properties of each article of food ere we partook of it, so is it not absolutely necessary to possess the whole Bible ,and have demonstrated to us beyond a (juestion that it is God's book, and therefore truly divine, ere we attain to saving iaith in Christ. It is enough that the sinner learn the leading truths of his condition, relation to God, redemption by Christ Jesus, with the conditions and duties of religion ; nor, indeed, is even the whole of this essential, absolutely, as see Acts i6 : 31. All this, we are thankful to say, maybe obtained fivmmuch less than a whole Bible; therefore, while prizing as an invaluable boon the whole of the sacred Scrii)tures, we nevertheless would content ourselves with a part, or that part of them which our Heavenly Master sa\kr it right to bestow upon us. I will now come to the concluding portijn of your '• friend's " long epistle. It is, you will recollect, on the differing views and actions of Protestants ami Roman- ists towanls the Virgin Mary. Romanists afTcet to regard Protestants as guilty of great sin in not treating the Virgin Mary with due honor ; while Protestants regard Romanists as guilty of idolatry towards that holy woman, and of gross dis- honoi to the Saviour in the coarse they jnusue towards her. His first letter on this subject was much more full and argumentative than is this his second one. Here he looks like a bird that had bgen winged in its flight, and could now do little more tlian flutter. 39 Protestants are said not to honor the Virgin aright, because they do not regard her as "the mother of God" and *' the Queen of Heaven;" and further, because they do not worship and }iray to her. This, we are told, cannot but be very offen- sive to the divine Son especially, and for which, doubtless, we may expect His heaviest judgments. But let us again, and at greater length than before, examine this subject. Protestants cannot regard the Virgin Mary as '* the mother of God," because such is an absurdity. God hr had no beginning, therefore could not have, as a consequence, a mother. The human nature of Christ had a beguining, and had that beginning in the womb of Mary. She was the exalted and honored mother of the human nature of our Lord, and therefore in that sense may be called the mother of our Lord. But when, because of the union ot the human nature with the divine, and because that jierson of mysteriously complex nature was called, and properly, God as well as man, Mary is called the mother of God, we draw back shocked at the unauthorized and in a marked sense blasphemous utterance. To call her the Queen of Heaven is equally without Scriptural warrant, and eciually without any becoming sense of propriety. Romanists worship Mary, paying her divine honors, and take exception against Protestants for not doing the same. In this, I may remark, we have an instance of Protestant consistency with the ancient faith, and of Romanist novelty and departure in another and striking instance from '^'^ the faith oucc delh'ered to the saints." The apostles and primitive Christians knew nothing of this worship. Who, then, belong to their faith and j^ractice, and of consequence to their Church ? The Saviour, evidently foreseeing that improper worship and service would be paid to His honored mother, gave a note of warning on the subject in the following language ; and here we have another one of many notable instances of the im- portance of the Word of God for the guidance of our faith and practice. Look at and ponder the following passages : " While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethern stood without desiring to speak with him . Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy bret'iren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethern? and he stretched forth his hand to^oard his disciples, and said, lu-hold my tnother and my brethern ! For lohosez'er shall do the loill of my Father 'which is in heaTcn, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.''^ Matt 12: 46-50. "And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him. Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. But he said, yea rather, blessed are they that hear the ivord of God, and keep it.'' Luke II : 27-28. These Scriptures show most distinctly that a spiritual relation to Christ, brought about by a readiness to hear, and a cox\'^\'>\.{incy in doitii^ the 7oill of God, is greatly before the merely natural relation of Mary as his mother, geal, uncpicstionably great, in honor and distinction as that relation must be admitted to be. Hence we believe that Mary's honor in being selected to be the natural mother of our Lord was based upon her spiritual or truly religious character ; and 40 that she "magnified the Lord and that her spirit rejoiced in God her Saviour," Luke 1 : 46-4J, shows that her true spiritual greatness and distinction arose from the earnestness and heartiness of her faith in God her Saviour, \vho in His human nature was to be born of her by the power of the Holy Ghost, rather than by the fact of that conception and birth thus effected. Let Romanists leave the Virgin Mary — whom we all unite in saying was blessed among women — where the Iloly Scriptures have put her, and then there will be no difference between Protestants and Romanists herein, nor, in this instance at least, between the Romanists of the present and those of the ancient Church of Rome. Your "friend" propounds and then answers the following question : "Do Catholics render the Most Blessed Virgin Mary the same worship and adoration as to Christ himself? Answ^cr : No, for it would be an idolatry ; but Catholics honor her eminent prerogatives with a degree of veneration intimtkly inferior to that which is due to God." Using the words of your "friend," I say "attention here." If Catholics are convicted of rendering to ^Lary the same worship and adoration as to Christ him- self, such ^^ would be an idolatry ^ ^'■Attention here" I again say, for we must look into this matter closely. In an encyclical letter of Gregory XVI, , dated Aug. 15, 1832, and address- ed "to all patriarchs, primates, archbishops and bishops," he says : "We select for the date of our letter this most joyful day, on which we celebrate the solemn festival of the most blessed Virgin's triumphant assumption into heaven, that she who has been, through every great calamity, our patroness and protectress, may watch over us writing to you, and lead your mind, by her heavenly influence, to those counsels which may prove most salutary to Christ's flock. " But that all may have a successful and happy issue, let us raise our eyes to the most blessed Virgin Mary, who alone destroys heresies, who is our CREATEST HOPE, YEA, THE ENTIRE (GROUND OF OUR HOPE." Now what is all this, pray, if it l)enot giving to Mary, not only the same wor- ship and adoration, but really more than is paid to the Fathei , the Son, or the Holy Spirit? For she is, observe, spoken of, as *^our greatest hope f yea, '■'■ the entij-e •ground of our hope !" Could anything more than this be said of Christ ? But this is said of Mary, and thus is she lifted above Christ, and herein worshipped not only with the same but even with greater worship and veneration. What is this, then, if not idolatry, even on your " friend's " authorities; and yet how these Romanist authorities contradict one another — as see " Gother in his Papist Misrepresented." He says: " Cursed is i'7>erv goddess-7iJorsAipper iha.t believes the Blessed Virgin Mary to be any more than a creature ; that worships her, or puts his trust in her more than in (lod ; that l)clieves her above her Son, or that she can in anything cimimand Him. Amen." And yet with such language on his lips or expressed by his pen, he 'knew that the following was in the Roman Breviary : "If the winds of temptation arise, if thou run upon the rocks of tribulation, lo(^k to the star, call upon Mary. If thou art tossed upon the waves of pride, of ambition, of detraction, of envy, look to the star, call upon Mary. If anger, or avarice, or the temptations of the flesh toss the bark of ihy minil, look to Mary. If(listurl)cd with ihe greatness of thy sins, 41 troubled at thy defilement of the conscience, affrighted at the horrors of the judg- ment, thou beginnest to be swallowed up in the gulf of sadness, the abyss of des- pair, think upon Mary — in dangers, in difficulties, in doubts, think upon Mary, invoke Mary. Let her not depart from thy mouth, let her not depart from thy heart, " &c., &c. Now if such language does not imply the /lighcst trust in Maiy that it is pos- sible to exercise in Jesus, the Saviour ; in God, the Father ; and in the Holy Ghost, the Sanctifier, then I confess I have lost the knowledge of some of the plainest tei-ms in our language. But this is not all. Seymour in his "Mornings among the Jesuits at Rome " (which as in j^arjnthesis I would recommend to gen- eral reading and reflection), in a conversation on this veiy subject with certain leading Jesuits in Rome, referred to a well-known prayer, to the saying of which, in the year 1817, was attached an indulgence of 300 days ; it was in these words : " Jesus, Joseph, Mary, I give you my heart and soul ; Jesus, Joseph, Mary, assist me in my last agony ; Jesus, Joseph, Mary, I breathe my soul to you in peace." Here again we have the same worship and adoration to the creature as to Christ himself. But still more striking is the following, in a work by St. Alphonso de Liguori. It is entitled " The Glories of Mary." In it among other things is des- cri])ed the vision of St. Bernard, in which he beheld two ladders extending from earth to heaven — two ways by which the sinner could have access to heaven. At the top of one ladder appeared Jesus Chrst ; at the top of the other ladder appeared the Virgin Mary ; and that, while those who endeavoured to enter into heaven by the way of Christ's ladder fell constantly back and utterly failed; those, on the other hand, who tried to enter by the ladder of Mary, all succeeded, because she jnit forth her hands to assist and encourage them." Mr. Seymoui says that he saw this as an altar piece in a church in Milan, where the two ladders were represented reaching from earth to heaven ; "Jesus Christ at the head of one, and Mary at the head of the other, and while none were succeed- ing by the ladder of Christ, all were succeeding l)y the ladder of the Virgin." These statements were admitted and even defended by the Jesuits with whom Mr. Seymour conversed, while they assured him that " God hears our prayers mart uiiekly i^^hen they are offered fhrou^^h the Blessed Vir^^hi than tchen offerred throitt^h any one else, or than to, or through Christ ! ! ! " Now what does all this amount to ? Why, 1st, that when Gother says : "eursedf is every goddess-7^vrs/ii/>/>er," he jironounces a curse upon his whole Church, and when he inveighs against a Protestant for charging his Church with such, he does so to deceive whom he addresses, most assuredly. What a character, then, is his. 2nd. That the Virgin Mary not only receives the same worship and adoration with Christ, but in some — in many — instances is actually placed above Him ; there- fore, according to your *' friend," his Church arc idolators ! 3rd. That even were she worshipped in the subordinate worship ^){ hypei douliay as it is pretended she is l)y the Romanist, they would siiU he chargeable with not only grievous errors, but with gravest idolatry. That the Church of Rome in offering even subordinate worship to Mary is chargeable with gravest errors, for it supposes her invested with the attriljutes of omnipresenee and onntiscience, — attributes which l)eliing to deity alone. Forof these 42 she must be possessed if she hears prayers addressed to her at the same time and in different parts of the world. Yes, the Church of Rome is guilty of idolatry ; for the worship which the Israelites ofifered to the golden calf when Moses was on the Mount with God, was of this very subordinate character. They did not ignore Jehovah's existence, or imagine that supreme worship should not be ofifered Him ; but as Moses the servant of God had left them, and they knew not, or affected not to know, that he would ever return, they made a god of gold like unto a calf, and worshipped it. But for this Jehovah was very angry ; nor less so Moses himself. The whole aspect and condition of their affairs were affected by this act ; nor ■was it till three thousand of them were slain as a punishment, and Moses had ^pcnt much time in most earnest intercession in their behalf, that God con- sented to again become their leader to the promised land. With a knowletlge which they had of God's supremacy and glory, as attested by His many miracles in their favour, they could not, nor did they, by ignoring such refuse Him worship and adoration. But like the Romanists of our day, they wanted an inferior deity — the one a calf in the place of Moses, and the other the Virgin Mary in the place of Christ ; — they, therefore, made to themselves a calf and worshipped it, — with hyperdidian worship, doubtless. — The steps by which the Church of Rome has receded from the position of primitive Christianity, is a striking lesson as to the folly and danger of abandon- ing the Word of God ; and as well for any one to give up the use of his reason and understanding to follow implicitly erring, and in not a few instances, as sufficiently proved, designing and wicked men — men who have not hesitated to make merchandise of the souls and bodies ot their fellows, while forbidding the existence of a doubt or question at all affecting thtir wisdom or goodness, or right and authority for doing what they deemed it right for themselves or others to do. Their introduction and use of the dogma of purgatory is another striking illustration of this. Of this discovery and use. Dr. Doellinger, the Catholic, writes as follows : (see his work Janus," /. 230.) : " Agostino Trionfo of Ancona, an Augustinian Monk, who wrote his Summa on the Church by command of John XXH. had already discovered a new kingdom for the Pope to nile over. It had been said before that the power of God's Vicar extended over two realms, the earthly and the heavenly, meaning by the letter that the Pope could open or close heaven at his pleasure. From the end of the thirteenth century a third realm was added, the empire over which was assigned to the Pope by the theologians of the Curia — Purgatory. Trionfo, commissioned by John XXII. to expound the rights of the Pope, showed that, as the dispenser of the merits of Christ, he could empty purgatory at a stroke, by his indulgences, of all the souls detained there, on the sole conditiun that somebody fulfilled the rules laid down for gaining those indulgences ; he advises the Pope, however, not to do this." {Summa Je Pot. Eccl, Rimae 1SS4, p. /pj). Now here is a fact : this changing, shifting Church of Rome about the close of the thirteenth century discovers purgatory, and see what use since then she has made of it ! \\\\o.i marvellous sums of money it has brought her ! What marvellous power it has enabled her to wield over her people ! And yet how well 43 she has managed to keep the people from detecting and denounciiig this imposi- tion ! All because she succeeded in putting the Bible out of sight and out of use ; so that now, blindfolded, she leads her people at her pleasure. I trust that these letters to you may induce some Romanist to ponder and think for himself ; and that many with him may yet follow no man, or men, but as they follow Christ and walk before them in the light of the revealed will of God, the inspired and Holy Scriptures, given to all for this very purpose. I will ere I close give your " friend" a nut or two to crack ; a couple of syllo- •gisms on which he may try his logic. FIRST. The rule of faith which God has given His Church for its guidance is consist- ent with itself, and with the character and relations ot the Church. But the rule of faith held by the Church of Rome is not consistent with itself, nor with the character and relations of the Church : Therefore, the rule of faith held by the Church of Rome is not that which God has given the Church for guidance. SECOND. The true Church of God, guided as it must be by the Word and Spirit of God, is ever consistent with herself and with God's Word and Spirit. But the Church of Rome is not consistent with herself nor with the Word and Spirit of God : Therefore, the Church of Rome is not the true Church of God. To the merits of these syllogisms I call ^^ attention." 1st. The rule of faith held by the Church of Rome is not consistent with itself, nor with the character and relations of the Church. This rule of faith is inconsistent with the Church because it is impracticable, because contradictory : Pope vs. Pope ; Council vs. Council ; Council against the Pope, and the Pope against the Council ; and all very trequently and strikingly against the Word of God : — Therefore, &c., &c. 2. The Church of Rome is not consistent with herself, nor with the Word and Spirit ot God. In her primitive days she was in accord with those principles of faith and love to God and all mankind propounded in the Word of God and illus- trated in 'the life of the Saviour. Since then she has lost the doctrine of justifica- tion by faith, regeneration by the Holy Spirit. Further, she has become worldly, ambitious of secular power, and of an intolerant and persecuting spirit. She sells the gifts of God for money, making merchandise of men's souls, and com- passes sea and land to make proselytes — not to God but to /ler faith and service. Therefore, iS:c., &c. When your " frtjnd" has succeeded in cracking these nuts, I shall be i)re- pared with others on which he may still further try his skill. I am, my dear young friend, Vour servant and Pastor, John Buklanu ERRATA. Page 7, line 19 — After the word " Church," read of Rome. " 9, second last line — For the word " secure " read receive. " 10, line 4 — For " can divest himself," read should, &c. ,«r*'