their native tongue, of a very pleasing character,-the eagerness which they manifest to obtain copies of the English Scriptures. Where is the man, possessing the least patriotism, humanity, and love to the Saviour, who can contemplate the establishment of such moral and religious nurseries, without wishing them success, and watching their proceedings with intense interest and bene. volent anxiety? Yet such is the spirit of Popery, so unfriendly to every thing tending to expand the intellect and elevate the character of man, that even these schools have been interdicted by Papal authority! A document was issued from the "Court of the Sacred Congregation," dated Rome, September 18th, 1819, and addressed to the "Roman Catholic Clergy of the Archdiocese of Tuam," in which it was stated that "Bible schools," the generality of whose directors were "Methodists," had been established in "almost every part of Ireland;" and the Clergy are called upon to use "every possible exertion to keep the youth away from these destructive schools." The spirit that prompted the publication of this document in 1819, is the same in character as that which led the holy Fathers, in the fifth Council of Toledo, (Can. 3,) to say, "We, the holy Council, promulge this sentence or decree pleasing to God, that whosoever hereafter shall succeed to the kingdom, shall not mount the throne till he has sworn, among other oaths, to permit no man to live in his kingdom who is not a Catholic; and if, after he has taken the reins of government, he shall violate his promise, let him be anathema maranatha in the sight of the eternal God, and become fuel of the eternal fire."

The evidence which has been adduced is amply sufficient to demonstrate that there is an essential difference between Protestants and Papists, on matters of the greatest importance, in connexion with the holy Scriptures, and the means of diffusing the knowledge they reveal.

The next doctrine, on which there is an essential differer ce between the Protestant and Popish Churches

is that of justification by faith. The Protestant doctrine is stated in the eleventh Article of the Church of England: "We are accounted righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort." In this Article it is distinctly stated, (1.) That we are accounted righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord Jesus Christ: (2.) That we are justified by faith only, and not for our Own works or deservings. These two propositions are fully supported by the Apostolic testimony, (Romans iv. 5,) "To him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." But while Protestants reject their own works, as possessing any merit which is united to "the merit of our Lord Jesus Christ," and for the sake of which we are justified, they attach importance to good works as the fruit of faith, as appears from the twelfth Article : Albeit that good works, which are the fruits of faith, and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God's judgment, yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God and Christ, and co spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith, insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by its fruit." This Article contains the following propositions:-(1.) Good works cannot put away our sins: (2.) Good works are the fruits of faith, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith, and follow after justification: (3.) That good works are pleasing and acceptable to God and Christ. Thus the Pharisaic and Antinomian errors, which may indeed be justly characterized "damnable heresies," are avoided.

as

But what is the doctrine of the Church of Rome? Though it does not professedly reject the doctrine of justification by faith, yet it distinctly teaches that human beings may satisfy God by works which

have in them something meritorious, when "joined and applied to the satisfaction Jesus made upon the cross; in virtue of which alone, all our good works find a grateful acceptance in God's sight." This doctrine is distinctly taught "by the late Dr. Richard Challoner, Bishop of Debra, and Vicar Apostolic of the London District." His language is, "The Papist, truly represented, believes it damnable to think injuriously of Christ's passion. Nevertheless he believes, that though condign satisfaction for the guilt of sin, and the pain eternally due to it, be proper only to Christ our Saviour; yet penitent sinners being redeemed by Christ, and made his members, may in some measure satisfy, by prayers, fasting, alms, &c., for the temporal pain which, by order of God's justice, sometimes remains due after the guilt and eternal pains are remitted. So that trusting in Christ as his Redeemer, he yet does not think, that, by Christ's sufferings every Christian is discharged of his particular sufferings, but that every one is to suffer something for himself; and this he finds every where in Scripture, viz., people admonished of the greatness of their sins, doing penance in fasting, sackcloth, and ashes, and, by voluntary austerities, endeavouring to satisfy divine justice.”

Will any man, possessed of common sense, who is not under the blinding influence of an erroneous system, affirm with Mr. Croly and Dr. Doyle that there is no essential difference between the Protestant and Popish Churches on the doctrine of justification by faith? The Protestant doctrine is, "that we are accounted righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord Jesus Christ;" but the Popish doctrine is, "that after having been redeemed by Christ, we may, in some measure, satisfy by prayers, fasting, and alms; and are, by voluntary austerities, to endeavour to satisfy divine justice." Austerities which are voluntary may or may not be practised. That which is done voluntarily, cannot impose any obligation upon God, to do that which he was previously under no

obligation to do. Besides, to suppose that after the "infinite satisfaction" which has been made by Christ, we are by "fasting, sackcloth, and ashes, and by voluntary austerities, to endeavour to satisfy divine justice," is to suppose that divine justice is and is not satisfied; which is a palpable contradiction! It is to suppose that after an infinite satisfaction has been made by Christ, which consisted in the shedding of his own blood, we are by prayers, fasting, and alms," to add to, or increase the merit of, that which was previously infinite; which is a palpable absurdity!

That there is a most essential difference between the Protestant and Popish Churches, on the doctrine of a sinner's justification before God, has not only been affirmed, but deeply deplored as one of the most fruitful sources of the evils of Popery, by some of the most eminent theological writers. That valiant champion for the truth, Luther, to whom, under God, we are indebted for the glorious Reformation from Popery, in his Comment on Gal. ii. 21,"For if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain," has the following words:-"Is it true that Christ suffered death or not? Did he suffer in vain or not? Here we are constrained to answer, unless we be stark mad, that he suffered in very deed, and that he suffered not in vain, nor for himself, but for us. If then he suffered not in vain, it followeth, of necessity, that righteousness cometh not by the law." Then adverting to some of the evasions of Papists, by which they attempt to establish their own merits, he says, "Is this horrible blasphemy to be suffered or dis. sembled, that the divine Majesty, not sparing his own dear Son, but delivering him up to death for us all, should not do all these things seriously, and in good earnest, but as it were in sport? Before I would admit this blasphemy, I would not only that all the holiness of all the Papists and merit-mongers, but also of all the saints and holy angels, should be thrown into the bottom of hell, and condemned with the

devil. Mine eyes shall behold nothing else but this inestimable price, my Lord and Saviour Christ."

The essential difference between the Protestant and Popish doctrine of justification, and the importance of giving a prominence to this subject, is strongly expressed by Mr. Wesley in his sermon on "Salvation by Faith." He says, “At this time, more especially, will we speak, that by grace ye are saved, through faith; because never was the maintaining this doctrine more seasonable than it is at this day. Nothing but this can effectually prevent the increase of the Romish delusion among us. It is endless to attack, one by one, all the errors of that Church. But salvation by faith strikes at the root, and all fall at once where this is established. It was this doctrine, which our Church justly calls the 'strong rock and foundation of the Christian religion,' that first drove Popery out of these kingdoms; and it is this alone can keep it out."-Works, Vol. V., p. 13. The evidence which has been adduced demonstrates the reality and importance of that difference which exists between Protestants and Papists on the subject of justification by faith. It must be obvious to every man who will exercise his judgment, that the Popish doctrine is derogatory to God, dishonourable to Christ, and injurious to man; but the Protestant doctrine honours God; exalts Christ, by affixing an infinite value to his atoning sacrifice; and tends to check those feelings, so flattering to our pride, which are and must be engendered by the presumptuous attempt "to satisfy divine justice."

It is asserted by Mr. Croly, (p. 14,) "that the celebration of the Lord's supper retains all the essentials of the mass;" and this was one of the subjects on which Dr. Doyle declared it appeared to him, that "there was no essential difference between Catholics and Protestants." In the twenty-eighth Article of the Church of England it is said, "Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and wine) in the supper of the Lord cannot be prov

ed by holy writ, but it is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions." The doctrine of the Popish Church is clearly taught in its Catechisms, and the decrees of its Councils. In the Douay Catechism, which is approved by the whole Church, the Popish doctrine is taught as follows:

"Q. What is the blessed eucharist? A. It is the body and blood of Jesus Christ, true God and true man, under the forms and appearance of bread and wine. What is there under the form of bread? There is not only the body, but also the blood of Christ. Is the body of Christ also under the form of wine? Yes. What else? There are also under each form the soul and divinity of Christ; so that under the form of bread there are the body and blood, the soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, wholly and entirely, and the same under the form of wine. In what manner is Christ present at the eucharist? By the true and real presence of his divine and human nature, and not in figure only, as heretics would have it." In the Catech. Rom. the eucharist is defined, a sacrament wherein is truly, really, and substantially contained whole Christ, God-man, body and blood, bones and nerves, soul and divinity, under the species or appearance of bread and wine." The Council of Trent decreed, that "upon consecration there is a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of Christ's body; and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of Christ's blood; which conversion is usually called transubstantiation." (Cap. 4.) And, besides, there is whole and entire Christ under either species of element, under the species of bread, and under every particle of it; under the species of wine, and under every drop of it." (Cap. 3.)

Is it necessary to produce any additional evidence to prove that there is an essential difference between the celebration of the Lord's supper by Protestants, and that of the mass by

Papists? And yet Dr. Doyle could de. clare that "the diversity of opinion arises from certain forms of words, which admit of satisfactory explana. tion!" And more recently Mr. Croly has declared, (p. 44,)" the difference as to the exact nature of the sacrament, or its invisible contents, turns principally on metaphysical questions, relating to certain attributes of matter called substance and accident!"

In connexion with transubstantiation are to be found other doctrines of the Papal Church, which are as repugnant to reason, as they are contradictory to Scripture. (1.) The sacrifice of the mass. The Council of Trent decreed, (sess. cap. 1,) "that in the sacrifice of the mass, the same Christ is contained, and unbloodily offered, who bloodily offered himself upon the altar of the cross: and that it is truly a propitiatory sacrifice, and is available, not only for the sins, punishments, and satisfactions of the living, but also for those of the souls in purgatory; and whosoever denies any of this, is accursed, and incapable of salvation." Let any man read the statement of the Apostle, Heb. vii. 26, 27; ix. 25 -28; x. 1-3, 8-14: and, if he possess an ordinary understanding, he must see that the Popish doctrine of the sacrifice of the mass is in positive contradiction to the declarations of an inspired Apostle. Nothing need be said to demonstrate the spirit of cruelty which prompted that Council to declare that whosoever denies this is accursed. And Pope Pius IV. declared such to be incapable of salvation! (2) The adoration of the host. The honour which is given to the consecrated host is decreed by the Council of Trent (sess. 13, c. 5) to be "the same sovereign worship which is due only to God." In the Rom. Miss. we are taught to "adore it;" and in the Rom. Brev. "to pray to it;" and the Council of Trent (sess. 13, c. 6) declared that "whosoever holds it unlawful or idolatrous so to do is accursed." The adoration of the host necessarily involves the corporal presence of Christ that he is not corporally any where but in

heaven, whither he went, and where he is to continue till his second coming to judgment, is apparent from Acts i. 11, and iii. 20, 21.

That the decrees of Councils, respecting transubstantiation, the sacritice of the mass, and the adoration of the host, have not been regarded by the Papal Church as

"non-essential" matters of difference, turning principally on "metaphysical questions," may be proved by an appeal to the testimony of history. It is well known that the refusal to receive the Popish doctrine of transubstantiation was the pretext for hanging and burning Lord Cobham in 1417. The subjects on which Bishops Ridley and Latimer, and Archbishop Cranmer, were required to dispute with the Divines and learned men of both the Universities, were transubstantiation and the sacrifice of the mass; and it was on account of their refusing to embrace the Popish doctrine, that they were inhumanly consigned to the flames. Multitudes of other cases, equally cruel in their character, might be adduced from history. The views expressed by Dr.Doyle and Mr. Croly either are or are not those of the Popish Church. If these are the real sentiments of that Church, then, if there be any truth in history, the Papists stand convicted of having cruelly inflicted the punishment of death upon pious and godly men for "diversity of opinion "on"metaphysical questions," or on matters in reference to which "there is no essential difference." If such declarations do not convey correct views of the doctrine of the Papal Church, and we affirm that they do not, then, how uncertain must be the expositions which such men give of Scripture and tradition! and with what caution cught Protestants to receive the statements of such men in reference to the doctrines and spirit of Popery!

Before we dismiss the subject, we must briefly advert to the Popish doctrine of "indulgences:" a doctrine which is not merely licentious, but positively blasphemous. That the Papal Church arrogates to itself the power to grant indulgences, is

clear from the following quotation from Bellarmine, the great Popish champion:-"We cannot deny, but that some are bound by the penitential canons to some thousands of years' penance; for, if to every deadly sin there be due by the canons so many years' penance, as to some three, to some seven, &c., then, he that hath accustomed himself to perjury and blasphemy almost every inoment, and most frequently commits murders, thefts, sacrileges, adulteries, without doubt the Popes had respect to such as these, when they gave indulgences for ten or twenty thousand years." (De Indulg., lib. i., c. 9.) The Council of Trent decreed, (sess. 25,) that "there are indulgences to be obtained, by which persons may be discharged from the punishment of sin here, and in purgatory; and if any affirm these indulgences to be useless, or that the Church hath no power to grant them, he is accursed." These indulgences are various in their duration. Some extend to eternity! for, according to Bellarmine, "plenary indulgence doth take away all the punishment due to sin." Others are of a more limited duration. The Popes, Paul III., and Julius II., by their Bulis, granted to all such of the fraternity of the holy altar, as visit the church of St. Hilary of Chartres, during the six weeks in Lent, seven hundred and seventy-five thousand and seven hundred years of pardon, besides fourteen or fifteen plenary indulgences; that is, according to Bellarmine, a freedom from all punishment; and besides that the period previously specified. How absurd! What a proof of infallibility!

The terms on which indulgences are granted are various. Some are to be obtained for money. Various sins have their prices affixed in the tax-book of the Papal treasury. Some were to be obtained on condition of assisting the Pope. Those who took up arms to extirpate the Albigenses had the promise of an eternal reward. Pope Alexander VI. granted to those that recited the prayer to the Virgin and her mother St. Ann, "Hail, Mary! full of grace!" an indulgence for a period

of thirty thousand years. There is a necessary connexion between this doctrine and that of supererogation. Bellarmine says, "That supererogation is necessary to indulgence, no one can deny." The Council of Trent (sess. xxi., c. 9) has decreed that "works of supererogation are the overplus of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints, which is a treasury committed to the Church's custody, and to be disposed of as she sees meet." Can any thing be more immoral, absurd, or blasphemous?

Such is the evidence which we have thought it expedient to adduce in refutation of those statements which are, we apprehend, too eagerly received by persons professing Protestantism, on the authority of such men as the late Dr Doyle and Mr. Croly, respecting the unimportant nature of that difference in doctrine which distinguishes the Protestant from the Papal Church. We might, if our limits would allow, have shown how revolting and unscriptural is the recognised doctrine of the Papal Church, respecting the invocation of saints, worshipping of images, prayers for the dead, celibacy of the Clergy, purgatory, and the extirpation of heretics.

In submitting to the attention of our readers the evidence which has been adduced, our object has been to lead them to contemplate the doctrines and spirit of the Papal Church. That the Clergy and many of the laity of that communion are exerting themselves to the utmost to regain the ground which their ancestors lost at the Reformation, in this country and in Scotland and Ireland, cannot be doubted; that Popery is on the increase, even in England, the rapidity with which chapels are multiplied sufficiently demonstrates; and that too many Protestants, so called, are either totally ignorant of the character of Popery, or perfectly indifferent to its prevalence, is sufficiently attested by the manner in which they speak of Popery, and their utter neglect of the means necessary for its counteraction.

In Mr. Croly's Essay our attention is directed to the state of Po