I intend in a future number, to give a particular account of one of the best of these godly virgins, of whose life and miracles I have got a genuine history. I say miracles, as well as life; for though she died about a thousand years ago, she still continues to perform miracles, if we may believe the Rev. Dr. Milner, one of the vicars apostolic in England. My readers will then be able to judge how far these idle drones of godly virgins are to be preferred to their own thrifty good wives. But I must at present proceed with my catechism:

"Quhat is to be thought in few words of the evangelical counsels. That thay ar certaine motives and verray commodious supports and helps to give armour to the vaik agains the pleasours of the varld and the flesh, to further guid men's endeavour in the course of trew godliness to the obtaining of better things; and mairover, profitable as I have schawen to get the reward of eternal lyf and mair plenteous glorie in heaven." Page 204.

"Of the remedie of original sin.-The onlie Mediator, the Lord Jesus Christ, quhas merit is applied to all men, zoung and awld, be the sacrament of baptisme dewlie administered according to the form of the Kirk. Quhasaever ze be that ar baptized ye have put on Christ, quhair for they are . quha denies that children new borne suld be baptized, howbeit they be the children of baptized parēts." Page 216. "In the baptized, all that quilk has the proper and trew nature of sin is clean takken away; and not onlie hid or not imputit, for God haites nothing in the regenerat. So thair is na damnation to thame quha are buried with Christ be baptism in his death." Page 218.

"Sinnes agains the first commandment. 1st, To doute of any article of the Catholique faith. 2d, Over curiously to reason or searche out things of faith. 3d, To favour hereticks to the hurt of the Catholique kirk. 4th, To put oureselves in danger to crab God, that is nocht to flee the occasion quhilk may cause us to sinne." "Sinners agains the third commandment, (i. e. what we call the fourth.) 1st, To worke on halie days. 3d, Not to fast at times comādet. 4th, To eat fleshe or ony forbidden meat on days of fasting or abstinence."

This catechism furnishes prayers to the Virgin Mary, to the halie angels, to our guid angel, and to all the sancts in heaven. There are several other curious passages which it is not convenient at present to transcribe.

In this, as in all their catechisms, the true Christian doctrine of salvation by Christ alone, and by faith in him, is kept out of view; and what makes the system worse than downright infidelity is, that it effectually denies the Saviour, while it professes to honour him. For instance, in one of the last quotations, he is called the only Mediator, whose merit is applied to all men, young and old; yet it is applied only in such a way as that the priest shall have the doing of it. It is by the sacrament of baptism duly administered according to the form of the kirk. No man can do this but a priest so that, without his aid, all that Christ has done, in working out a righteousness for the justification of the ungodly, and all that he does by his word and Spirit, go for nothing. Thus the priest actually gives himself out as the Saviour; for it is by the application of water, and salt,

*I cannot make out the word, but I doubt not it means something very bad.

and spittle, by his fingers, that the regeneration of a sinner is effected. I request my readers, of the Romish communion, to reflect on this. They are not behind their neighbours in point of common sense; and, I am sure, if they will think seriously on the subject, and apply to it the principles of common sense, not to say of scripture, they will soon be convinced of the folly of ascribing such powers to a creature like themselves.

Christ died for the ungodly. The gospel is the divine testimony concerning him. When the Holy Spirit opens the heart of a sinner to receive that testimony, he is born again. This is the work of God. A priest can have no more hand in it than in creating the world. Yet any man who shall make known the truth to his neighbour, may be honoured as the instrument of saving him. This is what I most earnestly desire as the fruit of my labours; but I know it will not-it cannot happen, but through the influence of the Divine Spirit.

CHAPTER XVIII.

THE POPE CONTRADICTS THE DOUAY CATECHISM.

INDULGENCE DOES OPERATE AS A

PERMISSION TO COMMIT SIN. SCRIPTURAL VIEW OF PARDON.

SATURDAY, November 14th, 1818.

IN my last number, I examined the assertion of AMICUS VERITATIS,-"The Douay Catechism is approved by the whole body of the Catholic church;" and I showed that there are several other catechisms of apparently higher authority in the church, which differ materially from the Douay one, particularly with regard to the omission and mutilation of the second commandment. He quotes the Douay Catechism on the subject of indulgences; and he wishes to have it believed, that his church holds no other doctrine than this:-An indulgence is "not leave to commit sin, or a pardon for sins to come, as some slander the church; but only a releasing of the temporal punishment due to such sins as are already forgiven us by the sacrament of penance."

I could show that other catechisms differ on this point, as well as on the second commandment. The pope will be allowed, I suppose, to be higher authority than the Douay college; and he declares, "that the dead as well as the living, who truly obtain indulgences, are so far delivered from the punishment due to their actual sins, according to divine justice, as the indulgence granted and obtained is worth." (See his Brief, part I, p. 30. quoted from DUPIN, IV. 17.) I cannot suppose the pope to be guilty of such an absurdity as to speak of delivering the dead from the temporal punishment due to their sins, for the dead have done with temporal things. He countenances, therefore, the doctrine of the French catechism, that indulgences free from punishment, both in this world and the next. He says, indeed, expressly in the same brief, that the benefit of indulgences was granted to those who were alive, as to those who were in purgatory. Perhaps, however, he will call purgatory a temporal thing, though, from the hundreds of thousands of years, for which some are said to re

main in it, and for which indulgences are granted to others, we should imagine it must remain after all temporal things have come to an end. I shall, however, take the subject of indulgences as the Douay Catechism gives it, and answer AMICUS VERITATIs' challenge, which is:-"Now, sir, I would ask any honest, impartial man, possessed of Christian candour, could he infer from this answer, that an indulgence is a permission to commit sin? No, sir, the idea is absurd; and I am astonished that your correspondent, who gives his writing publicly to the world, should so far forget himself, as to draw inferences so unchristian and unreasonable as he has done." (Part I. p. 32.)

It is not likely that this gentleman will allow the PROTESTANT to be "an honest, impartial man." Be that as it may, he will endeavour to make good his position out of this most softened and modified definition of an indulgence. I said, (Part I. p. 14.) that the pope claimed and exercised the power of dispensing with the law of God, and granting permission to commit sin; that he claimed, farther, the power of granting to individuals and families, a full remission of all their sins past and future, which would probably operate as an encouragement to commit sin, seeing the persons knew beforehand, that they had got a full pardon. I think I have already established all this by a number of facts and documents; but I proceed now to show, that encouragement to commit sin rises naturally out of the doctrine of indulgences, as given even by the Douay Catechism. It is "a releasing of the temporal punishment due to such sins as are already forgiven us by the sacrament of penance." Indulgences stand immediately connected with penance. By this sacrament, a priest grants full absolution. He declares the sinner to be relieved from the guilt of all his sins, and reconciled to God, but that he ought to make some remuneration for so great a favour,-that he should suffer something in his body as a punishment for his sins thus forgiven; and the design of our indulgence is to release him from such suffering, which is usually done for an adequate consideration.

Now, I shall not ask every impartial honest man, but I ask every intelligent Christian, whether such doctrine does not naturally lead to all the evil of which I have accused the popish practice of granting indulgences? Every one whose religion is derived from the Bible, knows that human nature is corrupted and depraved; that every man in his natural state is an enemy to God, and a hater of his holy law; that he is in love with sin; and that he is, in one way or another, under the dominion of corrupt passions, which maintain a constant opposition to the law of God. There are, however, many restraints which prevent individuals from running to all the excess to which their passions would lead them. One of these restraints is, the fear of future punishment. The doctrine, therefore, which takes away this restraint, without imparting a new nature to the sinner, is justly chargeable with all the evil that shall result from it. Such is the popish doctrine of indulgences connected with penance.

A person guilty of the greatest crimes, receives the sacrament of penance on the usual terms. He must, indeed, make a form of confession before a priest; he must profess contrition; he must promise amendment but all this is mere form and mere words. His heart remains as hard as it was; he is as much in love with sin as ever.

When, therefore, the sacrament of penance is over, he is told that he must do some good work, or suffer some punishment for all his great sins which he has confessed; but, that he may have an indulgence; that is, he may be released from such suffering, for a certain sum, which he cheerfully pays:-he sets off to plunge anew into the stream of wickedness, like the profligate seductress in the seventh of Proverbs: "I have peace-offerings with me; this day have I paid my vows;-come let us take our fill of pleasures."

That this is no overwrought picture, is sadly verified by the history of the church of Rome, and of those nations which have submitted to her yoke. Independently of history and experience, an accurate knowledge of human nature would infer this result from the doctrine in question. Wicked men are often very superstitious. They stand in awe of they know not what. There is a judgment upon them. There is a tribunal in their own breast that condemns them. They know not well what it is; but they are taught to believe that it is something from which a priest can deliver them. Wherever, therefore, an opportunity of crime presents itself to a man of this character, whether it be to gratify his revenge, or avarice, or lust, he enters into it with all his heart, knowing beforehand that the priest can pardon his guilt; and, that if he should be ordained to make some satisfaction for his crimes, he can have that also remitted for a small sum by an indulgence. The prospect of a divine tribunal, and of a righteous Judge, is concealed from his view. He seeks no pardon but that which the priest can give; and he is not taught to believe that any other is necessary. As corrupt human nature is constituted, such a doctrine must always operate as an encouragement to commit sin.

I might corroborate this reasoning by innumerable facts from history; but the following quotation from Bellarmine, the great champion of the popish cause, is worth many facts, because it is a plain testimony of the actual state of things in the church, as known to himself; and he speaks as if the same we e known to all :-"We cannot deny," says he, "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 moment, 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." Bellar. de Indulg. lib. I. cap. 9. p. 25, as quoted in Morning Exercise, p. 491.

Thus we see, in point of fact, on the testimony of Bellarmine, that the greatest criminals, who were guilty of perjury and blasphemy every moment of their lives, yet received pardon from the pope and his clergy, and received indulgences too for thousands of years. Is it necessary to say more to prove that the popish practice of indulgences is the fruitful parent of all wickedness; and that it operates as an encouragement, and even as a permission, to commit sin?

Suppose it to be so that an indulgence is no more than a releasing of the temporal punishment due for sin already pardoned, its consequences must be extremely pernicious. Sinners are most impressed by sensible and visible things. Temporal punishment is much more

an object of dread than eternal punishment. From the natural atheism and unbelief of the human heart, men think very little of what shall happen after death; they do not believe that God will be strict to mark their sins against them, or that he will be so cruel as to punish them very severely for their faults and infirmities; in plain English, they do not believe what the Bible declares concerning sin, and the eternal punishment which it incurs. This appears very plainly in the case of those, for instance, who read in the third commandment, that "the Lord will not hold him guiltless who taketh his name in vain," and who will yet rather take their chance of standing as guilty before God, and suffering all the consequences, than deny themselves the trifling gratification of mouthing or even mincing an oath. We cannot wonder, therefore, that those who are under the influence of uncontrollable passion, should seek to gratify that passion, fearless of consequences in the other world, if they can escape that which is very painful in the present. Any thing like the misery of the other world they have never seen; of its nature they have no distinct ideas; of its reality they have no abiding conviction. This has, therefore, little influence in deterring them from the commission of sin. But the subject of present suffering they do understand. They can comprehend the misery of being immured for years in a dungeon; they can imagine how painful it would be to tear the flesh from their bones, by a whip judiciously applied by their own hands; they could even shrink from the idea of being obliged to subsist on bread and water for six months together; and I doubt not they could have a very lively feeling of the hardship of being obliged to stand before a large congregation, in a white sheet, confessing their sins. Now, by an indulgence, the fear of incurring all, or any of these, is effectually removed. The only thing, therefore, that can operate with any degree of force upon the mind of an abandoned sinner, as a preventive of crime, is taken out of the way; and he is encouraged by the church to indulge himself in all manner of wickedness.

In short, men may speculate as they please about the moral influence of any religious system; but, while human nature remains as it is, it will be found by experience, that the doctrine which holds out to men the certainty of obtaining pardon, and an indulgence whenever they please to ask and pay for it, must operate, and will operate, as an encouragement to commit sin.

I am aware that an objection like this is urged against the gospel itself, by unbelievers of the Protestant name, and of every other name. We are told that the doctrine which holds out the prospect of pardon and salvation to the chief of sinners, through the merits of Christ, without any merits of their own, opens a door to all manner of licentiousness, and that it operates as an indulgence to commit sin. I claim this objection against the gospel of Christ as an auxiliary to my argument. It declares that the natural feeling, and the experience of mankind, are in my favour. I am speaking of men in their natural state, but who possess a portion of what is called common sense, and who know something of human nature. They speak what they know and what they feel. Ignorant of the divine influence which accompanies the belief of the gospel, and which renews the sinner to holiness, they cannot but come to the conclusion, that the doctrine which