just reasons, as well to those who were alive as to those who were in purgatory; and that those indulgences were founded upon the superabundance of the merits of Jesus Christ and the saints, of whose treasure the pope is the dispenser, and this as well by form of absolution as by suffrage; that the dead and the living who truly obtained 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." Dupin, vol. IV. p. 17. I allow that the language of this brief is extremely equivocal; and I cannot help thinking it was made so of purpose, that it might mean any thing, or nothing, just as the church or her clergy should please, in all time coming. One thing is however plainly asserted in it, that the pope, by virtue of the keys, has power to forgive the guilt of actual sin by the sacrament of penance. Now, when the guilt is removed, what right has he to hold the punishment in his own hands; and to remit that only so far as the indulgence granted and obtained is worth; that is, I suppose, according to what has been paid for it? After all the evidence that I have produced from the writings of Papists themselves, will PAX still maintain that by an indulgence is not meant the remission of sin? I expect he will; and he will get out by a quibble: an indulgence is not the remission of sin,-it is merely the letter or bull that contains it! I do not see how AMICUS VERITATIS can get out so easily. He said, "with respect to indulgences, I beg leave to inform your correspondent, that it never was the doctrine of the Catholic church, that a pope or bishop could grant an indulgence to commit sin; and whatever he may say with regard to the ancient or modern meaning of the word, I say, without danger of contradiction, she ever has maintained the utmost abhorrence against all such abominable transactions." There is one part of this statement which he will certainly confess to be erroneous, he has been "contradicted." It has been proved that this church, or her head, granted permission to commit the grossest sins for half a guinea; and when was it known, that her constitutional organs, whether popes or councils, expressed any abhorrence about the matter, or took any steps to put a stop to the evil? With regard to Luther and the other reformers, admitting it to be all true that A. V. asserts, I am not answerable for it. If I profess to believe in Luther-if I maintained that he was infallible in doctrine and practice, then, no doubt, I should reckon myself bound to defend all his doctrines and all his doings. But I know Luther was a fallible man like myself; and his authority goes no farther with me than that of the pope. I respect, indeed, the truths which he was honoured to maintain against the church of Rome; and I respect the memory of the man who, with so much intrepidity, maintained them: but I respect them not as his truths, but as the truths of the Bible. A man who had just emerged from the thick darkness of popery, was like one brought out of a dungeon into the light of day. He could not for a time see objects distinctly. This was precisely the case of Luther. Accordingly, as might have been expected, he made many mistakes. His consubstantiation, for instance, was little better than the pope's transubstantiation. He had been so long accustomed to the quibbling casuistry of the schoolmen, that his perceptions of right and wrong, with regard to some points, may have been very indistinct. A good deal of the filth of Rome, no doubt, adhered to him after he came out of it; as would probably have been the case with any other man in similar circumstances. With regard to the indulgence said to have been granted by him and his brethren, allowing the landgrave of Hesse to have two wives at one time, the fact has been denied on grounds which appeared satisfactory to some credible historians; and Papists of the 17th century were as capable of forging a bull as any person about Kilravack. It was at one time confidently affirmed, and circulated as a fact through great part of Christendom, that the devil had run away with Luther, soul and body. This would probable have been believed by all good Papists to this day, had not Luther, in propria persona, contradicted the fact. The most monstrous calumnies were circulated against Luther throughout all Europe, just as against John Knox in Scotland; and Bossuet, being an enemy of the German reformer, would gladly catch at any thing that would go down with his readers; and put it into his book, with all its aggravations. Let A. V. bring from Protestant writers as much that is disgraceful to Luther and the reformation, as I have brought from popish writers, and popish bulls, to the disgrace of popery, and he will have done something. But suppose I admit (which I am rather inclined to do) that the whole is true as Bossuet had stated, and A. V. has quoted it, what then? Why, it goes to prove what I have maintained in this and my last letter. The landgrave of Hesse would not have applied for an indulgence or dispensation to keep two wives, unless he had known that the church was in the practice of granting such indulgence. Such princes as he is represented to be, looked upon the reformation as an opposition-shop set up for spiritual traffic. They had long dealt with Rome, but her wares had become rather too common and unfashionable for princes, since she had begun to sell indulgences so low as twopence a piece, as was done by Tetzel. The landgrave, therefore, wished to deal with this new comer; and when he applied for this indulgence, it is likely he would inform Luther and his friends, that if they did not grant what he wanted, he knew where to get it; and the reformers, fearful of losing such a protector, while surrounded by powerful enemies, yielded to the temptation, and did unworthy of their cause. More of this in my next. what was I am glad so see by your paper of yesterday, that PAX has taken his word, and written something in reply to my letter of the 12th instant. I am glad of this, not because I have pleasure in tormenting him; but because he has divulged some more of the errors of his system, which I will attempt to expose when I am at leisure. In the mean time, I shall proceed right forward in the route I have prescribed to myself, in answering his former letter, and that of AMICUS VERITATIS. I am, &c. June 19th, 1818. A PROTESTANT. CHAPTER V. ANOTHER LETTER BY AMICUS VERITATIS. FURTHER REMARKS OF PROTESTANT ON THE SUBJECT OF INDULGENCES SAID TO HAVE BEEN GRANTED BY LUTHER. TESTIMONY OF WESSELUS. DISCUSSION OF HERVEY'S OPINION, AND THE SUBJECT OF HOLY PLACES. MEANS BY WHICH THE POPISH CHAPEL IN GLASGOW WAS BUILT. TO THE EDITOR OF THE GLASGOW CHRONICLE. SIR-When I first addressed you, it was far from my intention to enter upon religious controversy, but only a desire of putting bigotry to the blush, and of advocating the cause of truth. With the same intention I again address you, and endeavour to reply to your correspondent" A PROTESTANT." Before I proceed, I may recall to your recollection the remark of Demosthenes, the orator, "Such is the natural disposition of mankind, that invective and accusation are heard with pleasure, while they who speak their own praises are heard with impatience;" from which I would infer, that during our controversy your correspondent has greatly the advantage, and more particularly so, as he assumed a signature that will very generally insure him of being received with approbation. In the commencement of his last letter, your correspondent says, "If the subjects of the late oratorio could be considered as matter of amusement, then the permission of the bishop was nothing less than a popish indulgence to commit sin." Now, sir, I am really astonished to see him trifling thus. Does he not know that the Catholic chapel was asked for a charitable purpose? Does he not know that charity is the essence of religion? Consequently the chapel was granted for a religious purpose-not for the purpose of amusement. As your correspondent has taken up the subject of indulgences, I shall endeavour to follow him through the most of his course, and to make good my former assertion, "that it never was the doctrine of the Catholic church, that a pope or bishop could grant an indulgence to commit sin;" but if, in replying to your correspondent, I should unknowingly touch the feelings of any of my Protestant brethren, I hope they will not attribute it to the spirit of recrimination, but to my necessity of disclosing the truth. I hope they will also recollect who was the cause of this dispute, and that "The blood will follow where the knife is driven- Before I proceed to quote the authority of the Douay Catechism, respecting the word indulgence, I shall just remark that this is a work which is approved by the whole body of the Catholic church, and which is put into the hands of every child that is learning its christian doctrine. In the 71st page of the said catechism is asked, "Question: What is an indulgence? Answer: 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." 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. But, sir, I will not content myself with barely stating the approved doctrine of the Catholic church. I will go farther. I shall recall to your recollection, that Catholics abjure, as antichristian, those principles imputed to them by your correspondent, especially with regard to a liberty of committing sin, or that the pope is infallible. That I may be found correct, I shall refer to act 33, Geo. III, cap. 44. This is a document which is approved by the pope and all the Catholic bishops in the three kingdoms. It is also received and accredited by the British government, as containing the principles of Catholics. Here, then, I take my stand, and now again boldly repeat, "that it never was the doctrine of the Catholic church, that a pope or bishop could grant an indulgence to commit sin." With what a face of effrontery can your correspondent come forward and declare to the public that such are the principles of a body of men who have been celebrated for every Christian virtue, and who publicly abjure, upon their most solemn oaths, the abominable principles imputed to them! I shall next ask your correspondent, Did not the Protestant church exercise the power of granting indulgences? If he would deny this, I would recall to his recollection the notorious Cutty Stool, whereon, if a person was condemned to stand for a certain great crime, he might, and often was exempted from undergoing that punishment, by paying a certain sum of money. Is not this an indulgence? Is not this a remission of the temporal punishment due to sin? In your correspondent's last letter I noticed an allusion to a reverend gentleman which was certainly characteristic of the author. Every minister of the gospel should be a minister of peace; and it was unfair to suppose, that, because the reverend gentleman here alluded to did not reply, it was either from a conviction of the validity or correctness of what might have been advanced against him. I myself am confident, and I do not commit myself when I say so, that your correspondent cannot produce any decree of the council of Trent, absolutely forbidding the reading of the scriptures. council of Trent and the church merely command her children not to read any edition of the scriptures but that which is approved by the church, and consequently cannot be said to forbid the reading of the scriptures any more than the Bible society, who will not permit the circulation of any edition of the scriptures but their approved version, although many other different editions exist. It would be almost endless, Mr. Editor, to answer all the charges which your correspondent may bring against Catholics, as the fertility of his genius appears to be very little inferior to the original declaimers against popery. I shall, however, in my next, animadvert a little upon any thing worthy of notice, especially those proofs which he has brought forward to substantiate his former assertions. I suppose your correspondent was not aware that the doctrines of Tetzel were condemned by the pope's nuncio.-Meantime, I am, sir, yours, &c. 20th June, 1818. VOL. I.-5 AMICUS VERITATIS. TO THE EDITOR OF THE GLASGOW CHRONICLE. SIR-I find that some of my late letters were too long to admit of immediate insertion in your papers, and I have been told they were too long to command the attention of superficial and coffee-room readHenceforth, therefore, I shall deal out what I have to say in smaller portions. ers. In my last, I said I was inclined to admit the truth of the statement of AMICUS VERITATIS, respecting the indulgence granted by Luther and his colleagues to the landgrave of Hesse. Instead of justifying, I am as ready to condemn their conduct in this matter as he can be. But it is worthy of remark, that this is only a single and solitary instance, set in opposition to thousands which might be shown to have been granted by the pope and popish bishops. The very eagerness with which such an instance. is seized, the triumph with which it is brought forward by the advocates of the papacy, and the surprise which it excites in the breasts of Protestants, who have not previously known of it, is perhaps the best answer to any objection to the reformation which might be made on this ground. It shows, that in the opinion of both foes and friends, such facts are rare exceptions to the manner in which the cause of the reformation was carried on, and altogether unlike the conduct of the reformers. What Luther and his colleagues did on this occasion, was only to express their opinion or judgment as to the lawfulness of a particular proposed measure. Highly improper and condemnable as this opinion was, there is a wide difference between it and a power claimed and arrogated by an individual or class, to set men free from what they allowed to be sinful, and contrary to the law of God-a claim which had been set up and exerted in innumerable instances, to gratify the ambition and avarice of priests, at the expense of all moral obligations. You will observe I am not defending the reformers; for I think in this matter their conduct was quite indefensible; but, for the information of your readers, I shall cite a high example, which, if the reformers had yet any regard for the authority of the pope, which some of them had after they had declared for the reformation, was calculated to lead them astray. Pope Clement VIII. had, only a few years before the affair of the landgrave of Hesse happened, offered to grant permission to Henry VIII. of England, to have two wives, although he was restrained, by fear of the emperor, from divorcing his sister. This is stated in a letter, dated 18th Sept., 1530, from Gregory Cassalis, Henry's agent at the court of Rome-which letter is published from the original by Lord Herbert, in his History of the Life and Reign of Henry VIII., p. 330. The following is an extract and translation: "Superioribus diebus, pontifex, secreto, veluti rem quam magni faceret, mihi proposuit conditionem hujusmodi, concedi posse vestræ majestati ut duas uxores habeas;" that is, "His holiness, a few days ago, secretly (because he considered the affair to be one of very high importance) submitted to me the following accommodation, viz., that an indulgence may be granted to your majesty to have two wives." Here is the pope not only claiming the power of granting indulgence to commit sin, but actually suggesting a wicked project to the king of England, who needed no prompter to acts of wickedness. In his first letter, AMICUS VERITATIS asserted, "If it were the case that |