If so, what becomes of faith with us poor hereticks?

The other items, under the head of immoralities, we must waive for want of space; while we mention our last objection (at least for the present) and that is, that the system of Romanism is a legalized violation of the rights of man, in relation to personal rights, national rights, and church rights. Is it not true that the church of Rome lords it over the consciences of men? The very sentence quoted above, from a recent publication in the Itinerant, viz. "when the church speaks we are bound to be silent and obey," is virtually a submission to tyranny over the souls of men. The postulate is, that the church is infallible, and of course we must believe as she does, whether we think it right or wrong. Is not this implicit faith and forcing of conscience? And see the very fearful, (can we say less than) blasphemous usurpations of the church in its head, the Pope!

Ravaillac says, "To make war against the Pope is to make war against God-seeing that the Pope is God, and God is the Pope." Pope Clement VII. with his Cardinals, thus writes to king Charles VI. "As there is but one God in the heavens, so there cannot, nor ought to be of right, but one God on earth" i. e. the Pope! and it is canon law-"that the Pope who was called God by Constantine, can neither be bound nor loosed by any secular power-for it is manifest that a God cannot be judged by men!"

Bellarmine is an accredited Popish writer. He was the Pope's counsellor-wrote under his eye, taught in his university, published his books in Rome, and dedicated them to the Pope. Of course it is to be supposed he knew the system he taught, and had the Pope's sanction, as he was never condemned for what he said. He says "If the Pope should com

mend vice and prohibit virtue, the church would be bound to believe vice to be good, and virtue to be evil, unless she should sin against conscience." The canons say “His will is instead of reason-he can dispense with law; can make justice injustice, by changing and correcting laws and hath, in a word, a plenitude of power." Now is not this usurping the lordship of conscience, and an utter violation of the rights of man?—Yea, of God himself? But the way of enforcing these usurpations is a proof of the meaning that was given to them. For example. In 1181, Pope Lucius the Third issued a decree against the Waldenses"We being supported by the presence and power of our most dear son, Frederick, the most illustrious emperor of the Romanswith the common advice of our brethren, and other patriarchs, archbishops and many princes, by our apostolical authority, do condemn all manner of heresy; particularly we declare (here is a long list of names) all such to be under a perpetual anathema." After cursing the Preachers, it proceeds to curse the laity, for heresy; and "unless by abjuring his heresy and making satisfaction, he immediately returns to the orthodox faith, we decree him to be left to the sentence of the secular judge, to receive condign punishment according to the quality of the of fence."

And however men, frightened by these tenets in this free land, are driven to shifts on this subject, we know what this Pope meant by handing them over to the civil power: And Pope Innocent the Third writes-"Persecute them with a strong hand; deprive them of their lands and possessions; banish them, and put Catholicks in their room." He urged princes to the work of persecution; he tells Louis, of France, "That it is the command of God, to

smite hereticks with the sword" and forbids Henry VIII. of England to make war then on France, "lest the king, his prelates and barons should be forced to turn their arms from the extirpation of hereticks to their own defence." The result of this persecution was, the slaughter, by the authority of the Pope, of 200,000 poor, defenceless people, who were acknowledged to have no fault worthy of such butchery, but a refusal to submit to the spiritual evils, and believe the errors of the Pope.

The history of the Inquisition is fraught with the most appalling evidence of the truth, that the church of Rome persecutes on principle, where it has the power. This horrible institution was founded for the very purpose of forcing men's consciences, by the most terrible torture that tongue can tell or heart conceive; or else of committing the obstinate hereticks to the flames. We know that it has become fashionable in this day, to deny that the Pope and church have any thing to do with the Inquisition! Now to test this, I would ask if the Pope ever prohibited the Inquisition! Could not the Pope put it down if he would? has he not connived at it? nay, more—has he not sustained it by his influence? We have many appalling facts on this subject, which ought to see the light, but we cannot now record them. But we ask a reply to the above queries. And who is not familiar with the revocation of the edict of Nantz? did the Pope disapprove that bloody drama? Again, does not the Pope claim superiority to all earthly tribunals? We do not mean merely that his spiritual relations are unearthly, (we wish they were more so,) but that he claims "the power of both swords," i. e. supremacy, civil and religious. Look at the case of John of England. He deposed him-sent a prince with a great fleet against

him-offering the prince the remission of his sins, great and endless spiritual blessings-and England too, as the price of his chastising the rebellious king. But the Pope finally tells Philip, that John had returned to obedience, consented to do homage to the Pope for his dominions; that he had made his kingdom a part of St. Peter's patrimony, &c., and he must let him alone. Now I should like to have this explained-and many other acts of usurpation like it, with which all are familiar. Was it right or not? Why did the Pope (for it cannot be denied,) receive homage from kings, and depose them, &c. &c.? Was it right then? and if so, is it wrong now? Is the Pope empowered to interfere as he has notoriously done, between rulers and subjects? to forbid their allegiance to their lawful governors? If the civil power refuse to obey him, is it wrong or right? Has he from God the power to excommunicate rulers for resisting his power? When he hands a heretic over to the civil power, is the civil power bound by this act? If the civil power refuse to punish him for religious error, does it lay itself liable to the wrath of God? Have not Popes and Cardinals directly decreed the burning of hereticks, so that the civil power had no alternative but doing it, or excommunication, and papal wrath? Does not the very nature of Popery require a state establishment? Protestants, we own, have often sinned in this way, and do now in some countries, uphold state establishments. But we think them ruinous to the church and state: and reject and resist them. Do Papists sincerely think so? or does not their system require to be abjured, in order to be American republicans? The Pope is a temporal prince. Is this consistent with the head of the church? In his person meet the Prince and the Pope. How does he treat a

subject of his who turns heretick? In pressing these questions, we intend to be respectful, though plain-and as we have been called on for a defence of our views, so we feel it a duty to reply. We do not wish to charge any Papist with the consequences of his principles, if he from the heart dis claims them. But we think a man who is a Christian, and yet a Papist, must at least be a very poor logician, and defends his principles at the expense of consistency. We would farther add, that it is not for reproach, but on principle, that we use the names of Papist, and Romanist, instead of Catholick-for we are Catholicks ourselves as we suppose, and they are not. Finally-We expect a reply to these various objections and inquiries-and we ask one from some accredited respondent, not from one whose defence may be disclaimed, after the trouble of an extended discussion has been gone into. There are priests and bishops, &c. We are willing to meet any of them, on the broad field of this important and vital discussion; and hereby make this disposition known.

And now, my dear madam, I have to ask your pardon for my long delay-for which my reasons have already been stated. The confusion and trials, incident to my contemplated removal from Baltimore, have still more retarded this answer. For any farther reply, I refer you to "The Protestant," from which I have derived important aid, and to other standard works on this general subject. Though removed from Baltimore, I shall be near at hand, (in the city of Philadelphia,) and by God's grace, prepared for any respectful and intelligent communication of responsible character on this subject.

I am, dear Madam, with great respect and regard, your friend and servant, JOHN BRECKINRIDGE. Baltimore, July 25th, 1831.

The Reverend William Jay, of Bristol, is well known in this country as the author of several excellent religious publications, some of which have been repub lished here. Some time since, he published "Morning Exercises for the Closet," and more recently, a companion for this work, entitled "Evening. Exercises for the Closet," both of which we think would bear a republication in the United States. From this latter work we find the following extract in a review; and we are sure it will be perused with pleasure by our pious readers.

June 30.-The writing of Hezekiah, king of Judah, when he had been sick, and was recovered of his sickness."-ISAIAH XXxviii. 9.

66

Many persons are afraid of their trials. It would be wiser to fear their mercies. They are in more danger from their friends than from their enemies; from their comforts than from their crosses; from their health than from their sickness. They often desire our prayers when they come into affliction: but they need them most when they are coming out of it; and are returning into scenes of danger and temptation again.

"Wicked and worldly men are only anxious to escape from their troubles. But it ought to be our concern to inquire whether we "come forth as gold"-whether we are brought nearer to God, or are left farther from him, by the things we suffer. Constantine the Great said, "I marvel that many of my subjects, since they became

were when they were Pagans."

worse

Young speaks of some as for mending," and "washed to fouler stains.' And it is lamentable to think how many, instead of being improved by their recovery from disease, are injured by it. They poured out a prayer when God's chastening hand was upon them, and confessed and resolved, and vowed unto the Lord; but when he relieved and released them, they turned again to folly. Many think we are severe in our reflections on death-bed changes; and wonder that we think such conversions can never be entirely satisfactory to the subjects of them, or to their surviving friends. Yet of how many ministers have we inquired, all of whom have affirmed that they never knew such converts, when recovered, living according to their promises; yet had they died, they would have entertained a firm hope concerning many of them. And it is probable funeral sermons would have been preached for some of them-and how would others have been chronicled in the magazines! Even Jacob forgot the vow his soul made when he was in trouble, till God said unto him, " Arise, go up to Beth-el, and dwell there: and make there an altar unto God, that appeared unto thee when thou fleddest from the face of Esau thy brother." Then, and not before, did the backslider say, "Let us arise, and go up to Beth-el; and I will make there an altar unto God, who answered me in the day of my distress, and was with me in the way which I went."

"Hezekiah did better on his recovery. He wrote a song, and had it sung in the temple service. He might, indeed, for this pupose, have availed himself of one of David's songs; and we read that he appointed persons to sing the songs of his illustrious ancestor, in the worship of God. But he composed one himself on this occasion, not from vanity, but from

sentiments of piety. He wrote it in particular for three purposes.

First, to show the importance of the blessing he had experienced. Read his language, and you will find how much he valued life. This to some may seem strange. To a good man is it not gain to die? When a voyager is entering the desired haven, is he so glad and grateful for a wind that blows him back again to sea? The fear of death is as much a natural principle as hunger or thirst. Every good man, though always in a state to die, is not in a frame to die. He may not have the light of God's countenance, or the assurance of hope. He may be also influenced by relative considerations. This was the case with Hezekiah. He might have feared for the succession; for he had no offspring at this time: Manasseh was only twelve years old at his death, and therefore could not have been born until three years after his father's recovery. The enemy was also at the gates of the capital. He had also begun a glorious reformation, and wished to see it carried on. Even Paul, though he knew that to depart and to be with Christ was far better, yet was more than willing to abide in the flesh, for the advantage of the Philippians and others.

66

Secondly, to excite his gratitude. Hence he so vividly recalls all his painful and gloomy feelings in his late danger, that he might be the more affected with the goodness of his deliverer and benefactor-read the whole chapter-do as he did. Dwell upon every thing that can give a relish, and add an impression to the blessing you have received; and be ye thankful, and employ your tongues, your pens, your lives, in praise of the God of your mercies. Did the heathen, upon their recovery, hang up tablets of acknowledgments in the house of their gods? Have Papists built churches and altars