The origin and perversion of indulgences, p. 156. I. The bishop of Aire's attempt to deduce indulgences from the authority of St. Paul, p. 157. II. The sale of indulgences at the time of the Reformation, p. 158. III. The doctrine of Supererogation as now held by the church THE DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM IN RESPECT TO PURGATORY, p. 161. The bishop of Aire confesses, that the existence of purgatory cannot be proved from Scripture, p. 161. I. Hence he attempts to prove it inductively from the untena- ble doctrine of Satisfaction, p. 161. II. The bishop claims all antiquity, as being in his favour: but then, according to the tenour of his citations, all antiquity commences about the middle of the third century, p. 163. 1. All antiquity commences with Cyprian: and Cyprian, though cited by the bishop as favourable to his cause, is directly hostile to it, p. 163. 2. All real antiquity is against the bishop: as we may learn from Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Ignatius, Holy Scripture is perfectly silent respecting the duty or benefit of prayers for the dead, p. 167. I. The insufficiency of the bishop of Aire's proof, from the Mac- cabæan history, shown by the canon of Cyril of Jerusalem, and his direct testimony against the authority of the II. The bishop's allegation, that the duty of praying for the dead is taught by the silence of Christ, p. 169. III. The bishop's attempted proof from the fathers, that prayers for the dead are pious and profitable, p. 170. 1. Omitting the earliest ecclesiastical writers, the bishop begins with Tertullian, p. 171. (2.) Tertullian's speculation respecting prayers for the dead, p. 172. 2. The bishop further adduces Cyprian, Chrysostom, and Augustine, p. 173. CHAPTER XIV. AN HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE RISE OF PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD AND OF THE DOCTRINE OF PURGATORY, p. 174. The rise and progress of prayers for the dead, and of the connected doctrine of Purgatory, p. 174. I. Tertullian, p. 174. II. Cyril of Jerusalem, p. 174. III. Augustine, p. 175. 1. Hesitation of Augustine, p. 176. (1.) Exemplified from one of his treatises, p. 176. (2.) Exemplified from one of his sermons, p. 176. (3.) Exemplified from another treatise, p. 177. (4.) Exemplified from another discourse, 177. 2. Striking and essential difference between the purgatory of Augustine and the purgatory of the modern Roman church, p. 178. 3. Augustine's exposition of 1 Corinth. iii. 10—15. was unknown to his predecessors Tertullian and Origen, p. 179. CHAPTER XV. ' THE DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM IN RESPECT TO THE INVOCATION OF THE SAINTS, p. 180. The case made out by the bishop of Aire for the invocation of the saints, p. 180.. I. Even on the alleged ground, that the invocation of the saints is merely intercessory, the practice, not being authorized by Scripture, and manifestly tending to idolatry, is utterly unjustifiable, p. 181. 1. We might well be satisfied with the simple fact alone, that Scripture, while it allows us to ask the intercessory prayers of the living, does not authorize us to ask the intercessory prayers of the dead, p. 181. 2. But, of this striking circumstance, it is not very difficult to ascertain the rationale, p. 182. C (1.) The nature and origin of the pagan hero-worship, which was adopted by the apostate Israelites, p. 182. (2.) St. Paul's prophecy of the christian apostacy was supposed, in the early church, to foretell the worship of canonized dead men, p. 183. (3.) To ask the intercessory prayers of the living could not lead to idolatry: hence, in Scripture, it is allowed. To ask the intercessory prayers of the dead has a direct tendency to produce idolatry: hence, in Scripture, it is no where authorized, p. 184. II. The avowed ground, on which alone the bishop of Aire defends the invocation of the saints, is, that they are merely requested to give us their intercessory prayers, p. 185. 1. Yet he himself confesses that his statement is not perfectly accurate, p. 185. 2. Its inaccuracy is yet further shown even by his own citations from certain of the later fathers, p. 186. 3. Its inaccuracy is additionally shown by the authorized prayers of the Latin church, in which not merely the intercession of the saints is requested, but in which they are implored to grant such gifts and graces and blessings as God alone can bestow, p. 189. III. The bishop, as usual, in his appeal to antiquity, quotes only the later fathers, in whose time corruption had begun to invade the church. For obvious reasons he refrains from adducing the really primitive fathers, p. *194. CHAPTER XVI. THE DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM IN RESPECT TO THE WORSHIP OF RELICS, p. 193. The case made out by the bishop of Aire for the worship of relics, p. 193. I. He professedly rests the whole matter upon the alleged fact, that relics are simply used in the Latin church as recordatory aids to devotion, p. 194. II. His statement shown to be inaccurate, p. 195. III. His account of the worship of relics unsatisfactory, p. 198. IV. His proof of the legality of relic-worship, from miracles said to have been wrought over the relics of the saints, p. 199. V. His attempt to trace relic-worship to the age of the apostles, p. 200. 1. First proof, p. 200. CHAPTER XVII. THE DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM IN RESPECT TO THE VENERATION OF IMAGES, p. 202. The case made out by the bishop of Aire for the veneration of images, p. 202. I. The decision of the second Council of Nice, as adduced by the bishop, p. 202. II. The decision of the second Council of Nice, as understood and expounded by James Naclantus, bishop of Clugium, p. 202. i. The decision of the council given in full, p. 202. 2. The exposition of James of Clugium, as published in Italy, during the sixteenth century, without any censure from the church of Rome, p. 203. III. The bishop's defence of image-worship, on the plea of the difference between absolute-worship and relative-worship, p. 204. IV. The apprehension of protestants respecting image-worship, though censured by the bishop as groundless, has been too well justified by the event, p. 207. 1. The danger, in the case of new converts from pagan- (1.) Singular incongruity in the language adopted (2.) Specimen of authorized Roman devotion, p. 210. (3.) Pope Gregory and Serenus of Marseilles, p. 212. V. The bishop adduces the fathers on his behalf: but, as before, he prudently adduces not one of the really ancient or earliest fathers, p. 216. CHAPTER XVIII. THE DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM IN RESPECT TO THE ADORATION OF THE CROSS, p. 219. The case made out by the bishop of Aire for the adoration of the cross, p. 219. I. The decision of the second Council of Nice, p. 220. II. The bishop, as a member of the church of Rome, is pledged either to defend the adoration of the cross, or to censure the decision of the council, p. 220. 1. The insufficiency of the plea, which the bishop attempts to set up on the ground of the difference between religious worship and civil homage, p.220. 2. Inconclusive reasoning of the bishop from Galat. vi. 14. p. 221. . 3. The bishop's defence of the adoration of the cross, from its alleged remarkable property of silencing pagan oracles, p. 222. 4. The bishop claims the ancient fathers of the primitive church, as favourable to the adoration of the cross: but, as usual, he adducces only the later fathers; in whose time, a superstition, unknown to their pre- deny the allegation of Julian, that christians (2.) Tertullian, at the end of the second and at the beginning of the third century, is not in the bishop's favour; and says nothing, in the least degree, to the purpose, p. 223. (3.) Minucius Felix, at the beginning of the third century, is directly against the bishop, p. 224. III. A sketch of the rise and progress of cross-worship, drawn out from materials furnished by the bishop himself, p. 225. BOOK II. THE DIFFICULTIES ATTENDANT UPON THE CHURCH OF ROME IN REGARD TO HER CLAIM OF UNIVERSAL SUPREMACY, p. 227. CHAPTER I. RESPECTING THE POLITY OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH, p. 229. To demonstrate, that the form of ecclesiastical polity, which has been adopted by the church of England, was of divine appointment, nothing more is requisite than the Bible, illustrated by the attestation of two of the oldest fathers to a naked matter of fact, p. 229. I. The testimony of Irenæus, the scholar of Polycarp, the disciple of St. John, p. 230. II. The testimony of Clement of Rome, the friend and companion and fellow-labourer of St. Paul, p. 232. 1. His testimony respects a fact, which was occurring in his own time, p. 233. 2. The theory, that the primitive bishops and presbyters were identical, is irreconcilable with the testimony to facts, borne by Tertullian and Irenæus and Clement of Rome, p. 236. III. The testimony of Scripture, as interpreted by the attestation of Irenæus and Clement to naked facts, which they beheld with their own eyes, and in which mistake was physically impossible, p. 238. |