help ourselves; that our sufficiency is of God. Except our natures are renewed by the sanctifying influence of the divine Spirit, our faith would be cold, unfruitful, and dead. Certainly our help is in God only and how is that help to be obtained? By those means most evidently which God has himself appointed. Prayer stands among the first but it may be doubted whether even prayer, even this holy exercise, by which the believer's soul has daily communion with God, is so efficacious, is so powerful in building us up in the faith and fear of God, as frequent and devout communing in the Lord's supper. By it, as St. Paul observes, "we do show forth the Lord's death till he come." We repeat, as it were, the sacrifice, by which we are saved. By the eye of faith, we see that mangled body, that streaming blood, which was sufficient to reconcile the world to God. We seem at once to hear the groans on Calvary, and a voice from heaven, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." We have before our eyes, and rendered visible, that infinite expiation, by which the just vengeance of heaven was diverted from a whole race of sinful mortals; by which we are permitted to draw nigh to God, in full assurance of faith; by which a way is opened through the vail, and sanctified for us to the holiest place to the third heaven. Nothing can we conceive of which so strengthens that faith, by which the just live. It is bodily food so sanctified as to feed the soul. "The cup of blessing," says an apostle, "which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? the bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ ?" Yes, says Christ himself: "This is my body, which is given for you; this is my blood, which is shed for you. Do this in remembrance of me. "." My body is meat indeed; my blood is drink indeed." Is not this, then, a very great benefit? It is the means by which we most surely obtain what we spiritually most need, Divine grace; the strengthening of our faith; the exaltation of our hope; the sanctification of our heart. 5. But these benefits are not all. We might show, did the time admit, how very much the ordinances of Christ, and especially this, his holy communion, excite in our hearts charity and Christian affeclion, and engage us more diligently in acts and works of kindness and love. When we see, what we are so affectingly in this sacrament brought to see, how God loved us, it would seem scarce possible that we should not love one another. Can we, without great inconsistency, feel enmity towards any one, for whom such a Saviour died? And how great is the benefit; how profitable to our souls. How necessary to our immortal glory is the benefit of being made more perfect in love! 6. We might also add much on the great advantages of decision in our religious character and profession. There is great danger in "halting between the two opinions," whether we will be disciples of the Saviour, or continue still in the world. It is lingering on the tempter's ground, and hearkening to his insinuations. But when we have chosen our part; when we have made a profession; one very important and necessary step is taken: our religious state is then decided; our face is turned towards the spiritual Canaan. The solemnity of the ordinances; the prayer we unite in; the mercies exhibited; the serious and repeated dedication of ourselves to the Lord who bought us; the oath of God which we take upon us; a regard to our own character, to the honour of God, to the credit of our profession;— all these tend to confirm and strengthen us in the resolution to be steadfast in the faith, and to live as Christians. Well, then, Christian friends, may you "draw near with faith, and take this holy sacrament to your comfort." You hear what answer may be given to the solemn interrogation in the text; you see to what purpose are the multitude of our sacrifices; what good we may expect from the use of religious ordinances. If we use them with hearts indifferent, or from worldly motives, they are to no good "purpose;" we shall not be profited. But, if with sincerity and humble faith we partake of these mercies, the benefits are many and great. In doing it we conform to God's word, and show the obedience of children to the best of parents. In doing it we receive the sacred memorials of the Redeemer's merit; the most endearing tokens of God's love to our souls. In doing it we make publick profession of our faith, and declare before the world that we are the Saviour's disciples. In receiving the sacraments we use the most certain and powerful means of preserving our spiritual life, and growing in grace. We take the most sure method to increase our charity, and to become perfect in Christian love; and in doing it we become decided in our religious character, and declare ourselves upon the Lord's side. Surely, brethren, "the benefits are great, if, with a true penitent heart, and lively faith, we receive this holy sacrament." With such penitence, and such faith, let us draw near, and take it to our comfort. And may God, even our own God, pardon our sins, and give us his blessing; and to him be rendered eternal praise. TO THE EDITOR OF THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE. THE remarks which I made in the Gospel Advocate for October last, on a paragraph which appeared in the Roman Catholick Miscellany, published at Charleston, South Carolina, have been replied to in that paper of the 20th November. It will be impossible for me to follow the writer in his excursive speculations on profane history, nor can I spare the time, or the Gospel Advocate its columns, to examine all the causes of the wars and disputes between the emperor of Germany, the king of England, the king of Navarre, &c. and "God's vicar upon earth." I stated a single fact, and proved it by reference to undoubted historical records. I stated, that the popes have claimed the right of absolving the people from their oaths of allegiance; and I showed, in the very words of the pope's bulls, that they did exercise this power. The writer ad mits the fact, but says, "there might be a special ground for their [the popes'] power of absolving from oaths of allegiance, and still no ground for their absolving from other oaths; there might also be special grounds upon which they had this power with respect to some nations, which did not extend to others." Now, if the exercise of this power depends solely upon the opinion of the pope, what security is there, that he may not, in some moment of wrath, or to attain some secular end, as he is a sovereign prince, attempt to exercise it in the United States? No, says the Roman Catholick writer, he cannot. But why? Because the pope never made “ a contract with our people or government.' In other words, as we are a nation of protestants, and owe no obedience to the pope, he "has no right, directly or indirectly, to interfere with our concerns." Aye, but if we were Roman Catholicks, what then? Would there not then be a contract? And I would ask, whether the pope would not then consider that he had the right to interfere, as he did in the nations of Europe, which acknowledged his supremacy? The writer says, "perhaps in each of the cases," which I stated, "we could find some special ground of justification for the interference." No. It is impossible. No protestant will, or can, believe it. To dissolve the political relationship subsisting between a government and the people, is a political act, and the pope of Rome, who, it must always be remembered, is a sovereign prince, has no more right to interfere in the political concerns of another nation, than his bishops have to go into a protestant church in Philadelphia, and dictate the forms of worship. The writer further says, "Hence, supposing all the facts proved," and he attempts to justify, not to refute them, "that some popes claimed a right to dispense the subjects of some monarchs from the observance of their oath of allegiance. This conclusion is amply proved. But it does not thence follow, that it is believed by Catholicks that the pope can dispense with the obligation of oaths generally." I did not say so. My remarks and proofs were confined solely to oaths of allegiance. But, perhaps, I should not be wrong if I were to say that, if the pope, a foreign prince, an alien to every nation but his own, can, by virtue of an authority appertaining, or supposed to appertain to his office, absolve whole nations from their oaths of allegiance to their own government, he may claim the right of "dispensing with the obligation of oaths generally." But we are not left to mere inference. The pope has claimed and exercised the right of absolving persons from their private contracts with each other. And it will not be denied, that this stretch of power over the consciences, judgment, and welfare of individuals, is subversive of all order, faith, morality, and honesty, in any community where it is permitted to be practised. In the paragraph which led to my remarks, there is this expression: "the people in the south are really under the impression, that Catholicks believe the pope can dispense with the obligation of oaths, contracts, and agreements." Now we can show that the pope did claim the power of "dispensing with the obligation of contracts." In the bull of Pope Paul III. against Henry VIII., he says that he requires all other persons to have no dealings with him or them, [the king and his accomplices,] neither by trading, nor any other way, under the pain of excommunication, the annulling their contracts, and the exposing goods so traded in, to all that should catch them. He declares all other princes absolved from any confederacies made, or to be made with him." These are certainly other obligations beside those of "allegiance." Again. The writer says, suppose we allow his facts to be true in the sense which he wishes to have conveyed by them, what do these facts prove? They prove that Gregory VII., Innocent III., Innocent IV., Clement VI., Pius V., and Sixtus V., did absolve the subjects of certain princes from their allegiance. Here then, we have only the acts of six popes, and by those acts no Catholick is bound." Whether Roman Catholicks are, at this day, and in this country, bound to believe in the right claimed by these popes, I will not take upon me to determine. They know best. But that Roman Catholicks have thought themselves bound to believe it, and did actually believe it, I will now proceed to prove. In the fourth great council of Lateran, which is acknowledged to be a general council by the church of Rome, the third canon establishes, in the most express terms, the pope's power of deposing princes, and absolving subjects from their allegiance. The members of this council must, therefore, have believed that the pope possessed this power, and must have thought themselves bound by the exercise of that power. This power, however, was not acknowledged by all the Roman Catholicks of that day. The clergy of France, particularly, denied it. In the official "Declaration of the Gallican clergy, concerning the ecclesiastical power in the year 1682," the first and third sections contain these declarations: I. "Therefore kings and princes are not subject, in temporals, to any ecclesiastical power, by the ordinance of God; neither can they, by authority of the keys of the church, directly or indirectly be deposed, or their subjects absolved from their faith and obedience, and oath of allegiance, which they have taken: and this is to be firmly retained, as necessary to the publick peace," &c.III. "Hence the use of apostolical power is to be moderated by the canons," &c. We must infer from this document that, although the French clergy denied the pope this power, yet the Roman Catholicks of other nations believed he possessed it; for, otherwise, an official declaration on the subject was unnecessary. No succeeding pope, or general council, has, so far as my knowledge extends, declared publickly and officially, that no such power does of right appertain to the popedom, or court of Rome. Has any pope, or general council, expressed their abhorrence of the following papal aphorism, as we find it recorded by Gratian: "Qui secundum plenitudinem potestatis, de jure possumus supra jus dispensare:" "We, who, according to the plenitude of our power, Burnett's Reformation, vol. i. p. 246. Fol. Lond. 1681. + Leslie's Works, vol. i. p. 565. Fol. Lond. 1721, where the declaration at length, both in Latin and English, will be found. have a right to dispense above law or right?" If the church and court of Rome have expressed their abhorrence of such doctrine; or if they have decided that the pope did not possess the power of dispensing with oaths, it would be gratifying to protestants to see the official declaration. But further. The famous League of the Roman Catholicks against Henry IV., king of France, a protestant, was carried on for several years, and was promoted by all the power and influence of the pope and court of Rome. "The Roman Catholicks who had joined the king, formed a conspiracy against him, upon his delay to turn Roman Catholick; and the princes of the blood told him plainly to his face, that if he did not perform his promise, and turn Roman Catholick, they would desert him, and join the League." During the struggle, the following popes were in office,viz. Gregory XIII., Sixtus V., Urban VII., Gregory XIV., Innocent IX., and Clement VIII., who not only supported the rebellion with money, troops, and anathemas, but set up the cardinal of Bourbon as king, because Henry, the lawful heir, was a protestant! During the rebellion, a book was published by the Roman Catholicks with this title: "De justa abdicatione Henrici III. ;" and Cajetan, the cardinal legate, in his declaration to the leaguers, says, that "to acknowledge a heretick [protestant] for their king, is the dream of a madman, which proceeds from nothing else but heretical contagion."§ The historian further informs us that, "a great and solemn procession was made by order from the cardinal legate, to implore God's assistance, [for the success of the Roman Catholicks against the protestant king,] in which the prelates, priests, and monks of the several religious orders, walked in their accustomed habits; but besides them, armed openly with corslets, guns, swords, partisans, and all kinds of arms, offensive and defensive, making at once a double show, both of devotion, and constancy of heart to defend themselves: which ceremony, though to many it seemed undecent and ridiculous, yet was of great use to augment and confirm the courage of the common people." The pope, at length, carried his point, and compelled the king to turn Roman Catholick. Again. In the year 1615, Cardinal Perron in the assembly of the three estates of France, and in the name of the first estate, that is of the clergy, did re-assert the power of the pope to depose kings; and, subsequently, Father Juvency, a French Jesuit, published at Rome, a book in defence of the deposing power of the pope.T I trust these facts will be sufficient to prove that, Roman Catholicks have felt themselves bound to believe in the pope's power of dispensing with the obligation of oaths. To avert from the church of Rome, the indignation which every honest man must feel on this subject, the writer assures us, that "it P. Inn. III. Decret. Greg. lib. 3. tit. 8. c. 4. apud Barrow's works, i. p. 696. + D'Avila's Hist. of the civil wars of France, pp. 555, 601, 602, 605, 611, 612, English translation. Savoy, 1678. Ibid. lib. xii. p. 493. Ibid. lib. xiii. p. 579. || Ibid. lib. xi. p. 459. |