"LXXXI. The holy obscurity of the word of God is not to the laity a reason for dispensing with the reading of it."—On Acts viii. 30, 31.

"LXXXII. Christians should sanctify the Lord's-day by the read. ing of pious works, and above all of the holy Scriptures. It is injurious to wish to withdraw the Christian from this reading."-On Acts xv. 21: For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath-day.'

6

"LXXXIII. It is a delusion to persuade oneself that the knowledge of the mysteries of religion ought not to be communicated to women by the reading of the sacred Books. The abuse of Scripture has arisen, and heresies have sprung up, not from the simplicity of females, but from the haughty science of men."-On John iv. 25, 26.

"LXXXIV. To take the New Testament out of the hands of Chris tians, or to close it to them, by depriving them of the means of understanding it, is to close the mouth of Christ to them."--On Matt. v. 2: 'And he opened his mouth and taught them.'

"LXXXV. To forbid the reading of the holy Scriptures, especially of the Gospel, to Christians, is to forbid the use of light to the children of light, and to make them endure a species of excommunication."On Luke xi. 33: No man, when he hath lighted a candle, putteth it in a secret place, neither under a bushel, but on a candlestick, that they which come in may see the light.'

"LXXXVI. To take from the common people the consolation of joining their voice to the voice of the whole church, is a fashion contrary to the Apostolic practice, and to the design of God."-On 1 Cor. xiv. 16: Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?'

"XCIII. Jesus sometimes heals the wounds, which the precipitancy of the chief pastors inflicts without his command. Jesus restores what they with inconsiderate zeal cut off."-On John xviii. 11: Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?' [Quesnel observes, that the reflection applies better to Luke xxii. 51: And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear,

and healed him.']

"XCIV. Nothing give the enemies of the church a worse opinion of it, than to see lordship there exercised over the faith of believers, and divisions cherished on account of things which hurt neither faith nor practice."-On Rom. xiv. 16.

"XCV. The truths of the Gospel are come to this, that they are a sort of foreign tongue to most Christians: and the style of preaching them is a sort of unknown idiom, so far is it removed from the simplicity of the Apostles, and so far above the common capacity of believers. Nor is it sufficiently observed, that this defect is one of the most perceptible signs of the old age of the church, and of the wrath of God against his children."-On 1 Cor. xiv. 21: In the law it is

written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.' "XCVII. It too often happens, that those members which are the holiest, and the most closely united to the Church, are regarded and treated as unworthy to be in the Church, or as if separated from it. But the just lives by faith, and not by the opinion of men.”—On Acts iv. 10, 11.

"C. Deplorable time! when men think to honour God, in perse. cuting the truth and its disciples. This time is come. To be considered and treated by the ministers of religion as impious and unworthy of all intercourse with God, as a rotten member, capable of tainting all things in the assembly of the saints, is to pious men a death more dreadful than the death of the body. In vain does a man flatter himself concerning the purity of his intentions, and a zeal for religion, in persecuting good men with fire and sword, if he is blinded by his own rage, or carried away by that of others, because he will examine nothing. We often think that we are sacrificing an impious person to God, and sacrifice a servant of God to the devil.”—On John xvi. 2: They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.'

We need hardly observe, that the apparent discrepancy of the twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth propositions is explained by Quesnel in an obvious and satisfactory manner.

And who will not say that these extracts contain most pleasing sentiments? Who could expect to find a Roman Catholic speaking so explicitly, as from Prop. lxxix. to Prop. lxxxv., of the right of all persons to read the Scriptures? Who would expect, from amongst the upholders of human merit, such decided testimonies to the doctrines of grace, as from Prop. i. to Prop. xxv. ? We see, then, a Romanist CAN hold and publish the truth. Is it not a delightful discovery? Is it not soothing to our liberality? Are we not almost tempted to forget our differences, to rush into the arms of our Roman Catholic brethren, and to fraternize in the bonds of universal harmony? Really we ought to be cautious how we attack their tenets. The friends of Emancipation told us, indeed, that if once the just boon were granted, we might expect them to do more than ever for converting Catholics. But are they not beginning to discover that it will be the more prudent course, to do only what they were doing before? Nay, that, on the whole, it will be advisable at first to do somewhat less? Surely those discussions must do harm. It is true they are very effectual-nay, rather more effectual than any other means that have been tried. But if they go on succeeding as they have done, is there not a danger of their offending our Catholic brethren? Surely it is unwise to attempt, at once, the conversion of Catholics by direct means: for, if we do, they

will soon begin to repel us. That is certain, and our converting them is uncertain. Rather let us wait for a future spring, the time of gentle rains; and, when spring is come, for autumn, the time of genial harvest. As to those Reformers, they fell into great mistakes. They had great defects, Luther especially. In disputing with Roman Catholics, we ought above all things to seek to be impartial. When you differ from a person, and wish to bring him to your opinion, there is nothing like impartiality. The Roman Catholic, be it remembered, is a true church; and as for ourselves, we have hammered out pure Christianity into Protestantism. Come, then, let us forget the temporary feelings of party which have lately agitated us, be reconciled to the true church, and consecrate our oblivions in a sublime re-union!

If we, if our readers, are disposed to take so unprincipled, so apostate, so absurd a course,-Come, rugged Truth! tear aside the veil break the spell! hew the snares of Darkness in pieces! What, are we delighted with these sound and pious propositions? Then hear the plain fact. These very propositions the Church of Rome CONDEMNS. Yes: Quesnel's work was OPPOSED by the Roman Catholics: the Pope published a BULL against it the Pope reviled it in terms of the grossest abuse: and the propositions quoted above are part of an hundred and one, which are selected and arranged as peculiarly deserving of censure and reprobation. It is right that our readers should see how the pious Quesnel and these his excellent propositions, are dealt with in the Papal bull :

Omnes et singulas propositiones præinsertas, tanquam Falsas,
Captiosas, malè sonantes,

Piarum aurium offensivas, scandalosas,

Perniciosas, temerarias, Ecclesiæ, et ejus praxi injuriosas, Neque in Ecclesiam solùm, sed etiam in potestates sæculi contumeliosas,

Seditiosas, impias, blasphemas,

Suspectas de hæresi, ac hæresim ipsam sapientes,

Nec non hæreticis, et hæresibus, ac etiam schismati faventes, erroneas, hæresi proximas, pluries damnatas, ac demùm etiam hæreticas, variasque hæreses, et potissimum illas quæ in famosis Jansenii propositionibus, et quidem in eo sensu, in quo hæ damnatæ fuerunt, acceptis, continentur, manifestè innovantes, respectivè, hîc nostrâ perpetuò valiturâ Constitutione declaramus, damnamus, et reprobamus.Errores et Synopsis Vitæ P. Quesnel, p. 12.

"All and each of the above propositions, respectively, we do here by our decree, which shall always stand good, declare, condemn, and reprobate, as False,

Captious*, badly sounding,

Offensive to pious ears, scandalous,

Pernicious, rash, injurious to the Church and to its practice,
Nor insulting to the Church alone, but also to secular authorities,
Seditious, impious, blasphemous,

Suspected of heresy, and savouring of heresy itself,

Moreover, favourable to heretics, and heresies, and also to schism; erroneous, next to heresy, many times condemned; and finally heretical also; and manifestly reviving various heresies, and especially those which are contained in the infamous propositions of Jansenius, in the very sense in which they were condemned."

Thus it is that Romanism regards the doctrines of the pious Quesnel. Turn, reader, once more to the propositions: but turn to them, not to discover truths which, though hid in the midst of rubbish, the Church of Rome still cherishes and maintains; but to behold doctrines which she hates, denounces, abominates, and rejects. Yes. They contain the primitive doctrines of grace. But we are told from the Vatican, that these doctrines are "false" and "scandalous." They plead the right of all to read the Scriptures. But the plea is "rash" and "pernicious." They speak the language of candour. But such candour Rome" condemns" and "reprobates." They breathe a spirit of toleration. But the spirit is "seditious," and "insulting to the church." They might even, some of these famous propositions, be arranged and printed together as a useful tract, exhibiting some leading features of Scripture truth. But the bull of Clement XI. would proclaim the tract to be "blasphemous."-For these, be it observed, are propositions peculiarly specified in the bull. These truths, so welcome to our hearts, are truths which Romanism SELECTS to condemn. This shews what are the PECULIAR objects of Papal hostility. Said we not, in our last number, truly, that the pure DOCTRINES of the church, THESE, THESE are the marks of Papal enmity; THESE are the objects of Papal suppression: the doctrines; the pure Gospel; the TRUTH!+

* The term appears to be used by Roman Catholic controversialists, of propositions artfully worded; and to imply a disposition to prevaricate or quibble. † Perhaps our readers will like to see the Roman Catholic mode of answering the propositions of Quesnel. We select the eightieth, already given. "LXXX. The reading of holy Scripture is for all."

Opposed to this is :

"The young children ask bread, and no man breaketh it unto them.' Lam. iv. 4.

"Since it is manifest from experience, if the Bible be generally allowed of in the vulgar tongue without distinction, that through the rashness of men more

Two ideas have been impressed upon our minds, in the consideration of the present subject. The first is, that Romanism, so far from becoming more harmless and mitigated, is gradually getting worse. It is much worse now, and stands in a much worse state and aspect, than it did before the Reformation. So many more warnings as it has had in the last four hundred years, so many more warnings as it has rejected, so much more awful are its condition and prospects. So often as true doctrine has been pressed upon the Church of Rome, and so often as she has trampled it under foot, so often has she added a heavy load to the ever-increasing burden of her iniquities.-She has been warned by her opponents: but she has not regarded. Yielding where she was compelled, where she could she has put down the truth by bloodshed; and to the utmost of her power, she still keeps it down to this day. Never did she display a more determined purpose to shut out the Bible, never a more fixed anxiety to shut out Christian education, than at this moment: and wherever she partially admits these things, it is but too clear that she yields not from good will but from necessity, or from a choice of evils, in some pressing cases actually not knowing what to do.—But this is not all. While she has thus continually been warned by opponents, she has also had true doctrine occasionally revived in her midst, and pressed upon her attention by her own members and this true doctrine, thus pressed upon her, she has looked upon, she has hated, she has loathed, she has denounced, she has execrated, she has rejected and blasphemed and cast out as evil. What an awful fact! But how true, let Quesnel and the Jansenists declare. If Rome would have heard any thing, surely, it might be thought, she would have heard these Jansenists. For, whatever happily their opinions on some essential points, they evidently have ever felt an attachment to their own communion. That is, their writers speak of it, throughout, as the Church. They support their opinions by Roman Catholic authorities. They evidently hold, and that cordially, many Popish doctrines. Moreover, we find these writers regarding Protestants with real, though uninformed, hostility; and speaking of the "errors of Lutherans and Calvinists," with something very like bitterness. Yet these, also, as to some essential points,

:

harm than good arises therefrom, herein let obedience be rendered to the judgment of the Bishop or Inquisitor, &c.-Concil. Trid.

66

Whereby it is shewn that the reading of holy Scripture is not for all," &c. -Errores et Synopsis Vitæ P. Quesnel, pp. 121, 122.

The work from which we quote professes to take the hundred and one propositions of Quesnel, and confute them seriatim. Well may the friends of Romanism deprecate discussion.