270

LETTER TO A ROMAN CATHOLIC.

or six different places, in the same, and in the foregoing chapter, he never mentions receiving the bread, without drinking the cup; and instead of calling one the real body, and the other the real blood of Christ, he calls them "the communion of the blood of Christ," in conformity to his great Master, who has commanded us to receive both, not as his actual body and blood, but in remembrance of him. I know that the reason given by the Church of Rome, for depriving their members of one part of the Lord's supper is, that whosoever receives the body of Christ, must also receive his blood, since the blood cannot be separated from the body; but this way of reasoning renders the command of our Lord and St. Paul to receive both kinds quite needless, and is indeed to profess ourselves wiser than what is written. Besides, this argument again proves too much; for by the same rule, the priests themselves ought to receive the sacrament only in one kind.

Let me now ask what authority there is for the priest's receiving alone, whilst the people are kneeling all about him? The answer I suppose usually given, is because the priest offers up the sacrifice of the mass for the sins of the people. Bring only one text of Scripture in confirmation of this, and I will allow the truth and the necessity of it. But this cannot be done; though numberless texts may be produced to prove that it is striking at the very root of that most fundamental doctrine of Christianity, the satisfaction made for sin by the death of Christ; and that it in a manner brings believers back again to the ceremonial law, under which daily sacrifices were offered up; but these were to cease, when He who was the end of them all was to appear, and by the offering of his own body once for all, to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. But they who look But they who look upon the mass

LETTER TO A ROMAN CATHOLIC.

271

as a daily sacrifice for sin, are quite of a contrary mind to St. Paul, who tells us, "that Christ needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's; for this he did once, when he offered up himself." "Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world; but now once in the end of the world, hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment; so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many," and "where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin."

I might now enlarge on the strange unscriptural custom of praying in an unknown tongue, and of offering supplications to departed saints, and to the Virgin Mary, to the great dishonor of the one Mediator between God and man. I might also say much on the idolatrous practice of bowing down before pictures and graven images, the work of men's hands, in open violation of the second commandment, which says, "thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image, nor the likeness of any thing in heaven or in earth; thou shalt not bow down to them," &c. I might further speak of the arrogant practice of granting pardons and indulgences, and might particularly expatiate on the doctrine of purgatory, which though it has not one text of Scripture for its own support, has brought plenty of gains for the support of the church's power; and this by undervaluing and almost making of none effect the sufferings of the Redeemer, which it does by supposing that any other

1 It is well known that the Roman Catholics do not scruple to leave the Second Commandment out of the decalogue.

272

LETTER TO A ROMAN CATHOLIC.

sufferings besides his, are necessary towards expiating and putting away the sins of those that shall be saved. The vain-glorious notion, also, of justification by men's own righteousness, and especially of works of supererogation, in defiance of the plain declaration of God's word, which tells us, that "when we have done all those things which are commanded us, we are unprofitable servants," might furnish me with matter for a volume. But neither my own time, nor the compass of a letter will allow me to dwell on any of these points; I shall therefore conclude what I have to say with my most earnest wishes and prayers, that the God of all grace would enable you to lay these things to heart with that seriousness which their great importance demands at your hands and for this end, I beseech you diligently to examine your heart, as in the presence of Him to whom the secrets of it are all open, whether you are divested of all prejudice in favor of the Roman Catholic, and against the Protestant religion: and when you have done this, fear not to take into your hands those divine oracles, which God has graciously vouchsafed for your instruction, under the guidance of his blessed Spirit, though by the craft of designing men this inestimable gift is wrested out of the people's hands, in downright opposition to the divine command of Him who has positively enjoined us to "search the Scriptures," and whose [Apostle] so much commendeth the Bereans for having done so.

:

To the reading of God's word, add earnest prayer for divine illumination in your searches after truth; and in the use of these means, I doubt not you will soon be brought to see that the charge of novelty belongs not to the Church of England, or any other reformed Church, but to the Church of Rome; and that the stale question

LETTER TO A ROMAN CATHOLIC.

273

where was your reli

so often put to the Protestants, gion before Luther's and Calvin's time?" may very properly be answered, by saying "it was where it is now, viz. in the Bible, where the creed of his Holiness could never yet be found." Yet because the innovations of Popery have crept in by degrees, and in the darkest ages of superstition, therefore the Romish Church lays claim to antiquity, and brands the Protestant religion with the charge of novelty. But this is not less unreasonable, than if I were to see an ancient shield covered with rust, and from thence were to conclude that the rust was still more ancient than the shield itself. The rust indeed might carry the vestiges of antiquity, but still it was not originally upon the shield: remove the rust, and the pristine beauty of the shield will appear to view.

I beg to add one word more by way of conclusion. Should you by reading this letter, or any other means, be led to see that you have hitherto been in error, and thereupon to renounce your former principles, beware of a change of opinion without a change of heart; since nothing short of vital union with Christ, through the faith of his own operation, evidencing itself in a life of deadness to the world, and of devotedness to God, will stand you in any stead.

Indeed, my dear friend, I dare not call your sincerity in question. I believe you heartily wish to be found in the right way, and that you are striving to serve God in what you judge to be that way and as you have been pleased to bear the same testimony of me, let me earnestly entreat you to attribute any expressions which may perhaps appear to you either too warm, or bearing too hard upon that Church in which you have been educated, to the effect of at least a well-meant zeal for what I

T

cannot doubt to be the truth of God, and of my unfeigned love and regard for one whom I always did, and ever shall esteem as a most valuable friend.

With this assurance, which does yet but faintly express the feelings of my heart, permit me to subscribe myself,

My dear Friend,

Most truly and faithfully yours,

RICHARD HILL.

Would that the author of this excellent remonstrance, had always written against error in the same tone, and in the same clear and satisfactory mode of treating his subjects. To what he said on the topics of "Freewill and of Merit" in this letter, he added the following note, which shews that his Calvinistic views were, after all, not so very high, to employ the phrase in common use on these points; but wherefore it is so applied, they who invented it ought to have explained. Though," says Mr. Hill, we deny man's freewill, yet we deny not that every man acts freely, both in a state of nature, and in a state of grace. In the former, he can only follow that corrupt bias, which all the faculties of his soul have contracted by the Fall. In the latter, his understanding being enlightened to know the things which belong to his peace, he freely chooses the good, and refuses the evil. So that, as an eminent prelate observes, though God uses an infinite power in the conversion of a soul, yet he uses no compulsion.' I apprehend very few pious Wesleyans would refuse to admit this position of their worthy antagonist. In fact, the nearer we approach this excellent individual, the more we shall find how different a person he really was, from what he sometimes appeared in the dust of con