and absurdities is John Fox here taken by Alan Cope and us, as not having amended the same in his latter editions. First, master Cope accused him, that in his former editions he had alleged most impudently, both Fabian and Harding, as authors and witnesses of all this story of sir Roger Onley and the lady Eleanor Cobham, &c. Whereas they have quite the contrary, to wit, that they were condemned of treason, necromancy, and witchcraft, and do make no mention at all of any matter of religion laid against them. Whereunto do agree also the Protestant chroniclers, Hall, Crafton, Cooper, and Holinshed. Neither doth Fox defend himself, in any one word or syllable, from this falsehood and impudency in his latter editions.

Secondly, he is accused (as before hath been touched) for setting down Roger Onley, the necromancer, for a chief martyr in red letters, and the duchess of Gloucester only under the name of 'gentlewoman and confessor :' she, nor the said Roger being ever known to have confessed or professed any other religion but the Catholic. And of this in like manner hath he not hitherto cleared himself any thing at all, but only confessed, that he had by error put him down, sir Roger Onley knight, for priest: and that possibly it may be, that both he and his lady might favour secretly of another religion, and so be troubled therefore. But yet at all adventures, he setteth them forth in this his last calendar for martyrs and confessors (as before) without any mutation or correction at all; which is evident sign that he never meant to amend his manners.

"Lastly, his manifest corruption of the story of Joan Broughton, being seen and discovered most apparently, by the foresaid reply of Alan Cope, (who named the author and his words, out of which the whole story was taken, and challenged Fox to bring forth his author, if he had any other, or could defend that which he had already written thereof in his former editions) Fox answered now not so much as any one word for his excuse therein, but letteth all stand as it was before. Thereby to gain opinion perhaps of constancy with the reader, that he will stand to whatsoever he saith, true or false. If not for this cause, yet for that he thought it a dishonour to change and amend any thing as it fell out in master Jewell; who being advertised by his secretary, at that time, and corrector of his print, that there were certain false things in his book, and thereupon would have stayed the print, until they had been amended: the other gave order that it should pass notwithstanding, which was an occasion of the said secretary's conversion to the Catholic religion. And so may this dealing of Fox be to all well meaning Protestants, that seek truth and the salvation of their own souls. And so much of this matter, and of Foxian martyrs and confessors, before the time of king Henry the eighth."

15. Thomas Norris, Martyr.

This man was an artificer, burned at Norwich in the reign of Henry the 7th, for extravagant opinions, before the Reformation, so called, was even thought of. He was burned upon the last day of March, as Fox mentions in his Acts and Monuments, and consequently should not be a saint of this month of February.

16. Thomas Eccles, Martyr.

His name should have been George Eccles; he was a tailor by trade, as well as a gospel preacher, and for his roving habits, was surnamed Trudge over the world, by which name he was indicted and condemned. He was hanged, drawn, and quartered for TREASON, under queen Mary, at Chelmsford, in Essex, in the year 1557, and not in 1510, as stated in Fox's calendar.

18. DOCTOR MARTIN LUTHER, CONFESSOR.

MARTIN LUTHER being the apostle of the thing called the Reformation but which we shall prove was the deformation of religion, it is our intention to enter at some length into the life and character of this confessor of Fox, that the reader may see of what materials the founder of Protestantism was composed. In delineating this "Elias and Conductor of the chariot of Israel," as he has been blasphemously called, we shall have recourse to authorities that cannot be contravened, being cotemporary with Luther himself and some of them his own disciples; and also from Luther's own writings, which he has left to the world to bear testimony against himself, and the source from whence he received his inspirations to become what has been most wrongly termed a reformer. We are forewarned by our Saviour, recorded in the sacred writings, to "beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them.. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit..Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them." Matt. vii. 15-18-20. Consider then, reader, the facts we shall now lay before you, and judge whether the tree which Luther planted could be a goodly one, or rather was it not one which the Redeemer said should be cut down and cast into the fire?

Martin Luther, or Luder, was born in the year 1483, of poor parents in a town in Saxony called Isleb or Islabium. His parents were named Luder, and he signed himself so till he fell into contentions, when he changed his name to Luther, for that of Luder in the Saxon language was frequently applied to persons opprobriously. In an epistle to his father, Luther states that he was haunted by the devil from his childhood, insomuch that being terrified by the sudden death of one of his companions, who was struck dead with a thunderbolt, he took the habit of an Augustinian friar about the year 1505 in the town of Erford. In the 29th year of his age, he was made doctor of divinity at Wirtemberg, having made great progress in his studies, and proved himself of considerable capacity. While he adhered to the precepts of his order we may learn the composure of his mind, and the divine effects of a religious life, from his own words. "Whatsoever I did," he says in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, "I did it with a single heart, of good zeal, and for the glory of God, fearing grievously the last day, and desirous of being saved from the bottom of my heart." And Simon Voyon says, that Luther "lived in his monastery, punishing his body with watching, fasting, and prayer; honoured the pope, and kept himself in chastity, poverty and obedience." This happy disposition, however, he did not long maintain, as he found himself so closely beset with the devil, and too prone to listen to his suggestions to preserve

the grace of God, which the singleness of heart are sure to receive when they ask it with sincerity and devotion. It is related of him, that one day when the gospel of St. Matthew, of Christ casting out the devil, was read in the choir of his monastery, Luther fell to the ground, and cried out Non sum, non sum, that is, I am not, I am not; which circumstance caused many to suspect that he was in familiarity with the evil one. This suspicion was afterwards greatly confirmed by his own testimony; for in a sermon, he told the people that he had eaten more than a bushel of salt with satan; and in his book called De Missa Angulari seu privata, he confessed, without disguise, that the devil came and disputed warmly with him against the mass, and overcame him by his reasons; but more of this hereafter.

The cause of friar Luther's apostacy from the universal or Catholic church originated in the publication of indulgences granted by Leo X. to build the splendid temple of St. Peter's at Rome. To this end preachers were nominated in every state of Europe to explain the nature and spiritual effect of these grants, according to the doctrine of the Catholic church. Indulgences have been represented by the adversaries of truth as licenses to commit sin; it may, therefore, not be improper that we here explain what indulgences really are, and the authenticity Catholics have for this practice of the Church. It may also be more appropriate that we should do so, as at the very time we write, (March, 1826) a Jubilee indulgence has been granted to the whole church by the sovereign pontiff Leo XII.

An indulgence, in the Catholic sense of the word, is no more than a relaxation of the temporal punishment due to many sins after the guilt has been remitted by the sacrament of penance. This relaxation is obtained by the application of the superabounding merits of Christ and his saints, which form the spiritual treasure of the Church. The application is made by the supreme pastor to whom was given the keys

of that treasure in the person of St. Peter, on whom Christ founded his Church and made him the centre of unity, Our Saviour said to Peter, whose name originally was Simon,-"Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven."-(St. Matt. xvi. 18, 19.) On this authority, which was to continue to the end of the world, according to the promise of Christ, the holy father, as the successor of St. Peter, occasionally opens the treasures of the Church, the efficacy of which depends upon a faithful compliance with those conditions which are specified in the grant, namely, prayer, fasting, alms-deeds, and other pious works, with A SINCERE SORROW FOR AND DETESTATION OF ALL SIN. Such conditions cannot possibly be construed into a license to commit sin, for the last condition, which enjoins a detestation of sin, with a firm resolution not to be guilty of it again, is so essential, that no indulgence can be effectual without it. Under the persuasion of a twofold punishment, the one eternal the other temporal, as the scripture testifies in several places, the Church enacted her penitential canons. The penances enjoined by them were rigorous and many of them of long duration; but as the power of loosening was given to her as well as that of binding, she found it advantageous to piety and good morals, occasionally to shew mercy to the repentant sinner. St. Paul shewed this indulgence to the incestuous Corinthian, in consideration of the singular marks he gave of true sorrow, (2 Cor. ii. 4, 5,) and St. Cyprian bears witness that similar indulgences were given in the third century to other sinners, founded on the general practice of the Church. This holy and learned father writes thus:-"I lament indeed the case of those our brethren, who, in the time of persecution, fell. The divine mercy is able to heal their wounds; but caution is necessary, lest, by too hasty a reconciliation, the anger of God be more incensed. The martyrs have applied to us concerning some, requesting that their desires be considered. When we shall be returned to our church, all these things shall be maturely weighed in our presence. Then, agreeably to established discipline, these letters of the martyrs and their wishes shall be examined." -(Ep. xvii. p. 39.)—"As I have it not yet in my power to return, aid, I think, should not be withheld from our brethren; so that they who have received letters of recommendation from the martyrs, and can thereby be benefited before God, should any danger or sickness threaten, may, in our absence, having confessed their crime before the minister of the church, receive absolution, and appear in the presence of God in that peace, which the martyrs in their letters requested should be im parted to them."-(Ep. xviii. p. 40.)—“I sufficiently signified to you, that they who had received letters from the martyrs, and could be aided by them before God, might, in case of danger, having confessed their crime, and received absolution, be dismissed to the Lord with that peace, which the martyrs had promised to them. But as to those who have received no such letters, this being the cause not of a few, nor of one church, nor of one province, but of the Christian world, let them wait for the return of general peace to the church. For this is a com

mon duty, that all the ministers of the church assembled with the people, should dispose of all things by a joint deliberation."-(Ep. xix. p. 41, 42.). The Council of Carthage in 398, decrees thus:-"When a sinner implores to be admitted to penance, let the priest, without any distinction of persons, enjoin what the canons enact. They who shew negligence, must be less readily admitted. If any one, after having, by the testimony of others, implored forgiveness, be in imminent danger of death, let him be reconciled by the imposition of hands, and receive the eucharist. If he survive, let him be informed, that his petition has been complied with, and then be subject to the appointed rules of penance so long as it shall seem good to the priest who prescribed the penance."→→→→ Conc. Gen. t. ii. can. lxxiv. lxxv. lxxvi. p. 1205.)-The Council of Trent, held in consequence of Luther's defection, says, "As the power of granting indulgences was given by Christ to the Church, Mat. xvi. 19.John, xx. 22, 23.) and she has exercised it in the most ancient times this holy synod teaches and commands that the use of them, as being greatly salutary to the Christian people, and approved by the authority of councils, shall be retained; and she anathematises those, who say they are useless, or deny to the church the power of granting them but in this grant, the synod wishes, that moderation, agreeably to the ancient and approved practice of the church, be exercised; lest, by too great facility, ecclesiastical discipline be weakened."-Sess. xxv. De Indulg. p. 340.)-From these authorities it is demonstratively clear, that the Catholic church has the evidence of scripture, the fathers, antiquity, and invariable practice, for the exercise of these spiritual grants, and the subsequent scenes of vice and immorality which spread wherever Protestantism took root, must convince the sensible reader, that the shameful misrepresentations of interested writers on this subject must have arisen either from ignorance or malice. With this explanation we will resume our narration of the apostle of Protestantism.

In Germany the nomination of the preachers was given to cardinal Albert, the archbishop of Mentz and marquis of Magdeburg. Saxony was, of course, within his jurisdiction. On a former occasion, when the crusades were set on foot, the Augustin friars had been usually appointed to announce them from the pulpit. They had now the mortification to see the Dominicans preferred before them. The Augustinians thought their consequence with the people was thus diminished, and the reputation of their order much tarnished by the preference given to the Dominicans. Luther having shewn himself to be hot in disposition and inclined to contentions, was encouraged by his superior to preach and write against the Dominicans, charging them with abuses in the promulgation of the grants of the church. In doing this, Luther did not deny the use and efficacy of indulgences, but confined himself to condemning the pretended abuse of them; and he confessed, according to the testimony of Sleidan, (Luther's own scholar) that he made not this opposition out of any devotion, zeal, or judgment, for he scarcely knew what he was disputing about. Having, however, raised a contention, he soon published several propositions on the nature, institution, end, and effects of indulgences, which falliug into the hands of the Dominicans, they were laid before the cardinal archbishop, with several contrary propositions censuring many of Luther's propositions as heretical.