This is chapter IX of a book written in 1941 entitled, “Our Priceless Heritage Christian Doctrine In Contrast With Romanism” by Henry M. Woods, D.D, LL.D.

Is it the Christian’s duty to confess his sins? If so, to whom should he confess them?

The Word of God teaches that it is the duty of every Christian humbly to confess his sins, and that confession should be made to God. Confession should be made to God, because He is our Creator, and Redeemer, and will be our Judge. He alone is Lord of the conscience, and searches the hearts of men; it is against Him that we have sinned, for it is His holy Law that we have broken.

David, through the Holy Spirit, confessed His sins to God, saying, “Against Thee, Thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in Thy sight.” Ps. 51:4. “Search me, O God, and know my heart; try me and know my thoughts”; implying, that I may know my sins, and humbly confess and forsake them. Ps. 139: 23, 24.

“I acknowledged my sin unto Thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord, and Thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin.” Ps. 32:5. David had a High priest and many other priests, but he did not confess his sins to them; he confessed them to God, the Searcher of hearts. Hezekiah and his people, the record declares, confessed their sins to God, not to priests. II Chron. 30:22.

Confession of sin is prerequisite to pardon: unless men confess their sins they cannot expect forgweness. “He that covereth his sins shall not prosper, but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.” Prov. 28:13. “If we confess our sins, He (Almighty God) is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” I John 1:9.

In every case confession of sin was made to God, because He is Lord, and He alone can grant forgiveness.

What is the teaching of the Roman Church concerning confession of sins?

The Church of Rome, here as elsewhere, goes directly counter to God’s Word. It requires auricular confession; that is, confession made in the ear of a Roman priest. An authorized catechism says: “To receive the sacrament of penance worthily, we must confess our sins to the priest.” After asserting that priests of the Church have power to forgive sins, it is said, “Confession is the telling of our sins to a duly authorized priest for the purpose of obtaining forgiveness.

SINS SHOULD BY CONFESSED TO GOD, NOT TO A PRIEST

Is there anything in Holy Scripture that justifies the Roman confessional, requiring believers to confess their sins to a priest, and not directly to God?

There is nothing whatever in Holy Scripture that justifies the requirement that confession of sins be made to a Roman priest, and not directly to God. The confessional was a medieval imposition, and did not become a regular dogma of the Church of Rome until the year 1215. It is an unwarranted addition to the Gospel of Christ which the popes presumed to make, and directly disobeys God’s command, that nothing is to be added to His holy Word. Deut. 4:2, 12:32.

What is wrong about confessing sins to a Roman priest?

As already stated, it disobeys God’s command by adding something which is not warranted by Holy Scripture. Moreover, in the confessional the priest commits the great sin of usurping the place of God. God alone is the Searcher of hearts and the Judge; therefore, no human being may dare to occupy the position which belongs to Him alone, nor to pry into the secrets of a man or woman’s soul. I Chron. 28:9, I Chron. 6:30.

It is the solemn duty of every individual to realize his direct responsibility to God, to cultivate a sense of His presence, and it is his privilege to have direct access to God; therefore, no priest nor human being may come in between the soul and its Maker. This is the very heart of true religion; constantly to maintain a sense of nearness to God, to strive to live in His presence, and cultivate a sense of direct responsibility to Him, before whom we must finally give an account for the deeds done in the body. The practice of confessing sins to a priest destroys this direct relationship to God and substitutes a sinful human being for Him “unto whose eyes all things are naked and opened,” and with whom alone “we have to do.” Heb. 4:13.

Does not the form of absolution used by the Roman priest in forgiving sins show how totally different Romansm is from the true Gospel?

It does show that Romanism and the true Gospel of Christ are entirely different; for the person confessing is supposed to say: “I confess to Almighty God, to the blessed Virgin Mary, to blessed Michael the Archangel, to blessed John the Baptist, to the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, to all the saints and to you, Father, that I have sinned,” etc. Then the priest is supposed to say, “Absolve te” (I forgive you). “The passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, the merits of the blessed Mary and of all saints, whatever good you have done, and whatever evil you have suffered, be unto you for the remission of sins,” etc.

Why mention the Virgin Mary, Michael the archangel, John Baptist, Peter and Paul and the rest who have nothing to do with confession of sins to God. Were they not sinful, erring human beings, saved not by their merit, but by the free grace of God? It is a great sin thus to put them on a level with the Almighty Creator. Note also that contrary to Holy Scripture, forgiveness of sins and salvation are falsely made to depend, not on the merit and righteousness of Christ alone, but also on the merit of sinful human beings, and even on the sufferings and supposed merit of the penitent himself! What a total perversion of God’s salvation this is! See also the arrogance of the priest; he does not say as he should, God forgives you; but says, I forgive you! Is not this a clear proof of apostasy?

History shows, as Roman Catholics have acknowledged, that the Roman Confessional has led to scandalous abuses, and to the commission of many crimes, fulfilling the Scripture warning of II Tim. 3:6. The Romanist scholar Erasmus wrote: “The stupid monks say mass as a cobbler makes a shoe. They come to the altar reeking from their filthy pleasures. Confession with the monks is a cloak to steal the people’s money, to rob girls of their virtue, and commit other crimes too horrible to name.” Erasmus’ Letters.

Shamefully indecent questions have been prescribed by Church authorities to use in asking women as well as men in the Confessional, questions which by injecting impure suggestions into innocent minds have led to temptation and moral ruin! See Den’s Theology, containing questions in Latin to be used by priests in the Confessional, which, if translated into English, would render the author or confessor liable to prosecution. Women who were converted to the Protestant faith have declared that what convinced them that the Roman Church was not the true Church was the indecent questions the priest had asked them in the Confessional! Lord Acton, a Roman Catholic, wrote: “There are many opinions not only sanctioned, but enforced, by the authorities of the Church of Rome which none can adhere to without peril to the soul.” He cites as examples, “the ungodly ethics of the papacy, the Inquisition, and the Casuists.” Letters of Lord Acton, edited by Herbert Paul, Letter of March 4, 1882, page 127.

Romamsts quote James 5:16 in an attempt to justify the Confessional. Does this text at all apply to confessing sin to a priest?

No. This text has no reference whatever to auricular confession. “Confess your faults one to another” is a command to ail believers, and expresses a reciprocal action of Christians acknowledging their faults, not to a priest, but to “one another.” Whenever an injury has been done, it is the duty of the offender humbly to acknowledge his fault, and ask forgiveness of the injured party. If A has done wrong to B, it is A’s duty to acknowledge his fault to B, and ask B’s forgiveness; and where B has injured A, it is B’s duty to confess his wrongdoing, and ask pardon of A. Of course, what is most important, both A and B should confess their sin to God, and seek His forgiveness. But there is nothing whatever in this Scripture to justify the Roman Confessional.

If the Roman Confessional had no sanction in the Word of God, how did it ever come to be established in the Christian Church?

Because the Confessional enormously increased the power of the pope and the priesthood. The priests thus obtained knowledge of the secrets of men, from the Emperor down to the humblest peasant, and all classes of society were placed in the power of their confessors, whom they did not dare to disobey or offend. Not only were the sins and scandals of each individual’s private life, and that of families, laid bare, but all the intrigues of State and the political schemes of the rulers of Europe were in the possession of the Confessor, who could use his knowledge for the advantage of the Church, or to help a political party in which he was interested.

What greater intellectual and moral bondage for human beings could be imagined, or what more dangerous power could be wielded than that of the Roman Confessional? History furnishes many impressive warnings; see Charles IX of France and the massacre of St. Bartholomew; or Louis XIV and the cruel Revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685.

REPENTANCE, NOT PENANCE

What does God’s Word declare is the condition on which one may receive forgiveness of sins?

The Word of God declares that the sinner must truly repent of his sin and forsake it; without sincere repentance there can be no forgiveness. “Repent ye, for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Matt. 3:2. “Repent ye, and believe the Gospel.” Mark 1:15. “Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.” Luke 13:3, 5. “They glorified God saying, “Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.” Acts 11:18.

What does Holy Scripture mean by “repentance unto life”?

It means repentance that leads to salvation. It is the work of the Holy Spirit in the sinner’s heart, showing him the heinousness of his sin, and the infinite mercy of God in Christ, leading him to be truly sorry for his sin, to forsake it, and turn to God, resolved in Christ’s strength to obey His commandments and sin no more. Luke 22:61, 62, Ezekiel 36:31, II Cor. 7:10, 11, I Kings 8: 47, 48, 50.

True repentance is the opposite of remorse. David and Saul of Tarsus had repentance unto life; Judas had remorse and committed suicide. The first is “the godly sorrow which worketh repentance to salvation, not to be repented of”; the second is “the sorrow of the world that worketh death.” If Cor. 7:10.

What does the Church of Rome teach?

The Church of Rome teaches penance, instead of Gospel repentance. The Roman Catechism! declares, “Penance is a sacrament, in which the sins committed after Baptism are forgiven by means of the absolution of the priest.” It is a kind of punishment for sin, inflicted by the priest: the catechism says, “The priest gives a penance after confession that we may satisfy God for the temporal punishment due to our sins. We must accept the penance which the priest gives us.” Punishments imposed by the priest are, repeating certain prayers many times, fastings, vigils, pilgrimages, wearing sackcloth, in old times scourging, and other means of causing pain or discomfort to the body.

Note that penance is a wholly different thing from Gospel repentance; it is a counterfeit repentance just as the sacrifice offered by the priest in the Mass is a counterfeit atonement. Penance is an outward act; repentance is of the heart. Penance is imposed by a Roman priest; repentance is the work of the Holy Spirit. Penance is supposed to make satisfaction for sin; but nothing that any human being can do or suffer could really satisfy divine justice. Only the Lord Jesus Christ, as the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world, can do that, and He did it once for all when He made atonement on the cross, and completely satisfied the divine law. Trusting to penance imposed by a priest is a false hope, for the penitent may do and suffer many things, yet his heart remains the same without true repentance. The Church of Rome’s error is like that of heathen religions, seeking to win forgiveness or deliverance from sin by self-inflicted or priest-imposed punishment, like the tortures of Buddhist and Hindu devotees. Martin Luther found out this great difference when he was ascending the santa scala, the “sacred staircase” in Rome, trying to do something instead of trusting the atoning sacrifice of Christ, when the Holy Spirit enlightened his mind with the great truth, The Just Shall Live By Faith, and he became a “new creature” in Christ Jesus.

Does the scripture, “Bring forth fruits meet for repentance,” give any support to the dogma of penance? Matt. 3:8.

Not at all. This text does not refer to punishment, either self-inflicted or imposed by a priest. It means that a Christian should give evidence by his outward conduct that he has truly forsaken his sin and in the power of the Holy Spirit, is leading a new life of obedience to God. What God desires in the sinner is not punishment of oneself for sins, but a change of heart, a real forsaking of sin, shown by a new life of obedience to God’s commandments.

Restitution Is Not Penance

Restitution, which Scripture enjoins, is also very different from penance. Restitution is the restoring of property to the rightful owner, of which he has been deprived, or the making good of any loss or injury which one has caused another. It is not an act of penance, punishing oneself; but an act of justice and honesty restoring to another what rightly belongs to him. See the case of the tax-collector Zaccheus. Luke 19:8. Also Exod. 22:1.

In short, as already said, penance is a counterfeit repentance. It is the work of man on his body; true repentance is the work of God in the soul. The Divine Word commands: “Rend your heart, and not your garments.” Joel 2:13. Repentance is “rending the heart,” the heart that is “broken and contrite” for sin through the working of the Holy Spirit. Penance is “rending the garments’; an outward form without inward reality, which Christ warns His people carefully to avoid.

Fasts

It should be noted that the Fasts appointed by the Church of Rome are quite different from the fasting taught in Holy Scripture. The Church of Rome’s fasts are largely mechanical, not spiritual, simply observing certain times appointed by popes to abstain from certain food; they are not necessarily connected with prayer or other religious exercises. The statements of the catechism, and also the wild revelry and feasting, and drinking which precede Lent and other occasions in Roman Catholic communities, as Mardigras, show this. A Catechism defines fast days as ‘days on which we are allowed but one full meal’; days of abstinence are those ‘on which we are forbidden to eat flesh-meat, but are allowed the usual number of meals. Cardinal Bellarmine remarks, “that upon certain days ordained and appointed by the pope, one ought to abstain from certain meats.” De bonis operibus, 2:14, 15. This is one of the “good works,” which in part procure salvation! Observe that the rule is not based on what God ordains, but on what the pope ordains. How different was the fasting of the apostles and early Church! With them fasting was not mechanical, abstaining from one meal or three meals, or from “flesh-meat” merely, while enjoying an abundance of every other kind of food and drink! but it was a spiritual exercise uniformly associated with prayer, in preparation for some important work, as the appointing of missionaries, ordination, etc. “As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, ‘separate Me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands upon them, they sent them away.’” Acts 13:2, 3. “And when they had ordained them presbyters (elders) in every church and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord.” Acts 14:23. Daniel sought a blessing by prayer and fasting. Dan. 9:3. God called upon His people to turn to Him with fasting and weeping. Joel 2:12. In time of great danger King Jehoshaphat and the people of Judah fasted and prayed. II Chron. 20:3.

True fasting is always a spiritual exercise, connected with prayer, repentance or spiritual service. It is never mechanical, or performed to make merit. Mere routine fasting is denounced in Scripture as an abomination. God spoke through Jeremiah reproving the great sins of His people, saying, “Pray not for this people; when they fast, I will not hear their cry.” Jer. 14:12. The fast that pleased God was to abstain from sin, and live a life of obedience to Him, of which abstinence from food was a symbol. Isa. 58:5-7. Christ reproved the Pharisees because they were careful to fast, but neglected righteousness of life. Matt. 6:16, 9:14, 24: 23.

The apostle Paul warned against asceticism, penances, and abstaining from meats as a mark of apostasy. Col. 2:16, 20-23, I Cor. 8:8, [ Tim. 4:1-5.

PAPAL INDULGENCES A BARTERING OF GOD’S SALVATION

What is meant by papal Indulgences?

A Roman Church catechism defines an Indulgence to be “a remission of that temporal punishment which even after the sin ts forgiven, has yet to be suffered either here or in Purgatory.” This remission of punishment is said to be made “by an application of the treasure of the Church on the part of a lawful superior,” that is, the pope. But before the Reformation the meaning was much broader than that. It was generally believed that Indulgences provided entire deliverance from the punishment due to sin. Alexander VI, pope from 1492 to 1503, officially declared that papal Indulgences delivered souls from Purgatory. Ranke, History of the Popes, Book I, ch. 2, page 55.

A well-informed historian remarks: “Indulgences and Dispensations! Dispensations to eat meat on fast-days; to marry one’s near relative; dispensations for anything and everything which the faithful might wish to purchase, who desired forbidden pleasures. The dispensations were simply scandalous. Some say, indulgences are “the remission of penances which the Church inflicts upon earth.” But it is certain they would have sold cheap if the people had thought that this was all that they were to get by them. As the thing was represented by the spiritual hawkers who disposed of these wares, Indulgences were letters of credit on Heaven!” When the Great Book was opened, the people believed that the finding would be thus; “Debtor, so many murders, so many robberies, lies, slanders, debaucheries. Creditor, the merits of the saints placed to the account of the delinquent by the pope’s letters in consideration of value received. This is the way in which the pardon system was practically worked; this is the way in which it is worked still, where the same superstitions remain.” Prof. J. A. Froude.

There can be no reasonable doubt that at the time of the Reformation the people were assured by the pope’s emissaries that Indulgences covered all sins, and provided complete deliverance from punishment. There can be little doubt that the majority of the Roman Catholic laity, unaccustomed to papal theological hazr-splitting, still believe it.

PAPAL INDULGENCES ARE BASED ON THE FALSE FOUNDATION OF THE MERIT OF THE SAINTS

What is the foundation of the doctrine of papal Indulgences?

Two grossly false propositions form the crumbling foundation of papal indulgences. One is that the “superabundant merit” and “good works” of saints and martyrs form a rich Treasury or storehouse, sufficient to supply needy sinners; the second is, that the pope has power, by dispensing this “superabundant merit,” to forgive sins. See Bellarmine, De Indulg., 3:2, 3; Tolet, De Instruct. sacerdot., 6:21.

The Church of Rome also declares, “that holy men may in some sort redeem, or buy off, our sins by their sufferings.” Again, “the sufferings of the saints are just compensations to redeem us from the punishments which we owe to God.” Bellarmine, De Indulg., 1:4.

What a shocking perversion of the Gospel, and flat contradiction of Holy Scripture all this is! For we are not redeemed by the sufferings of holy men or saints, but by the precious blood of Christ, by the sufferings and death of the Son of God alone! No true Christian would dare to trust to the sufferings of saints, for God’s Holy Word warns, “Cursed be man that trusteth in man,’ “Neither is there salvation in any other.” Christ alone is our salvation; He is our perfect Righteousness: He alone can redeem. “And this is the name whereby she (the Church of God) shall be called,—“THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.” Jer. 23:6, 33:16, Is. 12:2, Acts 4:12, I Peter 1:18, 19.

The Bible shows there is no such thing as a storehouse or Treasury of “superabundant merit” and “good works” of saints; for God says plainly, “All our righteousness are as filthy rags.” Is. 64:6. “So likewise ye when ye shall have done all these things which are commanded you, say: “We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which was our duty to do.”

Can a pope or church or any human being forgive sins, or remit any part of the punishment due to sin?

No Church or human being has the power to forgive sin, or to remit any part of the punishment due to sin. To claim this power is an impious falsehood, for which the popes and the Roman Church will have to give an account to God at the Judgment Day. Only Almighty God can forgive sin and deliver from the punishment of sin. Indulgences are a wicked invention to deceive men, and are contrary to the whole plan of salvation as revealed in Holy Scripture. They moreover make sinful man usurp the prerogative of the holy God, who alone is Redeemer and Judge, and will surely “render to every man according to his works.” Is. 40:10, Rev. 22:12.

THE GRAVE SCANDAL OF PAPAL INDULGENCES

It is difficult now for any one to conceive the shameful demoralization and vice which resulted from the sale of Indulgences at the time of the Reformation. A testimony to this deplorable fact is seen in the action of the Roman Catholic princes of Germany, who tried to stem the flood of corruption throughout the Empire by assembling in the Diet of Nuremberg, 1523, and addressing a petition to pope Adrian VI for the remedy of “A Hundred Grievances of the German Nation.” Some of the grievances stated were: No. 5, ‘How license to sin with impunity is granted for money.” No. 67, “How more money than penitence is exacted from sinners.” No. 91, “How bishops extort money from the concubinage of priests.” Claude d’Espence denounced Indulgences at the Council of Trent, and Grosseteste, bishop of London, protested to the pope against purchasable pardons. Julius II sold Indulgences, and Paul III drew revenue from brothels. The princes declared also that vendors of Bulls of Indulgence certify by these purchasable pardons, not only past and future sins are forgiven, but also the sins of those who are in the fires of purgatory! Everyone, in proportion to the price paid for these wares, was promised impunity in sinning.” Popes could not deny these horrible charges for the book entitled “Taxes of the Sacred Apostolic Penitentiary” is still extant (still in existence), with a regular tariff for absolution from all kinds of sins.

SINS COMMERCIALIZED BY THE PUBLISHED PAPAL RATES FOR ABSOLUTION

In the book of Religious Rates for Absolution registered at the Court of France in the year 1699 are these items:

Absolution for Apostasy …………………… 80 livres
Absolution for Bigamy ………………….. 1050 livres
Absolution for Homicide …………………… 95 livres
Dispensation from vows of chastity………. 15 livres

Preface of Lacon, by C. C. Colton, London, 1820.

What should be the attitude of all true Christians toward Papal Indulgences?

All true Christians should utterly abhor papal Indulgences because:

1. Indulgences are directly contrary to the Word of God and to His whole scheme of salvation, which cannot be earned by human merit, nor can be bought or sold for money.

2. Indulgences are contrary to the practice of the early Church, and to the testimony of the Fathers. Antoninus, Archbishop of Florence, declared, “We have no testimony in Scripture nor among the Fathers, in favor of Indulgences.” Sum. Theol., 1, 3.

3. Indulgences greatly dishonor the Holy Trinity. The pope in granting them, usurps the place of Almighty God, who alone can pardon sin; and they dishonor the Saviour by offering a counterfeit substitute for His real atonement.

4. Indulgences are false, because there is no treasury filled with human works and merit, which can be put to the credit of another, like transfer of a bank account. The so-called “super-abounding satisfactions” of the saints have no real existence but are a vain delusion. They are the “filthy rags” of human righteousness, the “wood, hay and stubble,” which will be burned up in the fires of Judgment. I Cor. 3:12, 13, Rom. 3:20, Gal. 2:16, 21, Is. 64:6.

5. Indulgences blind men’s consciences to the awful nature of sin and its dreadful consequences; to their responsibility to God, and to the only way of escape from condemnation, viz.: by true repentance and faith in the perfect merit and righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ. Phil. 3:7-9.

6. Indulgences embolden men to sin, because they are supposed to provide an easy way to escape the consequences of sin.

7. Indulgences have cruelly deceived and robbed the poor; who, while spending all they possess to obtain deliverance, are through a false hope, left to perish in their sins!

8. Papal Indulgences have caused grievous scandal among Christians and unbelievers and have brought ridicule and contempt on God’s holy religion.

9. Indulgences are a form of the mortal sin of Simony (Acts 8:18-24), that is, of selling the free grace of God, and making merchandise of the precious blood of Christ. The apostles solemnly warn against this sin. Jude 11. St. Peter also foretold this mark of apostasy in the Church: that “false teachers should bring in damnable heresies, denying the Lord that bought them: who through covetousness should make merchandise of you; whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.” II Peter 2:13, 15.

To Simon Magus, St. Peter said: “Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money!” If this is true of an ignorant man who would buy God’s gift, how much more is it true of supposed Church leaders who sell God’s salvation by Indulgences!

No wonder that Martin Luther, the Roman Catholic princes of Germany who appealed to Adrian VI, and thousands of the common people of Europe who were horrified at the abuses which attended the sale of the Pope’s Indulgences, were shocked at the brazen effrontery of the monk Tetzel as he shouted to the people in the market place, “Pour in your coin! Whatever crimes you have committed, or may commit, are forgiven. The souls of your kindred will fly out of purgatory the moment your money rattles at the bottom of the coffer!” White’s Eighteen Christian Centuries.

If Indulgences are such a soul-destroying sin, so clearly opposed to the Gospel of salvation, why did the popes persist in selling them, and why do they now uphold the practice?

Because Indulgences have been a source of enormous revenue to the Vatican¹; by appealing to the superstitious fears of their people, high and low, the popes have filled their empty coffers with gold. The great cathedral of St. Peter’s at Rome and many other expensive churches were built by Pope Leo X and other popes by money largely obtained from the people by false promises of forgiveness and deliverance from purgatory. This evil dogma became fixed in the Church as late as the twelfth century, about 1190.

1“It was money, ever money. Money, not charity, covered the multitude of sins. If a man committed sins, he was prescribed penances, which could be commuted for money. If he was sick or troubled in mind, he was sent on a pilgrimage to a shrine or some wonder-working image, where for due consideration, his case was attended to. But it was no use to go to a saint empty-handed. The rule of the Church was, nothing for nothing. When indulgences were offered for sale by Tetzel, the pope bought the support of the Archbishop of Mayence, by promising half the spoil gathered in his province. (This was the same Archbishop who as one of the seven electors to choose the new emperor, took bribes six times alternately from both the candidates!) At a chapel in Saxony, there was an image of a Virgin and Child. If the worshiper brought a handsome offering, the child bowed and was gracious; if the present was meagre, it turned away its head, and withheld favors till the purse strings were untied again! There was a great rood or crucifix of the same kind at Bexley in Kent, where the pilgrims went in thousands. This figure used to bow, too, when it was pleased; and a good sum of money was sure to secure its good will. When the Reformation came, it was found that the images were worked with wires and pulleys! The German lady was kept as a curiosity in the cabinet of the Elector of Saxony. Our Bexley rood was brought up and exhibited in Cheapside, and was afterward torn in pieces by the people!” Froude’s Times of Erasmus and Luther.

All chapters of Our Priceless Heritage Christian Doctrine In Contrast With Romanism