Production Note Cornell University Library pro- duced this volume to replace the irreparably deteriorated original. It was scanned using Xerox soft- ware and equipment at 600 dots per inch resolution and com- pressed prior to storage using CCITT Group 4 compression. The digital data were used to create Cornell's replacement volume on paper that meets the ANSI Stand- ard Z39.48-1984. The production of this volume was supported in part by the Commission on Pres- ervation and Access and the Xerox Corporation. Digital file copy- right by Cornell University Library 1991.Physical Note Original front and back covers and pages 219-224 are mutilated. Replacements not available.Giving ■.V*kin,Umbaputable Pacta to .Wove Many of Rome's Doctrines ■ and■' Practice,'} to lie .Unchristian, Contrary to bo. names of ICO chiHren of friars." lvHJuvTe w v/:;t; w,... < ■> crovm. INFANT)*! “All the priests now officiating' have the same vices." “'There was no morality whatever, and the story of their immorality would take too lo lg to recount." INTERVIEW WITH SENOR NOZARIO CON- STANTINO “'They carried things in this regard with a very high hand, for, if they should desire the wife r daughter of a, man and the husband and father o posed such advances, they would endeavor to ’* the man deported by bringing up false char, being' a filibuster or a Mason, and after succ in getting rid of the husband they would, by fair means, accomplish their purposes.” INT10RV now WIT l' i' D l ?. AT A XI MO V TOLA “J do not know of a single, one who cl' violate his vow of celibacy." “From my own p experience X think all the priests are on C Ica'o!. X have novor seen one that was pure {Continued vn Inside buck cover page.)POPE OI CHRIST ..PLAIN, UNDIS; u TABLE FACTS ROME’S DOCTRINES AND PRACTICES UNCHRISTIAN, CONTRARY TO THE BIBLE AND TO THE EARLY APOSTOLIC CHURCH WITH TWENTY-FIVE CLEAR PROOFS THAT THE POPE IS NOT INFALLIBLE, MAKING JT IMPOSSIBLE TO CONSISTENTLY BELIEVE IN BOTH THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE AND IN JESUS CHRIST PRICE 25 CENTS, POSTPAID PUBLISHED BY REX E. DOYL, Howell, Mich. KEPR1NTED, 1912. BY AMERICAN LIBERTY PUBLISHING CO TO PROVE MANY OP TO BE (NOT INC.) CHICAGO, ILLINOIS JZ ftsCOPYRIGHT, 1907 BY EEX E. DOYL REPRIN TED B Y PERMISSION BY AMERICAN LIBERTY PUBLISHING CO. (NOT INC ) CHICAGO. ILLINOISCONTENTS. Chapter. Page. Lincoln on Rome ................................. 5 Preface ... r.................................... 7 Introduction :................................... 9 The Bible ........................................ 17 Christ commands us to “Search the Scrip- tures.” Rome says, “No, we are not capable of inter- preting them.” Catholicity....................................... 30 Apostolicity....................................... 36 Luther and the Reformation........................40 Luther did not leave Rome to get married. Luther did not wish to leave Rome at all, but only to help reform some of her errors and abuses. Luther did not wish the prominent place forced upon him in the Reformation. Indulgences. Church services compared...................*......S3 The Latin language denounced by Paul. Daily sacrifices are made in vain. Holy Communion or Eucharist............... I.......63 Transubstantiation disproved by history. Transubstantiation disproved by the Bible. Half-communion or communion in but orie_ kind. Sacraments....................................84 Baptism Communion. The true sacraments. Orders Confirmation4 CONTENTS The true sacraments.;—Continued. Extreme Unction Penance Matrimony The false sacraments. Confession and its results. Salvation through Mary..........................99 Mary as an Intercessor. Mary as Advocate and Mediator. Mary, the way or gate, hope and refuge of sinners. Purgatory ......................................114 Celibacy........................................127 Rome has not always enforced celibacy. The clergy before Christ married. Disciples taught that the clergy should marry. Disciples either were married or claimed the right to be. Results of enforced celibacy. Abstinence from meats............................144 Intention............................................149 No Roman Catholic can be sure that they have received the sacraments. Scapulars ...........................................154 Idolatry or image worship............................162 The Roman Inquisition................................167 The Immaculate Conception............................174 Rome teaches that there is no salvation but through her ...........................................178 Protestants are not recognized as having any Christian religion at all but are called her- etics. Infallibility .......................................181 St. Peter was fallible. Popes proven fallible by history. Popes proven fallible by Bible. Salvation as Christ taught it........................212 General Summary......................................221“I do not pretend to be a prophet; but though not a prophet, Isee a very dark cloud on our horizon, and that cloud is coming from Rome. It is filled with tears of blood. The true motive power is secreted behind the thick walls of the Vatican, the colleges and schools of the Jesuits, the convents of the nuns, and the con- fessional boxes of Rome.,, Abraham Lincoln.PREFACE. In giving my proofs, in this volume, that some of Rome’s doctrines are Unchristian, I have used the greatest of care to make the facts and quotations ex- act, but owing to oversight, or mistakes in composition or printing, some errors may occur. If there are any found I will be pleased to have you make them known to me so that I can have them corrected. Also owing to the fact that there are other Churches besides the Roman Catholic Church which use the title Catholic, I have taken the liberty in this volume to call the Roman Catholic Church the “Roman” Church, t thereby doing away with all doubt as to which church I am speaking of and also with the repetition of the word “Catholic,” which has such a variety of uses.INTRODUCTION. This book was not written to debase Christianity. It was not written to tear down any church organiza- tion. Neither was it written to avenge any personal wrong. But it was written to throw light on some of the “Unchristian” doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. I was reared as a Protestant but later by force of circumstances was thrown amongst the Roman Catholics both socially and religiously and have had the best of opportunities to compare the two relig- ious bodies. In my earlier life I became familiar with the Bible and its teachings. Later when associated with the Roman Catholics and on becoming familiar with their doctrines and practices, I was amazed at the boldness of the Roman Church in evading some of the direct teachings of the Scriptures. One of the most prominent things to bring Roman teachings directly before me was my marriage to a Roman Catholic. I was not thoroughly aware of the intricacies of Rome’s religion till then, though for some time I had been, rather superficially, studying her doctrines from a Biblical standpoint. Being brought up as a Protestant I was naturally used to a wedding in the home where, among ones own intimate family and relatives, couples were united in the holy bonds of matrimony and where the bless- ings and best wishes of friends and relatives were mingled with the benedictions of the minister to com- plete the bond which God commenced by drawing the couple together in love. Recognizing the#above then possibly you can better see what an effect the cold reception Rome gave me, at my marriage, had upon my ideal of a Christian mar-10 INTRODUCTION riage. And now for the benefit of those who may, sometime, be in a like predicament and also to show up Rome's Unchristian relation to the marriage tie I will give an account of my experiences in marrying a Roman Catholic. Our marriage was due to our mutual love, comrade- ship, and adaptability without regard to denomination or possible hindrances, and as I since have "come to be- lieve was originated in heaven. Our first drawback came when we found that it was practically impossible for us to get married in the bride’s home as we both wished. 2nd. I not con- senting to become a Roman Catholic we were not allowed to be married in the church. 3rd. We were compelled to be married in the parsonage or not at all, and we were not allowed to have our families and friends present only in so far as the priest gave us permission to invite them. 4th. The priest was not allowed to wear his clerical garb and also was not allowed to add any special blessings to our marriage, thus reducing it to a mere civil or legal contract. Sth. I was compelled to sign an agreement with the church to allow my wife her religious practices as she had had them heretofore, also agreeing to allow our children to be brought up according to Rome’s teachings—in which I was given to understand that if they were once given into Rome’s charge that they would always remain there (be that as it may). 6th. I was com- pelled to buy a dispensation from Rome before she would marry me. Rome held our marriage to be but half Christian and therefore imposed this tax as a license to permit me to break her laws or do that which she holds as a sin just as our States give saloon-keepers a license to do what we know is not morally right. Rome in doing this is practically licensing sin and taking blood-money in payment. 7th. My wife was compelled to give a reason why she wished to marry me (as if God demanded an excuse for that greatestINTRODUCTION 11 of all virtues—love). She very quickly assured him that the reason and only reason why she wished to marry me was because she loved me. I know that is true, answered the priest, but the church will not accept that as an excuse, you will have to have another. But upon her not having any other he had to invent one which was “That by marrying me she might bring me into the Roman Church.” He put it down thus and let it stand, “Lie that it was,” for he had no ground what- ever to base the possibility on, but that makes no dif- ference in the church. Rome debased my marriage from a religious bond to a civil contract, she compelled me to buy a dispensa- tion, that is, a permit to do that which she held to De wrong, thereby accepting blood money; and she entirely set the truth aside, as to why we wished to get married, saying it was not good, and substituting in the place of it a deliberate falsehood; Therefore can you wonder that I asked myself what kind of Christianity Rome was practicing when I was so coldly repulsed at our first contact instead of being cordially welcomed as a Christian Church should receive out- siders or strangers. I was next given the catechism or Rome’s substitute for the Bible, but being still familiar with my earlier Bible teachings, I soon saw that many of its questions were misleading and that some of the doctrines therein expounded were not upheld by the Bible but were con- trary to it and seemingly were used to satisfy human ambitions rather than to uphold Christianity. Another volume placed in my hand was Cardinal Gibbons’ “Faith of our Fathers,” a book written especially as a Roman Catholic doctrinal book for all who are in doubt about Rome’s dogmas. But here as in the catechism the same Unscriptural doctrines, such as Celibacy, Purgatory, Communion in but one kind, etc., were put forth as true articles of their faith. It was then that I commenced in real earnest to search out just how far12 INTRODUCTION the Bible approved of such doctrines. I studied the Bible minutely and then compared Rome’s doctrines with the Bible doctrines and I was surprised at their inconsistencies. As for an example. I found St. Peter was a married man; that Christ said marriage was honorable to all; that the Apostles were either married or claimed the right to be; and that Paul definitely says that a bishop should be the husband of one wife, and giving the reason that if he was not able to rule his own house, how could he intelligently rule the house of God. Then taking up another line of investi- gation I find that the early church allowed the clergy to marry and that the early Fathers taught it as a Christian right. What conclusion could I come to? There was but one and that was that Rome’s doctrine of enforced celibacy of the clergy is an Unchristian doctrine and not upheld by the Bible. Likewise, I com- piled facts on many other of Rome’s invented doc- trines, some of them never heard of till centuries after Christ’s death and the array‘was so large and the facts so overwhelmingly against Rome that I felt it my Christian duty to put these facts and proofs in book form and place them before you so that you can see for yourselves “what Rome teaches” and then possibly be drawn back to Christ with the Bible as your only infallible guide. There is one thing strikingly apparent among Roman Catholics and that is that they, without any research or apparent reasoning of their own, accept either wholly or partly the doctrines of Rome as infallible truths. They are brought up from childhood with the one thought in view “That Rome is infallible” and learning their catechisms by heart and listening to the Church they seem to have no desire whatever to prove the Church’s doctrines for themselves. Rome has al- ways taught them and made them practice fasting be- fore communion and they have accepted it as the true way, but if they would only turn to their Bibles (whichINTRODUCTION 13 sorry to say Rome discourages them in reading) they would find that Christ inaugurated communion after feasting or while He and the Disciples were yet eating. Which practice is directly contrary to Rome's enforced fasting. Another instance is in Rome’s refusing the laity the cup or chalice of Christ’s blood. Christ, when speaking to the people on the subject said unless you drink the blood of the Son of Man (wine of commun- ion) you have no lif$ in you. Christ making it an im- perative command, but Rome refusing to comply with it gives the wine to the priests and refuses it to her laity. Again Christ and His Disciples commanded us to “Search the Scriptures” and to prove ourselves thereby, but Rome, again disregarding, sets aside the above injunction and time and time again has issued bulls commanding the people not to read the Bible and persecuting them if they did. Again in regard to some of Rome’s doctrines there are but few who know just what Rome teaches. There are thousands upon thousands of Roman Catholics who wear “Scapulars” but who at the same time do not know that Rome teaches, that if the wearer will al- ways keep it on and do its office, that Mary on the Saturday after their death will descend unto Purga- tory and taking them therefrom will carry them to heaven, but yet it is true as I have proved in a chapter of this book or as you yourself can easily find out by reading the Scapular Book, which is authorized by Rome as her infallible teaching about Scapulars. In like manner but few Roman Catholics believe that Rome worships Mary (another of Christ) as a Saviour with powers equal to those of Christ, but I have proven as you may prove from her authorized doctrinal books, that she does worship Mary as such. In writing this book I have clung closely to Rome’s authorized writings as proof of what she authorita- tively teaches. She cannot disclaim them or their teaching for they have been authorized by Rome so14 INTRODUCTION they stand for her direct teaching. Among the most prominent of them and from which I have quoted quite extensively are the “Glories of Mary” written by Saint Alphonsus Liguori, one of Rome’s greatest doctrinal authorities; the “Scapular Book,” authorized with the special approbation of Rev. John Hughes, D. D., Late Archbishop of New York; the “Faith of our Fathers” written by Cardinal Gibbons and put forth especially for Protestants and doubtful Roman Catholics; these together with the creed of Pope Pius IV. and the de- crees of the Councils form the most of the authorities from which I take Rome’s direct and authorized teach- ings or doctrines. In proving that many of Rome’s doctrines are Un- christian, I get my proofs from their own writers. I also give some of the writings of the early Fathers, undisputed historical facts, and the canons of the Un- divided Primitive Church comparing them with those of the Roman Church. But the one principal and in- fallible book that I give the most of my proofs from is the Bible........The grandest of all books, containing the laws of God, His ways of salvation, and His promises. Light of our souls and our daily Guide. If Rome is right, then her doctrines must all be in strict accord with the Bible but if not then she must be at variance with it. I have quoted hundreds of passages from it, both the Douay (Roman Catholic) and the Revised (Protestant) versions. I have made it the foundation of my proofs of Rome’s inconsist- encies. But to you after reading this book, I leave the verdict, whether or not I have proven Rome Anti- christian. No Church is absolutely perfect. On account of the frailties of mankind and their individual differences it is almost impossible to keep all errors out. This is true of Protestants as well as Roman Catholic Churches. Rome has doctrines and practices as truly Christian as those of any church and if she had leftINTRODUCTION 15 off the doctrines and practices that she has added to her faith since the Apostles time, there would be no cause or ground for criticism. But when she com- menced to add doctrines the Apostles never taught, just so much she drifted from being the true Christian Church. It was these new additions to her faith, which turned Luther together with thousands, yes, afterward millions of people, from the Roman Communion. Rome had added and enforced the celibacy of the clergy where in the early Apostolic Church the clergy were allowed to have wives; Rome had added auricular con- fession, absolution by a priest, and penance, all of which the early Apostolic Church did not practice and which are contrary to the Bible; Rome had added five new sacraments of her own invention; Rome had changed the bread and wine of communion from a material to a spiritual substance, in spite of the early fathers having always practiced the direct opposite; Rome had refused her lay members the wine of com- munion, throwing insult into the very face of Christ, who had said unless you drink the wine you have no life in you; Rome had added a Purgatory whereby she could frighten her followers and gain large sums from masses for the dead; Rome had added many other like doctrines, there had been murmurings and dissensions in her Church, there were those leaving on account of her creed, there were new sects starting up within her own domains, but Rome had by iron force and cruel punishments kept her factions together, then on all these foregoing new doctrines she added indulgences, extorting vast sums from the people from their sale, but she carried it too far, the limit of human endurance had been reached, all Europe was thrown into a turmoil of Reformation from which the Roman Catholic Church emerged with her temporal power shattered forever, with over one half of Europe turned against her and with her numbers so reduced that today she has less than one half of Christianity enrolled in her ranks.16 INTRODUCTION She sealed her own destruction when she departed from Christ and the Bible and until she casts off the Unchristian doctrines which she still upholds she can never be a true Christian Church, for a true Christian Church teaches Christ's doctrines and" His alone. It is these above named doctrines which, I; in this volume will prove Unchristian and which I find it my Christian duty, to my fellowmen, to put the truth be- fore them so that they can see into what beliefs they have unconsciously fallen, hoping to lead them to the one true way of salvation. It is not that I feel any hatred toward Roman Catholics, for up to this time there is not one among them for whom I hold the least malice. I have always been treated with consideration by all with whom I came in contact and there are many Roman Catholics whom I number as my most intimate friends. But this only adds to my desire for their spiritual welfare and to see them following a true Christian faith than one which leads in many Un- christian paths and practices and which ultimately may lead to their destruction. There is no telling how far God's mercies will extend when one does not follow His doctrines but takes up with others which are directly contrary to His own. In arranging the chapters in this book, I have placed a chapter on the “Bible" first so as to show what the Bible is; what relation it bears to our religion; what Christ and His Apostles meant it to be to us (our guide) ; and to show the false position of Rome in regard to it. Then after showing up many of .Rome's Unchristian doctrines and practices I have placed a chapter on Infallibility near the end of the book, thinking the reader would then be better able to com- prehend the magnitude of the doctrine and the monstrous imposition that Rome has been fostering upon her followers in trying to make it her supreme article of faith.THE BIBLE. “The Bible is a book of faith, and a book of doc- trine and a book of morals, and a book of religion, of special revelation from God; but it is also a book which teaches man his own individual responsibility, his own dignity, and his equality with his fellow-man.”— Daniel Webster in Charlestown speech. II Cor. 13-5. "Examine yourselves whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves; know ye not your own selves how that Jesus Christ is in you except ye be reprobates.” You Roman Catholics call yourselves Christians. You call yourselves the only true Church and the only ones who will inherit heaven. Because other churches do not practice and teach the same as the Roman Cath- olic Church does, you say they will never inherit heaven. May God have mercy on your souls when you come to settle your account with Him at the last day. May He Overlook your ignorance of His teaching, His Bible, and His example. Not that you are ignorant in learning as is spoken of in the world but that you are extremely ignorant of the Bible in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred. Partly your own fault and partly the fault of your religion, i. e., your church be- lief and its teachings. What? Yes, disgraceful to a Christian church. My native town, drawing a trade of 5,000 people, and not a Roman Catholic Bible to be had in the place. Think of it, yes, think of it. When I wished one, I got it from Detroit. But as to Protestant Bibles, there were hundreds of them. The Roman Catholic Church discourages reading of the Bible; says an ordinary person has no reason or 218 THE BIBLE ability to interpret it as Christ meant it and that her Popes and them alone, are infallible teachers and in- terpreters of it. Why? Yes, why? Just because the Roman Catholic Church in doctrine and practice can- not consistently allow it to be read by her members. She knows she does not live and practice as Christ taught in the Bible, therefore your ignorance of it. Rome in her doctrines is a hypocrite, she calls herself the true Christian Church and then banishes the one authority on Christ, the Bible. A religion which de- nies the Bible to its adherents or believers is not a Christian religion. You in your individual case, and this will strike an overwhelming majority in the Roman Church, yes, you, 1st. have you a Bible? (If not, write me and I will send you one.) 2nd. Have you read the New Testament through from beginning to end? Can you answer yes and still belong to the Roman Catholic Church? You cannot consistently; how does Rome and the Bible agree? 1st. Christ says read the Bible, Rome says not. 2nd. Christ founds His church on faith, Rome hers on Peter. 3rd. The Bible proves Peter fallible, Rome teaches he was infallible. 4th. Christ says He is the only way, Rome says and practices that He is not, that Virgin Mary can save and also that the office of the scapular does. 5th. Christ says He is the only advocate, interces- sor and mediator, while Rome says He is not the only One, but that Virgin Mary is also. 6th. Christ commands both the bread and wine to all, while Rome refuses the wine to the laity. 7th. The Bible commands marriage of clergy, Rome forbids it to them. 8th. The Bible says the soul goes immediately to teaven, Rome says it goes through purgatory first. 9th. Christ says His body and blood in the Euchar-THE BIBLE 19 ist or communion are Spiritual, while Rome says them are Physical. Dozens more of instances where Rome teaches di- rectly opposite to Christ and the Bible could be given, but the above sufficeth. In this book I expect to plainly prove every one of the above assertions and many more. Look up all the references that I give, don’t take my word for it, and when you have, finished this, book ask yourself if Rome, teaching the doctrines she does, can consistently allow her followers to read the Bible. She has good reasons for suppressing it and she knows it, but her followers don’t. That is one of the reasons for my^ writing this book to open your eyes to what Rome is teaching you; to interest you in your own behalf and religion; and to lead you 9 to follow Christ as He meant for you to believe in Him and follow Him. Rome has in the past forbidden the Bible and today wherever she can she suppresses it, but in the most advanced countries she has to allow it to a certain ex- tent so as to allay public criticism. For instance, in Mexico, she has caused imprisonments for reading the Bible, while here in the United States, though she allows it, yet wherever she can she restricts its read- ing and discussion other than by her clergy. You may have a Bible in your home, but do you read it? You have no incentive for doing so for Rome tells you that the priest preaches to you all that you need of the Bible. (Though his Bible is only a Breviary.) You have no use for the Bible in studying your catechisms, you have no Bible studies, or classes to read the Bible, in fact you have no use for the Bible at all in your religion. You simply let the church be your Bible, religion, and all, and do whatever she commands. Just what Rome wants of you, “Submission to her.” Herein lies the difference between Protestant and Roman Catholic, viz.: The Protestants cling to the Bible, each member individually prizing it as from Christ to him,20 THE BIBLE and in it he finds Christ’s simple promises of help in time of need and of salvation, it is his guide every day in his life; while the Roman thinks himself unable to interpret it and being told so by the church, he looks to the priest for all knowledge of it and rests content that all is well. All is not well. Christ, as I will soon prove, expects you individually to prove your own re- ligion from the Bible and as here in our laws in the United States “Ignorance of a law is no excuse, for committing a crime,” likewise with Christ, “Ignorance of the Bible is no excuse for your believing and prac- ticing doctrines contrary to the Bible (such as are some of Rome’s doctrines) which are crimes against Christianity.” Rome Forbids and Suppresses the Bible. I will give you a few facts to prove that Rome did and now does discourage the reading of the Bible, sometimes punishes for reading it, and shows her con- tempt for those who stand up for it. She has instilled into all her followers that willing obedience to her as an infallible leader that they unthinkingly believe her right when she plants in their breasts an aversion to any common individual being able to read and inter- pret the Bible and by her persistency on this she has won and now her bishops and priests and even her lay members are trying to force the Bible out of all schools and even her own. This is not a newly discovered fact, but it has been one of the signs of her presence in all educational societies for centuries. You Catho- lics know the above to be Rome’s standing on the Bible, while you Protestant readers will have to re- member the above and then you will see how easily and naturally the following facts come as a conse- quence of Rome’s teaching: “We must take part in elections, move in a solid mass in every State against the party pledged to sus- *TkE BIBLE 21 tain the integrity of the Public Schools.''—Cardinal McCloskey. “Education must be controlled by Catholic authori- ties, even to war and bloodshed.”—Catholic World. “Let the Public School System go to where it came from—the devil.”—Freeman's Journal (Catholic). “The Hideous Fetich, called the Public School, is only an ugly idol after all.”—Colorado Catholic. “The Common School System of the United States is the worst in the world.”—Cardinal Manning. “We would rather our children should grow up in utter ignorance of letters than be taught in a school that is not Catholic.”—Catholic Quarterly Review. Why; yes; why? The answer is because the Prot- estants allow the Bible to be read in them. That is the reason Rome abhors the public school. That is why she establishes private schools of her own, so as to keep the Bible from the students. Why, yes, why? Just because the ecclesiastics of the Roman Catholic Church know that to allow her followers to read the Bible is to allow' them to be led away from their Church to Protestant Churches. For if Catholics did intelligently read even the New Testament of the Bible they would see so many flaws in Rome's doctrines that they would be as ashamed of her as they had been proud of her before. The same applies to secret societies or lodges to which Rome forbids her followers to belong, such as to the “Odd Fellows,” “Knights Templar,” etc., but yet they can belong to the Maccabees, etc. Why this inconsistency? Her own priests cannot tell why, at least that is my experience, they say they don't know why. But to get to the bottom of it, her dislike of some lodges more than others is this, that she hates those the most which stand for the Bible and the Pub- lic Schools, as the Odd Fellows, Masons, etc. The word Protestantism in its usage by Rome and Protestants, though originating as a name of those,22 THE BIBdE who, first, in large numbers, protested against Rome’s teachings, is simply this: “Accepting the Bible as the only infallible guide and protesting against Rome be- cause she sets it aside to promulgate doctrines of her own.” Rome hates Protestants because they show up heir inconsistencies. She knows some of her doctrines are not Christian doctrines and that the Bible does not uphold them, therefore she tries to cripple Protestant- ism and the reading of the Bible. “We hate Protestantism, we detest it with our whole heart and soul.”—Catholic Visitor. “Protestantism, why, we would draw and quarter and hang up the crow’s meat, we would tear it with pincers, and fire it with hot irons. We would fill it with moulten lead, and sink it in hell-fire one hundred fathoms deep.”—Father Phelan, editor Western Watchman. Very charitable dislike that they have for Protes- tantism and their fellow believers in Christ. Now for a few expressions on Rome’s attitude to- ward the Bible, both in the early Church and then in the modern one. From the Columbia Cyclopedia of 32 volumes, and a reliable authority, I take the following, viz.: Vol. 4. Under the heading “Bible, Prohibition of thewhich reads, “There is no evidence of any pro- hibition of Bible reading by the laity in the earliest times. Especially Chrysostom and Augustine contin- ually reminded their hearers that private reading and study of the Scriptures should follow attendance on public services.” See what a difference between the early Fathers of the Roman Church, who taught private Bible reading as Protestants now teach it, and the Popes and clergy of the middle and latter times who prohibit its reading, disregarding the teaching of the early Church and of Christ Himself. To prove that Rome since Augustine’s time has pro-THE BIBLE 23 hibited Bible reading, I append the following from the same article as the above and on the next page which reads, “With regard to the Waldenses, Innocent III, 1199, prohibited the private possession and reading of the Scriptures (excepting the portions contained in the Breviary and the Psalter) without priestly permission and supervision. Similar prohibitions were repeated at Toulouse (1229) at Beziers (1233) and with regard to Wickliffe at the synod of Oxford (1383). . . . As early as 1234, the synod of Tarragona denounced as a heretic any one who, having a translation of the Bible, refused to surrender it to be burned within the space of eight days. New ordinances were issued by Pope Pius VII against translations formerly au- thorized (1816), again by Leo XII in his condemna- tion of Bible societies, 1824.” I will also add the following: “Cursed be those cunning and nefarious societies which call themselves “Bible Societies” and which give the Bible to the inexperienced youth.”—Pope Pius IX. One of Bishop O’Regan’s priests (Chicago) had been giving Bibles to his parishioners and had been studying them with his flock, for he was fully per- suaded that there was no preaching so powerful as that of Christ Himself when speaking through His Holy Book. What was the result? The priest was called before Bishop O’Regan and was told that to give the Bible to the people was sheer Protestantism and ordered him to cease it immediately, saying: “Your duty is to preach Rome’s doctrines and not to distribute Bibles,” and ending with a threat. But a few years ago in Mexico, Francis Penzotti was arrested and thrown into prison. Why? Just because he circulated the Bible. Yes, even to-day Rome forbids the Bible, for instance in my own school district, and in this school year of 1905-6 the teacher was ordered to stop reading the Bible in school because there were two Roman Catholic24 THE BIBLE children in the school. And again in Pontiac, Michi- gan, where a teacher was dismissed for reading a chapter in the Bible and having the children recite the Lord’s Prayer every morning. I give the article as it appears in the Detroit Journal: Fire Teacher for Reading Bible. Pontiac, Mich., Dec. 9, 1905.—Special—“For read- ing a short Scripture passage and having the children repeat the Lord’s prayer every morning before the opening of the school, Miss Mildred Crill of Pontiac was asked to resign her position as teacher of the Web- ster district school a few days ago. The director of the school, William Donahue, a Catholic, told Miss Crill not to have any religious exercise, but she did not com- mit herself. About three weeks ago she began to have the simple religious exercises and after repeated lengthy meetings of the officers of the school they informed her that her services were no longer re- quired.” This is Roman Catholicism to date. The hypocrisy. Christianity without Christ. You call yourselves the only Christians yet you refuse Christ’s Word, the Bible, not only to your children but also to yourselves and to all others. Consistency, no, Rome is rather perversity and hypocrisy combined. How can you be a Christian without knowing Christ? And you can- not satisfy yourself that you know Him unless you read His Guide for Christians, the Bible. Do you think Christ will judge you as Christians if you re- fuse His Word to mankind? You cannot live as Christians, unless you know how Christians should live and as long as you banish the Bible you are separated from Christ only in so far as you live through a church which you suppose is right, but do not know to be right. What real truth have you been given by the\ THE BIBLE 25 Roman Catholic Church whereby you may know you are right? None that is conclusive. 1st. You are a Roman Catholic because you were compelled by your parents and by the Church to learn your catechism and believe the Roman Church the only right and true Church. 2nd. In your catechism everything is put down for the child to take for granted and no Scriptural proof or quotations are added to prove the Pope infallible, the Roman Church to be the true Church, etc., etc. It is not given any Scriptural proof whatever. It is after the commandments of men and not from the Bible, which way Christ, condemns. Mat. 15-9. “But in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” What is the Roman Cate- chism but a commandment of men, approved by the Pope? Not one word of the Bible, “Christ’s Doctrinal Book,” but all outside of it and a substitute for it made by men. The Church commands you to believe so and so: while Christ commands you to prove yourself by the Bible and take it for your guide. 3rd. Your “Prayer Book” would come under the same ban as a commandment of men and again in it you have no Scriptural passages or proofs. It is sim- ply for you to believe without question and that you do because it was instilled into your nature when you were a child and you grew up in it believing that Rome was right and that it was not necessary for you to prove your own religion. 4th. Rome teaches that all the Scriptures you need will be given you by the priest, that you have no need of the Bible, but that he will be your guide and the Church the Bible Interpreter for you. What do you get? The priest uses a Breviary instead of a Bible. It contains but certain parts of the Bible, those parts which the Pope thinks are against Rome being re- moved, and the rest are combined to make the Bre- viary. And what is more it is always taught with the26 THE BIBLE one point in view that the Roman Catholic Church is the only 'Church. J 5th. You have no Bible study classes, or meetings in which you are encouraged to read the Bible, but on the contrary you are discouraged in it and made to believe it is not right for you to do so. This is the rule of the Pope in regard to the Bible and the people. Now I will prove from the Bible it- self that it is not Christ’s way or His Disciples’ way, ^ut directly contrary to it. Christ Commends and Commands the Bible. All the proofs and Scriptural passages that I give in the rest of this chapter are taken from the Douay Bible, which is the authorized Roman Catholic Version. In the New Testament we have four “Gospels” which are histories of Jesus Christ and His teachings; we have the “Acts of the Apostles,” which is a history of the infant Christian Church as established by the Apostles; we have the “Epistles,” of the Apostles, which were written to the Churches and to individuals and we have “Revelations,” written by John to the seven Churches. They are all written in plain, every day style and language, and in many instances directly to the individuals themselves, as “Romans” was writ- ten (Rom. 1-7), “To all that are at Rome the beloved of God, called to be saints.” N. B. By saint in the Bible is meant one living in the grace of God or what we now term a Christian. “Corinthians” was written (Cor. 1-2), “To the Church of God that is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that invoke the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, in every place of theirs and ours.” “Ephesians” was written (Eph. 1-1), “To all the saints who are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus.”THE BIBLE 27 "I Peter” was written (1 Peter 1-1), “To the strangers dispersed through Pontus, Galatia, Cappa- docia, Asia, and Bithynia.” “Jude” was written (Jude 1-1), “To them that are beloved *in God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ.” If these books of the Bible, with the others which are written in like manner, though not so definitely stated by the writer, are written directly to the indi- vidual Christians and unbelievers or strangers of that day, most of whom were just hearing of Christ or who had not yet heard of Him, does it not seem reasonable that we with our greater or more advanced knowledge should likewise be able to receive them? If they were simple enough to be understood by the Greeks who before had been worshiping false gods like Zeus, as the father of men; Ares, the god of war; Apollo, the god of light, music and prophecy; Poseidon, god of the sea, etc., then surely they ought to be simple enough for us who have been brought up in Christian countries. But now I will give.Bible passages to prove that Christ and His Disciples meant for us all to individ- ually prove ourselves right by the Bible rather than to leave it to some one else. Luke 11-52: “Woe to you lawyers, for you have taken away the key of knowledge; you yourselves have not entered in, and those that were entering in, you have hindered.” Christ to the people, St. John, 5-39: “Search the Scriptures, for you think in them to have life everlast- ing, and the same are they that give testimony of me.” Rom. 15-4: “For what things whatsoever were written for our learning; that through patience and the comfort of the Scriptures we might have hope.” II Cor. 4-3: “And if our Gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost.” V. 4: “In whom the God of this world hath blinded28 THE BIBLE the minds of the unbelievers, that the light of the gos- pel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine into them.” II Cor. 11-3: “But I fear lest, as the serpent se- duced Eve by his subtility, so your minds should be corrupted and fall from the simplicity that is in Christ.” II Cor. 13-5: “Try your own selves if you be in the faith; prove ye yourselves.” I Thes. 5-21: “But prove all things, hold fast that which is good.” I Thes. 5-27: “I charge you by the Lord, that this epistle be read to all the holy brethren.” II Tim. 3-15: “And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.” V. 16: “All scriptures, inspired of God, is profit- able to teach to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice.” V. 17: “That the man of God may be perfect, fur- nished to every good work.” I John 4-1: “Dearly beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits if they be of God.” Which are you going to believe, the Pope, who through the Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is not for the laity and that they are not capable of interpreting it, or Christ, who Himself and also through His Disciples, taught and commanded us that the Bible was for us and that we, individually, were to prove ourselves by it whether we are in the right or not? Christ says to the people, Search the Scriptures. Pope and Rome says don’t let them. Which is right and Christian? If you believe in Christ and His teach- ings you cannot believe in the infallibility of the Pope or his teaching on the Bible, for they are directly con- trary to each other. If you believe the Pope right, then you set Christ aside as a false God or as a se-THE BIBLE 29 ducing spirit and place the Pope above Him. Do you ? It is one or the other, but not both. Contrast Rome's teaching on the Bible to that of the Protestants, whose belief in the Bible may be summed up in one of their songs, viz.: “Cling to the Bible, tho’ all else be taken; Lose not its promises precious and sure; Souls that are sleeping its echoes awaken, Drink from the fountain, so peaceful, so pure. “Cling to the Bible, this jewel, this treasure # Brings to us honor and saves fallen man; Pearl whose great value no mortal can measure, Seek and secure it, O Soul, while you can. “Lamp for the feet that in byways have wanaered, Guide for the youth that otherwise would fall; Hope for the sinner whose best days are squandered, Staff for the aged, and best book of all.”CATHOLICITY. The most of this chapter will be an examination of a like chapter in Cardinal Gibbons’ “Faith of our Fathers,” page 50; and proof that the Roman Catholic Church is not the “One Catholic” or only true Church. Page 53. The Cardinal after having given numer- ous quotations from writers in the first three centuries, of which the following by Clement of Alexandria is a fair sample: “The word of our Master did not re- main in Judea, as philosophy remained in Greece, but has been poured out over the whole world, persuading Greeks and Barbarians alike, race by race, village by village, every city, whole houses, and hearers one by one, nay, not a few philosophers themselves” says: “This Catholicity, or universality, is not fo be found in any or in all of the combined communions separ- ated from the Roman Catholic Church.” Dear reader, the Cardinal here tries to impose upon you facts that have no bearing whatever on the Catholicity of the Roman Church. The Roman Catholic Church was not known as a Church at that time (3rd Century) it was but one of a number of Bishoprics and had no su- premacy greater than any of the others. These Bishop- rics were but part of the organized Church as the Diocese of Baltimore is but one of the parts of the Roman Church. They all held equal power and all worked for Christianity and its extension. The Roman Bishoprics did not claim to be greater than the rest and a distinct Church ’till about 600 A. D., and that was due to Rome’s military powers, her name, central posi- tion and her determined desire to cast away all rights of the other Bishoprics so as to be at the head. The Church was then generally and truly CatholicCATHOLICITY 31 in the first three centuries the Roman, Constantino- plean, Alexandrian, etc., Bishoprics all working in uni- son to bring about what the Cardinal quotes from Cle- ment of Alexandria. As to the Words of God not being spread over the whole world by any one or all combined communions separated from the Roman Catholic Church, the Car- dinal is either very ignorant of conditions outside of his Church or a willing hypocrite to make such an as- sertion about the Protestant Churches. The Protes- tant missions and communities extend to every nook and corner of the earth that is accessible, and in proof of which I give the following, which is of the evan- gelical foreign missions in 1900, which was composed of 558 foreign missionary societies; 18,682 mission- aries ; 79,396 native workers; 30,536 stations occupied; 14,364 Churches; 20,458 missionary schools with 1,- 051,466 scholars; 379 hospitals; 247 orphanages; be- sides many hundreds of other schools, dispensaries, etc. In the face of the above facts (which you can easily verify) can you take the Cardinal seriously when he says the Protestants do not reach every country on the globe? Again to show that the Protestants reach all coun- tries and classes, we have but to look to the records of the Bible societies which print and circulate Bibles in 59 different languages or dialects, having them even in the languages of several American Indian tribes. The American Bible Society alone issued 1,831,096 Bibles in the year (ending March 31, 1905; while the British and ^Foreign Bible Society in the 100 years from 1804 to 1904 has distributed 186,680,101 Bibles. These are but the two principal Protestant Bible So- cieties, many others being established in these and other countries. Could these great results be obtained by “Missionary” and “Bible Societies” if Protestantism was a local church, as the Cardinal says the Moham- medan religion is? Assuredly not; it needs the whole32 CATHOLICITY earth to produce such results. Then away with the Cardinal’s assumption that Protestantism is not Catho- lic or universal. Page 53, he says: “The Schismatic Churches of the east have no claim to this title (of Catholicity) because they are confined within the Turkish and Russian do- minions, and number not more than sixty millions of souls.” (in 1905 edition.) Again the Cardinal is adroitly misrepresenting or poorly informed for the above named Churches have ninety-eight million followers instead of sixty, which is three-sevenths of that of the Roman Catholic itself, and again it exists in considerable numbers in nine countries and in Asia instead of in but two as he would have you believe. Page 54, the Cardinal says: “The Protestant Churches, even taken collectively (as separate com- munions they are a mere handful) are too insignifi- cant in point of numbers, and too circumscribed in their territorial extent, to have any pretensions to the title of Catholic. All the Protestant denominations are estimated at sixty-five millions or less than one-fifth of those who bear the Christian name.” , The Cardinal again shows himself to be a hypocrite. He apparently believes misrepresentations are argu- ments. He is trying to do by treachery what he can- not do with honesty. The following figures, which are the latest figures from a competent authority, M. Four- uier de Flaix, and used by the “World 1906 Almanac Encyclopedia” show the Cardinal as a willing misrep- resenter: Christianity numbers 477,680,158 followers, of which the Roman Catholic number but 230,866,533, or less than half. Protestants number 143,237,625 instead of the insig- nificant sixty-five millions, as the Cardinal tries to mis- lead you into believing, or nearly two-thirds what the Roman Catholic numbers.CATHOLICITY 33 The Orthodox Greek Church, which was established before the Roman Catholic was, and which has con- tinued as a distinct Church longer than the Roman Catholic is in reality a Protestant Church, as it shows no allegiance to Rome, does not believe in Papal Infal- libility and many other Roman doctrines. It numbers 98,016,000 followers which, with the regularly spoken of Protestants of over 143 million, making a grand total of 241 million Protestants, outnumber the Roman Catholic Church in the number of their followers and comprise over one-half of all Christians. But yet the Cardinal speaks of them as insignificant. The Lutherans alone have 42,000,000 followers, which is nearly one-fifth of the whole number of Roman Catholics. Of the English speaking religious communities of the world which number 124 millions, the Roman Catholics compose but 15^ millions, or but one-eighth. In the United States there are over 30 million Chris- tians, of which but one-third or 10 million are Roman Catholics, the Baptists and Methodists numbering to- gether 11,400,000, which is considerably more than the Roman Catholics. In the United States there are over 12 million of Sunday school scholars, of which but about one mil- lion are Roman Catholics. Haven't I set at naught the misrepresentations of Cardinal Gibbons as to the number of Protestants which makes them more Catholic or universal than the Roman Catholics ? Page 54, the Cardinal says: 'That the Roman Catholic Church alone deserves the name of Catholic is so evident, that it is ridiculous to deny it. Ours is the only Church which adopts this name as her official title.” If it is so evident that it is ridiculous to deny it, then why does the Cardinal see fit to devote ten pages to prove it, and ‘then have to stoop to base misrepresen- 334 CATHOLICITY tations as proven above with more to follow? Again, if calling herself Catholic makes her the one Catholic Church, then it would likewise be true that the Bap- tists being called Baptists would be the only church which can baptize? The Winebrennerian Church of Pennsylvania and Maryland is the only Church which calls itself “The Church of God,” is it therefore the only Church of God? The same with the Universai- ists, Christian Catholics, Apostolic, etc., Churches, if the name makes the Church. Being called Catholic does not make the Roman Catholic the only Catholic Church. Page 55, the Cardinal, speaking of the Episcopal- ians, who are generally spoken of as “American Cath- olics” says: “If they think that they have any just claim to the name of Catholic, why not come out openly and write it on 'the title-page of their Bibles and Prayer-Books ?” Hypocrite again, the Roman Catholic Church herself does not write the word Catholic on the title-page of her own Bibles and Prayer Books. A copy of each, which I have here before me, have not. And again, why doesn’t Rome place the word Catholic on the title-page of her Breviaries and Missals? To use the Cardinal’s own words, as applied to Episcopalians, Is she afraid to? The “Holy Catholic Church,” as contained in the Apostle’s creed, means the Holy Church of Christ, which was Catholic in this, that it was not a religion for one nation or one sect, but for all nations and all sects, divisions, or peoples of the earth. No person of whatever denomination is a Catholic unless he believes in Christ and the Bible. But everyone who believes in Christ and the Bible, and practices their teachings, is a Catholic in the sense of the Apostle’s Creed. I quote the following passages from Paul to the Corinthians to prove the above and that people being different were not expected to worship alike:CATHOLICITY 35 I Cor. 12-4: “Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.” V. 5: “And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.” V. 6: And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.” V. 13. “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.”APOSTOLICITY. On page 60, of Cardinal Gibbons’ “Faith of our Fathers,” we find the following: “No Church can claim to be the true one whose doctrines differ from those of the Apostles, or whose ministers are unable to trace, by an unbroken chain, their authority to an Apostolic source.” Christ Jesus gave to His Disciples His laws and doctrines, commanding them to spread them to the ends of the earth. The Disciples received His com- mands, they taught His way of salvation to as many as they could; they persuaded as many of their con- verts as they could to help them spread Christianity; and lastly, they wrote Christ’s teachings, these writ- ings making the New Testament of our Bible and our only authentic, direct, infallible guide. Now to take the above quotations of the Cardinal’s, I agree with him that no Church can claim to be the true one whose doctrines differ from those of the Apostles. But now of which of all the Churches of Christendom is this true? I will not be so presumptuous as to say that it ap- plies to any one particular Church, for every Church has its faults, and there is not one that can truly say they have at all times, without a break, taught every doctrine given us by the Apostles and exactly as they meant it to be taught. As to the Roman Catholic Church being the true one,. . .1 will not take the space in this chapter to dis- cuss, but will leave the reader to judge for himself, after reading this book, whether he thinks Rome teaches the doctrines of Jesus, Christ as they wereAPOSTOLICITY 37 given to us in His inspired book, the Bible. The ver- dict cannot truthfully be “Yes.” Now as to the Protestant denominations. There are many of them, but they all take the Bible and the Bible alone as their infallible guide. They are differ- ent in respect to government and technicalities which make them (to a Roman Catholic) seem to be of dif- ferent faiths, but they are not. The Baptists are so- called because they hold that baptism should be by im- mersion, for Christ was so baptized. Mat. 3-16. The Methodists are so-called because of their strict and methodical lives, the Lutherans as followers of Luther, the greatest Bible student and teacher of his own if not of all time; and likewise with the other Protestant denominations, but when i£ comes to faith they are all as one church, united in their work, the conversion of the world to Christianity, and accepting the Bible as their guide. What more can you ask? If the Protestant Churches commenced as distinct, separate denominations but four centuries ago, what difference does it make if they believe and teach Christ’s doctrines as given us by His Apostles in the Bible? None. If I believe in the principles and vote the ticket of the Republican party, is it necessary that my ancestors must of all believed and acted the same? No. You know it isn’t. My father might of been a Democrat or a Populist, yet that is no argument against my being a Republican. Where is the Cardinal’s authority for saying that I must be able to trace by denominational genealogy without an interruption back to Christ ? He has none. It is his own invention made to answer as an argu- ment. I deny the assertion that the uninterrupted lin- eage is necessary to make a denomination a true Chris- tion Church, for Paul says, Romans 10-8: “That is, the word of faith, which we preach. V. 9. That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised v38 APOSTOLICITY him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” It is a mat- ter of faith and not of lineage. The Greek or Eastern Church was established be- fore the Roman Catholic and has a truer title to Apos- tolical appointment and lineage and has continued till today, but yet she is not so Unchristian as to measure her Christianity by her lineage. Jesus Christ did not found the Roman Catholic Church in 33 A. D., as the Cardinal would have you believe, from his tabular statement on page 68. The Roman Catholic Church was not known or ever heard of then and was not a separate Church for centuries after Christ’s time. And again, Roman Catholic writ- ers themselves trace their lineage iii seven ways back to St. Peter and these wavs are all contrary to each other. As to the lineage of Protestant denominations it could be traced as truly to Christ as can that of Rome. As for instance, the Lutheran Church can trace itself to Luther and Luther being an ordained Roman priest could trace his lineage to St. Peter as the Roman does. Because Rome drifted so far from the Bible and the doctrines of Christ, that Luther and the following protestants left her to return to the Bible, is no reason why Luther and his followers do not constitute the true Church and Rome the wayward one. A man’s ancestors even traced back to Christ might of every one been true Christians, but because they were it is no reason that he or his posterity may not turn to infidelity and become apostates. No; lineage may be but as an empty shell, the meat all gone or like as Shakespeare says, “A goodly apple, rotten at the heart.” The following I take from the “Columbia Cyclo- pedia,” under the heading “Anglo Catholic Church,” and which conclusively shows that the Episcopal Church is not an offspring of the Roman Catholic Church, though it was once merged in partial unionAPOSTOLICITY 39 with her; also that she as well as Rome, can trace her lineage direct to Christ and the Apostles. .... “The origin of the Anglican Church is to be traced not to a Roman, but to an eastern source. The Anglican Church claims the name of Catholic. . . also from the Greek ‘katholike/ universal . . . because claiming to be united in origin,*in doctrine, and in form of govern- ment, with the Universal Church as it has existed, with various differences of rites and ceremonies, in all coun- tries and in all ages. Eusebius even asserts that some of the apostles passed over into Britain. Tertullian, (second century) speaks of places in Britain which, though inaccessible to the Romans, were subject to Christ. At the Council of Arles (314 A. D.) there were three British bishops present; and St. Alban suf- fered martyrdom under Diocletian, about the close of the third century, or nearly three centuries before the landing of St Augustine and his missionaries, 596 A. D...........It was not until the close of the seventh century, under Theodore that the two Churches (Episcopal and Roman) became united. In the mean- time the conversion of Britain was as much due to the labors of St. Aidan, the Scottish Bishop of Lindisfern in the north, and of St. Chad, the Saxon saint, as to the missionaries of the Roman Church in the south. . . . There were always found individuals (in the united Episcopal and Roman Church) some of great eminence, to protest against and offer a strenuous re- sistance to the peculiar doctrines of the Church of Rome; while large sections of the Church never ceased to protest against the claims of papal dominion. The overthrow of papal supremacy was indeed effected by Henry VIII.; but that monarch rather hindered than favored the reformation of doctrine. When Rome, at the Council of Trent, anathematized all who would not receive her articles, the separation became final. . . . The Anglican Church is Episcopal, holding the unbroken succession or orders from the Apostles as one of its most esteemed privileges.”LUTHER AND THE REFORMATION. In speaking of Luther and the Reformation the im- pression is carried by Romanists and is carefully taught to them by the priests that Luther wished to marry and thereby break his celibacy vows and the Church not giving him permission, he left the Church and together with his .followers, established an inde- pendent Church from which all Protestants spring. More than once has a priest told this same to me and apparently believed it themselves. But it is not so. There have been those who have protested against Rome from the time she falsely assumed the title of the only true Church; there have been those, in large numbers, who have protested against every new doc- trine which Rome has added to her creed and which was contrary to the Bible; and there have been those, such as the Greek or Eastern Church, which either from priority or from opposite belief have remained away from Rome, one and all of whom were Protes- tants in the strict sense of the word. But here is the point which gives many the impression that no Protes- tant lived before Luther, i. e., 1st, The Reformation coming in modern times, and 2nd, that it was one of the largest and farthest reaching events in the history of the world, both from a religious and a political standpoint. No, the Reformation under Luther was not the beginning of Protestantism, but only Protes- tantism which had been born long before, brought to a prominent and forceful position in the eyes of the modern world. The Reformatnon which was caused by Rome’s un- scriptural doctrines which she had added to her creed;LUTHER AND THE REFORMATION 41 by the abuses which the Roman clergy forced onto the people; and by the immoral lives of the clergy and nuns, had nearly reached a climax under the Bohe- mians and the Hussites just before Luther’s time, but a strong leader and an immediate caiise were required to bring it to a focus. Mankind will stand a great burden sometimes, without complaining, but there is a limit to all things and this limit came in the Refor- mation, when Rome, to raise money to build St. Peter, in the city of Rome, commenced to sell indulgences by the wholesale. The abuses became so flagrant among the Germans that they, with Luther at their head, openly defied Rome as Unchristian and the Pope as an Antichrist. The story of Luther’s leaving Rome to get married is as false as is Satan. Luther had left Rome and the Reformation was well under way long before he ever married. He broke his vows in so doing, but he had renounced them and taught their opposite for years be- fore marrying, being convinced from the Bible that the Pope had no Scriptural or moral right to keep the clergy or nuns in a celibate state, but that the Bible taught that they should marry. I will now give some of the chief events in Luther’s life which led up to his taking the prominent part which he did in the Reformation and which I hope will truly convince you that Luther did not leave Rome to get married; that Luther did not wish to leave Rome, but to help to reform some of the abuses to which it had stooped; and that Luther did not seek his promi- nent position in the Reformation, but that he was forced into it by circumstances over which he had no control. Martin Luther was bom on the 10th of November, 1483, at Eisleben, a town in the central portion of Germany. Baptized the next day in the Church of St Peter, and called Martin because that day was the feast of St. Martin. He was a peasant’s son as like-42 LUTHER AND THE REFORMATION wise nearly all his ancestors had been thorough peasants. When Luther was nearly twenty years of age he be- came melancholy and despondent. He tended prayers and mass daily and continually strived to mortify his body, thinking that in that way he could gain grace with God, but as time passed on he grew more and more despondent trying in vain to seek grace by morti- fying the body as by long prayers, fasts, hardships, etc., at the end of which he seemed to be weighted down more than before. His cravings as to what he should do to receive salvation of God were not to be satisfied, so it seemed. From what he could obtain in strict communion with the Church he felt a lacking or deficiency somewhere. He did not feel that he was doing what he should to gain salvation. It was now, at this period, that he found a Latin Bible in the library of the Erfurt university. And we can almost say that Luther’s change to Protestantism commenced with his finding of this Bible in 1503. It marked an epoch in his life, for he had never seen one before and he now saw how much more it contained than was ever read or explained in the churches. In 1505 Luther entered a cqnvent; in 1507 he was ordained a priest; and in 1512 he received the degree of doctor of theology and promised to defend with all his power the truth of the gospel, the which he tried to live up to in his after life. According to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church then as now it was a doctrine that what was wanting in a penitent in completeness of contrition was made up by absolution as given by the priest. But the punishments of God were not supposed to be ended by his absolution but must be allayed by penances such as by prayer, alms, fasting, and other acts of mortification. For him who . did not fully mitigate his sins, remained Purgatory, while he who was not forgiven was cast into Hell. Luther did the hardest ofLUTHER AND THE REFORMATION 43 penances willingly and lived in strict accord with his church but the more he examined his own conscience the more it seemed to be weightd down with sin and transgressions of God. He studied the laws, dogmas, and school theories of the Roman Church, relating to salvation, but they did not cheer him as did the words of St. Paul in his Bible, which said that salvation was by faith and not by works. At this time the Vicar General, John Von Staupitz, a man of deep thought and learning, a master of Scholastic theology, and also well versed in the Holy Scriptures, made the acquaintance of Luther, the latter wishing him to be his confessor. He taught Luther that penances of actual pain, punishments and expia- tions was not what God wanted but that according to Scripture, God wanted an inward change or conversion which must proceed from the love of holiness and of God; and that he must not look to his own acts which could never satisfy the law of God, but must trust with patience to God's forgiving mercy and learn to see in Christ,, not a stern Judge, but a loving Saviour who gave Himself, once for all, that all who would believe in Him should receive everlasting life. This fatherly advice of his confessor together with his own perusal of the Bible gave Luther a firm foundation for all his convictions and later teachings. Luther was turning by force of circumstances from church theories to Bible teachings and he was steadily drifting to- wards the point where he could see that Rome was at variance with the Bible and where reforms should be made. This was in 1506. Luther speaks of one passage in particular (St. Paul to the Romans); Rom. 1-17. “For the justice of God is revealed therein, from faith unto faith, as it is written; The just man liveth by faith,” which he tried to connect according to the ruling theology of the day with Go^’s righteousness in His punishment of sinners. But which he could take in no other way than as44 LUTHER AND THE REFORMATION righteousness freely given by God to all who have faith in His message of mercy. A proof of the confidence reposed in Luther by his Order (Augustine) is to be found in their sending him to Rome in 1511 to help settle a dispute, which had sprung up among some of the convents, about a union. The business over, Luther spent some four weeks in Rome in general observations as it was full of wonders. He was struck with the nice arrangement of business and legal matters at the Papal See, but he was shocked at the laxity of moral and religious life at this great Christian centre; the wanton levity with which the most sacred names and things were treated, and the frivolous unbelief, openly expressed among themselves by the clergy of Rome. He says that no one would believe, what shameful doings were then in vogue among the clergy, unless they had seen them with their own eyes. He also speaks of the stories rife there at that time of the late Pope Alexander and his children, the murder of his brother, the incest and other crimes. The new Pope Julius was just commencing the build- ing of St. Peters, for which indulgences were later granted by the wholesale to raise money, and which was the immediate cause of Luther’s 95 theses and the Reformation. From Kostlin’s “Life of Luther” I take the follow- ing: p. 82, “The first occasion which led to the division of the Christian world was the building of St. Peter’s, the money to be raised by indulgences.” p. 91, “Luther longed to make known his thoughts about indulgences, to excite public discussion, etc. This he did by the 95 theses.” These were intended as a challenge for dis- putation. Immediately after Luther was made doctor of theology he was given charge of theological studies in the university of Wittenberg. He also had charge of the church in the same place. He would sometimes preach a sermon daily and during Lent two a day inLUTHER AND THE REFORMATION 45 addition to his lectures at the university. Instead of disregarding the direct teaching of the Bible, as was the custom with Jhe clergy, he commenced giving his sermons and lectures directly from it. He commenced with the Psalms and the Epistle to the Romans and pointed out the difference between the law and the gospel. He held strictly to the Bible and its teaching and refuted many of the errors then predominant in the Church and schools. For the five years while he was theological teacher he continued to lecture on the Bible and on salvation as coming through faith and not by works as the Church taught (which I have proven to be so in another chapter). In these lectures we find all the principal things which Luther later battled for in real earnest but which he now had no idea would force his separation from the Roman Catholic Church or form a basis for the reconstruction of the Church. He preached them with a clear conscience and a firm belief that he was right, for he had the Bible, the Word of God, on his side and as his proof. All his lectures centered around the one important point of how God meant for man to be saved, and which he proves can- not be done by external works of penance, etc., which are only mortifications of the flesh, but by an inward change or by faith in which we are joined to a righteous God and by which we are re-established in His sight. To put it in a condensed form, I willl refer you to Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, Eph. 2-8: “For by grace are we saved through faith; and that not of our- selves ; it is the gift of God: V. 9. Not of works lest any man should boast.” Which clearly proves Luther’s point and on which fundamental truth he said the Christian Church must stand or fall. He dwelt on what Christ had Suffered and done for us and how we gained peace thereby; and discarding all dogmatic inquiries, speculations, and school-theory he preached practical everyday religion as Christ meant us to live it. Up to 1517 Luther had not the least idea of ever46 LUTHER AND THE REFORMATION breaking with Rome or leaving the Church. He only wished to help reform some of the abuses and evils then existing in the Church. And for a while yet to come when compelled to defend his ideas and even up to the time of his excommunication he did not want to break with Rome, only asking of her a fair chance to prove his views on the Bible and salvation. But Roman officials eluded his arguments and even, as in his debate with the great Caietan, refused to answer them. Finally being unable to obtain any hearing or satisfaction from Rome, he broke all connection with her and stood by the Bible and what he conscientiously believed to be the right. The first and great occasion leading to the division of the Christian world was the building of St. Peter’s at Rome, * costing millions and for which money was raised by selling indulgences by the wholesale. But first to explain what an indulgence is—in short it was simply selling forgiveness of sins for money—but in the longer way of applying it, it was this: Forgiveness of sins was obtained by penance, including of course confession to a priest and his absolution. The penitent confessed to a priest and was absolved by him by which he was freed from eternal punishment, but now though absolved he had heavy temporal punishments, or penance imposed by the Church, which he had to go through.' If he failed to satisfy God's wrath in these penance he, even if not in fear of eternal punish- ments, was still in fear of having to atone for the rest in Purgatory. Now is where the indulgences came in to make Heaven easy. The penitents were told that by paying certain sums an indulgence would be granted for a certain length of time, as for instance 100 days, and by paying this his penances were removed. In this way the penitent in a few minutes could lift his penances which otherwsie he might have to perform for months. It was simply confessing and buying with money the forgiveness of sins. The Pope had noLUTHER AND THE REFORMATION 47 scruples about raising money in this way nor of taking a large part of it for his own use when it was raised. He had an organized system for granting the in- dulgences and in exciting the people to believing that by buying them they could gain real forgiveness. Abuses ran rife and the greedy commissioners, monks, and priests, without a thought of their sinfulness, preached about the indulgences and especially the money part of them, as a sure road to Heaven. A Papal edict put a ban upon anyone who should dare try to stop their sale. But there was one strong- hearted, God-fearing German, Martin Luther, who, without a thought of self but only of his poor neigh- bors and countrymen, who were being robbed by the Pope, under the guise of indulgences, came forward and went into the fight with all his strength to stop their sale; to show his countrymen the Unchristian principle that they involved; and to bring Rome to her senses. He wrote to his brother priests begging them to stop; he preached against indulgences; and then he, in defense against indulgences, nailed his ninety-five memorable theses to the doors of the Castle Church at Wittenberg, October 31, 1517, and challenged one and all to dispute them. Though Luther had not been the first to attack in- dulgences yet he was the one who, when nearly all of Germany was aroused to the shameful doings and abuses of the clergy and especially by the wholesale selling of indulgences, came to the front and struck the keynote of their grievances, when he so boldly posted his theses and denounced Rome's ways and this in the face of what would probably mean excommuni- cation and possibly even death. All Germany stood waiting for a leader to voice their sentiments to Rome, but none dare speak for they had known to well what it meant for one to speal$ against Rome, but now that one braver than they had given the first stroke, they immediately commenced to chime in and protest48 LUTHER AND THE REFORMATION against the religious oppressions to which they had been subjected. The clamor became so loud and the demands so forceful that Rome was compelled to partially stop some of the abuses. But the seed had been sown and Luther was surprised to find what a far reaching effect his lectures on the Bible and Christ's way of salvation by faith and his theses on indulgences, had on the people in general. In fourteen days they had been translated and circulated throughout the whole of Germany. The masses of people were di- vided, some standing by Rome, among which the most prominent were the clergy and nobles, while the middle classes and students commenced to see the real signi- ficance of Luther's teaching and stood by him. A storm of criticism broke about Luther as a result of His expressions on indulgences. He was denounced by Tetzel, who was one of the foremost in the selling of indulgences. He found a still stronger assailant in Prierias, a confidant of the Pope. He was charged with heresy and schism, but in them all not one came forward and disproved his arguments. Luther was horrified at the storm raised and at the evasiveness of his opponents, so to try to straighten matters out he wrote a tract named “Solutions" and dedicated it to the Pope himself. This with a letter he sent on May 30, 1518, to the Pope. In it he'set forth his arguments, based on Scriptures, and asked him to call a council or to invite men to a disputation of his theories, he him- self disclaiming any wish to set up any dogmas of his own contrary to the Church. He concluded with these words, “Give me life or death, accept or reject me as you please, but retract I cannot.” This request met with a rebuff only and no satisfaction was given him nor any efforts made to investigate the facts he put forth. At this time complaints, and remonstrances were coming from princes as well as the common people. The growing disbelief in Papal infallibility and the in-LUTHER ANP THE REFORMATION 49 creasing encroachments of Rome, together with a heavy tax just imposed by the Pope aroused the Germans to a fever heat and with the result that in 1518 at a Diet held at Augsberg they made a formal complaint of their grievances against Rome, among which were such as the above tax, which was to go largely to enrich the Pope and his advisers; the large sums drawn from the German benefices by the Pope under the name of annates, or extorted under other pretexts; the illegal usurpation of ecclesias tical patronage in Germany; the repeated infringement of concordats; the imnupral lives and practices of the clergy; etc. The demands were refused, no reforms were granted and the mem- bers of the Diet were called all sorts of petty names, such as liars, thieves, etc. This treatment of griev- ances did not help to allay the on-coming tide of the Reformation but only increased the self-independence of the people as it increased the hatred toward Rome. The embers were on fire, and though still smoldering with now and then a burst of flame, yet they "were burning, brighter and brighter, till in but a short time, after other abuses had been piled upon existing abuses, by Rome, the flame suddenly shoots upward, first in debate, then wrangling, then separation, and finally in open war against Rome, and the Reformation was made a part of history. In the meantime, from 1518 to 1521, Luther is coun- seling moderation in assailing Rome. He believed in peace and conquering with the Word of the Bible rather than by war. Melancthon with a large follow- ing breaks away from and assails Romanish transub- stantiation, and Rome’s refusing the wine of com- munion to the people, while he proved from Scriptures that it was absolutely necessary to receive the wine as well as the bread. Luther had heretofore attacked the system of penances, he likewise now attacked the celibacy of the clergy, proving and teaching that the Pope has no scripture right whatever to compel them 450 LUTHER AND THE REFORMATION to an unmarried state while Jesus Christ and His Dis- ciples taught and some even practiced matrimony and that it was enjoined upon all (clergy as well as laity). He encouraged the priests to marry and thus fulfill the Scripture law and thereby stop the abuses and im- morality caused by a celibate state. He also attacked the false sacraments which were added to the good ones by Rome. In 1521 Luther began a translation of the Bible. Bibles were few at that time and what there were, were translated from the Latin.,and that in a loose style/ Luther translated it direct from the original text, making it direct and as the Disciples wrote it. Luther being well versed in German, Latin, Greek and Hebrew, made the work a very accurate translation. The first sheets were struck off May 10, 1522, the whole work was ready for publication in September. The demand was so great for it that in December of the same year (1522) a second edition was called for. The work was greedily taken up and read in all parts of Germany by those who had learned from Luther to prize the pure Word of God as above all Church dogmas and laws. Nor could any better way have been devised for spreading the truth of the Bible and the proof of Luther’s teachings. In 1523 Luther’s followers were so numerous and steadfast that independent or Lutheran Churches were established in all parts of Germany and the Reformers had settled down to stay. Now as to Luther’s marriage. From a letter Luther wrote to Spalatin on November 30, 1524, we find the following, “As my heart now is, it will never come to pass that I shall take a wife,” and from what he said to others at the same time it is clearly shown that Luther up to 1524 had no intentions whatever of getting married. Though he had preached the mar- riage of the clergy for years yet he for himself had entertained no such idea. It was not ’till the spring ofLUTHER AND THE REFORMATION 51 1525 that he fell in love with Catherine von Bora and this from his own choice. He found in her a healthy, frank and true hearted German woman and one whom he thought would make him a sympathetic and loyal companion in his trials to come, as she was filled with the desire for the truth along with the other reformers. They were married June 13, 1525. There were hundreds of other important facts in re- gard to the Reformation well worth mentioning but space forbids but the few brief ones above mentioned, but which I hope are sufficient to convince the most skeptical that Luther did not leave Rome just to get married or that the Reformation was a result of his doing so, as is often asserted by his enemies or by those who are ignorant of the facts of his life and its relation to the Reformation. Notice the lapse of time between Luther’s first turn- ing to the Bible and away from Rome to the time that he was married, vk: 1. In 1503 Luther found a Bible, which marked the first turn toward his reformation. 2. Encouraged and instructed in reading the Bible by Staupitz, Luther’s confessor, in 1506. 3. Luther goes to Rome and sees immorality and licentiousness carried on there by clergy in 1511. 4. From 1512 to 1517 he lectures and preaches on the Bible and that salvation must be obtained by faith and not by works as practiced by Rome. 5. Luther attacks Roman abuses and indulgences in particular in 1517. 6. November 28, 1518, he appealed from Pope to a General Council and broke with Rome forever. The Reformation now had a solid foundation that was never to be crushed. 7. In 1521, Luther commenced the translation of the Bible from the original text. 8. In 1524, Luther was not in love and had no definite intention of marrying.52 LUTHER AND THE REFORMATION 9. In June, 1525, he was married. Twenty-two years lapsed from the time that Luther first commenced to read the Bible and drift uncon- sciously towards the Reformation to the time he was married. Seven years lapsed from the time that he broke with Rome forever to the time that he got mar- ried. These facts alone disprove all assertions that Martin Luther did leave Rome to get married. No, but what Martin Luther did leave Rome for was be- cause his conscience and his Bible told him that Rome was wrong and he was man enough to stand by the truth and the Bible, even though it brought death, rather than to submit to Rome's tyranny, as so many had done before. The Reformation which in reality was started before Luther was born needed a leader and when God willed it He sent Luther to break the shackles of Roman oppression and made men free to worship Him once more as their consciences and their Bibles told them was right. Buying indulgences comes unde * the same condem- nation as that which Peter gave*. Simon, Acts 8-18, “And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money. V. 19. Saying, Give me also this powe*r, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. V. 20. But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. V. 21. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter; for thy heart is not right in the sight of God." Foirgiveness of sins is also a gift of God. *If you think you can buy it with money then your heart is not right and you have no part or lot with God's elect. If you think you can do the same with indulgences then beware of God's wrath for you have had your warning.CHURCH SERVICES COMPARED. Tn this chapter I wish to prove to you that the Roman Catholic Church services are not in accord with the Bible, while the Protestant services come decidedly much nearer the standard as set down by Christ and His Disciples. That a church can call itself a Christian Church and under the plea of universality, wilfully in contradiction to the Bible and Christian convenience* will foster onto its followers a foreign language that in nine times out of ten is not understood by them; and that the fol- lowers will bend themselves to such slavery seems stupendous in a free country like the United States. But such is the fact. They do it much as the slaves used to serve their masters, not because God had them do it, for all men are born free by God's laws, and not because they wanted to be slaves, but just because they grew used to being slaves and didn't know how to be anything else or to assert their own God-given rights. Just so with the Roman Catholic. You have got so used to being obedient to Rome, rather than the Bible, and being brought up in Latin services, that you do not know the difference or if you do you do not stand up and make a man of yourself and fight for the Bible and your rights, for fear some one will mock you or drop your friendship. But though you may lose some unstable friends by standing for Christ and the Bible you should remember His promise, Mark 10, 29 and 30. Jesus said, “There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my sake and the gospel's. But he shall receive an hundred fold . . . and in the world to come eternal life."54 CHURCH SERVICES COMPARED First let us take up the Latin language as used in the Roman Church. Rome says that it is used to make the churches in the different countries the same and so as to have the same “Mass” said in every one of her churches on any day of the year so that if for instance a German Catholic came to America that they would hear the same services here that they did in their own country. True, I admit, but do you notice this point that where one foreigner is benefited by so doing fifty Americans are inconvenienced to such an extent that they all have to have “Prayer Books” with it translated into their own language so that they can read while the priest preaches it? And again, do you notice that you are compelled to have the same identi- cal service day after day and year after year or else the whole world’s system of “Prayer Books” has to be changed? Where does the saving or the grace come in? I have been to the Roman Catholic Church Sun- day after Sunday and to this day I do not know one word of the Latin services carried on by the priesf unless I have a “Prayer Book” and what is more the Latin singing (for I never heard but two songs sung in the Roman Church in any other language) has been as much fo me as a flock of sheep bleating and no more as far as understanding it or getting any Christian good or uplifting from it outside of the music and the musical harmony of the singers. Do you call that Christian music that is of use to you? What is a vis- itor to do when he enters the Roman Church? He is conducted to a seat, but he fis not given a “Prayer Book” or other article so as to understand the services or be able to take any part in them, but he can only sit there feeling entirely out of place and receiving no benefit whatever from the Roman Mass. What be- comes of your universality and Christian teaching in regard to church visitors? Universal language may once in a while benefit a foreign Roman Catholic, but it keeps all others away or only brings them to satisfyCHURCH SERVICES COMPARED 55 their curiosity. This brings it to the Unchristian point that a stranger has no place in your church. Doesn't it ? Now as to what the Bible says of speaking a foreign language in a church where the members cannot un- derstand it. If the Bible recommends it, then all is well, but if the Bible says it is wrong then Rome is wrong and the Popes, whom you steadfastly have be- lieved infallible, are proven very fallible in fostering such a practice on her followers who have looked up to her as the only true church. Paul saw the importance of not admitting any tongue or language into a church except the one un- derstood by its members and seeing that it might come up in controversy or use, as it has done in the Roman Church, he saw fit to write nearly a whole chapter against it, which we find in Corinthians 14th chapter and which reads as follows, viz: V. 8. “For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for the battle? V. 9. So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? For ye shall speak into the air. V. 10. There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without sig- nification. V. 11. Therefore, if I know not the meaning of the voice (language) I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me. V. 12. Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church. V. 13. Wherefore let him that speaketh in an un- known tongue pray that he may interpret. V. 14. For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. V. 15. What is it then? I will pray with the spirit,56 CHURCH SERVICES COMPARED and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, I will sing with the understanding also. V. 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 under- standeth not what thou sayest ? V. 17. For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified. V. 18. I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all: (knew many languages). V. 19. Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousands words in an unknown tongue. V. 22. Tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not. V. 26. How it is then, brethren ? When ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doc- trine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an inter- pretation. Let all things be done unto edifying. V. 27. If any man speak in an unknown tongue let it be by two, at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. V. 28. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God.” What more proof can you ask for than the above Scripture law as written and laid down by Paul? He says in plain words: 1st. That to speak with a tongue not easily understood as the Latin used by Rome, in English Churches, you speak into the air. 2nd. He says pray and sing with the understanding that is in the language you speak. 3rd. It is better for a Priest or Minister to say five words in a language you can understand than for him to say ten‘ thousand in some language you cannot, as the Latin. And 4th. Where there is a tongue used (as Latin if you speakCHURCH SERVICES COMPARED 57 English, etc.) let two speak together or at most three and if they don’t have an interpreter let him keep silent in the Church. How could the Bible emphasize the fact more clearly than in the above, that a lan- guage, other than that used by an individual congrega- tion, should not be used in'that church? Does not this emphatically prove Rome is wrong in using Latin in all her churches when but a small part of them un- stand the language? Cardinal Gibbons says it is necessary to have a com- mon language so that in councils, etc., each can under- stand the others and especially where they are gathered from different countries. All well enough, let the clergy have a common tongue amongst themselves for like purposes but when before a church which speaks but one language let the services be carried on entirely in that language as Paul commands. I have in another chapter disproved communion in one kind and also transubstantiation as Unchristian doctrines or not in conformity with Christ’s teachings. So passing on to the daily services of the Mass we find this, that the Mass is the same thing, word for word, and act for act, that it was the day before, the Sunday before, the month before, the year before and the century before without scarcely a word changed and is repeated day by day and year by year and in the same monotone like the young calf/ calling its mother and what is more, the followers of Rome do not say the prayers, etc., of their own accord, but Rome says them and they read them. Does that appeal to you as the ideal service Christ requires of you? Put yourself in a like position as a father or mother of children, whom you loved with all your being and for whom you would die if you could save them. Would you be just as well satisfied and pleased with them if they would ask some one else, as an aunt, to come and ask you to forgive them for doing a misdeed, as you would to have them come of their own free will to58 CHURCH SERVICES COMPARED your knee and tell you that they were sorry and ask your forgiveness? You know you wouldn’t. But don’t you ask Mary and the angels, saints, etc., to do things for you that Christ would much rather you yourself would ask of Him direct? And again if your child wanted you to do something extra for him would you rather have him come to you with a book in his hand and keep reading it over to you day by day just as it was written, as for instance, “Oh, Father, will you get me a bicycle? Oh, Father, will you get me a bicycle?” and then have him close the book each time and go away feeling that you surely would grant his request, for he had come and read jt to you every day, or would you rather have him come to your knee of his own volition and in his own heart- felt and expressed language ask you if you wouldn’t grant his request and that he would do all he could to deserve it if it was given him? You know you would rather have the latter. Just so with Christ, who takes the place of a father. The above examples illustrates the difference between the Roman daily services and most Protestant services. Rome has her prayers made to be repeated over and over again without any change, and even though many go over them, as many a scholar does a reading lesson, without any desire but more as a form, yet she believes they are acceptable to Christ as an individual prayer; while most Protestants pray spontaneously from the heart, in true accord with na- ture, as their needs prompt them to, and directly to Christ as would a loving daughter or son to a fond father and without any one else doing their thinking or praying for them. Which seems right to you? To let some one else tell you what you need to ask Christ for or to ask him yourself direct, knowing your own wants better than anyone else and feeling that you are free and intelligent enough to express them? But what does the Bible say as to prayers and services or sacrifices as contained in Mass being saidCHURCH SERVICES CQMPARED 59 over and over, word for word, and day by day? Surely if Rome is the only true Church then it must be di- rectly in accord with the Bible. Is it? Let’s see, the Bible says: Matt. 6-7. “But when ye pray, use not vain repeti- tions, as the heathen do.” Acts 17-24. “God dwelleth not in temples made with hands.” V. 25. “Neither is worshiped with men’s hands as though he needed anything.” Matt. 24-26. “If they say Christ is in the secret chamber; believe it not.” Heb. 9-24. “Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands.” V. 25. “Nor yet that he should offer himself often.” V. 26. “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 hiniself.” Heb. 10-1. “For the law having a shadow of good things to come and not the very image of thing^f can never with those sacrifices which they (the priests) offered .year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.” Heb. 10-10. “We are sanctified through the offer- ing of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” (On the cross.) V. 11. “And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices which can never take away sins.” V. 14. “For by one offering he (Christ) hath per- fected for ever them that are sanctified.” V. 17. “And their sins and iniquities will I remem- ber no more.” V. 18. “Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.” From all appearances the Bible is directly against the Roman Catholic Mass and daily services. 1st.60 CHURCH SERVICES COMPARED Rome’s prayers are a repetition, service after service, but the Bible says prayers repeated over and over are vain. 2nd. Rome teaches in transubstantiation that Christ is in the secret chamber of their altars, but the Bible emphatically says that he is not. 3rd. Rome teaches that in their Mass they offer a sacrifice for the quick and the dead which is contrary to Christ’s teaching that He sacrificed Himself, once for all, for • the sins of the world; that there is no more sacrifice or offering for sin; and to the Bible, which says that the daily offering of sacrifices, by priests, is all in vain and can never take away sins. Before Christ’s time the people made sacrifices for their sins, but when Christ died, on the cross, He put aside the old custom and did away with sacrifices by establishing the new, which was faith in Him as sac- rificing Himself once for all, for our sins. To take up another line of proof which is very for- cible is this, that Mass is wrong from, the fact that Christ or His Disciples never mentioned it, practiced it, or appeared to know of its existence. The Bible does not anywhere speak of it, Christ in no way im- plies it or even hints at it in His instructions to His Disciples on their duties, etc., as in Matt. 28-19, (where Christ says to them), “Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; V. 20. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and lo I am with you always even unto the end of the world, Amen.” Here as in all His other instructions no mention or hint whatsoever is made by Him about Mass or sacrifices for sins. -But on the contrary He time and time again says that He by sacrificing Himself on the cross once for all time, made atonement for our sins, as Heb. 9-26. “He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.” Therefore if Christ did not teach that Mass or sacri- fice for sin should be used by Christians and againCHURCH SERVICES COMPARED 61 if the Disciples did not practice it, which they as- suredly did not, then Rome is wrong in practicing it Again in the Mass Rome teaches that Christ is bodily contained in the wafer or Host after the words of consecration are said. The wafer is a baked piece of flour and water made with the hands and by con- secration is said to be turned unto the body of Christ. See what Paul says of such hand made gods, Acts 19-26. “Moreover ye see and hear that not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people (to Christianity) saying that they be no gods which are made with hands.” Now let's compare the Roman services which are conducted in a foreign tongue, both the Mass and the singing, and which are repeated over and over, word for word, every time Mass is said, to those of the Protestant Churches and see which is the better un- derstood and the nearest to God. Take, for instance, the Methodist or Presbyterian services as an example and what de we have? We have a number of songs, such as “Rock of Ages” or “Nearer my God to Thee,” (of which there are hun- dreds) in which the whole congregation sing, under- standing what they sing, and with their hearts filled with the words of love and worship which they con- tain and which lifts one's thoughts to God and things holy and divine. These are not sung in a foreign tongue but in the congregation's own language whether English, German or some other, and unlike the Roman Service songs in which you get but music and harmony we get the music and harmony and also the exhilera- tion given by the divine thought they contain and the taking part in the singing of them. The prayers both in the church proper and in the Sunday School services are in the congregation's tongue and direct to God in an earnest petition for blessings which we desire, help we need in conquering V62 CHURCH SERVICES COMPARED sins and in guidance to better lives, etc. They are not read over and over from a book, neither are they the same ones repeated, with the exception of the “Lord’s Prayer,” but are spontaneously from our hearts to God and carry our daily supplications and thanks to Him. The congregation repeat the Apostle’s Creed. The Church services also contain reading from Jhe Bible much as the Epistle and Gospel is read in the Roman, the sermon which is of the Bible as is the Roman but with most of the parochial schools, eternal punishment, money matters, reading of the names of those who contribute to collections and other such things, which the priest keeps constantly in your memory, left out, and more of Christ’s teachings and doings and the Bible doctrines put in. The Sunday School is unlike that of Rome in which practically only children are taught and them nothing but the Catechism, which contains not one word of the Bible, but is a commandment of the Pope which you learn in the place of the Bible and which Christ con- demns, Matt. 15-9. “But in vain they do worship me teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” But in our Sunday School the Bible itself is taken up and studied and all its doctrines and teachings are proven from the Bible alone, by each individual them- selves and by all whether a child, middle aged, or gray haired; for the beauty of the language in the Bible and the simplicity of its truth coupled with the history and lives of generations after generations is such as to hold a person, who wishes to live a Christian life, to its pages, with an interest that no novel or passing story can compare with. The League and Endeavor and the Prayer services are to sing songs of praise to God; for mutual and individual prayers; and for communion of thoughts on the Bible and its relation to our lives as Christians. In which those present are brought by thoughts and " acts into touch with God and things divine and their souls are filled with Christ’s love.HOLY COMMUNION OR EUCHARIST. The fifth article of the creed of Pope Pius IV ex- plains the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on the holy sacrament of communion. It is as follows: “1 profess in the Mass there is offered to God a true, proper and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead. And that in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist, there are truly, really, and substantially the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord, Jesus Christ; and that there is made a con- version of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood; which conversion the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation. I also confess that under either . alone, Christ is received whole and entire, and a true sacrament.” (Extracted from the “Ordo Admimstrandi Sacramenti,” p. 67, London, 1840). This is the creed or belief of the Roman Catholic Church brought up to the present times, for it is the same now as in 1840. And the above stands as the infallible teaching of the Church on Mass, transubstan- tiation and Communion in One Kind. But to strengthen this teaching, the Council of Trent says: “Canon I. If anyone shall deny that the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore entire Christ, are truly, really and substantially contained in the sacra- ment of the most holy Eucharist; and shall say that He is only it in as in a sign, or in a figure, or virtu- ally,—let him be accursed/’ We not only have the doctrine but also the curse of the Church on all those who refuse to believe in the doctrine of the entire change of the bread and wine64 I10LY COiMMUNION OR EUCHARIST into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ, which Rome claims is really, truly and substantially con- tained in the bread and wine or Holy Communion or Eucharist. * First. Transubstantiation Disproved by History. Now let us study history to see what the early teach- ing of Rome was on this doctrine of the Mass; let us compare notes with the Bible, the only real authority; and let us use that great gift which our Creator be- stowed upon man as a distinct trait, distinguishing him from the animal kingdom and placing him among the angels, “Reason,” with which God expects us to search out the right from the wrong and the just from the unjust. What does history teach regarding transubstantia- tion? Very few Roman Catholics know that the early Church did not believe in it, also that the early Church believed in giving to all its members both the bread and wine. Pope Gelasius, A. D. 492, in his creed or belief, says: “The sacrament of the body and blood of our Lord, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by these we are made partakers of the divine nature. Never- theless, the substance or nature of the bread and wine cease not to exist; and assuredly, th$ image and simili- tude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of the mysteries.” Pope Gelasius emphatically says the substance of the bread and wine do not change. Pope Pius IV as em- phatically declares that they do. Which is right? Which is infallible? Pope Gelasius says that the image or similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated. Pope Pius IV says the real bodily presence, soul and divin- ity of Christ are in the Mass. Which is right ? Which Pope is infallible and which is fallible? Which isHOLY COMMUNION OR EUCHARIST 65 right, the early Church or the modern Roman Church ? Does this not prove that papal infallibility is a farce? But let us add a few more instances in historical differences. The Council of Constance, which was held in June, 1415, was the first authority for the separate administration of the bread and the wine, i. e., forbidding the wine to the people, thereby mak- ing a great separation from the Bible and Christ's teaching, Matt. 26, 27, “And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them saying: Drink ye all of it," and 26, 28, “For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Wherein Christ plainly teaches the cup is for all. In the homilies of Pope Leo the Great, which homi- lies are to be found in nearly every library where the writings pf the Fathers are preserved, he says, “They (those who refuse the cup) receive Christ's body with unworthy mouth, and entirely refuse to quaff the blood of our redemption; therefore they are to be expelled by priestly authority from the fellowship of the saints." He calls the • “receiving in only one kind" a Mani- chaean heresy. Pope Paschal, in 1118, in a letter to the Abbot of Cluny, wrote thus, “We know that the bread was given separately and the wine separately by the Lord himself; which custom we therefore teach and com- mend to be always observed in Holy Church, save in the case of infants and very infirm people who can- not swallow bread." In the 28th canon of the Council of Clermont, which was held in 1095, and presided over by Pope Urban II, it was decreed that, “No one shall communicate at the altar without he receive the body and blood separ- ately and alike, unless by way of necessity and for caution." Pope Gelasius, in a letter to the Bishop Majoricus and John (Corp Jur. Can. Decret III, 11, 12) says,66 HOLY COMMUNION OR EUCHARIST “We have ascertained that certain persons having re- ceived a portion of the sacred body alone abstain from partaking of the chalice of the sacred blood. Let such persons either receive the sacrament in its en- tirety or be repelled from the entire sacrament, be- cause the division of one and the same mystery can- not take place without great sacrilege/’ Origin calls the bread of the Eucharist “A figura- tive body/’ Ephrem says, “He takes bread into his hands, gives thanks, and breaks it in figure of his immaculate body/’ Macarius (Homily XXVII) says “Bread and wine are offered, being the figure of the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. They who participate in this visible bread eat, spiritually, the flesh of the Lord.” Theodoret (in his first Dialogue Against the Entychians) says, “The Lord has honored theoe relia- ble signs with the name of his body and bJc>od, not changing their nature but adding grace to nature.” St. Augustine, speaking of Christ’s command to eat His body and drink His blood, says, “It looks as if in these words he commanded a crime. It is a figure, then, by which we are recommended to- communicate in our Saviour’s passion, by engraving in our mem- ory, in a manner at once affecting and useful, the kill- ing and crucifying of His body for us.” The Council of Constantinople pronounced the sub- stance of the bread the image of Christ. Bellorium says (Bellorium de Eucharista, lib. 1), “None of the ancients, who wrote of heresies, hath put this ‘error’ (of the corporal presence) in their catalog, nor did any of * them dispute about this ‘error’ for the first 600 years.” Archbishop of Tollotson says, “This doctrine of tran- . substantiation was not in being during the first 600 years.” Archbishop Mentz in 847 opposed the error of transubstantiation with all his might. Gabriel Biel (in his lessons on the Mass) says, “We do not find in the Bible in what manner Christ’s body is there. That is proved by the authority of the Church and theHOLY COMMUNION OR EUCHARIST 67 saints, for by reason it cannot be proved.” Bishop Fischer, writing before the Council of Trent, says, “There is not a word in the Scriptures by which we can prove the true presence of the body and blood of Jesus Christ.” These are most all early Fathers in the Roman Church and dating from the sixth century. Hundreds more of like opinion could be added, but what’s the use ? Study history for yourself. Go to standard and non-sectarian histories which treat of the history of transubstantiation thoroughly, both ancient and mod- ern, and you will find the following, the most of which I have just proven, that the Roman Catholic Church in the first six centuries knew practically nothing of the doctrine of transubstantiation, by which the bread and wine were transformed into the real body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ; that they re- ceived both the bread and wine; that commencing about the seventh century the two above doctrines were brought to notice, but not officially; that not until 1215 in the Council of Lateran was transubstan- tiation decreed to be a doctrine of the Church of Rome; that not till 1415 did the Council of Constance decree it to be a doctrine that the laity should receive in only one kind; and that on account of the great dis- sensions in her own Church, after the Councils of Lat- eran and Constance had decreed for these doctrines of transubstantiation and of partaking of one kind only, it was found necessary for the Council of Trent to pronounce a curse against those who would not believe the doctrines. Such is the history of transubstantiation and-of the laity partaking of but one kind. Such is the way the Roman Church changes her doctrines and pronounces curses on those who will not believe doctrines con- trary to the Bible and their better reason. But Ro- manists believe them and allow Rome to keep them in the dark becahse they believe her infallible. Open68 HOLY COMMUNION OR EUCHARIST your eyes, ye Romans, open your eyes and read, 1st, the Bible, 2nd, History, and then see if you can con- tinue to believe in Roman Catholicism. Second. Transubstantiation Disproved by the Bible. Now that I have proven to you from history and Rome’s own writings how she, in opposition to a large part of her followers, inaugurated transubstantiation, contrary to the Church’s early belief and teaching; how she made it a new article of faith to be believed by all her followers under the curse of damnation; how she changed the teaching of the early Church, that all should receive both the bread and wine, to her present doctrine and practice of refusing the laity the cup, in each one of which she infallibly proves herself to be criminally fallible, I will next give Scrip- ture proof that this change, i. e., transubstantiation and refusing the cup to the laity, is contrary to the Scrip- tures and to Christ’s intention or teaching. First, let us quote the passages of Scripture wherein Christ inaugurated Communion. He and His Dis- ciples were celebrating the Feast of the Passover, as was the yearly custom in those days. It was after the feast was nearly over that He took the bread and wine and blessed them, which is shown in Matt. 26-21, “And whilst they were eating, He said: Amen, I say to you that one of you is about to betray me,” after which there was questioning as to whom it was, and finally, Matt. 26-25, when Judas asked Christ if it was him and Christ said it was. They were feasting before this question of betrayal was brought up; feast- ing while it was discussed and finally settled by Christ that Judas was the betrayer, and therefore must have been through, or nearly so, when Christ inaugurated our Holy Communion or Eucharist, *the accounts ofHOLY COMMUNION OR EUCHARIST 69 which are enumerated in Christ’s Gospels as follows: By Matthew. Matt. 26-26. “And whilst they were at supper Jesus took bread and blessed, and broke; and gave to His Disciples, and said: Take ye and eat. This is my body.” V. 27. “And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying; Drink ye all of this.” V. 28. “For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.” By Mark. Mark 14-22. “And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessing, broke, and gave to them, and said; Take ye. This is my body.” V. 23. “And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it.” V. 24. “And he said to them; This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.” By Luke. Luke 22-19. “And taking bread, he gave thanks, and broke, and gave to them saying; ‘This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemora- tion of me/ ” V. 20. “In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testa- ment in my blood, which shall be shed for you.” Also by Paul. I Cor. 11-24. “Took bread and giving thanks, broke, and said, Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the com- memoration of me.” V. 25. “In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.” V. 26. “For as often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord till he come.”70 HOLY COMMUNION OR EUCHARIST All the above passages I have quoted from the Douay or Roman Catholic Bible, so there can be no question of their coming from a Protestant source or Bible, though they are practically the same, word for word, only that Rome says chalice where the Protes- tant, cup, but the teaching is identically the same. Now in what ways does or does not the Roman Catholic Eucharist and transubstantiation agree with Christ’s teaching? 1st. The Roman Catholic Church commands its members to fast, from midnight, of the day before Communion is received, until after it is received, totally abstaining from all food of whatever kind. Jesus Christ, by his example, which he set for all mankind, celebrated the Feast of the Passover, and when the meal or feast was nearly over, or according to Paul, in I Con 11-25, “After he had supped,” that is, when the meal was finished, he instituted Holy Communion or Eucharist, which He did by blessing bread and wine and giving to His Disciples, who were just finishing, or had just finished a feast. Which is right? Jesus Christ, who instituted Com- munion and set the example of how it should be ob- served, or the Popes, who made a command of their own on how it should be observed, commanding fast- ing before receiving instead of feasting before receiv- ing, as Christ instituted it ? Which will you follow? You cannot follow both. They are directly contrary to each other, making it a physical impossibility to follow both. The question then is plainly this; is Christ fallible or is the Pope fallible; one certainly is. If it is Christ, then He is not God; He is not Immaculate; and He therefore makes Christianity a farce. But if Christ is right, then the Pope is wrong and fallible, and then neces- sarily the Roman Catholic religion and teaching is wrong. In Matt. 15-9. Christ says: “But in vain they doHOLY COMMUNION OR EUCHARIST 71 worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” Is not this fasting instead of feasting before receiving Communion a commandment of men (Popes and Church) made into a doctrine and now practiced by the Roman Catholic Church ? Therefore Christ says you worship in vain or with none effect, which you most assuredly do for you do the opposite of what He taught. You also set aside the natural laws of God's uni- verse by your fasting. God is in all nature but you thwart nature. It is natural for man to crave and eat at least three meals per day and those regularly. This fasting before Communion may not affect those near a Church, but just consider those at a distance from the Church, say ten to twenty miles as is very often the case, and then add daily duties. We have then the case like this: A farmer living fifteen miles from his Church has his supper between six and seven p. m., Saturday, goes to bed early, gets up early, does his before-breakfast chores, goes without his break- fast, does his after-breakfast chores, such as letting out stock, watering and feeding them, and then hus- tles to get ready and drive the fifteen miles so as to reach Church in time for the last Mass and Com- munion. Church out at twelve noon, he drives back the fifteen miles, possible on a cold, stormy day, over hubs, or possibly slowly through the mud. On reach- ing home, and after caring for his horses and other stock, which should have been fed long before, he pos- sibly gets in to his dinner, or shall we call it break- fast, by three p. m. Sunday. Think of it, twenty hours, ten or more (a whole working day) of which have been spent Jn hard labor, or going over roads of whatever description, through all kinds of weather, though they may not always be either good or bad, and all without one sustaining morsel of food. No breakfast or dinner, and half way to supper time. If communicants are strong and healthy they stand72 HOLY COMMUNION OR EUCHARIST it fairly well, but not without cravings, but if they are weak, nervous, and not used to such things, it is a de- cided injury and injustice to their health. And such has proven the case in hundreds of instances. This narrative may seem overdrawn. It is for the majority. But there are many who have it as hard, and often much harder, to bear. Christ nowhere commands us to do things contrary to the created laws of nature, and this fasting before Communion certainly is con- trary to nature. 2nd. If the Scripture passages instituting Com- munion are taken literally, Christ gives the Disciples His body to eat and His blood to drink, saying: 'This is my body which shall be delivered for you and this is my blood which shall be shed for you/' Another physical impossibility, for by the laws of nature a sub- stance cannot be in two different places at the same time, and this Christ would have to do to make the passages literally true, because the Disciples would then have eaten His physical body and drank His phys- ical blood, while this same physical body and blood were shortly to be delivered to the cross, crucified, and the blood shed. When Jesus took the bread in his hand and blessed it, saying, "This is my body,” were there two bodies of Jesus present at the instituting of Communion or Eucharist ? According to Rome there was, for Christ was there in His body, and He held the bread in his hand after blessing it. Then did Christ hold the body of Christ in His hand? Likewise He took the cup and gave thanks. Was it changed to His blood while His blood still coursed through His veins? And again, if taken literally, the Disciples sat around the table eating His physical body and drinking His physical blood while He at the same time sat there in His physical entirety, talking to them, giving them the Gospel, and foretelling things to come. Physically impossible to your senses and to mine. Physically im-HOLY COMMUNION OR EUCHARIST 73 possible according to all of our knowledge of our bodies. Physically impossible according to all of our Creator's revealed laws of nature. God gave you and me eyes to see and knowledge to reason with; let us use them and not pervert God and nature. 3rd. How did Christ mean for us to take His words in reference to eating His body and drinking His blood? Was it literally or figuratively? We must turn to the Bible itself to interpret it. We must search the Scriptures as He commands us in John 5-39, “Search the Scriptures for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they which testify of me,” and find out Christ's way of expressing Himself. Christ spoke by and with parables, examples and fig- ures. Therefore, if we wish to understand Christ as He meant for us to understand Him we must read the Bible, which is a book written at His time and as He spoke and taught, to see how it was His usual manner to talk and teach, and then apply it to His speeches on whatever we wish to find the truth about, such as for instance our present chapter on Communion. Now to prove from the Bible that Christ was speak- ing figuratively when He said (Matt. 26-26), “Take ye and eat. This is my body," speaking of the bread, and (V. 27) “Drink ye all of it—(V. 28) For this is my blood of the new testament," speaking of the wine. No Christian denies Christ's presence in the bread and wine of communion, but Protestants believe that He is there spiritually only, and deny His presence in a physical state under the appearance of bread and wine. Christ speaking in a figurative language speaks in a language used by nearly all mankind and in every- day use. We now copy after His manner, as, for in- stance, you often hear people say, “He is a crooked stick," “She is* a butterfly," etc. Do you take them Jiterally, and believe that he is really a crooked piece74 HOLY COMMUNION OR EUCHARIST of wood and she is a butterfly, such as flies in the air, or do you take them figuratively and understand him to be a man used to doing business underhanded and dishonestly, and she to look and dress and act bright and gay, such as we would picture a butterfly? No one misunderstands you when you speak thus and that is figurative. This kind of figurative speaking is just as clear as literal, and it also carries with it an illus- trative way that holds the mind to the expression and is brighter and more pleasing to the senses. Christ knew this and used the figurative way of speaking nearly altogether when trying to impress upon His hearers’ minds the truths and blessings of a religious life, and in such a way as to make them an illustration, an argument, and a fact. Haven’t you often remem- bered instances just by their being coupled with some- thing figurative when you receive them ? Christ real- ized the forcefulness and was a master in its use, as I will now show from the Bible and from the way He used it in communicating most of His doctrines. For instance, in the fourth chapter of St. John, Jesus came to Jacob’s well and, being weary, sat down to rest, while His Disciples went to the city to buy meat. While sitting there, a woman came to draw water. Jesus asked her for a drink. Whereupon (V. 9) she said, “How it is that you, being a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria, for the Jews have no -deal- ings with the Samaritans?” Jesus said (V. 10), “If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, give me drink; thou wouldest have asked of Him and He would have given thee living water.” She said (V. 11) “Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with and the well is deep; from whence then hast thou that living water?” Jesus answered and said unto her (V. 13), “Whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be‘in him a well of water, springing up into everlasting life.” See how nicely Jesus, in in-HOLY COMMUNION OR EUCHARIST 75 structing this foreign woman in His doctrine, makes water and the drinking of it to represent the saving power of His Spirit. Surely no one would take the living water He spoke of here as literal water such as we need to quench our material thirst, but as figurative of His spiritual gift of salvation by faith, which as we believe in Him is a spring of Hope that He can save us and that He will eventually bring us to heaven. It is spiritually and not materially that He is speak- ing, or figurative and not literal as He goes on to show in the same chapter, verses 23 and 24, where He says: “But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth; for the Father seeketh such to worship Him. . . . and God is a spirit, and they that wor- ship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.” What more need be said? Christ here commands us, saying if you worship God you must do it spiritually, i. e., you must worship Him as being in the bread and wine spiritually and not materially or in the flesh, as Rome tries to make her followers do, contrary to Christ’s own commands. Likewise, St. John, chapter three, Nicodemus came to Jesus to find out how to obtain eternal life, and Jesus told him (V. 3) “Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus not seeing through it, Jesus said (V. 5) “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, (V. 6) “For that which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit.” Here we have “being born again” figuratively used to represent one’s baptism and belief in Jesus. Can it in any way be taken literally? No, it is of the Spirit, not flesh. In Matt, chapter five, which tells of Christ’s “Ser- mon on the Mount,” He says to His Disciples (V. 13) “Ye are the salt of the earth.” (V. 14) “Ye are the light of the world.” Did Jesus mean it literally76 HOLY COMMUNION OR EUCHARIST that they were the flavoring salt such as we use on our meat, and lights such as our candles and lamps, or did he mean it figuratively, that His Disciples were to transfer His Gospel to us so that we could find a way to life everlasting? No man would say it was the literal sense, but we all take it figuratively. St. John, 14-6. Jesus says: “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” -St. John, 15-5. Jesus says: “I am the vine, ye are the branches.” He calls Himself the vine, His Father the husbandman, and us the branches of the vine. Is He speaking of a material grape vine or of our spirit- ual relations to the Father and Son? The latter, you will agree with me. Then it is assuredly figurative and not literal. St. John, Chap. 10, V. 9, reads thus: “I am the door; by me if any man entereth in, he shall be saved and shall go in and out and find pasture.” V. 11. “I am the good shepherd,” etc. .Does Jesus mean by this that he is literally a wooden door to heaven, which is opened to let in His elect? No, by all means, no, and no one would take the meaning thus. He again is speaking figuratively of His life here on earth, and that He by dying on the cross for the redemption of our sins has opened the way for us to enter heaven. There is no use of giving more illustrations; they are sprinkled throughout His gospel. But now to draw a conclusion, what have we? 1st. That Jesus in His mode of speech naturally used a figurative way of expressing Himself; 2nd. That He used it on the most important occasions and when teaching the ways of salvation, such as with Nicodemus, telling us we must be born again, and his Sermon on the Mount, when he gave us the Beatitudes; and 3rd, That this same mode of figurative speaking is identical with that used by Jesus in the institution of Holy Communion or the Eucharist, where He says: “This is my body” and “This is my blood,” clearly meaning that theHOLY COMMUNION OR EUCHARIST 77 bread is figurative of or to represent His body, and that the wine is figurative of or to represent His blood. In the chapter before, at, and after the institution of the Eucharist, Jesus is continually speaking figura- tively, for instance, as in St. John, chapter 12, V. 36 and 46, where He calls Himself the light of the world; chapter 13, 1 and 2, where He institutes Communion, in which He has called the bread His body and the wine His blood; chapter 14, 2, He says, “In my Father’s house are many mansionschapter 14-6, He calls himself the way, the truth and the life; and in chapter 15-1 and 5, where He calls Himself the vine and His Disciples the branches. Immediately before the institution of Eucharist, He speaks figuratively, saying, “I am the light;” at, He says, “This is my body. . . . This is my blood;” and immediately after, He says, “I am the vine.” How can Rome say that the first and last are figurative and the middle one is literal, when Jesus made it so plain, and when all your senses tell you Rome is wrong? It is because she knows you believe her infallible. Is she ? Now to another line of proofs to show that the words which Jesus spoke were of the Spirit, and the meaning He put on them to be taken spiritually and not materially, as Rome teaches in transubstantiation. In St. John, sixth chapter and fifty-first verse, Jesus says: “I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any man eat of this bread he shall live for- ever, and the bread that I give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” V. 52. The Jews said: “How can this man give us his flesh to eat.” V. 53. Jesus said: “Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.” V. 58. “This is that bread which came down from heaven; not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead; he that eateth of this bread shall live forever.”78 HOLY COMMUNION OR EUCHARIST V. 60. "Many when they heard this, said, it was a hard saying,” and then, V. 63, Jesus says: "It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” The Jews had been murmuring at Him because He called Himself the bread of life which came down from heaven, and they thought it a hard saying, just as we would, if we took it literally, when He said that unless they ate the flesh of the Son of man they could not inherit everlasting life. But He understood their thoughts and how they took Him literally that they should eat His real flesh, and*so He said that the words He spoke to them were spiritual and figurative; also that the bread which came down from heaven as manna was material, and could not give everlasting life, or as St. John records it, Chap. 3, V. 16, "For God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” St. Paul to the Corinthians, 10-16, puts it like this: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the Com- munion of the Blood of Christ ? The bread which we break, is it not the Communion of the body of Christ ?” Doesn't he say in very plain words, is not the bread but the Communion of the body? In the same chap- ter, 10-3, 4k Paul says: "And did all eat the same spiritual meat; and did all drink the same spiritual drink; for they drank of that spiritual Rock, that fol- lowed them; and that Rock was Christ.” Here Paul speaks in the same figurative way, calling Christ a Rock, and he also gives us to understand that the meat and drink (bread and wine) are spiritual and not material. Jesus says, "This is my body, this is my blood.” And Paul says, "They drank of that spiritual Rock, which followed them, and that Rock was Christ.” Was Christ therefore a literal Rock? But Rome teaches that when the words of consecration are spoken byHOLY COMMUNION OR EUCHARIST 79 the priest that, in the shape of a bread wafer or a chalice of wine, Jesus Christ’s body and blood, soul and divinity lie on the altar; and what is more strange yet, He is on a thousand and tens of thousands of altars at the same time. Can any rational man believe it? You may have believed it because Rome and the Pope taught it and you believed them infallible, but can you believe it now? Haven’t I given you proofs enough to open your eyes about the teachings of Rome, and especially on this doctrine of transubstantiation ? Haven’t I proven Rome to be wrong; that she has changed Christ’s spiritual doctrine; that she has per- verted nature and tried to make you believe that con- secrated bread and wine can be changed into a god; and that she teaches as an infallible doctrine, transub- stantiation, which is directly opposite to what Christ taught? Why? Yes, we ask why? Because if you can be made to believe that in attending Mass you are in the bodily presence of Christ Himself (which you believe as a matter of course, believing in the infalli- bility of the Church and the Pope, and that without any research or reasoning of your own) and that if you can be made to believe that you are receiving an extra benefit by so doing that you can be made into a permanent part of the Roman Church and believing in the priest’s power to take Christ’s place, to forgive your sins, they make you, virtually, his willing slave in both obedience and pocketbook. There is the point of Rome’s interest towards you, to keep you in a will- ing subjection to the priest; a willing believer in his power to forgive your sins and conduct you to heaven; and a willing supporter of both he and the whole Ro- man Catholic Church.80 HOLY COMMUNION OR EUCHARIST Third. "Half Communion, or Communion in But One Kind/' Now as to the Scriptural authority of the Roman Catholic Church in forbidding the cup or chalice to the laity, or as it is often called, Half Communion. In the first part of this chapter I proved from history that before the sixth century the cup was given to all with- out any reserve; that practically everyone from Pope to Priest and laity believed and practiced Communion in both kinds; that commencing with the sixth cen- tury a few and gradually more ostracised themselves from the faith of the early Fathers and the teaching of the Church; and that contrary to the belief of a large part of her own members, the Roman Catholic Church in 1415, at the Council of Constance, decreed that Communion should be received in but one kind by the laity. What does the Bible say? That is the question. That is our only infallible guide. If Half Communion cannot stand the light of the Bible it is Unchristian and a false doctrine. The bread is allowed all its members, so only the question of whether Rome is right in forbidding the wine to its followers is to be considered. The following quotations are taken from the Douay or Roman Catholic Bible, so no question can be raised of their coming from a Protestant Bible or non-Catholic source. Matt. 26-27. "And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying; Drink ye all of this/' Matt. V. 28. "For this is my blood of the new tes- tament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.” Mark 14-23. "And having taken the chalice, giv- ing thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it.” V. 24. "And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.”HOLY COMMUNION OR EUCHARIST 81 St. John, 6-54. ‘Then Jesus said to them: Amen, Amen, I say unto you; except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.” I Cor. 11-25. “This chalice is the new testament in my blood; this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.” The Council of Constance when decreeing that lay- men should receive in but one kind, says: “Though Christ instituted this venerable sacrament under both kinds, and though, in the Primitive Church this sacra- ment was received by the faithful under both kinds, yet this custom, that it should be received by laymen un- der the kind of bread only, is to be held for a law which may not be refuted.” That the Roman Catholic Church would dare to for- mulate such a doctrine and pronounce it infallible, when in the very same decree they admit they are not following the custom of the Primitive Church, estab- lished by the Apostles, and when they also admit that it is contrary to the way Christ instituted it, is beyond my comprehension. By the above Bible passages, which I quoted, it is clear that Christ meant the chal- ice or cup for everyone, for He says, “Drink ye all of it,” also, “This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.” He does not say just for the Disciples or for any certain class but ye all and shed for many, which makes it clear He meant the cup for the laity as well as the clergy. The Primitive Church gave Communion in both kinds to all its mem- bers and as it was the first authoritatively established Church after Christ, it gave us the Christian teaching as it received it direct from the Apostles. These two facts the Council of Constance admits as true. Then what power had they to change Christ's doctrine and the Apostolic custom? Rome boasts of its Apostolic origin, but in the next move they make it of no foun- dation by decreeing and believing contrary to Apos-82 HOLY COMMUNION OR EUCHARIST tolic custom and teaching. Where is their infallibility and their infallible teaching? Is it Christ or the Pope? It cannot be both. Rome in its teaching on the institution of the Eu- charist says that the Apostles were the only ones pres- ent, and therefore Christ in no way inferred or com- manded the cup to be given to the laity. Monstrous; what reasoning. If this be accepted as a fact, then we in the same way prove that Christ also did not mean the bread for the laity, for the two (bread and wine) were given by Christ, as His body and blood, at one and the same time in the same manner and to the same Disciples. Thereby (by Rome's teaching) Christ did not mean any but the Disciples to eat and drink the bread and wine of His redemption, and that they were the only ones who had everlasting life in them by so doing? No. By all means, no. Jesus Christ gave His gospel to the Disciples to be delivered by them in like manner to all mankind, yes, even to the ends of the earth. He instituted the Eucharist with His Disciples that they as His ministers might likewise teach it to all, thereby giving to all mankind the privilege of eating and drinking the bread and wine commemorating Christ's suffering on the cross and His death by which He redeemed our sins and gave to us the promise of everlasting life. One reason Rome gives as to why she does not give the cup or chalice to the laity is because some cannot endure the taste or smell of wine. 1st. The millions of members of Protestant Churches do endure them to their everlasting benefit and without any more appar- ent harm than the Roman Catholic who does not re- ceive them. 2nd. If the priest can endure the taste and smell day by day, doesn't it seem reasonable that his parishioners could endure the wine once a year? And 3rd. If the tasting of wine once a year together with eating the bread will give us everlasting life (John 6-55. “He that eateth my flesh and drinkethHOLY COMMUNION OR EUCHARIST 83 my blood hath everlasting life.,,) shouldn't we one and all be willing, yes, even glad to take it, let the effects to our physical bodies be what they may? Another reason why Rome denies the laity the wine is because “The danger of spilling the blood of Christ if given to all.” What a doctrine. Christ's blood was once shed on the cross for us. Are not the priests as apt to spill it? Wouldn't it be just as logical to say that the laity should not partake of the bread, letting the priest do it for them as he does the wine, for fear they might drop Christ's flesh or a tew crumbs of His flesh ? Another reason is^ that “Considering how soon some wine decays, the sacrament could not well be kept for the sick in both kinds.” If the wine were really and truly changed into Christ's blood, isn't it strange that it should decay at all? Just stop and think how positively ridiculous it is, first, that by say- ing a few Latin words, wine can at any priest's con- venience, be changed into Christ's blood, and second, that Christ’s blood, which is part of our Lord and Lord for all time, should decay. But here it is to bring it to a point: Rome decrees that the laity shall receive but the body. Christ says, (John 6-54) “Unless you drink His blood, you shall not have life in you.” Will you follow Rome and not receive everlasting life because you have not drank the cup? Or will you follow Christ and the Bible, do as He says, drink His cup, and have everlasting life? This Christ promises in John 6-55. “He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlast- ing life; and I will raise him up in the last day,”SACRAMENTS. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that there are seven sacraments, all of which were instituted by Christ, while Protestants hold that there are but two real sacraments as instituted by Christ. In Gibbons’ “Faith of our Fathers” he says, page 304: “Our Saviour instituted seven sacraments, namely, Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance. Extreme Unction, Orders, and Matrimony.” And ... “A Sacrament is a visible sign insti- tuted by Christ by which grace is conveyed to our souls. Three things are necessary to constitute a Sacrament, viz. : A visible sign, invisible grace, and the institu- tion by our Lord Jesus Christ.” We also take the above from the creed of Pope Pius IV, and together with their being daily practiced by Rome to-day there is no question of their being doc- trines of Rome, that is, that the seven above acts were all instituted by Christ and each and every one with an invisible and a visible sign. 1st. Baptism both Protestant and Roman authori- ties rightly hold as a sacrament, for it was instituted by Christ, requires an invisible grace and a visible sign, water. 2nd. Eucharist (or communion) is likewise held by both as a sacrament and with the outward or visi- ble sign of bread and wine. 3rd. Orders, that is, the ordination of ministers was instituted by Christ, but He gave us no outward or visible sign or element so it is not a true sacrament as the Cardinal’s own assertion would prove, for it lacks the visible sign. 4th. Confirmation was not instituted by Christ asSACRAMENTS 85 Rome teaches. One or two Protestant Churches prac- tice it as a Church ordinance or rite, but not as being a sacrament instituted by Christ. Rome herself is un- certain as to when they think it was instituted, which is self-convicting, as to its being instituted by Christ,- and which appears from their “Abridgment of Chris- tian Doctrine, page 77, Dublin, 1841," which says of Confirmation and its institution: “The time is not certain, but divines most probably hold it was instituted at Christ's last supper, or between the resurrection and ascension." Why this uncertainty ? Christ's doings and sayings during and at those times were more carefully portrayed by the writers of the New Testament than they were of any other period of His life. It looks as if Rome herself was in doubt of its being a sacra- ment. But what of the early fathers of Rome? They said it was not a sacrament and it was not ordained as such till the Council of Melda. Alexander Hales, a great authority, said: “It was not instituted by Christ neither by His Apostles," while even Augustine and Chrysostom did not believe it a sacrament. Gibbons gives Confirmation a whole chapter in his “Faith of our Fathers" but he gives only four Scrip- ture passages to prove it and not one of these four con- tains one word of its institution by Christ in whatever manner. Confirmation is not spoken of nor that which can directly be taken as pertaining to Confirmation as for instance, that God has annointed us (II Cor. 1-21), cannot be taken to apply to confirmation, but as a spiritual anointing as used here. Then where, I ask, if Cardinal Gibbons cannot find it, can we find confirmation as instituted by Christ? We cannot. The New Testament does not contain an account of it, and many of the most distinguished authorities in Rome refuse to believe it and others would not, only that it is an order or decree of the Church. 5th. Matrimony was instituted by God, forty cen-86 SACRAMENTS turies before Christ's birth, in the flesh, and was first applied to Adam and Eve. You know it and Rome knows it. And it has been practiced and sanctioned by God for the 4,000 years from Adam's time to Christ's and now Rome steps forth and says Christ instituted Matrimony. What does your Reason tell you? You know it was used before Christ's time and therefore could not have been instituted by Him. Then you cannot believe otherwise than that Rome is fallible, and in the wrong, in calling Matrimony a sacrament. Can you ? The Bible nowhere alludes to Christ's instituting Matrimony as a sacrament. Dr. Doyle in his cate- chism does not attempt to prove it, but says, page 105: “When and where Christ instituted this sacra- ment (of Matrimony) is uncertain." While Canus, Bishop of the Canary Isles, in 1550, says: “Divines speak so uncertainly of the matter and form of matri- mony that he should be accounted a fool, who, in so great a difference of opinion, would take upon him to establish a certain and known doctrine." Locis Theologis, page 392. 6th. Extreme Unction lacks one point in making it a sacrament. It has the visible sign of anointing and the invisible grace, but it lacks the third, that it was ordained by Christ. Therefore it is not a sacra- ment. Though some of the Apostles speak of anoint- ing the sick and of calling in the elders of the Church as I will show later, yet there is no Scripture passage which will give us any foundation for believing that Christ instituted it. And what is more the anointing of the sick was not done for the same purpose that Extreme Unction is now administered by Rome to the dying. . The principal passages quoted by Romanists in sup- port of Extreme Unction are Mark 6-13. “And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them," also James 5-14. “IsSACRAMENTS 87 any sick among you ? let him call for the elders of the Church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: V. 15. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.” But now mark this fact that the sick were anointed to heal them and not the dying to forgive and absolve them as in Extreme Unction as now used. Or better still let me quote from Cardinal Caietan, Rome's great- est opponent of Luther, who says of the above Scrip- ture passages: “It cannot be gathered from these words, nor from the effect here mentioned, that the Apostle speaketh of Sacramental or Extreme Unction, but rather of that anointing which Christ appointed in the Gospel to be used in healing the sick. For the text saith not, is any man sick to death? but, Is any man sick ? and the effect he attributed to the anointing is the ease or raising of the sick. Of the remission of sins he speaks but conditionally; whereas Extreme Unction is given to none but at the point of death, and directly tendeth to remission of sins. And hereunto, that St. James commandeth many elders to be sent for, both to pray for and anoint the sick, which is not done in Extreme Unction." (Com. Epist. James, in loco, Paris, 1532.) Also Cardinal Bellarmine (one of Rome's greatest theologians) says the anointing re- lates to the body and not to the soul as in the case of Extreme Unction; that the Apostles could not admin- ister Extreme Unction because they were not priests; and that it was for the sick to cure them, and not of those about to die. Here we have two of Rome's ablest men saying that the two Scripture passages do not refer to Extreme Unction. While such others as Altisiodorus, Lombard, Hugo, Bonaventure, Hallenis and Suaresius, the Jesuit, all among the greatest of Rome's theologians, deniedSACRAMENTS that Christ instituted the sacrament of Extreme Unc- tion. Rome puts forth no other worthy Scripture passages to prove Extreme Unction a sacrament, while Gib- bons gives but one of the above. Why don't they? It is because they can't. The Romanist is to believe it because it is a rule of the Church, but if it has no authority from the Bible how can she put it forth as a doctrine that it is a sacrament? She cannot consis- tently do it, but she does do it at the same time, teach- ing that her rule is above the Bible, which I will prove in another chapter, but Rome's saying so does not make it so, nor make the unauthorized doctrine of Extreme Unction, which is contrary to the Bible, a Christian doctrine. Nor can Rome prove it such from the Bible. 7th. Penance held by Rome as a sacrament was not instituted by Christ. It carries with it Auricular or Private Confession which is not upheld by Scripture: which was not taught by Christ; and which was not practiced by the early church; and places the priest in a judge's position over human sins and with the power to absolve them, which was not given by Christ to him. First, I wish to make a few comments on what Car- dinal Gibbons says on this subject in his “Faith of our Fathers." On page 389, he says, “His plan, therefore, must have been to appoint ministers of reconciliation to act in His name." If this plan of Confession to a Priest and Penance were Christ's plan, why didn’t He make it clear to us that it was, as He did all His other doc- trines? If He didn't teach and practice it, then doesn't it stand to reason that it was not a doctrine of His? Then isn't it plain that the Cardinal tries to beg the question by saying “It must have been Christ's plan" rather than coming boldly out with Scripture proof that it really and undoubtedly was if such proof was to be had, which it was not ?SACRAMENTS 89 Page 393, he says, “What kind of a prerogative would it be, if people could always obtain forgiveness by confessing to God secretly in their rooms ?" Did the Cardinal ever read of the secret prayers and con- fessions of David, or of Daniel, with his window open towards Jerusalem? If not, it might be well for him to so do, and find out how God poured out His blessing upon them. But dropping the Cardinal's ignorance of some facts in the Bible which he does not wish to know or remember, let us take his above assertion or question and answer it. Can a person obtain forgive- ness by confessing to God secretly in their rooms? Yes, and here is but one of many proofs some of which will be given later, Romans 10-9, “If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shall believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." Does not this clearly prove such a confession, as the above, as truly Christian and as near to Christ's as one can get ? It does not say confess to a Priest; it does not say in a Church or a confes- sional, or in any other way but simply this “confess and believe" which can be done anywhere. God gave the keys (salvation by faith) of His heavenly house to all and not to a special few as to Priests, etc. Page 394. He quotes, Acts 19-18, “Many of them who believed came confessing and declaring their deeds." Yes, but this was public confession before all men and has no relation whatever to private confession to a Priest. And again he quotes, I John 1-9. “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity." But again there is not one word here to imply confession to a Priest, but rather a direct confession to Christ. Page 403. “It (Penance) is a doctrine, moreover, hard to flesh and blood, and which no human power even if it had the will could impose on the human race.” How ignorant the Cardinal is again of Rome’s history. He seems to forget that Rome has had the power and90 SACRAMENTS the will to impose on her followers doctrines of her own that are Unchristian and which she still continues to foster as she now does Penance. They are such as Purgatory, Celibacy of Clergy, Transubstantiation, Immaculation of Mary and even as late as 1870 the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, though before 1870 she had taught that the Church alone was infallible. All these above I have proven in other chapters to be Ro- man inventions and not Christian doctrines. If Rome could add these to her faith would it be any harder to add the doctrine of Penance ? Page 416. We find the following: "The best of us, alas, are not what we ought to be, considering the graces we receive. But if you seek for canting hypo- crites, or colossal defaulters, or perpetrators of well laid schemes of forgery, or of systematic licentiousness or premeditated violence you will seek in vain among those who frequent the confessional.,, I wonder if the Cardinal thinks us all fools or all blind? Can even you Roman Catholics credit the above statement? Do you not know of your own experience that the Roman Church has followers, who are as low in the criminal scale as any can be? I can give you convincing proof right here in my own county that the above assertion of Cardinal Gibbons is a lie. I can show you a man (I have talked with him time and again) who has killed three men and yet who is and professes to be a follower of Rome. Also another convicted of murder appar- ently premeditated and yet continuing in full commun- ion with the church of Rome and the confessional. While of lesser charges coming under the above heads I can show you many. Look at Pat Crow, who pre- meditatingly kidnapped Edward Cudahy's son, secured $25,000 ransom, and then went to confession after- ward securing a priest's garb and assisted by them escaped to South Africa. Look at the carefully laid plans of assassins of Lincoln, all the participants of which were educated Catholic men as is shown bySACRAMENTS 91 “Secret Service Reports” and by their respective trials after the death of Lincoln. Look at the famous gun- powder plot to blow up Parliament and the King, laid and nearly put in operation by Roman Catholics. Per- haps Cardinal Gibbons thinks we didn’t know how to read or think or use our special senses but some of us, if not all, can see what a hypocrite he is. Here are the two texts quoted by Rome to prove her right to absolve and to require penance, Mat. 18-18. “Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Also John 20-21. “Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.” V. 22. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost.” V. 23. Whose soever sins ye remit they are remit- ted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained ” From these Scripture passages Rome tries to prove Penance; Confession; priestly succession from the Apostles; and their having power to absolve the sinner from his sins. Did Christ so mean it? Let us ana- lyze it. Taking it for granted that Christ meant the Apostles to forgive sins, would it in any wise confer on the priests the same right ? Assuredly not. If He had said whosesoever sins you and your successors forgive are forgiven and if the priests could prove themselves the successors it might be as Rome claims, but it is not: Christ gives the privilege to the Apostles alone. And again the priests are not successors of the Apostles even if they do claim to be and nowhere in the Bible can they find authority which can be taken as a direct reference to any such possibility. Again Jesus Christ did not found the Roman Catholic Church and Peter was not their first Pope as they try to make their fol-92 SACRAMENTS lowers believe. The Roman Church was not known as a separate church for centuries after Christ’s and Peter’s time. The Bishopric of Rome was but one of the early churches as also were those of Antioch, Con- stantinople, Alexandria, etc. The Greek Church as also the church of “The Holy Land” can establish a far better claim to Apostolic supremacy and succession than can Rome. But in the first few centuries they all, including Rome, were united under one common cause of spreading Christianity and without a selfish thought of which was supreme. But later Rome in a wave of warlike prestige broke forth and claimed a preeminence over the other Bishoprics and only due to her physical position and centralized condition was she able to place herself in a false position above her sister Bishoprics. From her first wave of prosperity she has left no stone unturned to place herself above all and now she styles herself infallible and traces herself to Peter in a line of succession which is traced in seven opposite ways by her historians, which proves how uncertain she is of the succession. And again those whom she calls the first Popes were not Popes for the first centuries, but were only Bishops of the Roman Bishopric, which held but a minor place among the united Bishoprics of the Christian Church. This you can prove from any com- plete history of the first eight centuries following Christ. Having shown that the priests have no Christ given power or any power by succession from the Apostles to forgive sins, let us see what the two above Scripture passages refer to. 1st. Rome does not even take the passages literally for if she did she would allow her priests to forgive and condemn indiscriminately which she does not. 2nd. There is no word or hint in either passage to show confession or penance as necessary to forgiveness of sins, but Rome adds these to her assumed power.SACRAMENTS 93 3rd. There is no reference in the Bible where the Apostles used the power of forgiving sins. 4th. There was no tribunal or custom of forgiving sins set by the Apostles as there should have been if they took Christ's above expressions to them in the light that they were to forgive individual sins. For if Christ had established or the Apostles had established such a possibility as of Confession and Absolution by a priest, wouldn’t it have been spread through all the teachings of the New Testament? Most certainly, but yet they do not say a word about any such custom or practice, therefore, it stands to reason that no such power was recognized by Christ or His Apostles. 5th. But this is what we do find in the Bible: that Christ was sending His Apostles out to preach the Gospel to all mankind. He endowed them with the Holy Ghost and said to them, Whose soever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain they are retained.” He was sending them out to change the Old Testament customs into those of the New Covenant and this they were to do by “preach- ing the Gospel.” In so doing they changed the old law of sacrifice for sins to Baptism and Communion with Christ; they changed the old Jewish customs and ob- solete practices for those simple ones taught by Christ; they taught the people to forgive one another and love their neighbors as themselves; they commanded to ab- stain from meats offered to idols, and from blood and from things strangled; they bound the Christians to keep from adultery, fornication, and greed of gold; they loosed them from the old covenant of circumcision; they remitted many of the old church rites and laws and laid down new ways which they found necessary in founding Christianity on a solid foundation. This was the way the passage was meant by Christ, that the Apostles had His instructions to remit, forgive, bind or loose as they found necessary in order to firmly establish His Church in the place of the old customs,94 SACRAMENTS and this is the way the Apostles took it to mean and the way they used it. The New Testament and the Acts especially, carry this idea in fact and real practice through all its chapters. Repent or do Penance. And again Rome is to be blamed for interpreting the Greek word “Metanoosin” to mean “do penance” while its original meaning is this “to repent.” Nearly all if not all of the “original” books of the New Testament were written in Greek. Later they were translated into the other languages. Wishing to make doubly sure as to which was right according to the Greek original, “repent” or “do pen- ance,” I wrote to the Librarian of Congress, Washing- ton, D. C., who has charge of one of the largest libraries in the world, to have him inform me as to which was correct. I received the following reply, dated July 24, 1906: “There are no variations in the various codices of the Greek Translations made directly from the Greek such ar the Authorized, Thompson’s, Johnson’s, Young’s, Scott’s, J, M. Ray’s, the Revised use the word “repent.” . . . Translations made directly from the Latin such as Wycliffe, Coverdale, Bishops and Douay, invariably employ the words “do penance.” This is from the world’s best authority and shows this . . . the Apostles wrote in Greek and invar- iably, i. e. (without any variation) wrote the word “to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins” (Acts 2-38), while Rome, as in her standard Douay version, and to uphold her in her doctrines, misinter- preted it “do penance” which is contrary to the origi- nal and to the Apostle’s use of it.SACRAMENTS 95 Confession. As the Roman Catholic Church upholds Penance and forgiveness of sins by a priest, it becomes necessary to add Confession in private to a priest which is now in vogue wherever Rome is. All sects maintain and acknowledge that it is the duty of all to confess their sins. But to confess their sins in private to a priest is a different thing entirely. Public confession was practiced in the early Church of which we have a few references as in Acts 19-18. “And many that believed came, and confessed, and shewed their deeds. V. 19. Many of them also which used cunning arts brought their books together and burned them before all men.” ^\lso James 5-15. “Confess your faults to one an- other.” But this would compel the priest to confess to the layman as the layman to the priest. And this is expressly of faults as different from sins. Confession to a priest, in private, is not once men- tioned in the Bible and no such idea is carried by it. But the confession as spoken of in the Bible and which it was meant for us to use is confession to God direct and without a priest’s or any other intervention as the following Bible passages will prove, viz.: Psalm 51-4. (David praying to God for remission of his sins and for sanctification) : “Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest and be clear when thou judgest.” Daniel 9-4. “And I prayed unto the Lord, my God, and made my confession and said, O Lord, etc. V. ‘9. To the Lord our God belong mercies and forgiveness.” Mat. 10-32. “Whosoever therefore shall confess me, (not sins) before men him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.” Romans 10-9. “If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thine heart96 SACRAMENTS that God hath raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved.” I John 4-15. “Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the son of God, God dwelleth in him and he in God.” All of the above passages and others of like kind clearly prove private confession to a priest to be wrong, and as clearly prove direct confession *to God to be the one true way. Therefore let us all go to Christ with our sins, for, Hebrew 7-25: “He is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.” But now to the effects of Romanish sacramental con- fession or confession in private to a priest. Rome holds that a priest, no matter how degenerate, lustful, or criminal and in all senses a sinner in the eyes*of God, can by a few words absolve another sinner who has confessed their sins to him even though the one confessing may be many times holier than the priest. This is of course an extreme case, but nevertheless one often true. Such absolution makes one wonder at Rome's audacity in saying he truly can forgive sin as God. It makes one believe that the devil himself could take God's place in the most extreme cases. The priest being considered as God's representative in the confessional is looked up to by his parish as one who can give them paradise or banish them to hell and with these powers he makes himself master over every heart and sways them as he sees fit. He even holds a position that the loved husband or wife, or brother or sister cannot hope to attain, for by this false power bestowed upon him and in the way that the parishioners look up to him, he knows their very innermost secrets, for the wife kneeling by him whispers things to him and confesses to him that which would make her blush with shame to confess to her husband; likewise the daughter shares her secrets sensual and otherwise with the priest, though she would die before she would tellSACRAMENTS 97 them to her parents. Is that Christianity? No. It is but an ignorance of the Bible and a transmission of one's love and servitude from their family and Christ to the priest who may be an entire stranger. But you say the priest should or does not ask us about our sexual affairs. He should not for decency's sake. But if he lives up to his oath, duties, and priestly education he is compelled to ask you of such things. If he does not he is not doing his whole duty for he is absolutely commanded to ask you about such mat- ters. The Roman theologians Dens, Liguori, and St. Thomas say, “that it is absolutely necessary that priests should question their female penitents on such matters, as sensual and sexual affairs, for, as a general thing girls and married women are too timid to confess those sins of which they are more frequently guilty than men, therefore they must be helped by questioning them." Do you grasp the whole meaning of it? A priest cannot get married, but at the same time he is com- pelled to talk, almost daily with women, many of whom are winning and attractive, and on sensual subjects which cannot fail to arouse his own suppressed feelings to acts, which have reduced thousands of priests to lives of concubinage, lust and vices, which are far too de- grading for me to try to describe here. If you wish to read of the degradations and vices into which some of the priests in the past, have fallen, on account of the confessional, I would refer you to “The Priest, the Woman and the Confessional," by Father Chiniquy; to “Awful Disclosures," by Marie Monk, a nun; and to “Memories of Scipio de Ricca" (a bishop of Rome), all of which written by Roman Catholics, of conditions in their own Church show up the evil effects of the confessional to such a degree that one reading them could not help feeling a disgust of and loathing toward a church, which allowed such practices and which made private confession to a priest one of their doctrines. Many are the priests who could say with Francis98 SACRAMENTS Desaulnier, Professor of Philosophy, in the Roman Catholic College of Nicolet, as follows, “Would we not be more chaste and pure by living with our law- ful wives than by daily exposing ourselves in the con- fessional in company of women whose presence will irresistibly drag us into the most shameful pit of im- purity ? What will become of my vow of perfect and perpetual chastity when the seducing presence of my neighbor's wife or the enchanting words of his daugh- ter, will have defiled me through the confessional? The people may entertain the thought that I am a strong and honest man; but will I not be a broken reed? Will God not be the witness that the irresistible temptation which will have assailed me when hearing the secret sins of some sweet and tempting woman, will have deprived me of that glorious crown of chastity for which I have so dearly paid ? Men will think that I am an angel of purity; but my own conscience will tell me that I am nothing but a skillful hypocrite. For according to all the theologians the confessional is the tomb of the chastity of priests. If I hear the con- fession of women, I will be like all other priests in a tomb, well painted and gilded on the outside, but with- in full of corruption." .•SALVATION THROUGH MARY. Cardinal Gibbons in his “Faith of our Fathers” says, “While Protestant Churches will resound with the praises of Sarah and Rebecca and Rachael, of Miriam and Ruth, of Esther and Judith, of the Old Testa- ment, and of Elizabeth and Anna, of Magdalen and Martha of the New, the name of Mary, the Mother of Jesus, is uttered with bated breath, lest the sound of her name should make the preacher liable to the charge of superstition.” (Page 212.) And in the rest of the chap- ter he tries to prove that Rome does not worship Mary but just honors her. Both assertions are grossly false and do no credit to the intelligence of one in the posi- tion of a Cardinal. From the first charge thfit Protes- tants do not honor Mary, the Mother of Jesus, I would assume that the Cardinal was never in very many if any Protestant Churches during services. He certainly shows his ignorance of their practices but he evidently believes the assertion above will convince many of Protestant neglect and so lets it stand as a fact. But it is a graudy misrepresentation all the same. Prot- estant Churches do honor the women the Cardinal named, as they honor all women of noble characters and great deeds, but at the same time they honor Mary, the Mother of Jesus, as the greatest among women, the most blessed of them all, and as the one, who gave us the greatest gift that ever woman could give, when she gave birth to Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And what is more, her name is not spoken with bated breath unless it is to add luster in honoring her. From the second assertion of the Cardinal’s that Rome only honors Mary but does not worship her, we again have proof of his dense ignorance of Rome’s teaching. Though the100 SALVATION THROUGH MARY church with the Cardinal, tries to cover over the fact that they don’t worship her yet it can easily be proven from their own writings (of the Fathers) of which I could give dozens, that they do, but more directly from the “Glories of Mary,” a book put out by Rome as an infallible book on Mary alone and her relation to Rome. In proving my assertion that Rome does worship Mary, I will use this one Book “Glories of Mary,” a copy of which you can easily obtain of booksellers and which is Rome’s infallible record and teaching of Mary, the Mother of Jesus. It was written by Saint Alphonsus Liguori and approved January 9th, 1839, by Kenrick, Bishop of Philadelphia. On page 156, it says, “It is neither respectful nor just to say, that they have dealt in hyperbole or ex- aggeration. The saints, inspired by the truth, are ex- tremely cautious of exaggeration, which belongs to the father of liars.” So we are to understand the follow- ing references to the “Glories of Mary” as the true belief of the Church and not exaggeration. The Queen of Mercy. In worshiping Mary, Rome styles her the Queen of Mercy and makes her the originator of all mercies while Christ, her Son, is the King of Justice, who but for her intercession would not be near as merciful or forgiving, and which we find on page 29 and 30, “The Kingdom of God consists of mercy and justice, the Lord has as it were divided it, reserving to himself the dominion of justice, and yielding to His Mother that of mercy, and that one half of the Kingdom of God was given to Mary when she conceived and brought forth the eternal word so that she became “Queen of Mercy” as her son is “King of Justice.” Also, page 78, “Go to find the mother of mercy; discover to her the wounds of thy soul, and Mary showing to her son the breasts whence he drew life and nourishment willSALVATION THROUGH MARY 101 mollify his anger and appease his wrath.'' When was Mary given this power by God? Not one word of it is contained in the Bible. Dear reader, stop and think of it, if God, who knows everything, had given one half of His Kingdom to Mary, would not the Bible have been full of her praises, her mercies, and her power? But preposterous, not one word of her power etc. do we find in the Holy Scriptures. Isn't that positive proof then that God gave her no such power? Christ is also styled as an angry and wrathful God of justice. Come with me to the Bible and see how erroneous is Rome's charge against Him and also how He is the very God of love and mercy Mark 10-14. Jesus said, “Suffer the little children to come unto me, for of such is the Kingdom of God." V. 16. “And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them." Luke 11-13. “If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children; how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?" Ephesians 3-9. “To know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fullness of God." V. 10. “Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us." V. 11. “Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen." Heb. 2-17. “Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest." V. 18. “For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted." Heb. 8-12. Christ says, “For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their ini- quities will I remember no more." Which is right, Rome without Scriptural proof, in102 SALVATION THROUGH MARY placing Mary in Christ's role of mercy and making Him a stern judge; or the Bible which gives Mary no such place nor makes Christ a stern judge, but which makes Him a loving father to His children, saying His love passeth knowledge; saying that He is more than able to do all we ask; and saying that He is became as a man and suffered so as to be merciful even to unrighteousness and to succor the tempted? Yes, which is right? God sent Christ, His Son, to love and help and save us. Then where is the need of another or one of more mercy? Can Mary add luster to Christ's love and mercy by taking them from Him and applying them to herself? No, never. As An Intercessor. One of the first prayers that a Roman Catholic fam- ily learn their children is a prayer to Mary, and in which they are taught to look up to her as a saviour or intercessor same as Christ. The habit becomes fixed in later years and whenever spiritual help is needed, it is only natural for the person to look to Mary for help, so they pray to her often, instead of to Christ. From my experience among Romans, I find that hey believe she can grant their prayers as well as Christ and that they prosper under her care as well as under His. Do they? Look at Ireland, a country whose people worship Mary and pray to her with the greatest of devotion, and see the poverty and suffering and oppression she carries. Look at Italy and Spain with their decadence of power and their moral corruption and then say the prayers to Mary are heard. In your individual cases you think you have been especially favored after praying to her. It might have been so, but remember that the wicked and ungodly often re- ceive blessings after doing criminal and licentious acts. Christ says it is so, Matt. 5-45. “The Father maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust."SALVATION THROUGH MARY 103 I will now give a few extracts from the “Glories of Mary” to prove that Rome worships her as an inter- cessor. Page 36. “Let us be convinced that if Mary has been crowned Queen of Mercy, it is, in order that the greatest sinners may be saved by her intercession.” Page 70. “I shall firmly hope to join in heaven, that innumerable multitude who have been saved by your intercession.” Page 80. “The Lord himself has given them a pledge thereof in rendering her intercession all power- ful.” Page 125. “It is left to Mary alone to save them by her powerful intercession.” Page 156. “The intercession of Mary is necessary for us.” Page 161. “It is now the general sentiment of the church, that the intercession of the Mother of God is not only useful but even necessary to salvation.” Page 172. “God will never save us without Mary's intercession.” The English language could not be much clearer and understandable than in the above in proving that Rome does worship Mary as an intercessor. And this in an approved Roman Catholic book devoted solely to Mary and therefore their direct teaching of * her. Rome teaches in the above that we can never be saved without Mary's intercession and again that the Lord himself made her intercession all powerful— It is hard to un- derstand how the followers of Rome will allow her to force such hypocricies upon them. It certainly is be- cause of their ignorance of the Bible and in their blind submission and obedience to Rome, whose clergy and pope are daily trying to usurp the things that are God's alone. But such are the conditions in the Roman Catholic Church, that its followers do not know that the Bible says, Christ is our intercessor instead of104 SALVATION THROUGH MARY Mary, for instance, Rom. 8-34: “Who is he that con- demned ? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again/who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.” And Heb. 7-25. “Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.” Rome teaches that no one can be saved without Mary's intercession but there is not one word or even one hint in the whole Bible that gives Mary any power as an intercessor, while as in the above two passages the Bible says Christ is our intercessor and what is more that He is able to save us even to the uttermost. If Rome is right and infallible, then the Bible and Christ are wrong, for they are directly opposite on the doctrine of intercession. And then to carry it one step farther Christianity would be a farce and Rome's religion would be without any foundation. But if the Bible is right then Rome is wrong and therefore not infallible. As an Advocate and Mediator. Rome also teaches that Mary is our advocate and mediator, which we also take from the “Glories of Mary.” 1st. As advocate. Page 184. “It is indeed a certain truth, that no creature can obtain for poor sinners so many and such abundant graces, as our most clement advocate; for she is less regarded by the Lord as his servant, than honored by him as his mother.” Page 191. “The mother of God in her solicitude is the advocate of all.” Page 192. “Men have but one sole advocate in heaven, and it is you, holy Virgin, and we may truly style her our only advocate.” 2nd. As mediator.SALVATION THROUGH MARY 105 Page 31. “God "has elevated you to the dignity of Queen, that you may mediate, and obtain pardon for men.” Page 124. “Mary, the mediatrix of peace, has ap- peared on earth to restrain God’s arm and avert his wrath.” Rome cannot give one Scriptural proof of where Mary was given this power as an Advocate or as a Mediator either by Christ or by His Disciples. But these powers are given to Christ alone and it is a brazen insult to Him for Rome to take them from Him and give them to Mary and that without the least authority. The Bible says: 1 John 2-1. “If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” I Tim. 2-5. “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” Heb. 9-15. “Christ is the mediator of the New Tes- tament.” Heb. 12-24. “Jesus the mediator of the new cov- enant.” The above quotations are conclusive in proving the hypocrisy of Rome, in teaching that Mary is our only advocate and’our mediator. It emphatically says that Christ Jesus is the only mediator between God and man, which ‘assertion destroys every vestige of Mary or any other acting as mediator, while it also says that Jesus Christ, the righteous, is our advocate. As the Way or Gate, Hope and Refuge. Another false position which Rome gives to Mary is in looking up to her as the way or hope of sinners —“Glories of Mary,” on Page 85. “Every grace we receive passes through the hands of Mary.” Page 110. “Mary is the hope of all the children of Adam.”106 SALVATION THROUGH MARY Page 121. “Mary is your city of refuge, your only hope.” Page 35. (Rome attributes to Mary the following): “I am the joy of the just and the gate through which sinners go to God.” Page 159. “Mary is called the gate of heaven, be- cause no one enters this blessed abode, without first passing through her.” Rome in attributing these virtues to Mary evidently forgets Jesus entirely and also the Bible, which says Jesus is the way instead of Mary. John 14-6. “Jesus said unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” Heb. 6-18 to 20. “Jesus is our consolation, our ref- uge and our hope.” If Jesus is the way, the truth, the life, etc., then Mary assuredly cannot be. Salvation Through Mary. Rome not only teaches that Mary is our advocate and our intercessor but they also teach that she has equal saving power with Christ and also that no one can be saved without her. With this teaching Christ's saving power is diminished just so much as Mary's is in- creased, and likewise God's plan of salvatibn is equally set aside by Rome. This I will prove from the Bible. From the “Glories of Mary” it is clearly proved that Rome worships Mary as a saviour and an equal of Christ's and from which we get the following: Page 29. “She is sovereign, not to punish sinners, but to pardon and forgive them.” Page 32. “No sinner, however enormous his crimes may be, can perish if he is protected by Mary.” Page 88. “As the body cannot live without breath- ing, so the soul cannot live without recurring to the Mother of God.” Page 92. “Trust Mary and you will hot fall intoSALVATION THROUGH MARY 107 despair; follow her and thou wilt not stray; let her hand protect thee and thou wilt have nothing to fear, etc. This do and thou shalt live.,, Page 171. “The salvation of all men is in the pro- tection of Mary.” Page 267. “O sweet, O happy death, since it is those whom God designs to save, that he enables at their last hour to pronounce the all-saving name of Mary.” Words could not be plainer in their teaching than are the above in conclusively proving that Rome, by her own authorized writings, does worship Mary as a saviour of mankind. In regard to Purgatory Rome teaches that some sinners cannot be saved where their crimes are too great, but here they teach that Mary can save the sinner no matter how enormous his crimes may be; a clear case of Rome’s inconsistency. But go farther, Mary is held as an equal of Christ’s or even greater, which we get in the following, viz.; Page 85. “To preserve the life of grace, we stand in need of spiritual strength, which will enable us to withstand all the attacks of our enemies; and this strength is only obtained by Mary.” A Prayer—Page 96. “I shall no longer apprehend either my sins, since you can repair them; or the devils, since you are more powerful than hell, or your son (Christ), justly irritated since one word from you will appease him;” Page1237. “Leo once saw in a vision two ladders, one red, at the summit of which was Jesus Christ; and the other white, at the top of which presided his blessed Mother. He observed that many who endeavored to ascend the first ladder, after mounting a few steps, fell down; and on trying again were equally unsuccessful, so that they never attained the summit; but a voice having told them to make trial of the white ladder, they soon gained the top, the blessed Virgin having held forth her hands to help them.”108 SALVATION THROUGH MARY Page 238. “He for whom Mary pleads is as sure of being saved as if he were already in heaven. But those who neglect or despise her shall perish forever. For she is, as it were, the bridge of salvation which God has prepared for us, in order to pass securely over the troubled waters of this life.,> When we see Mary held up by Rome as a saviour of the world saying none can be saved without her, when we see her worshiped as granting pardon and forgiveness when they cannot be obtained of God him- self ; and when we see her placed above Jesus Christ, He whom God sent to save the world, then we wonder why Jesus Christ ever lived, seeing that there was one before Him (Mary His Mother), who was as great as Himself, and who could take His place in the salvation of the world. We ask why God sent two saviours of sinners when' it was and is necessary for all to seek salvation through the one, Mary, as Rome teaches, but we can see no reason for it. We call ourselves Chris- tians, followers of Christ, and the Bible is the inspired teaching of Christ through His Disciples. Therefore accepting the Bible as our only standard, let us turn to it and see if God gave us two saviours; see if Mary has equal power with Christ; or see if Christ and Christ alone is our Saviour. Eph. 3-9. “And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all . things by Jesus Christ.” V. 10. “To the intent that now unto the principal- ities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God.” V. 11. “According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Col. 1-15. “(Christ), who is the image of the in- visible God, the first born of every creature.” V. 16. “For by Him were all things created, thatSALVATION THROUGH MARY 109 are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and in- visible, whether they be thrones or dominions, or prin- cipalities or powers: all things were created by him and for him.” V. 17. “And he is before all things and by Him all things consist.” V. 18. “And he is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the first born from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.” V. 19. “For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell.” The above clearly shows that God did not create the world for Mary but for Jesus Chrirt alone: in whom, God ordained, that all things should consist; in all things of which, He was to have preeminence; and in whom all fullness dwells. Therefore if the world was created for Christ in whom all fullness dwells then no part of it was or could have been given to Mary, as Rome teaches, and therefore Rome insults and belittles Christ by trying to take away from Him those things and powers, which God gave to Him alone, and trans- ferring them to Mary. Surely Rome is anti-Christ in this and fallible. John 14-6. “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father but by me.” John 3-35. “The Father loveth the Son and hath given all things into his hand.” St. Peter says of Christ, Acts 4-12. “Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” I Tim. 2-5. “For there is one God, and one media- tor between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” II John 1-9. “Whosoever transgresseth, and abid- eth not in the doctrines of Christ, hath not God.” # The above and dozens more, if space permitted to give them, strengthen the first assertion that the worldJ10 SALVATION THROUGH MARY was created for Christ and entirely proves that there is no other name or being under heaven in which we have the slightest hope as a saviour but that it rests in Christ alone. Col. 2-12. “Buried with Him (Christ) in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.,, John 14-2. “In my Father’s house are many man- sions: If it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.” V. 3. “And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.” Rom. 5-15. “But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one (Adam) many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.” John 3-16.„ “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life.” V. 17. “For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.” Acts 2-38. “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” I Peter 1-18. “For as much as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tra- dition from your fathers.” V. 19. “But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.” When we are baptized in Christ we are baptized unto his death and also unto His resurrection and re- ceive everlasting life with Him in heaven, where HeSALVATION THROUGH MARY 111 went to prepare a place for us, but we are given clearly to understand that as Adam lost the world to sin, so Christ regained it for us by His death on the cross, God giving Him as a sacrifice for all and through Him, as St. Peter says, if we repent and are baptized, we will receive the Holy Ghost and our sins are redeemed by His precious blood. In all of the above Bible passages there is not one word of Mary, Mother of Christ, as having any part in God’s plan of salvation. But from Peter, whom Rome says is infallible, we find that Christ is the only Saviour, that there is no other under heaven, and that Christ alone died for our sins. While the other Dis- ciples all teach that Christ is the only one through whom we can obtain salvation. The Bible is full of assertions of Christ as our Saviour but there is not one clear quotation in the whole New Testament that Rome can produce to show that Mary was supposed to have any part whatever in the salvation of the world with the exception of being given, by God, the honor of being the Mother of our Saviour, Jesus Christ. I can give a hundred quotations from the New Testament such as the ones above on salvation through Christ, but I defy Rome with all of her infallible interpreters to give just one clear quota- tion therefrom to prove that we can receive salvation through Mary. Then isn’t God’s plan of salvation clear? And isn’t Rome’s plan of salvation through Mary a mystery to themselves as well as to you ? Rome deals in mysteries and oh, such mysteries; but Protest- ants deal in facts with the Bible to support them. But now to carry Rome one step farther into the mire of her own hypocrisies, I wish to give a few more quotations from the Bible to show that Mary not only has no power to save sinners but also that Christ clearly gave her and us to understand that she had no part with Him in the salvation of the world. Mark 3-31. “There come then his brethren and his112 SALVATION THROUGH MARY mother, and standing without, sent unto him calling him.” V. 32. “And the multitude sat about him and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.” V. 33. “And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren.” V. 35. “Whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.” Luke 2-48. “And when they saw him they were amazed; and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? Behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.” V. 49. “And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?” Luke 11-27. “And it came to pass, as he spoke these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice and said unto Him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.” V. 28. “But He (Christ) said, yea rather blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it.” John 2-3. “And when they wanted wine the mother of Jesus saith unto him, they have no wine.” V. 4. “Jesus saith unto her, Woman what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come.” V. 5. “His mothei saith unto the servants, What- soever he saith unto you, do it.” Is there any word or sign here that will give Rome the least foothold in teaching that Mary is a co- partner with Christ? Decidedly not. But on Hie con- trary in each of the three last Gospels we are given to understand, that Mary has no part with Him other than as a Mother and a Christian. In Mark, Christ teaches that Mary having done her duty as Mother is now as other Christians in her relation to God and was not recognized as better than they could be if they would do the will of God. In Luke, He showsSALVATION THROUGH MARY 113 us that His Mother is concerned about Him only after the earthly fashion, while He asks them if they don't know that He has got to tend to His Father's business of the spiritual affairs of the world. And again, He says that Christians are more blessed than His Mother's womb which bare Him or her paps which game Him strength. In John, Mary does not know what is to happen and so calls on Christ, but He knows and says it was not necessary for her to come to Him for He was not yet ready to perform the miracle which He later did. Where does Mary come in as a Saviour? 1st. Christ does not recognize her as such and neither do the apostles. 2nd. There is not one clear passage in the Bible that will uphold her as such. 3rd. The Bible does not record one miracle that she has per- formed, one soul that she has saved, or that she died or made a sacrifice for sinners; and 4th. The Bible does teach that Christ and He alone died for us and can save us. Then what is our conclusion? It is as Paul says, that Rome is to be cursed for preaching a gospel not given us by the Disciples and of which they knew not. It proves that Rome is not the true Church, for, as Cardinal Gibbons says, a Church which teaches other doctrines than what the Disciples taught is not the true church. Then Rome is not right and the Pope is not infallible in teaching doctrines which Christ and His Disciples never gave us. Will you continue to worship Mary or will you drop all to wor- ship Christ as God meant for you to and thereby rest in His good graces ?PURGATORY. Purgatory, a creation of the Roman Catholic Church, was not known at the time of Christ and has no Scriptural foundation, in spite of the fact that Rome tries, yes, tries, to prove that it does. Everyone acquainted with the writings of the early Fathers soon finds that Purgatory was not known of then, and moreover not taught. At first some Chris- tians began the practice of saying prayers for the dead, but with the understanding that their friends were in either heaven or hell, and with the belief that their prayers would heighten the joys of those in heaven while they might make hell to the others more toler- able. Tertullian is the first who mentions prayers for^ the dead, and this after he had joined the heretic so- ciety of Montanism. Later the people prayed for the soul of Emperor Constantine, and Augustine for Mon- ica, his mother,* but in both cases the deceased were supposed to be in heaven. The custom continued to grow and was augmented by association with pagan slaves and peoples who held such traditions. It was never received by the Greek Church, and was believed by but a few in the Roman or Latin Church, writes Otho, the historian, in the twelfth century. But then the Roman schoolman finding it an ample theme, took it up and in A. D. 1438, the Council of Florence en- acted it into a dogma, which was sanctioned by Pope Engenius. Thus commenced Purgatory and masses for the dead, which continues today in filling the pock- ets of the Roman clergy with money and in keeping Roman followers in submission through fear of it. I will now show that Purgatory has no ScripturalPURGATORY 115 foundation whatever and that it is an Unchristian doctrine. From the “Grounds of Catholic Doctrine,, we take the following, which is the undisputed teaching of Rome today: “We constantly hold, that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls therein detained are helped by the suf- frages of the faithful. That is, by the prayers and alms offered for them, and principally by the holy sac- rifice of the Mass. Q. What do we mean by Purgatory ? A. A middle state of souls who depart this life in God's grace, yet not without some lesser stains or guilt or punishment which retard them from entering heaven. But as to the particular place where these souls suffer, or the quality of the torments which they suffer, the Church has decided nothing. Q. What sort of Christians then go to Purgatory ? A. 1st. Such as die guilty of lesser sins, which we commonly call venal; as many Christians do, who either, by sudden death or otherwise, are taken out of this life before they have repented for these ordinary failings. 2nd. Such as have been formerly guilty of greater sins and have not made full satisfaction for them to Divine Justice." Rome in treating this subject of Purgatory gives numerous instances of Saints who have witnessed the torments there and then returned to earth and told of them for our benefit. It shows how apt Rome is in giving any kind of an argument that will seemingly prove her point. Like that of St. Christine by Bellar- mine (Book II, Chap. 9, De gemitu Columbae) where her soul leaves her body and goes first to Purgatory, then to Hell, and later it goes to Heaven, and then re- turns to Earth, to re-enter her body and live again as she had before. How many Roman Catholics will be- lieve such arguments because they come from Rome?116 PURGATORY And Rome uses them because she knows some will be- lieve and be convinced by them. The Bible which cov- ers all time from the Beginning up to Christ and half a century more, and which Book of all books should describe such places if any should, does not give a sin- gle instance or reference of a person dying and going to Purgatory, or to Heaven, and then returning to tell of Purgatory’s torments or Heaven’s joys. Remem- ber man is capable of telling anything for the truth, but that telling a thing and swearing that it is so does not make it so. The word Purgatory is not found in the Bible in even a single instance, which is proof that no such place was known of by Christ, or supposed to be in existence by the Disciples. If there was such a place as Purgatory, don’t you think it would have been clearly and manifestly spoken of by them? But it was not, and no like place of middle torment is de- scribed or mentioned. And to place the guilt of inaug- urating new doctrines where it belongs, Paul in Gal. 1-8, says: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” Which places the curse on Rome for this invention of Purga- tory as well as others, such as that of the Immaculate Conception, Infallibility of the Pope, salvation by wearing the Scapular, etc., all of which are products of the genius of the Roman Catholic Church as an inventor of new doctrines. Cardinal Gibbons, in his “Faith of Our Fathers,” gives three Scriptural passages to prove the existence of a Pugatory, and which I will soon take up, but, dear reader, it will be well for you to bear this in mind, i. e., that if you put a twisted meaning to it, most any- thing and either side of it can find some Scriptural passage that will apparently uphold it, as for instance, I Tim. 5-23, which reads: “Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thinePURGATORY 117 often infirmities/’ and which appears to sanction our taking or drinking wine, but it does not, and if you will read what comes before it, you will soon see that it is not addressed to us, but to Timothy alone, and that because of certain ailments which he had in par- ticular and which Paul thought a little wine would help. Nearly everything else can likewise find a Scrip- tural basis if you take it all literally and not read what comes before or after or see whether it in any way is referring to what it apparently seems to. Now to take up Cardinal Gibbons’ proofs of a Purg- atory, which passages that he quotes come under a like head as the one I just described above. The first, II Mach. 12-43. “And making a gather- ing, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jeru- salem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection.” And there he (the Cardinal) stops without explana- tion, etc., but taking it literally as applying to Purga- tory and our present time. It is a good sample of a Roman’s proof, of a surface proof, which, if you would only lift the lid, you would see how shallow it is. He then says the Reformers rejected the Books of Macha- bees because this passage seemed to prove that there was a Purgatory. But note this fact, that there are four Books of Machabees, all of which Protestants hold as of historical value, but not as an inspired writ- ing. Christ and His Apostles never quoted from them, and even their writer is not known, while Rome her- self is divided as to their inspiration. Josephus does not mention them in his catalogue. In 200 A. D., Origen leaves them out of his list of inspired books. Two hundred years later Jerome does the same, and again in the sixth century, Pope Gregory the Great rejects them entirely. But now she accepts two of the Books as inspired and two as not inspired and therefore adds but two of them to her Bible. Why this incon-118 PURGATORY sistency t They either are or are not. It is like tak- ing I and II Corinthians, and saying Paul was inspired while writing one and not while writing the other, or to take I and II Peter and do likewise. The point is that Rome is inconsistent. She should add the four Books of Machabees or leave them all out of her Bible. But to the quotation above given, whether in- spired or not, and which the Cardinal lets stand as positive proof of a Purgatory. The custom of the Jews from the time of Adam was to offer sacrifices to God, for blessings, for victory, and for their sins, but these were burnt offerings, such as the best lamb of the flock or the fatted calf of the herd, etc., and which was in full accord with the religious laws as given the Jews by God, and which custom continued in force to the time of Christ. It was after this custom that we find, in the above passage (II Mach. 12-43) Judas, who after gaining divers victories over his neighbors, who had continued to molest them, sending money to pay for such sacrifices as described above, burnt offer- ings for victory, and for the sins of those who had died in battle in his recent campaigns. That was well and the custom as set down by God for that time, but when Christ came sacrifices changed and He gave Himself as a sacrifice. Heb. 9-26, “He (Christ) appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself,” and V. 28, “So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for Him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.” Therefore the passage gives no hint whatever of a middle state of Purgatory, and what is more, if it did, it was swept away by Christ’s coming and offering Himself as a sacrifice instead thereby remitting all our sins and their penalties if we only believe in Him. The second passage he quotes is Matt. 12-32, “And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speakethPURGATORY 119 against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.” To show that the above is but a strong way of ex- pressing the truth, that blasphemy against the Holy Ghost will never be forgiven, and that it has no refer- ence to a Purgatory, let us take the three following passages, which are parallel to the above, and express the same thing, Viz.: Mark 3-28, Christ says: ‘‘Verily I say unto you, all sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewithsoever they shall blaspheme.” V. 29. “But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation/' Luke 12-10. “And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but unto him that blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him.” Where does the Purgatory come in? Jesus Christ says all sins shall be forgiven except blasphemy of the Holy Ghost, which shall never be forgiven. If our sins are all but the above one forgiven by Christ who came to atone for our sins and to suffer for them in our stead, then there would be none to be redeemed in a Purgatory. Col. 1-13, “Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son.” V. 14, “In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the for- giveness of sins.” The third passage the Cardinal quotes is I Cor. 3-13 to 15, which reads: (V. 13) “Every man's work shall be made manifest; for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. (V. 14) If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. (V. 15) If any man's work shall be burnt, he shall suffer loss, but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire/1120 PURGATORY 1. If you read before, you will see that this text does not refer to Purgatory or any such place, but Paul is referring to the work of ministers as the build- ers of the Lord’s visible temple, as V. 10, where he has laid a foundation, V. 11, There is no other foun- dation than Jesus Christ, and V. 12, “You cannot build the foundation on such as gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble, etc.” 2. The text cannot refer to Purgatory as taught by Rome, who says that Purgatory purifies, while this text says the fire “tries” the work and if it abide, he shall receive a reward. 3. And again, it cannot refer to Purgatory, for if it did everyone would have to go there, “for it tries every man’s work,” which is not the doctrine of Rome. Gibbons describes Purgatory, page 247, as “A mid- dle state of temporary punishment, allotted for those who have died in venial sin, or who have not satisfied the justice of God for sins already forgiven.” The difference is very clear, for by Rome Purgatory is for but a part, while the Scriptural passage includes every- one. But it is not “persons” who are tried, but “works.” The Cardinal then says of the third passage, that the interpretation is not his, but the unanimous voice of the Fathers. Apparently he does not know much of the unanimous voice of the Fathers, for if he had, he might have noticed what a large number of them interpreted the fire to be other than that of Purgatory. For instance, Chrysostom thinks the passages relate literally to this life, while Bellarmine, one of Rome’s most noted writers, says: “The Apostle clearly makes a distinction between the works and the workmen, and says, concerning that fire, that it shall burn the works, but not the workers.” Rome teaches that some sins are venial or very par- donable sins, and mortal or great sins against the law of God, and that satisfaction can be made for some inPURGATORY 121 Purgatory, while for some it cannot, the sinner going to Hell. But'the Bible makes no distinction whatever between sins; a sin is a sin, whether small or great, and leaves its stain. For instance, Rom. 6-23, “The wages of sin is death.” Gal. 3-10, “Cursed is every- one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.” And James 2-10, “For whosoever shall keep the law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” Therefore all sin is mortal and deserving of death and is so counted by God, but Jesus Christ in dying on the cross, atoned for and cancelled the debt of sins to all who believe on Him. He who believes in Christ and honestly tries to live a Christian life, is lifted above sin by Christ, which is clearly described in the following, where Paul is speak- ing of his own condition, viz.: Romans 7-21. “I find then a law, that when I would do good evil is present with me.” V. 22. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man. V. 23. But I see another law in my members, war- ring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. V. 24. O wretched man that I am; who shall de- liver me from the body of this death ? V. 25. I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.” Also Romans 6-3. “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death. V. 10. For in that he died, he died unto sin once; but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. V. 11. Likewise, reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.” All of which show that it is a recognized fact that122 PURGATORY we live in sin and do sin as a part of our nature, but that by being baptized, we are recognized as part of Christ, and that, unless we wantonly do sin for the sake of sinning, we are dead to sin. Then by this, Christians, being dead to sin by Christ's death, will not have to atone for them and especially in such a place as Purgatory. Just as an earthly father will through love forgive his child, no matter how much he sins against, harms, or costs him, even to standing by him when he has committed murder or any other crime, so Christ having suffered for us, with more than earthly love, stands ready and waiting to forgive us if we will only come to Him and ask Him to. The doctrine of Purgatory contradicts the Scrip- tural doctrine, that we are completely purged of our sin by Christ, which is proven by the following, viz.: Romans 8-1. “There is now therefore no condem- nation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walks not after the flesh, but after the spirit." Romans 8-33. “Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. V. 34. Who is he that condemneth ? It is He that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us." Eph. 1-7. “In whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the richness of His grace." Eph. 4-32. “And be ye kind one to another, tender hearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you." Col. 2-13. And you being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened to- gether with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses." Heb. 1-3. “When He had by Himself purged our sins." I John 1-7. “And the blood of Jesus Christ his Son clcanseth us from all sin."PURGATORY 123 Why Purgatory ? Don’t the above passages disprove it? When Christ purged our sins, was His work in- complete ? Doesn’t it clearly prove above that Christ’s blood cleanseth us from “all sin”? Then how is there any remaining to be purified in Purgatory, for if Christ’s blood cleanseth from all sin, then it includes both mortal and venial and none remaineth for Purga- tory? No, Christ’s work is perfect and thorough, and when He says He will purge all our sins He will do it. The'doctrine of a Purgatory is contrary to the di- vine truth, that when we die we enter into rest and eternal joy. The thought of having to pass through a Purgatory, filled with all manner of torments, before we reach Heaven is one that makes every Romanist dread the ordeal of death, while to the Protestant, who reads his Bible, death is but a transition from this life to immediate rest and joy, for Christ has so prom- ised it. Luke 23-43. “And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise.” Philip 1-21. “For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.” I Cor. 15-51. “Behold I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed. V. 52. In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump; For the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. V. 53. For this corruptible must put on incorrup- tion, and this mortal must put on immortality.” St. John 5-24% (Christ says) : “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth My word, and believeth on Him that sent Me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.” By Rome’s doctrine of Purgatory those who die in the Lord do nof cease their labors nor do they have124 PURGATORY that delightful belief that to die is to be immediately with Christ, but they have that blot on their thoughts of joy in heaven, of a stage of intense suffering after death, before they can enter heaven; while those who believe as Christ taught have no such foreboding of a Purgatory, but by His promise as given above, they have all hope of passing immediately from death to life in Heaven, yes, even in the twinkling of an eye, the transition is so quickly made. How much better it is to stand by the Bible with confidence in Christ’s promises that we shall be immediately translated from death to Heaven, than it is to believe Rome’s in- vented doctrine of Purgatory, dying in fear that you have not made full satisfaction, or that your relatives will not buy enough masses to help you through Pur- gatory, and that you do not know how long you will be in those torments before released. Here is a glimpse of what Purgatory is, as held and taught by Rome. It is by Matthew Paris, the distin- guished Benedictine and of one Enus, who went to Purgatory, witnessed its horrors and then returned to tell them, he says: “Numberless men and women were lying naked on the earth and transfixed with red hot nails, bit the dust with pain. Devils lashed some with dreadful whips. Fiery dragons gnawed some with ignited teeth. Some were roasted on spits, fried in pans, or broiled in furnaces. A sulphurous well, emit- ting flame and stench, threw up men like sparkling scintillations, into the air and again received them into its burning mouth. A bridge studded with sharp nails and thorns with their points turned upward had to be crossed. The souls walked bare-footed on this rough road and endeavoring to ease their feet, leaned on their hands, and afterward rolled with the whole body on the perforated spikes till pierced and bloody, they worked their painful, tedious way over the thorny path, etc.” How hellish the scene, but not much more hellishPURGATORY 125 than the ways of Rome in teaching such a doctrine in spite of its being disproved by Christ and the Bible, in spite of the fact that the early Church did not be- lieve in it or teach it; and in the face of their own in- telligence that our bodies do not go to Purgatory as in the above description. Why was such a hellish dogma invented and taught by Rome—Yes, why? It was to keep her followers submissive through fear of it and the fact that Rome teaches that the priest is the only one who can get them through it to heaven, and secondly, for the enormous sums of money that she would receive from the sale of masses which she teaches will help those in Purgatory. Rome is the one Church noted for bleeding its followers for money on nearly every pretext. Look at the fine dwellings of her priests; look at the mansions of the Bishops, Cardinals, etc.; look at the hundreds of thousands * spent yearly by the Pope and the grandeur in which he lives, and then you will see why the Roman Catholic Church is in such constant need of money. Note for instance, what is taken in for masses alone as a result of her invention of Purgatory. The. amount from her sales yearly is variously estimated from $100,000,000.00 to $500,000,000.00 And who pays this enormous sum to Rome ? It is those who, whether rich or poor, have suffered death in their families, and who through fear that the deceased will remain in Purgatory if they don’t pay for having masses said for them and in the hope that it will shorten their stay there. It is as in the time of the Crusades to the Holy Land in the 12th and 13th centuries, which were gotten up by the Pope and clergy to increase their own wealth at the cost and suffering of the people. These Cru- sades which cost Christians from 2,000,000 to 6,000,- 000 lives, also untold sufferings and hardships, re- sulted in making the Roman Church powerful and wealthy, as is described in JMyer’s General History, page 449, as follows:126 PURGATORY “The Crusades contributed to increase the wealth of the Church and the power of the Papacy, thus the prominent part which the Popes took in the enterprises naturally fostered their authority and influence, by playing in their hands, as it were, the armies and re- sources of Christendom, and accustoming the people to look to them as guides and leaders. As to the wealth of the churches and monasteries, this'was aug- mented enormously by the sale to,them, often for the mere fraction of their value, of the estates of those preparing for the expedition, or by the out and out gift of the lands of such in return for prayers and pious benedictions. Again, thousands of the crusaders re- turning broken in spirits and in health, sought an asylum in cloistral retreats, and endowed the establish- ments that they entered with all their worldly goods. Besides all this, the stream of the ordinary gifts of piety was swollen by the extraordinary fervor of re- ligious enthusiasm, which characterized the period, into enormous proportion.” It is Rome, the same tyrannical and grasping mon- ster today that it was then, disregarding the condition or privations of her subjects, as does a cruel monster, if she herself can only live in power and ease and lux- ury. Then cannot you see how it is that Rome, in spite of the Scriptures and her early teaching, has taken it upon herself to invent a Purgatory which, as I have shown, was enacted into a dogma of the church as late as A. D. 1438, by the Council of Florence, and is now fostered by her as one of her chief sources of revenue? Will you continue to believe in that inven- tion and the Pope, or will you give it up to follow Christ and the Bible which entirely disproves of any sutfi place as a Purgatory?CELIBACY. Rome now teaches as an infallible doctrine and by her authority commands and enforces celibacy upon all her clergy, sisters, and nuns. This goes without any question either from Rome or from a Protestant source. But now it behooves us as Christians to see if Rome has the right and Scriptural authority to so teach and command. If the Bible demands or teaches it, she has; if not, then she does it without authority. 1. Has Rome always taught and enforced celibacy? No. 2. Did the clergy before Christ marry? Yes. 3. Did Christ teach or command celibacy of his clergy ? No. 4. Did Christ’s Disciples teach that the clergy should marry ? Yes. 5. Were Apostles married or claim the right to be? Yes. 6. Then is Rome’s doctrine of celibacy an infallible and a Christian doctrine? No. If you followers of Rome would not take things for granted, no matter from what source they come, but would only use your God-given talents of research and investigation and would find out for yourselves whether what you have been believing is or is not Christian and right, you would soon find out into what Unchristian and wrong beliefs Rome has for her own glory, and without thought ?or your soul’s welfare, led you and is now keeping you just because you have by your trust in mankind been willing to allow your- selves to remain in ignorance of the Bible and the truth. The six above assertions I am now going to prove128 CELIBACY and if you will be honest, first convincing yourself that the references I give are correct, I think you will feel a disgust toward Rome that is really justifiable. Rome Has Not Always Enforced Celibacy. In the book “Index Canonum,” by Fulton, which is an English translation and a complete digest of the entire code of canon law of the undivided primitive church, giving both the Greek text and its translation into English, it is entirely proved to us that if a person were married it did not hinder him from becoming a priest or any other member of the clergy, which same applied to nuns, sisters, etc., and they could retain their wives or husbands the same as any lay person does. The Index Canonum is a translation of the canon as written at the time of the Councils and gives complete the canons of all the early Councils, viz.: Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, Ancyra, Neo-Caesarea, Ganga, Antioch and Laodices, together with Apostolical canons. In this volume we find, page 26, “In the eye of the Church marriage and celibacy considered as states of life were equally estimable. Marriage wao “honorable to all men.” Bishops, Priests and Deacons not ex- cepted.” Page 29 says, “A declared contempt for marriage was considered cause sufficient for the dis- position of a Bishop or other Minister or for the ex- communication of a layman. “Marriage was no impediment to ordination even as a Bishop ; and Bishops, Priests and Deacons equally with other men, were^ forbidden to put away their wives under pretext of religion.” Page 31. In speak- ing likewise of women who lived ’in cloisters, it says, “If they cannot or if they will not abide (in virginity), then better were it that they marry than that they should burn through their offences;” and again, on the same page, speaking of women, who had professedCELIBACY 129 virginity and afterward contracted marriage, it says, “It is to be observed, nevertheless, that such marriages were never declared to be null and void.” Apostolical Canon V reads, “No Bishop, Presbyter or Deacon shall put away his wife, under pretext of religion; but if he put her away, let him be suspended; and if he persist, let him be deposed.” Gangra Canon IV reads, “If anyone shall declare concerning a married Presbyter (Priest) that it is not lawful to partake of the Obligation, when he offers it, let him be Anathema.” Apostolical Canon II reads, “If any Bishop, Pres- byter (Priest) or Deacon shall abstain from marriage, not for discipline, but because he abhors it; forgetting that all things are very good, and that God made man, male and female; but blasphemously slandering God’s work; let him amend, or be deposed and cast out of the church.” The above quotations are of the canons of the Coun- cils of the Undivided Primitive Church and extend to A. D. 451. They cover the ground of early Christian belief and teaching on whether the clergy and also the sisters and nuns should marry or remain single. The councils not quoted from, if not mentioning the subject agree to the canons of the other councils on the same subject, thereby making it the universal belief and teaching of the Christian Church, as established by the Apostles, and continuing the same for 4y2 centuries, that Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Nuns, Sisters, etc., are at perfect liberty to marry before ordination and to re- tain their wives or husbands afterward. They taught and believed as the Apostles gave it to them that matri- mony was a natural, a holy, and a God-given state of life, of all classes, whether of clergy, sisterhood or laity. In the 12th century, Gration, of the order of Bene- dictines, gave to us what is called “Gration’s De- cretals,” which is a compilation of the canon law of the 9130 CELIBACY Roman Church. In this he freely admits that the early Church allowed its clergy to marry. Thomas Aquinas, a canonized saint, admits the same. (Summa II, 11.) In the eleventh century Pope Gregory VII (Hilde- brand ) enforced the clergy to celibacy. In 1564 Pope Pius IV in an encyclical letter to the German princes explains the enforcement of celibacy among the clergy, as a necessity of the age. Read canonical history and see for yourselves that the Apostles recommended marriage to clergy as well as to laity; that in the first centuries while continuing in its apostolic ways the undivided church allowed it; and that in the latter centuries the Popes changed this to an enforced celibacy, even compelling those priests who then had wives, to abandon them. 2nd. That the Clergy Before Christ Did Marry* If you will take your Old Testament and read it you would soon find out to what an extent the priests be- fore Christ were married men. There are a great number of instances of the priests' daughters and sons recorded, also of their achievements from a religious and historical point of view. But I will, to be brief, confine myself to God's first established priest over His chosen people, the Israelites. Ex. 28-1. ‘‘And take thou (Moses) unto thee Aaron, thy brother, and his sons with them that he may minister unto me in the priest's office." Ex. 28-43. “And they (certain garments) shall be upon Aaron and his sons, when they come near unto the altar to minister to the holy place; it shall be a statute for ever unto him and his seed after him." I Chr. 24, V. 1. “The sons of Aaron are Nadab, Abihn, Eleazer, and Ithamar." V. 2. “Nadab and Abihn died without children."CELIBACY 131 V. 3 and 4. “There were sixteen chief men of the sons of Eleazer and eight among the sons of Ithamar.” V. 5. “And they were divided by lot for governors of the sanctuary and governors of the house of God.” Neh. 12-10. “Jeshua begot Joiakim.” Neh. 12-35. “And certain of the priests’ sons, etc.” Neh. 12 to 7. “Jeshua was a chief priest.” Luke 1-5. “There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abi‘a; and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.” Luke 1-8. “And while he (Zacharias) was execut- ing the priest’s office before God:” Luke 1-13. “An angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias; for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John (The Baptist).” Luke 7-28. Jesus says, “Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John The Baptist.” To put it in a nut shell, God made Aaron chief priest of the Israelites and said his seed (sons and grand- sons) should continue as His ministers. Which,they did/ Aaron having four sons and at least twenty-four grandsons, etc. This same God-blessed line of priests are the ancestors of Elisabeth and John The Baptist. John The Baptist, the son of a priest. Luke 1-5, was the forerunner of Christ and Christ called him the greatest of prophets, Therefore the priests before Christ’s time did marry and have children, and were ordained of God and blessed by Him. r132 CELIBACY 3rd. Did Christ Teach or Command Celibacy of His Clergy? Rome holds marriage as a sacrament and in her next breath forbids her clergy, etc., to marry. What incon- sistency. Rome says Christ instituted the sacrament of matrimony. Did He? Weren’t people married be- fore Christ’s time ? Didn’t the Lord lay down rules in the Old Testament as a guide to matrimony? Doesn’t Christian marriage date even to Adam’s time when he was given Eve as a wife? But let this inconsistency of Rome pass for the present. Rome tries to make good, in forbidding the clergy to marry, by Scriptural passages which she teaches cover the ground for so doing. Such as, Matt. 19-12. “For there are some eunuchs which were so born from their mother’s womb; and there are some eunuchs which were made eunuchs of men; and there be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven’s sake. He that is able to re- ceive it let him receive it.” By Webster’s Dictionary an eunuch is, “A castrated male of human* species.” Therefore, as to eunuchs so born, they are not fitted to majry; as to eunuchs which were made eunuchs of men, the same is true, this referring to a custom preva- lent at Christ’s time of castrating slaves; and as to those, who made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven’s sake, matrimony would be a crime. This passage of Christ’s is not spoken to any certain class but to all men, laity and all. Then how can it refer to the clergy’s celibacy in particular? They also quote the following, viz.: I Cor. 7-8. “I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.” How can this be construed to refer to the clergy in particular ? Paul says it to laity and all, making no distinction. These are Rome’s strongest Scriptural passages toCELIBACY 133 prove Christ and His Disciples commendation of cleri- cal celibacy. Cardinal Gibbons in his “Faith of Our Fathers,” says, page 457, “Although celibacy is not expressly enforced by our Saviour, it is, however, com- mended so strongly by Himself and His Disciples, both by word and by example, that the church felt it her duty to lay it down as a law.” Commended so strongly, where ? I ask you to read Christ’s sayings and see if you can find one word, expressly about the celibacy of the clergy? The custom, at Christ’s time of the priests, etc., marrying and of His not reproving them or recommending any change should be sufficient proof. That Christ’s cousin, John The Baptist, was a priest’s son, and was called the greatest of the proph- ets, should be sufficient proof. If not, then Christ's own prediction of those to come, viz: I Tim. 4-1. “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith.” I Tim. 4-2. “And having their consciences seared as with a hot iron.” I Tim. 4-3. “Shall forbid to marry and command- ing to abstain from meats, which God has created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth,” for Christ is the Spirit, and He speaks of those to come in the latter times or in the centuries after His death, and that they shall forbid to marry, etc., which applies to no church but the Roman Cath- olic, should be more than a sufficient proof that, by word and example, Christ and His Disciples did not commend or command celibacy of His clergy, but rather the very opposite, that they should marry. 4th. Did Christ’s Disciples Teach that the Clergy Should Marry? The Disciples surely and emphatically taught that the clergy should marry, which is shown by I Cor. 7-2. Which says, “To avoid fornication let134 CELIBACY every man have his own wife and let every woman have her own husband.” Heb. 13-4. “Marriage is honorable in all and the bed is undefiled.” Could anything be plainer? Not just the laity, but everyone, whether man or woman. And again, even more emphatically, viz.: I Tim. 3-2, which says, “A Bishop must be blame- less, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach.” And the Reason Why He Should Marry. I Tim. 3-5. “For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the House of God?” Again: I Tim. 3-12. “Let the Deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.” Could the English language be plainer? They say, all should marry, and especially Bishops and Deacons (priests and all clergy implied) and then give the rea- son why. 5th. Were Apostles Married or Claimed Right To Be Matt. 8-14, reads, “And when Jesus was come unto Peter’s house he saw his wife’s mother laid, and sick of a fever.” Matt. 8-15. “And He touched her hand, and the fever left her; and she ro~e and ministered unto them.” Paul says, I Cor. 9-5, “Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other Apostles and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas ?” In Acts 21-8 we find that Phillip, the evangelist, had four daughters.CELIBACY 135 All of which positively show their married state, or their right to be. But now to give more proof, I will quote from some of the early Fathers to show that some of the other Apostles were married men. Euse- bius in the twentieth chapter of his third book of Ecclesiastical History speaks of the grandchildren of’ Jude, the Apostle. Epiphanius says, Peter, Andrew, Matthew and Bartholomew were all married men. These are Roman authorities, and Rome cannot con- sistently dispute them. 6th. Rome’s Doctrine of Celibacy. Is Not an Infallible Doctrine. From the proof I have given, Rome’s doctrine of celibacy, which her Popes and Councils have made an infallible law of the church, is proven Unchristian and exceedingly fallible and is not consistent with the practice, example, or word of the Bible. See the fol- lowing array of facts against celibacy : a. Before Christ the Lord established Aaron and his posterity to preside at the altars of His Church, thereby necessitating their marriages. b. Christ is the cousin of a priest’s son. c. Christ calls a priest’s son the greatest of prophets. d. Christ says there shall come those forbidding to marry. Calling them liars and hypocrites. e. Peter, whom Rome claims as her first Pope, was a married man, Philip, the evangelist, was, and possi- bly three or four of the remaining Apostles. f. The Apostles all claimed the right to marry. g. The early church gave its clergy the right to marry. * h. The Bible strongly recommends marriage to all, and especially to Bishops, Deacons, etc. In spite of these Rome has the Unchristian audacity to teach, I Tim. 4-1, “Doctrines of devils” in their136 CELIBACY place. To change the custom which Christ commended, and His Apostles practiced and commanded; to change her own teachings from against celibacy to for it; and that in spite of nature and God’s own created passions and desires which, with its results, I will now take up Celibacy and Its Results. In the eleventh century when Pope Gregory VII (Hildebrand), for the first time vogorously enforced the celibacy of the clery, there arose on all sides pro- testations . from the clerical orders against the Un- christian and uncatholic decree. They knew the Bible upheld the marriage of clergy; they had been allowed heretofore to marry; and they knew that their physical passions commanded them to marry to avoid fornica- tion, so they protested with all their might against this cruel, yes, doubly cruel, decree of Pope Gregory, but all to no purpose. He kn^w a celibate clergy would be a stronger and a more submissive clergy, so he put his foot down on all opposition; on all God’s human nature; and against Christ’s own teaching, and played the tyrant’s trick just because he had the power. The which tyrannical assumption is still continued by the Roman Church in spite of all the damnable effects that have come from it. What are the effects ? They are in the prostitution, concubinage, lust, fornication, etc., of the celibate class, who by their inability to control the natural pas- sions God gave them, but which Rome forbids them the use of, are driven to licentiousness more degrading than pen can depict. If you yourself are a passionate person you know how hard it is for you sometimes to control your pas- sions. How often, yes, how often, do men’s passions carry them to the most fiendish and cruel practices to satisfy their cravings. Just read your daily newspaper; I need not tell you; you can read and find out for your-CELIBACY 137 self. There is hardly a day but what there is an ex- ample of how some man’s passions have made him a criminal. The negro of the South will run the risk of being lynched to satisfy his passions, while the white man daily runs the risk of being sent to prison for rape, incest, adultery, etc., because he cannot contain. Men are unable to control their desires, but are con- tinually being convicted in our criminal courts for their over-passionate practices. For instance, in my native town, a place of between 2,000 and 3,000 inhab- itants, and within the last week, there was one convic- tion for murder, in the second degree, of a man who shot another man for cohabiting with the first one’s wife; also a shooting affair between two men, where one man returned home and found the door locked and another man with the first one’s wife. These two cases in one week and in so small a town, and then with other similar cases in the next four months. Isn’t it needless to say more? Isn’t it a firmly supported fact and indisputable that the average man does not and will not control his passions? Then cannot you see what effect the enforcement of celibacy must have and did have on those who were compelled to put away their husband and wives and refrain from their God-given desires ? Here are some of the things that it meant and brought about: 1st. The living together of the opposite sexes, who were enforced to celibacy, as in one family. (But this shortly was prohibited on account of the public scan- dals resulting from it.) 2nd. The practice of the clergy of keeping concu- bines. 3rd. In the establishment of nunneries, under the guise of religious sisterhoods, where prostitution could be carried on in secret and away from the public’s searching gaze. Before I go farther, let me say that there are a great138 CELIBACY many of the celibates of both sexes, who live in all chastity and free from lust and misuse. I could not and would not include all in what I am saying in re- gard to the practices and results of enforced celibacy. No one knows just where to draw the line. There has been so much lasciviousness come to our attention as a result of celibacy of the clergy and sisterhood that one naturally applies it to all, but in all probability the majority are chaste and blameless, but that in no wise makes the Roman Catholic decree of celibacy right, nor does it clear her from the blame of indirectly enforc- ing lustful lives upon those who might, if permitted to marry, as the Bible teaches, have lived honorable, chaste, and useful wedded lives. Public censure in the United States is so strong that the Roman clergy of a necessity have to carry them- selves in a far different and more orderly manner than they do in countries where Rome has the balance of power and can do nearly as she pleases. The things that Rome does and allows in Mexico, Central, and South America, where her power is quite absolute, could not be practiced in the United States with the same freedom. Here Rome is but a factor, while there she is supreme. The licentiousness and concubinage practiced there quite openly is restrained here into cer- tain proscribed limits where it is not so noticeable. The height of the rotten effects of enforced celibacy was reached in the 15th century when the clergy lived openly with concubines; where Popes and the higher prelates as well as the priests lived lives of notorious vices and shame and when nunneries were simply in- stitutions of prostitution. The climax was reached in this as in other lines, the Reformation took place, and the moral awakening it brought compelled the Roman Catholic Church to reform. You think I am putting it strong; you think I am stretching the truth; you think that the Roman Catholic Church, which to you, looks, yes, looks, so upright,CELIBACY 139 could never go to such depths of shame ? If so, it is time to wake up and read up their history and see for yourself whether I am telling the truth or not. To prove my assertions, I will now quote Roman Catholic authorities whose prominent positions in the Church are sufficient guarantee for their integrity. In the 15th century, the Rector of the University of Paris, who also was the private secretary of Pope Benedict XIII, says, ‘That the enforced celibacy of the clergy had made their vices so universal that there was little faith left in the virtue of any ecclesiastic.” Gerson, a prominent official of Rome, member of the Council of Constance, and Chancellor of Paris Uni- versity, who died in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church, says, “ The nuns in the 14th century were as guilty as the priests and friars. The nunneries of his time were houses of prostitution, while the priests at best were keepers of concubines, and recom- mended an organized system of concubines as prefer- able to the gross immoralities then existing.,, Nicholas de Clemanges says, “That to take the veil was simply to become a prostitute/' Theodoric a Niem, in a history of the Council of Constance, says, “Some Bishops carried their concu- bines with them while making their pastoral calls, and some made a considerable income, by fees from their clergy, by permitting them to keep concubines." In 1428 the Bishops of Algiers declared, “That licentiousness had become so habitual among the clergy that it was no longer considered a sin." Pope Leo X, in a feeble effort at a reform, was obliged to argue that systematic licentiousness was not rendered excusable because its prevalence amounted to a custom or because it was openly tolerated by those (Bishops, etc.,) w*hose duty it was to repress the evil." Pope John XXII made a list of absolutions for crimes known as “Taxes of the Apostolic Penitentiary,” in which we find “that a priest guilty of concubinage140 CELIBACY could procure absolution for less than a ducat, while one-half of the ducat would purchase absolution of a priest for committing incest with a mother or a sister.,, In 1512 the Bishop of Ratisbon says, “That many of his ecclesiastics maintain their concubines so openly that it would appear as though they saw neither sin nor scandal in such conduct.” Though not So conspicuous and corrupt as in the 15th century, yet the same evils are to be found among the Roman Catholic classes, who are enforced to celi- bacy, up to the present day. But a few years ago the people of Montreal forced Bishop Bourget to send a priest back to France because he was living such a profligate life with the nuns. Miss Urtubise, one of the Superiors of a nunnery in Montreal, in 1847, said, Bishop Lartigue was driven away because of his lusts with the nuns. She also said, “The intercourse of the priests with the nuns was the cause of so much disorder and scandal that it nearly ruined their community.” And again in speaking of the book, “Awful Disclosures,” written by Maria Monk, a nun, and about the lives of nuns, she said, “I was asked to refute her arguments, but I cannot, they are too true. If the people only knew one-half the truth about our nunneries they would pull down and destroy every one of them.” I could add page upon page of like convincing facts of the celibate lives of clergy and nuns, but enough has been said. If you wish more, read “Memoirs of Scipio de Ricco,” one of the most pious and intelligent Bish- ops of the Roman Church, and you will be doubly dis- gusted with the results of a system enforced by a Church which heretofore you thought so holy. His portrayals of monastery and nunnery life is enough to quench the religious desires of any one toward a Church which fosters such things as a result of her own teaching rather than to square her shoulders, cost what it may, and be right.CELIBACY 141 Rome has enforced celibacy of the clergy, nuns, etc. She has gained a submissive and obedient following, but oh, the cost. She taught celibacy as an infallible decree; she sees the baleful effect of it but she will not retract because then she would prove herself before the world to be fallible. What must she do? Continue, yes, continue. But her servants’ passions must be allayed, so she has to provide for them in a way to give the least scandal. If a priest and a woman fall, in a well organized Christian community, public senti- ment will compel the removal of the priest to some other parish, while to the woman whom he has dragged down with him, she is forever disgraced. She is al- ways looked down upon with shame, while her parents and relatives and friends all feel the bitterness of her disgrace and always have to share it. Rome could not allow this, but not so with a priest and the nuns. Here is a solution. What cannot be carried on in a nunnery, behind somber walls where public gaze cannot pene- trate nor the ear hear; where its occupants are guarded and allowed no communication with the outside world lest its secrets leak out ? Rome has found the solution of its enforced celibacy problem. The passions of its celibates can be satisfied without publicity and all is well. Do you then wonder that a chaste young girl, who enters a nunnery and accepts the veil under the thought that all is sanctity therein, and who, being kept in and guarded and practically at the mercy of the priests, is never allowed to leave the institution lest the secret of the forced lust and lasciviousness prac- ticed therein should become public property and Rome would have to suffer for her crimes ? So much for the effect of enforced celibacy of the clergy, but now tq carry it to the Pope himself, let us see what it has done with him. The Bible, as I have proved, commends marriage to all and commands it to some certain ones such as the clergy; also St. Peter, whom Rome wrongly styles her first Pope, was a mar-142 CELIBACY ried man and his wife was healed by Christ, therefore the Pope, first of all, should be a married man to ful- fill the Christian teaching of the Bible and of St. Peter himself. But he sets the Bible and St. Peter aside and does not legally marry nor permit any of his clergy to marry. What are the effects? They are monstrous, and show up the depravity caused by this accursed Un- christian doctrine of celibacy. Let me refer you to the “Columbian Cyclopedia” and under the heading of “Alexander VI (Borgia),” where we find the follow- ing: “Alexander VI reigned (as Pope) from 1492 to 1503. He was the most celebrated of the eight Popes of his name, also the most infamous one that ever lived. He disdained, throughout his dissolute career, no means of gratifying his lust—not even perjury, murder, and poisoning. His own name was Rodrigo Lenzuoli, but he assumed the name of his mother's family, Borgia. He had five children by Rosa Van- ozza, a woman celebrated for her beauty, two of whom equaled himself in criminality, Caesar and Lucretia. On the death of Innocent VIII he was elevated to the papal chair, which he had previously secured by flag- rant bribery.” Turning to “Vol. 4 of Col. Cyclopedia” and under the heading of “Borgia,” we find the following: “Caesar Borgia, son of Pope Alexander VI, was one of the greatest monsters of a time of depravity, when the court of Rome was the scene of all the worst forms of crime. He unscrupulously made use of the most sacred things as means to the most iniquitous ends, causing his own brother to be assassinated, etc., etc.” Although Pope Alexander VI reached the climax in breaking the doctrine of celibacy and in lustfulness, yet thef*e were other Popes who were nearly as bad, as, for instance, Pope Innocent XIII, who was said to have had seven children by as many mothers. Then what is our conclusion about Rome's doctrine of celi- bacy? Where has it made good? It has turned nun-CELIBACY 143 neries into houses of prostitution; it has wrecked the virtue of Bishops and Priests; and it has even turned against Popes themselves, sinking them in the mire of depravity and lust. Why ? Just because Rome thought her way better than the Bible’s and enforced celibacy where matrimony was commanded. See the results of perverting Christ and the truth.ABSTINENCE FROM MEATS. Mark 7-18. “And he (Christ) saith unto them, are ye so without understanding also? Do you not per- ceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him.,, V. 19. “Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly and goeth out into the draught.” The eating of meat or the abstaining from it may be a simple thing and harmless whichever way, but it is not the act of eating or abstaining, as every person has a right to do, but the principle involved of a church imposing the abstaining from meats as a re- ligious and Christian ordinance. As is the case where a flash of passion and a bullet through another’s heart will place a man in prison for life, though the act was simple and almost instantaneous, so the simple act of Rome’s commanding you to abstain from meats and of your complying, may keep you from heaven forever because Christ says meats do not defile you; because the Bible says no man hath a right to judge you in meat or in drink; and because it also says that those who command to abstain from meats teach lies of hypocrisy and depart from the faith. Probably no doctrine of Rome’s draws its members into more petty inconsistencies than this doctrine of the abstinence from meats. Some cursing because they believe that they have to abstain, while others eat without thinking or because they will anyway, come what will. I was born and brought up in a neighborhood among Roman Catholics. I went to school with them; I had them for teachers; went into society with them; went to church with them; married one of them; and theABSTINENCE FROM MEATS 145 following has been my experience as to the abstaining from meat as commanded by Rome, viz.: 1st. There are those who faithfully abstain because they believe their salvation depends upon it to a certain extent. 2nd. There are those who intend to abstain, but don't always from forgetfulness. 3rd. There are those who abstain from meats in the solid, but who will at the same time take them in pies, gravies, etc. 4th. There are those who will not abstain if they think they won't be found out by the Church. 5th. There are those who will eat it anyway, be the day a fasting day or not. All the above conditions, which are every day oc- currences among Roman Catholics of different tem- peraments, conditions or environments, lead to an enforced depravity, which, if they were allowed to eat meat as the Bible commands, would never happen, and millions of sins would never have been committed which they have brought on, as for instance, in the first, men sometimes, but perhaps not as a rule, curse life or a religion which denies them meat, thereby sin- ning. In the second and by Rome's own laws it is a sin to forget to abstain from meat on fasting days. In the third, common sense will tell anyone that if taking meat on a fasting day is a sin, that it is just as great a sin to deceive one's self, or think of deceiving others, by eating something that is meat in a mixed form, as in pies, gravies, etc., rather than to eat it in the solid. In the fourth, the act is reduced to a crimi- nal act, though there is no legal penalty, for the person is doing it as a criminal on the supposition that it ’won't be found out. This is done in some homes, where if reasoned out by the children, brings disrespect of church and religion; and it is also done among Protes- tants by Roman Catholics, thereby proving it to the Protestants to be a farce among Romans. In the fifth, 10146 ABSTINENCE FROM MEATS presuming that the Roman church was the true one it would be a sin to refuse to keep this rule of the Church. So taken in any one of the ways they all lead to sin- ning as long as the person is a Roman Catholic. But is it right that you should be forced to abstain from meats on certain days and has the Roman Catho- lic Church any God-given power to command it ? They do command it, throwing insult into the very face of Christ and the Bible which is shown by the following Scriptural passages: Christ says, Mark 7-18: “Whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man it cannot defile him; V. 19. Because it entereth not into his heart but into the belly.,, Rom. 14-17. “For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.” ’ I Cor. 8-8. “But meat commendeth us not to God, for neither, if we eat, are we better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.” Col. 2-16. “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink or in respect of any holyday, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days.” I Tim. 4-1. “Now the spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrine of devils. V. 2. “Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their con- science seared with a hot ifon. V. 3. “Forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be re- ceived with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.” Christ says that that which entereth a man from without as meats defileth not the one who eats it, and that meat commendeth us not to God whether we eat or abstain. While Rome sets Christ’s teaching aside and says if you eat it on certain days it is no sin, but if taken on others it is a sin.ABSTINENCE FROM MEATS 147 The Bible says, “Let no man judge you in meat.” But Rome sets this entirely aside, assumes the role of judge contrary to the Bible and commands you in re- gard to eating meat. The Bible says, The Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times (which was in the times then to come) some shall depart from the faith, and with seared consciences will teach doctrines of devils, such as forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from meats. What could be plainer? The Spirit speaketh expressly, which makes it an extra important command for us to heed. It practically says the church which commands you to abstain from meats has de- parted from the faith and is teaching a doctrine of the devil. What church does this ? Search them and ybu will find that the one is the Roman Catholic. Rome by various ways tries to get around the above facts, but, dear reader, satisfy yourself by the Bible and by Rome's daily teachings and practice and see if you can come to any other conclusion than this: 1st. That Rome teaches the opposite of Christ about meats; 2nd. That Rome insults God by falsely making them- selves judges where the Bible expressly says that no man shall judge; and 3rd. That Rome has departed from the faith because she forbids to marry, as clergy, nuns, etc., and because she commands to abstain from meats. Yes, you say, but Christ suffered and sacrificed for us, so shouldn’t we be willing to abstain from meat once or twice a week to show Him that we can sacri- fice and which will strengthen us for larger trials and temptations ? Christ sacrificed His life that the sins of all the world should be atoned for and to give us everlasting life. Is your sacrifice of the same character ? No, it isn’t. By your sacrifice you give the world no benefit; you save your money and rob your body; and you are148 ABSTINENCE FROM MEATS allowed to substitute other things, practically of the same composition, for the meat, such as fish, etc. As to the second part, that by practicing the absti- nence from meat you are strengthened for other trials and temptations. Wouldn't it be far better and more in touch with Christ's example of life if, instead of abstaining from meat, you would practice kindness, charity, love, and enlightenment toward others? Take a flower to the sick; read the Bible to them; talk to others about heaven; ask them to go to church with you; help the lame, the halt and the blind; comfort the heartbroken; help the poor; aye, there are hun- dreds of sacrifices of the like where your true mettle could be shown; where you could follow Christ's own example; and which would help the world and strengthen yourself.INTENTION. There is one doctrine of the Church of Rome that probably not more than one out of ten of her lay mem- bers know the least about, and they probably but little, and that is the doctrine of “Intention,” by which no Roman Catholic can be sure that he or she have been validly baptized or have received the sacraments. By the doctrine of intention is meant this: That a priest (Bishop or other) in baptizing or in adminis- tering a sacrament must have an intention of doing it, as the Church teaches that it should be done, or else the act is invalid and no baptism or sacrament is made. The Church teaches that the sacraments are abso- lutely necessary to one’s salvation and then in the next breath turns around and says that no one can be cer- tain whether they have received them or not for the intention of another cannot be seen. Do you realize the monstrousness of the doctrine? You can never be sure that you are saved as long as you remain a Ro- man Catholic. The two principal authorities are as follows: Pope Alexander VIII on December 7th, 1690, (in the “Bullar; Rom.” T XII, page 67) issued a bull in which he declares “the doctrine of ‘intention’ a true doctrine of the Church, and in which he not only curses but excommunicates all who say that the sacra- ments are valid if the priest who administers them, declares internally that it is not his intention of doing what the Church does.” And The Council of Trent (in Paris in 1832) which says: “If anyone shall say, that in ministers, while they form and give the sacraments intention is not required, at150 INTENTION least of doing what the Church does, let him be anathema/' Here we have the doctrine and the curse on all who do not believe it, from one of Rome's greatest Coun- cils and from a Pop®. For centuries before there was the greatest dissensions among the clergy of Rome, ex- tending back to Augustine, whom Rome quotes so often, but who combatted this doctrine of intention with all his eloquence, but all to no profit. ' Bellarmine, one of Rome's greatest scholars, tried his forces against it, saying, “No one can be certain with the certainty of faith, that he has a true sacra- ment, since the sacrament is not formed without the intention of the minister, and no one can see the in- tention of another" (Tom. I, page 488. . . Prag. 1721), but his efforts were of no avail. Also, while the subject of intention was under dis- cussion at the Council of Trent, Ambrogio Caterino, Bishop of Minori, in an argument against it said: “But supposing the necessity of mental intention. If a priest charged with the care of four or five thousand souls was not a believer, but a hypocrite who, whether in the baptism of children or in the absolution of peni- tents or in the consecration of the Eucharist, had no intention of doing what the Church does, we must say that all the children were damned, the penitents not absolved, and all those who have received the com- munion have received no advantage from it." And then he added: “If any said that these cases are rare, would to God that in this corrupt age that there were no cause to think that they are very frequent. But, even admitting them to be very rare, or even unique, yet suppose, for example, a bad priest, who is a hypocrite, and who has no intention of administering true' baptism to a child, and that afterwards this child should become a bishop of a great city, and during a long succession of years he has ordained a great number of priests; we must INTENTION 151 admit that this child not being baptized, will not have received ordination, and consequently, all those who he may have ordained will have received nothing; and that thus there will be in this great city neither sacra- ment nor penance, nor Eucharist, since these cannot exist without ordination, not ordination without a true bishop; not any bishop if he has not been previously baptized; and thus, by the malice of a single minister, a million sacraments will be rendered nugatory.” An explanation of the above is unnecessary, and the great consequences that could easily arise from this , monstrous doctrine are clearly set forth by one of Rome’s own theologians. It brings Rome down to the point where she, instead of being a safe and satisfac- tory refuge for the sinner, is turned into a harbor of uncertainty and doubt, for by her own teaching, as Just explained, her followers can never, no- never, know whether they are saved or not. The doctrine of intention and its teaching is directly contrary to the Bible and its teachings. According to Rome it isn’t the individual that is the principal, but it is the priest. No matter what the state of the individ- ual’s faith, yet if the priest’s intention is wrong in administering a sacrament to him his faith is made null and his life a blot. But not so with the teaching of the Bible and Christ. With them if a person’s heart is in his works and if he is true in his belief and faith there is no power on earth that will turn God away from him, intention or no intention. It is the individual that is the principal, it is he who is doing the believing, and if his intention and desire is true and sincere then all is well as far as he and his God are concerned. Heb. 7-25. “He is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him.” Rom. 6-3. “Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized unto Jesus Christ were baptized into his death ?”152 INTENTION Rom. 7-25, Paul says: “With the mind I myself serve the law of God.” Rom. 8-2. “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.” Rom. 8-6. “To be spiritually minded is life and peace.” Rom. 8-9. “If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His.” Rom. 8-11. “But if the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He that raiseth up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth in you.” Rom. 8-14. “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God they are the sons of God.” Rom. 10-9. “If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shall believe in thine heart that. God hath raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved.” What a contrast between this Christ's law and Rome's. By Rome’s doctrine you live in continual un- certainty and can never get out of it. By Christ's doc- trine you live in absolute certainty, relying on His promise, that if you will only believe in your heart that God hath raised Christ from the dead and if you will confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, thou shalt be saved. How simple and plain this doctrine of Christ's is. He says to be spiritually minded is life and peace and that as many as are led by the Spirit are the sons of God. It is you, yourself, who is re- ceiving the sacraments and not the priest, and if your heart is right and your faith true and of the spirit it matters little what the priest's intention is, you re- ceive God's blessing just the same. It is an act be- tween you and your God, in which God gives and you receive, the minister acting only the inferior part of deliverer. “But if (Rom. 8-9) any man have not the Spirit ofINTENTION 153 Christ, he is none of His.” He could be baptized a dozen times with or without intention and it would do him no good for it is by Spirit and not act that a man is reconciled to God. And which therefore proves that it is not necessary for a minister to have intention in administering a sacrament if only the one to whom it is given is of the right mind and Spirit. My dear friends, come out of the maze of uncer- tainty, which surrounds Rome, into the light and cer- tainty of the Bible and the protection of the ever-lov- ing Christ, who says, St. Matt. 11-29: “Take My yoke upon you, and learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart; and ye shall find rest unto your souls.”SCAPULARS. What I write about scapulars and the references thereto I take from the “Scapular Book,” an author- ized Roman Catholic doctrinal book, and with the special approbation of the Most Rev. John Hughes, D. D., late Archbishop of N. Y., consequently an infal- lible text-book. And, by the way, as I wish you to look this subject up for yourself, I will say a copy of this same “Scap- ular Book” can be obtained of P. J. Kenedy, Catholic Publishing House, N. Y., for 10 cents and postage. Don’t take my word for it if you think I prevaricate when you can find out authoritatively for so small a ** consideration. A Scapular, as described on page 116, should be made of two pieces of woolen cloth about three inches square and of the color which the different orders call for, as those of the Lady of Mount Carmel, which are of a dark brown or coffee color. These are at- tached to a double string so that they may hang over the shoulders, one piece on the breast and the other on the back. This custom is not strictly adhered to, some wearing them both together, some pinning them to the underclothing, etc. It is also a custom to have a picture or symbol on them according to which order it is of, as of the one mentioned where it is a picture of our Blessed Lady (Virgin Mary) sewed on or to have the initials I. H. S. marked on one piece and the initials I. M. I. on the other, but neither the picture nor the letters are neces- sary ; a simple Scapular without either is sufficient. There are a number of Scapular Orders, such as the Scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel; of OurSCAPULARS 155 Blessed Lady of the Seven Dolors; of the Immaculate Conception; of the Most Holy Trinity; and tue Red Scapular of Our Lord's passion and of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary. I will not take time to go into detail about them all, for the teaching in the different ones is very much the same in each and all. I will speak of the Scapular of our Lady of Mount Carmel, as it appears to be by far the most prominent one from the way it is dwelt on in the Scapular Book. This devotion was instituted towards the middle of the 13th century. On pages 92-93-94 of the Scapular Book is the account of its origin. One Simon Smock of Kent, England, at the age of twelve years retired to a solitude where his food was only herbs and roots, with but a rivulet to quench his thirst and a hollow tree for a shelter. Prayer (as it goes on to describe) was his only occupation and the Mother of God, to whom he was tenderly devoted, favored him with par- ticular graces (yet weren't they the natural graces given to all? Even the beasts of the forest are blessed with better things.) After thirty years spent in this solitude he joined the monks of Mount Carmel and there zealously devoted himself to the order and to an ardent devotion of the Virgin Mary. As the story, which reads more like a fairy tale, proceeds he passed several years in tears and supplications to the Virgin to give him some mark as a pledge of her favor. It says she condescended to his desires and gave him a Scapular and addressed him in these words (which are in italics), viz.: "My beloved son, receive this scap- ular as the livery of my confraternity. It is a privilege granted to you and to all Carmelites; it shall be a mark of predestination, a safeguard in danger, a pledge of peace and of eternal alliance. Whoever shall be so happy as to die wearing this garment, shall not suffer in the eternal flames of hell." On page 96 of the Scapular Book we are again told156 SCAPULARS that the Blessed Virgin made a second promise, this time to Pope John XXII, in which she says, “John, Vicar of my Son, it is to me you are indebted for your exaltation to the dignity which you enjoy, in con- sequence of my solicitations in your behalf with my Divine Son, and as I have delivered you from the snares of your enemies so do I expect that you will give ample and favorable confirmation of the Holy Carmelite order which was first instituted on Mount Carmel. And if among the Religious or Brethren of the Confraternity, who depart out of this life there shall be any who for their sins have been cast into Purgatory; I, their glorious Mother, will descend, on the Saturday after their death; I will deliver those whom I shall find in Purgatory and take them up to the holy mountain of eternal life.,> These are the very words of the Bull of March 3rd, 1322, whereby Pope John XXII made the promulga- tion of this privilege, which he at the same time con- firmed in all its extent and pronounced it as an in- fallible doctrine of the Church, saying, “I accept then this holy indulgence, I corroborate and confirm it on Earth./’ This is called the Sabbatine Bull, which since then has been approved of and pronounced infallible and an article of belief, by such as the following Popes —Alexander V, Clement VII, Pius V, and Gregory XIII. On page 98 the fathers are authorized to preach this to the faithful to be piously believed. On page. 119 it is, “That the devotion of the Scap- ular is the best of all the pious practices which the Church authorizes.” The book then goes on to tell of some miracles where the wearing of the scapular has saved life, etc., one, page 120, of a man struck by a musket ball, the Scapular stopping the ball and he escaping injury. There is here in my own county and now living, a Civil war veteran who was likewise struck by a musketSCAPULARS 157 ball and without injury, but he didn’t wear a scapular. What is the conclusion? It was probably the forces of nature in each and a so-called spent ball, the veloc- ity of which was retarded by its long travel through the atmosphere. Another, page 124, was of a girl sick unto death, and pronounced incurable by the physician, who on adopting the livery of Mary, i. e., the Scapular, quick- ly recovered. I can add a parallel one and a true one, which you can verify any day. A few years ago my father had pneumonia and was told by the physician he could not live another day. Yet he did and is still living and in very good health. But he never wore a scapular, so how do you account for it? Weren’t both casgs at a natural turning point where the conditions seemed to reverse and the patients speedily recovered ? Many more follow, but space forbids my describing them, though the absurdity of some of them is strik- ingly apparent. No, the miracles of today can practically all be put down to cause and effect. Everything in God’s great Universe goes by that law. Possibly you cannot see it so and in many cases it seems to be otherwise, but if you knew every detail and every thing, then you could see how they all follow the same law just as surely as a child putting its hand on a hot stove will get it burnt. * Sut what’s the use to say more ? The Roman Cath- olic Church teaches as an* infallible doctrine and truth that by wearing the Scapular of the Lady of Mount* Carmel (Virgin Mary) through life and dying with it on that you will never go to Hell, but on the Saturday after your death she will take your soul from Purga- tory and carry it to Heaven. 3 There are three Scripture quotations from the Old Testament which should help to open the eyes of all Scapular wearers. 1st. Exodus 23-13. “In all things that I have said158 SCAPULARS unto you be circumspect; and make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth.” 2nd. Deut. 11-16. "Take heed to yourselves that your heart be not deceived and ye turn aside and serve other gods and worship them.” 3rd. Deut. 27-15. “Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image, an abomination unto the Lord, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and putteth it in a secret place. And all the people shall answer and say Amen.” In the first you make mention of Mary as a god able to save you, to whom you pray and placing her as an equal with Christ; in the second you have not taken heed and kept your heart straight but have al- lowed yourself to be deceived into worshipping other than that which the Bible teaches; and in the third you have taken this Scapular, by the wearing of which you think you will be saved from Purgatory, and put it in a secret place in your bosom and say Amen. I believe in its power to save me from Purgatory. Isn't this pure idolatry? Even though you call it but a habit worn in honor of the Virgin Mary, yet the Church teaches infallibly that by wearing it you will be saved from Purgatory. What is the difference be- tween this and believing in an idol and that the idol will save your soul when you die? Though different in form, aren't they identical in effect and teaching? Perhaps you did not know the Church's teaching about Scapulars—many don't; then isn't it high time for you to investigate the subject? Cardinal Gibbons, in his “Faith of Our Fathers,” page 29, says, “No new dogmas, unknown to the Apostles, not contained in the primitive Christian revelation, can be admitted. For the Apostles received the whole deposit of God's word.” On page 60 he says, “The true Church (which he tries to prove is the Ro'man Catholic) must alwaysSCAPULARS 159 teach the identical doctrine of the Apostles, and no church can claim to be the true one whose doctrines differ from those of the Apostles.” How now, isn’t this a new dogma and wasn’t it inaugurated nearly 1,300 years after Christ? Gibbons’ book is an approved, therefore an infallible book. Does this not prove that papal infallibility is a farce? In- fallibility means, “always true and the same.” There- fore, of a necessity, Cardinal Gibbons’ book is not in- fallible and the Pope is not infallible. But there are many other new dogmas added to the Roman Catholic Church in the last few centuries, such as belief in in- dulgences, Celibacy of Clergy, Salvation through Mary, Immaculate Conception, Infallibility of Pope, etc. Then just so much more is the Cardinal wrong and the Pope not infallible. No such word as scap- ular or belief in or knowledge of is mentioned in the Bible. And again St. Paul to the Galatians 1-8, say, “But though we or any angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” Then we are to conclude this, i. e., the Roman Catholic Church teaches a new gospel, the salvation of mankind through the office and wearing of a few pieces of cloth called a scapular, therefore by St. Paul the Roman Church is to be accursed. But let us search the Bible farther to see if it agrees in other ways. Mat. 15-9. Christ says, “In vain they do worship me, teaching for doc- trine the commandments of men,” or as the same.verse is given in the Roman Catholic Bible, “And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and command- ments of men.” (Cardinal Gibbons, by his own writing, proves that the Roman Catholic Church is not the true church, for the very things he says constitute the true church are not to be found in it, such as the above named dogmas, not one of which the Apostles taught, or as far as his-160 SCAPULARS tory or the Bible proves not one of them did they ever hear of.) The belief in and the teaching of the Scapular was originated in the 13th century and in and by the Roman Church, irrespective of Christ or the Bible. Or in other words, it is a commandment of men which Christ Himself says is worship in vain. Again in St. John 5-24 (Roman version), Jesus said, “Amen, Amen, I say unto you that he who heareth my word, and believeth him that sent me, hath life everlasting; and cometh not into judgment, but is passed from death to life.,, What a strike at Purga- tory, the Scapular, and Rome’s ways of salvation. Jesus says, he who believeth hath life everlasting and passes immediately from death to life or heaven, while the Popes say you must believe in varied new doc- trines, such as the one under discussion, the wearing of a scapular, which will save you and also that the soul goes first to Purgatory before going to heaven. Which will you believe,. Roman Catholicism and the Pope, or the Bible and Christ? You can’t do both, for the teaching of the two are directly opposite to each otheh on many or most of the important doctrines that Rome has created. Do you honestly think that you can wear a scapular, believing in it, as the Roman Church teaches, and still be a Christian? Do you? Don’t you think to be a Christian that you have got to believe in Christ, His Word, and in His saving pow- er as He taught it in the Bible ? The Scapular is cer- tainly contrary to His whole teaching. In St. John 14-6, Christ says, “I am the way and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father but by me.” (Rom- an version.) Christ practically says to this Roman devotion of the scapular, “Scapular away, you are an offense unto me, for I am the way and not you. No man cometh unto the Father by you, for no man com - eth to the Father but by me.”/ IDOLATRY OR IMAGE WORSHIP. The Roman Catholic Church denies the fact that they practice idolatry, but the proofs that she does practice it are so plain that her assertion cannot be relied upon. When we see Roman Catholics prostrat- ing themselves before the images of St. Peter, or Vir- gin Mary, making the sign of the cross, and praying to them, we see idolatry; when we see the priest raise the cross on Good Friday, sayirfg, “Behold the Cross,” the choir singing “Adore the Cross” and the people pros- trating themselves before it in adoration, we see idol- atry; when we see them kneeling before the pictures on the walls of a church called the “Way of the Cross” and saying, “Oh, holy cross, we adore thee,” we see idolatry; and greatest of all, when we see them falling down in humble worship of the Host (which is but baked flour and water), believing it to be Christ’s body and blood, we see idolatry, which seems incredulous. Yet one and all of these, with many more, are prac- ticed in the Roman Catholic Church, and the followers seem to think them Christian rites or ceremonies in- stituted by Christ. But they are not. They are simply idolatry and condemned by the Bible. Rome says, God commanded Moses to build the ark of the covenant (Ex. 25-18), and to make two cheru- bims and place them at the two ends of the mercy seat. This, Rome says, proves God’s approval of image worship. Does it? Read farther. God commands it to be placed in the innermost sanctuary or “Holy of Holies” of the tabernacle and that none but the high priest was to see it and he was to see it but once a year (Lev. 16). Where is the idolatry? God appeared to Aaron from the mercy seat in a cloud. This was for 11162 IDOLATRY OR IMAGE WORSHIP one man only. It was not for worship but for sacri- fice. And it was but for a covenant between God and Moses. But where is the Scripture proof that God plainly upholds idolatry and image worship? There is none. I defy Rome to prove it. The Old and the New Testa- ment are filled with passages condemning both, of which I could quote hundreds, but a few will suffice and those I will give farther on in the chapter. Every one who has been in Roman Churches and especially its followers, know of the different images which they contain, as for instance those of Mary (Virgin), St. Peter, St. Joseph, etc., and most Roman Catholics know of the prayers, services, decoratings, and homage, which is to be bestowed upon each one. The Second Council of Nice says of images, “Give them the salutation and honorary worship, but not the true latria which belongs to the divine nature alone.” (Labbe’s Councils, Paris, 1672.) The Roman Pontificial says, “The cross of the legate, because latria is due it, shall be on the right hand.” St. Thomas Aquinas, one of Rome’s very first theo- logians, says, “Since, therefore, Christ is to be adored with the worship of latria, it follows that His image is to be adored with the worship of latria.” (Quest 25, Art. 3, 3d Part, Sum. Theol.) The above quotations but partly show the great dif- ference of opinion among the Roman clergy them- selves as to how much worship is to be paid to images, but it clearly shows that they are to be worshiped in some degree, if not with full latria worship. Again the worship you pay to the Host or Wafer of communion is nothing short of idolatry. The wafer is but a bit of flour and water baked between hot irons, • but which you believe, at the words of consecration, is changed into the real body and blood of Christ. Any one can make them if they know-how. They are madeIDOLATRY OR IMAGE WORSHIP 163 of earthly materials and are liable to decay, poison, or contamination and this even after consecration, as I could prove by many examples in real practice. Yet you believe they are Christ's body and blood. Are heavenly things so constituted or are they spiritual and everlasting? But, I have proven that they are not changed to Christ's body and blood in a chapter on communion and transubstantiation. You may not fall down and worship the Host as Christ, but you do worship Him through the wafer. In the same way the heathen worshiped their gods through images; in the same way the Egyptians wor- shiped God under the form of crocodiles and calves; in the same way the sun worshipers worship their god through the sun; the Greeks worshiped their gods through images of gold and marble; Israel made a calf at Sinai and bowed down to it, saying, “Tomorrow is a feast of Jehovah," for which God duly punished them; Jeroboam did likewise and brought utter ruin on ten tribes of Israel. They are all one and the same, trying to worship God through something made with the hands. It may be fitting, as an example, to add a part of the “Rituale Romanum," authorized by the Pope Urban VIII for the consecration of images and which is this, “Grant, O God, that whosoever before this image (of whomever it mdy be) shall diligently and humbly, upon his knees worship and honor them, may obtain by his or her merits, and intercession grace in this present life, and eternal glory hereafter," and which conclu- sively proves that Rome worships through images. Now to show that such worship is wrong according to the Bible and condemned by God. The Second Commandment of God reads as follows: Exodus 20-4. “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: V. 5. Thou shalt not /164 IDOLATRY OR IMAGE WORSHIP bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me” What more proof do you need of God's attitude towards images? You Romans have in your churches images of beings in heaven above, and as I have proven, you bow down to them and worship them. What do you look for as God’s answer when you knock at the heavenly gates ? He even went so far as to make it one of His “Ten Holy Commandments,” which if we keep in the spirit will lead us to heaven. But Rome, insulting God’s holy law, deliberately sets it aside. Will you continue breaking God’s law and re- main a Roman Catholic or will you drop from a church which is Antichristian, as millions of Protestants have done, and worship God as He tells us to in the Bible? Before I finish the chapter I wish to add a few more Scripture quotations which will help to prove images and their worship as Antichristian. Lev. 26-1. “Ye shall make ye no idols nor gKaven images, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land to bow down unto it: for I am the Lord your God.” Deu. 4-15. “Take ye therefore good heed unto your- selves, V. 16. Lest ye corrupt yourselves and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the like- ness of male or female.” Deu. 27-15. “Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image, an abomination unto the Lord, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and putteth it in a secret place. And all the people shall answer and say, Amen.” Heb. 2-18. “Woe unto him that saith to the wood, Awake, to the dumb stone, Arise, it shall teach, Be- hold, it is laid over with gold and silver, and there is no breath at all in the midst of it.”IDOLATRY OR IMAGE WORSHIP 165 Rom. 1-22. “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” V. 23. “And changed the glory of the uncorrupti- . ble God into an image made like to corruptible man.” John 4-24. “God is a spirit; and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” These above quotations clearly prove that God, who is uncorruptible, cannot be worshiped through the image of anything corruptible, as for instance as through the Host of communion as Christ, or through the pictures, crosses, or the images which adorn Roman Catholic Churches, and to which her followers bow down. But the true way is told us, viz.: “God is a spirit and they that worship Him mijst worship Him in spirit and in truth.” Without anything intervening between us and God, we are to believe, love and worship Him direct from our spirit to His. Unburden your cares to Him as you would to an earthly father or mother, believe that He can and will help you ; believe that Christ died to atone for your sins; live in faith, hope and charity, and heaven is yours.THE ROMAN INQUISITION. Rome naturally denies that the Inquistion was in- stituted by them, but that it was a civil office. Wait and see if they approved of it; if they governed it; or if they instituted it. I will prove them all. The Inquisition was used by Rome to exterminate Heretics or Protestants, or to frighten them into ac- cepting the Roman religion as their own. It was oper- ated by Priests or Bishops, who were called Inquisi- tors and its cruelties and practices were the most devilish that man's cunning could devise for torture. Rome's idea was that anyone who stood for liberty of conscience; or who held doctrines differing from those of Rome; or who disbelieved in Rome and sup- ported Protestantism, was a heretic and should be tor- tured into submission to Rome; extremely tortured as a warning to others if they tried to do likewise; and exterminated where they refused to submit. Now to prove it a Roman institution and operated and supported by them, I add the following quotations, whose authors are prominent enough to convince the most skeptical. Joannes Devotus, one of this country's principal Papal authorities, and whose works are approved at Rome, says, “The cause of instituting the tribunal, called the Inquisition, was this: At first every Bishop in his own diocese or a number of Bishops assembled in a Provincial. Council, made inquisition of those errors, which arose in the diocese or province. But when new errors daily sprung up and the number of heretics was greatly increased, it was determined to institute a standing tribunal to expel heretics as they arose, there was instituted at Rome, by the Popes, anTHE ROMAN INQUISITION 167 assembly or congregation of Cardinals in which the Pope presides. This congregation is the head of all In- quisitors over the whole world, and its authority and judgment are final. (In his Institutions, Vol. 4, under the head Inquisitors^pr Heretical Pravity.) Among the Pope£* who have taught the Inquisition and the extermination of heretics, or approved of them, are the following: Honorius (1216) published a bull approving of the extermination of heretics. Innocent IV granted in- dulgences to those who would ioin a crusade for the extermination of heretics. Urban IV published a bull of instructions to In- quisitors for the extermination of heretics (Extermina- tion Vulpeculis). In like manner Popes Alexander IV, Clement IV, Nicholas III, John XXII, Boniface IX, Innocent VIII, Julius II, Leo X, Paul III, Paul IV, Pius V, and many others, approved of the Inquisition, the pun- ishment and extermination of heretics (read “Mag- num Bullarium” to verify the above). The Council of Trent says, “If any one shall pre- sume to think or teach differently from these decrees, let him be accursed. If any one disobey, let him be denounced by the ordinaries and perish according to law.” The Council of Toledo decreed, “We, the Holy Council, promulgate this sentence, or decree, pleasing to God, that whosoever hereafter shall succeed to the kingdom shall not mount the throne ’till he has sworn, to permit no man to live in his kingdom who is not a Catholic.” The Council of Toledo decreed, “We excommuni- cate and anathematize all heresy, condemning all here- tics by what name soever they are called.” The St. Louis, “Shepard of the Valley” (A Roman Catholic paper), in 1852, says, “Protestantism of every kind Catholicity inserts in her catalogues of mortal168 THE ROMAN INQUISITION sins. She endures it when and where she must, but she hates it, and directs all her energies to its destruc- tion/' The Pittsburg Catholic says, “We hate Protestant- ism, we detest it with our whole heart and soul, and we pray that our aversion to it may never decrease/' The above quotations should be sufficient proof as to where the Inquisition was instituted and by whom approved and used. The same sentiment is carried up to the present century, but Rome cannot use it as openly as she did three or four centuries ago when she was more powerful. She would use it in the United States if she could, but she can't, thank God. Rome numbers but two-seventeenths of the population of the United States and with the odds against her at the rate of 15 to 2 she dare not do it openly. But she can do it on the sly, as she did in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, the greatest exponent of liberty, both religious and civil, that America ever produced. It seems incredulous to you, you cannot believe it— wait and let me give proof of my assertion, which is a matter of history, and which, if true, casts a blot on Rome and its present day Inquisition methods that eternity cannot erase. In the first place Lincoln was not a Roman Catholic and therefore was a heretic in the eyes of Rome. And, according to her theology and decrees, as I have given them, he would be punishable with death. Again he was a champion of civil and religious liberty which Rome despises as we see from an “Encyclical Letter of Pope Pius IX, August 15, 1846," which says, “The absurd and erroneous doctrines or ravings in defense of liberty of conscience, is a most pestilential error, a pest of all others most to be dreaded in a State." (Written less than nine years before Lincoln's assas- sination and which showed the Pope's attitude toward him.) When Lincoln was running for President, RomeTHE ROMAN INQUISITION 169 ordered all her followers to side with the Democracy and combat him. They failed and this probably tended toward the Pope and Rome being among the first to give Jefferson Davis and the Confederacy the right hand of fellowship. Things drifted on and Lincoln and the North were gaining the ascendancy. Roman sympathy with the South was coming to naught, so she took another tack. Lincoln was slandered as a heretic, as a renegade, as an apostate (while in reality he was a sincere and de- vout Christian) and a false sentiment was created against him. Lincoln escaped assassination in Baltimore, from a party led by Byrne, a rabid Roman Catholic, by chang- ing his plans and going incognito. He received threats against his life and warning after warning but he took no time from his duties to heed them till the final blow came. General L. C. Baker, Chief of the “National Detec- tive Police” or Secret Service Bureau, in writing of the assassination of Lincoln in his book, “The Secret Service of the Late War,” page 297, says: “I men- tion as an exceptional and remarkable fact, that every conspirator in custody is by education a Catholic. No better authority could be had than General Baker, but the same is shown in the trials of the assassins and those connected with them. Mrs. Surratt's house is shown up to be a rendezvous of priests and of the as- sassins and had been for a long time and everything points directly to Rome's complicity in Lincoln's death. I will not take the space to go over the trials of all the conspirators, but will take but one to show you what an interest Rome had in the conspiracy. You can satisfy yourself as to the correctness of my quo- tations. I take them from the court record of the “Trial of John Surratt,” giving volume and page. Father Lapierre was no less a personage than the canon of Bishop Bourget, of Montreal, Canada.170 THE ROMAN INQUISITION Father Boucher swears (pages 904-912, Vol. II) that only a few days after the assassination, Father Lapierre sent John Surratt to him and that he kept him concealed in his parsonage of St. Liboire from the end of April to the end of July and that Father La- pierre then took him. (Page 910.) He swears he accompanied John Surratt and Father Lapierre to the steamer "Montreal," and that Father Lapierre accom- panied him disguised from the Montreal to the ocean steamer "Peruvian.” The Doctor of the steamer "Peruvian,” L. I. A. McMillan swears (Vol. I, page 460) that Father La- pierre introduced John Surratt to him as McCarthy and kept him locked in his state room. Vol. I, page 492, he was found enrolled under the banners of the Pope under the name of Watson, and in the 9th company of his Zouaves at Vitry. Have I not given sufficient proof to show you that the ways of the Inquisition are still in use by Rome, as they were three to seven centuries ago, when the massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day in France, by which, as variously estimated, from thirty to one hun- dred thousand Protestants were massacred in about three days. The head of Coligue, the most prominent Protestant, was sent to Rome. While the Pope went in procession to say Mass, thanking God for ridding the world of sp many heretics. The Pope sent Cardi- nal Ursini to France to thank the King and had a medal made to commemorate the event. Call you this man the Vicar of Christ, who, instead of weeping over the sufferings of men as Christ did, glories in their destruction and sufferings ? Look at the "Famous Gunpowder Plot” in England, by which the Catholics intended blowing up the Roy- alty and Parliament at one shot, but which failed. See the hand of a devil rather than a "Vicar of Christ" in the persecutions of the Waldenses, when Pope Pius IV, determined to exterminate them, be-THE ROMAN INQUISITION 171 cause they were Protestants, having religious beliefs much the same as Methodists, Baptists, etc., do now- adays. Beast that he was (I can apply no better name to a man of his ways, whether Pope or servant) he sent Cardinal Alexandrino, a man of violent tem- per and a decided bigot, together with two monks to act as their inquisitors, knowing they were Protest- ants but refusing to see the truth and purity of their lives. As a result of this action of the Pope the Wal- denses were practically exterminated because they re- fused to support the Pope. The people of the town of St. Xist, having fled to the woods, the Cardinal sent for troops and had them hunted from cave to cave as are the beasts and gave strict orders to spare neither age nor sex till all were killed. Those of La Garde, refusing to become Roman Catholics, thirty were ordered by the Cardinal to be put to the rack as an example to the rest. Though these suffered the most devilish of tortures, some dying, yet the rest re- mained true to their faith in Christ and His guide, the Bible. Now the inhuman Cardinal ordered some stripped and whipped to death with iron rods; some were literally cut to pieces; some were thrown from the tops of buildings; and some were mutilated and placed on posts and put in different parts of the coun- try as an example to others. This was kept up till they were practically exterminated. The persecutions in Piedmont were much the same. The Protestants petitioned the Duke of Savoy for pro- tection. But instead of redress he issued a decree by which one witness against any Protestant was suffi- cient in court to convict them of any crime whatever, the witness receiving a hundred crowns as reward. You can judge of the results of this decree which was brought on by Pope Clement VIII. Hundreds of other instances could be added of Rome’s Inquisition, while the pen cannot accurately describe the agonies of their torture chambers, where172 THE ROMAN INQUISITION joints were dislocated, the flesh torn to pieces, bones broken and reset only to let the sufferer get well enough to be again tortured. Hell, yes, hell on earth, and brought here by whom? By Rome, under the direct head of the Pope, as Vicar of Christ, and as an instrument of Christianity. . . . Call you this Christinaity ? No. Christ says, Heb. 8-12: “For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.” What a contrast between Christ and one who styles himself the Vicar of Christ. Christ says I will be merciful and will forget their sins and iniquities. Rome, through her Popes and Councils, curses those who won't accept their doctrines and persecutes, and exterminates those who hold dif- ferent doctrines from their own. The two are direct contrasts. Christ teaches one doctrine and Rome teaches the opposite, so Rome cannot be infallible and the true Church. The decrees and doctrines of Rome on the Inquisi- tion have never been revoked, so she stands on the same belief today she did in the past, circumstances and her small percentage of adherents keeping her from the practices she then used.THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION. The Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary was made a dogma of the Church of Rome, December 8th, 1854, by Pope Pius IX, in these words: “We de- clare, pronounce, and define, that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first in- stant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the saviour of mankind, was pre- served immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore, should be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful.” A bull, dated the same day, decrees that: “Whoever shall presume to think otherwise, has suffered shipwreck of the faith, has revolted from the unity of the Church; and if he gives utterance to his thought, incurs the penalties justly established against heresy.” In the above words Rome, eighteen centuries after ' Christ, adds a new doctrine to her faith, and says that all who do not believe it have shipwrecked their faith or are in other words considered of the “damned.” The first time this new doctrine came into notice was in 1140, when St. Bernard wrote to the canons of Lyons to reprove them for introducing into their Church the Feast of the Conception. The first divine of any note to put it forth as a doctrine was Duns Scotus, in 1306. His views were taken up by the Francisan monks, while Thomas Aquinas (Rome’s greatest theologian of that time (and the Dominican monks strongly opposed it as an Unchristian doctrine. The unity of the Roman Catholic Church sustained a shock that made the Church fear dismemberment. All her followers in Europe entered more or less into174 THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION the controversy and the disputes over the question often became so heated as to lead to bloodshed. In Spain especially did the supporters and opponents, in the Church, wax hot in the controversy. Deputation after deputation was sent to the Popes, but all to no use. Of special note were the efforts of Philip III and Philip IV, who tried their best to have Popes, Paul V, Gregory XV, and Alexander VII, stop the shedding of blood and to disarm the opponents, by either pronouncing the question of the Immaculate Conception to be a doctrine of the Church of Rome or to pronounce it a spurious or heretical doctrine. But they failed. Other Popes were petitioned to stop the contro- versy. The Council of Trent, which was in session from 1545 to 1563, was asked to settle the question, but the majority of Bishops were against it and it failed to be pronounced a doctrine. Thus the contro- versy dragged on for three centuries, till 1854, when Pope Pius IX, after twice declaring that he did not know if the Virgin Mary was immaculate in her con- ception, relying on a dream of his, saying that it had been revealed to him, pronounced it a true doctrine of fhe Church of Rome and cursed all who would not believe it. Dear reader, will you stop and think a few min- utes? What is your honest opinion of a church which can add a new doctrine to her faith as Rome has that of the Immaculate Conception? Jesus Christ never mentioned it as a fact or even referred to it. The Bible does not contain one word about it. Cardinal Gibbons, in his “Faith of Our Fathers,” does not see fit to discuss it, evidently aware of all lack of proof to sustain it. It did not come up as a doctrine for eleven centuries after Christ’s time. For seven hundred years thereafter Pope after Pope, also Councils, were asked to define it, but they could not, for it did not contain Scriptural support; the Apostles did not teach it; andTHE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 175 th6 Fathers did not sanction it. But it was left to Pope Pius IX, eighteen hundred years after Christ’s time, to imagine it was revealed to him in a dream, and to pronounce it a doctrine of the Church of Rome. Is not the above a contradiction of the boasted Unity of the Church of Rome? I could add another chapter to this book on “Unity in the Roman Church/’ but will let this one example suffice to show you what dissensions have ruffled the unity of the Church. Cardinal Gibbons, in his “Faith of Our Fathers,” page 60, says: “No Church can claim to be the true one, whose doctrines differ from those of the Apos- tles.” Taking the Cardinal at his own standard, this chapter has conclusively proven that th.e Roman Cath- olic Church has added a new doctrine, the “Immaculate Conception,” which was never taught by the Apostles, and which it took Rome eighteen centuries to promul- gate as one of her articles of faith. Therefore, the Roman Catholic Church cannot lay claim to being the true Christian Church. Pope Pius IX pronounces a curse on all who do not accept it as an article of faith. Then what is to be- come of those millions upon millions of Roman Cath- olics who died between the years of 34 and 1854, and who either never heard of the doctrine of the Immacu- late Conception, or who did not believe it if they had heard of it, for it was not as yet a doctrine of Rome? Did they all perish and are now, one and all, suffer- ing in hell? Of a necessity it would have to be so, for if it is now necessary to believe it as a necessity of salvation it surely was necessary to those earlier Christians as well. Ah, Rome, where is your unity? Where is your consistency? Where is your infallible authority? Why cannot you follow the law of the Bible as laid down by Christ and His Disciples instead of dabbling in new or strange doctrines and beliefs? Yes, why?ROME TEACHES THAT THERE IS NO SAL- VATION BUT THROUGH HER. Protestants have no religion, and no one can be saved without they become a Roman Catholic. Such is the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. She may say that she will respect your religion, but to her you are a heretic and have no religion. Whenever Rome, through her Councils or Popes, has decreed a new doctrine they almost invariably add a curse on all those who will not believe it a true doctrine. Pope Pius IV in his creed, and speaking of the Roman Catholic religion says: “I do at this present freely profess, and sincerely hold this true Catholic faith without which no one can be saved.” Pope Bon- iface VIII, in a Papal bull, says: “We therefore assert, define and pronounce, that it is necessary to salvation to believe that every human being is subject to the Roman Pontiff.” The Council of Lateran decreed as follows: “We excommunicate and anthematize all heresy, condemn- ing all heretics by what name soever they are called.” Other Councils and Popes decreed in like manner. The same doctrine is held by Rome today, that there is no salvation outside of her pale. I will quote a few passages from her present “Catechism of Christian Doctrine No. 3” as prepared and enjoined by order of the “Third Plenary Council of Baltimore.” And there- fore an unquestionable authority. On page 118 we find the following: “A person who denies even one article of our faith could not be a Catholic (meaning a Roman Catholic”). On page 122 and 123 we find the following: “Prot- estant Churches are not Holy, because their doctrinesNO SALVATION OUTSIDE ROME 177 are founded on error. And they do not teach the doc- trines of the Apostles.” On page 244 we find: “Catholics who marry before a Protestant (heretical) minister incur excommunica- tion . . . because by such a marriage they make profession of a false religion.” On page 324 we find: “It is a mortal sin for Cath- olics to be married before the minister of another religion.” 7 All of the above show that Rome has no respect whatever for Protestants' religion, even today. I could quote many more positive proofs of her bigoted teaching, but enough have been given to show Prot- estants that Rome breaks Christ's second greatest com- mandment which is: “To love their neighbor as them- selves.” Instead of trying to persuade their Protest- ant neighbors with the “Truth” of their religion, proven from the “Bible” (as they could if it were the true religion) and as Christ taught and practiced, they do the very opposite and curse them, saying they have no religion and are already condemned. Think of the Unchristian principle involved in one man or, body of men cursing their own brothers and neighbors* because they do not think and believe just as they themselves do. It would be just as reason- able for a Republican to say that a Democrat had no politics at all and could not be a citizen of the United States just because he was not a Republican. In the latter case you would call a man demented who would make the assertion; then what would you call Rome for making the first assertion ? Surely she, too, must be demented. But to take Rome as she says, “That to deny one article of their faith and you cannot be a Roman Catholic” and “if you do not become a Roman Cath- olic you cannot be saved.” What am I to do? If I remain a Protestant, then by Rome's decrees, I will be damned anyway. If I become a Roman Catholic178 NO SALVATION OUTSIDE ROME (which would be the other alternative) then I must believe in every one of those doctrines which she has seen fit to add to her faim since the Apostles’ time, and which are contrary to the Bible. As Celibacy of Clergy . . . Paul says, I Tim. 3-2: “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife. V . 5. For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how -shall he take care of the Church of God?” But Rome says, No, we will com- pel the clergy to celibacy, Bible or no Bible, Paul or no Paul. And they did. Again of the Eucharist, Christ says, St. John 6-5 to 3. ‘Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood ye have no life in you.” But Rome says no, Christ was wrong and it is not necessary, to drink his blood (the wine of Communion). In the above, as in many other doctrines of Rome, which, in other chapters, I have proven Unscriptural, I would have to believe to be saved according to Rome’s standard. But according to the Bible I could not believe in them for they are contrary to Christ’s and the Bible’s teaching. Then again, I ask what am I to do to be saved? If I am to be a Christian I must believe in Christ. The Bible is His “Law,” written by His Disciples, and He commands us to, St. John 5-39, “Search the Scrip- tures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they which testify of me.” Therefore I will not believe in the Roman Catholic or any other church which wilfully teaches contrary to Scriptures. I will cast their anathemas and curses to the wind as harm- less atoms and then I will stand forth with the Bible as my standard and Jesus as my Guardian and will fear no evil. For St. Peter said, Acts 10-34: “Of a truth I perceive that God is no respector of persons. V. 35. But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.”INFALLIBILITY. A few years ago on a Sunday, when coming home from a Roman Catholic Church, with a neighbor boy of mine, who was nearing the age of twenty, we were speaking of the sermon which was the last one of a week's Mission, which had been held in the Church. “This ends a full week for me,” he said. On asking him why, he said, “Besides doing my regular work I have gone twenty-six miles to take in morning mass and also evening services and without a miss for the whole week and which has necessitated my getting up in the morning at 4 o’clock and being out every evening till after 10 o’clock.” I asked him if he con- sidered it necessary to so overwork himself so as to attend church twice a day. With a submissive tone to his voice, he said: “It was either that or go to Hell.” The Priest had said it was absolutely neces- sary and the Priest, being the mouthpiece of the Pope, it was considered infallible, so the boy firmly believed that it was either do it or suffer for it in Hell for the Pope’s word was law. Another incident, which occurred at the same Mis- sion, bears out the same dominating tyranny of the Roman clergy. Three young people had missed one evening service, and the Priest, in some mysterious way, found it out (as they do so many things). At the morning services they were reminded of it before the whole congregation and were told to make satis- faction for it to the Priest, immediately after the serv- ices were over, and if they didn’t, then more strin- gent methods would be used to bring them to time. They didn’t lose much time in doing as they were commanded. Why ? Because in their hearts they be-180 INFALLIBILITY lieved that they “had to,” for there was no salvation outside of their church, and if they did not obey that then they were lost.. Such is the fear instilled into the hearts of all Roman Catholics by believing in the in- fallibility of the Pope, and that outside of his author- ity there is no religion or salvation. In treating this subject of infallibility, I will treat it as it is now taught by Rome, i. e., that the Pope is infallible in all matters of faith and morals and as the “Vicar of Christ.” Being held as such I will hold him responsible for all the now existing Unchristian doctrines and practices of the Roman Catholic Church, though they might have been instituted by other sources, as Councils, etc. For if he is infallible and his word in the Church is law, then he, if he would, could eradicate all Unchristian doctrines, but seeing that he hasn't I therefore take the liberty of holding him accountable for them all. I also prove that the Church itself is not infallible. Proof No. 1. From Kinkead’s “A Catechism of Christian Doc- trine No. 3,” and on page 117, we find the Church's present teaching as to Papal infallibility. Question 547: “In whom are these attributes found in their fulness?” Answer: “These attributes are found in their full- ness in the Pope, the visible Head of the Church, whose infallible authority to teach bishops, priests, and people in matters of faith or morals will last to the end of the world.” This proclaiming the Pope to be the Infallible head of the Church was brought about at the Vatican Coun- cil, July 18th, 1870. There had been continual strife in the Church as to whether there was any infallible authority in the Church, some of the best theologians refused it entirely as an article of faith; some said theINFALLIBILITY 181 Church was infallible when speaking in Her Councils; some said the Pope and Church together were infalli- ble, and thus it remained without any thought of Papal infallibility as is clearly shown from the catechisms that were used before 1870, such as for instance, Rev. Stephen Keenan’s “Controversial Catechism,” which carries the special approbation of the late Archbishop Hughes of New York and from which we take the fol- lowing question and answer: Question: “Must not Catholics believe the Pope himself to be infallible ?” Answer: “This is a Protestant invention; it is no article of the Catholic faith. No decision of his can bind on pain of heresy, unless it be received and en- forced by the teaching body . . . that is, by the Bishops of the Church.” Pope Pius IX called the Vatican Council. The members of it who were opposed to proclaiming the Pope infallible were silenced. Free discussion was en- tirely prohibited, many members left the meeting en- tirely and then papal advocates became masters of the situation and succeeded in proclaiming the Pope as the infallible head of the Church. It was Pope Pius IX who, desiring the title and power thus implied, had the council called and the measure passed, and thereby setting aside all the pre- vious teachings against it and even changing her own belief as I have proven by the above catechism quota- tions. Before she taught Papal infallibility to be a Protestant invention, and then in 1870 she turns squarely around under the leadership of Pope Pius IX, and accepts it as an article of faith to be believed under penalty of eternal damnation. This changing of a heretical invention (as univer- sally taught before 1870) to a true doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, is a clear proof that the Pope is not infallible.182 INFALLIBILITY Proof No. 2. Since 1870 the Roman Catholic Church teaches that it has two infallible heads, which we find in Kinkead’s “Catechism of Christian Doctrine No. 3,” on page 113>, which reads as follows: “The Church teaches infalli- bility when it speaks through the Pope and Bishops united in general council, or through the Pope alone, when he proclaims to all the faithful a doctrine of faith or morals.,, Before 1870 the Church taught that a Council ^lone or a council with the Pope at its head was the only seat of infallibility, but since 1870, as in the above catechism quotation, which tries to smooth over the old teaching and at the same time add the new articles of Papal infallibility she has made matters even worse than they were as she now has two infalli- ble heads instead of one. Do you grasp the enormity of the teaching? A Council should be called and with the Pope at its head they could pass a certain article (which the Pope might individually be opposed to) and make it an infallible doctrine of the Church. Here we have one infallible head but now supposing after the Council was dis- missed, certain influences were brought to bear on the Pope and he, believing that he was right and had been all the time, should pronounce the article of the Coun- cil to be an Unchristian doctrine. Then here we have a second infallible head, the two directly opposite, and therefore of a necessity one is fallible. Later on in this chapter I will show that the above example has been enacted in the Roman Catholic Church, in which Popes and Councils have taught the direct opposites. Then this stands as a positive proof that Rome in her teaching is not infallible. Proof No. 3. Again, to do the foregoing proof one better, the Roman Catholic Church had three infallible Popes, all rINFALLIBILITY 133 at one time, and each calling the others heretics, etc., but at the same time each believing themselves to be the true head of the Church. It arose over the moving of the Papal seat from Rome to Avignon to please the French king. There were two factions one at the old seat in Rome, and the other in France. Each believing themselves in the right, in 1378 elected a Pope, Bene- dict XIII and Gregory XIII. An open rupture fol- lowed and became so flagrant and abusive that it be- came necessary to call a general council to settle the affair. This met at Pisa in 1409 and deposed both Popes and elected Alexander V as the supreme head of the Church. But again, instead of mending matters, they were worse .than ever, for each of the first two still claimed to be the true head of the Church while the Council of Pisa declared Alexander V to be the head. Then they had three heads to the Church, each elected by the Church and with authority. According to the present teaching of the Church all three would be infallible. What a fafce. Papal edicts flew back and forth at each of the heads like shot from three batteries and denunciations became the fashion to such an extent that it necessitated the calling of another Council at Constance in 1414. In this, two of the three Popes were again deposed, the third resigned and then Martin V was elected Pope. Things quieted down, but the fact still remains that Rome at one time had three infallible Popes, which is an impossibility and assuredly so, when they each denounced the others as heretics, etc. What clearer proof could be given, that the Pope is not infallible, than the above? Proof No. 4. Gregory the Great, or as he was afterward called, Gregory I, was Bishop of Rome from 590 to 604, and up to this time the Bishop of Rome had never received and held the title of Universal Bishop or Pope. \184 INFALLIBILITY Gregory in writing to his fellow Bishop of Alexan- dria (who had powers the same as those of Gregory) and about their being any universal Bishop in the Church as above or over the other Bishops, he says, “But I confidently say, that whosoever calls himself Universal Bishop, or desires to be called so, in his pride, is the forerunner of antichrist because in his pride he prefers himself to the rest.” But the present Pope calls himself and is so looked up to by the Church as the Universal Bishop of Rome or Pope. Pope Gregory I (so styled by Rome to-day) says he who calls himself the Universal Bishop is the forerunner of antichrist, while the Pope to-day accepts the title and styles himself above all Bishops. Here we have two infallible Popes teaching the direct op- posite of each other, which is impossible and proves Papal infallibility a farce. Proof No. 5. In 451, A. D., the Council of Chalcedon (of the un- divided primitive Church) in its twenty-eighth Canon decreed that the patriarchate of Constantinople was “New Rome” and with equal privilege as the patri- archate of Rome, appointing and ordaining their own Bishop and having exclusive jurisdiction*in their sec- tion. This patriarchate of Constantinople was and still is at the head of the Eastern or Greek Church and now have a following of about one hundred millions or nearly one-half of that of the Roman Church itself. But the Greek Church administer the Eucharist in both kinds of the laity; they reject the doctrine of Purgatory; and besides many other differences with Rome, they lay no claim to infallibility nor do they believe in the infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church or the Pope. What do we now have? The Vatican Council cursed everyone who would not believe in Papal infallibilityINFALLIBILITY 185 while other Councils likewise cursed all who would not believe in Purgatory, etc., etc., which the Greek followers do not. Rome not only has again and again cursed the one hundred millions of followers of the Greek Church, which by the early primitive church was made Rome's equal in all things, because they would not believe in Rome's new doctrines, but she now even denies them any jurisdiction whatever and denounces them as a schismatic body. What could better prove Rome and the Pope fallible than their treatment of their sister patriarchate, the Greek Church? Proof No. 6. Some Popes have proved themselves fallible by de- parting from the Christian faith or by first condemning and then later approving the same thing as for instance, Pope Virgilius erred when he first condemned the Fifth General Council, held in 533, A. D., and then later approved of their decisions; or Pope Liberius who erred in condemning Athanasius, and in consent- ing to the heretical faith of the Arians and holding communion with them; or again Pope John XXIII, who was deposed by the council of Constance, as a heretic, because he had obstinately maintained that there was no resurrection and that the soul of man dies with the body like that of beasts. Proof No. 7. Popes have proven themselves fallible by declaring other Popes fallible. Popes Benedict XIII and Gregory XII each inter- dicted the other, calling them schismatic and heretics Pope Boniface VIII in 1294 rescinded all the acts of Pope Celestine, and confined him in the Rock of Fu- morn, where, after ten months, he died. Pope Stephen VI annulled all the acts of Pope Formosus, while Stephen's successor in a Council, held at Ravenna, annulled all the acts of Stephen with respect for Formosus.185 INFALLIBILITY Proof No. 8. Popes have proven themselves fallible by deposing other Popes. Pope Leo V in 903 was deposed and imprisoned by Pope Christopher. Pope John XIII deposed Pope Leo VIII in 964 and annulled all his ordinations. Proof No. 9. Following are some of the Popes who have been called heretics by Councils and deposed by them, thereby proving them fallible. The Council of Pisa in 1409 deposed Popes Benedict XIII and Gregory XII and decreed them to be “no- torious and obstinate heretics, wanderers from the faith; entangled in the enormous and infamous crimes of perjury and violation of promise; and openly scan- dalizing the Holy Church universal of God.” (Sess. XV, page 402, Manse’s Con. Venice, 1754.) The Council of Constance deposed Pope John XXIII because on the evidence of thirty-seven Roman Catholic witnesses of whom ten were Bishops, it was proven that he was “an obstinate heretic, a disbeliever in a life hereafter, guilty of murder, and was no better than a devil incarnate.” (Lenfant’s Hist, of the Coun- cil of Constance, vol. 1, pp. 291, 292.) Proof No. 10. The Roman Church in her Councils is fallible as is proven by their decreeing directly opposite doctrines of which the following are sufficient proof: The Council of Constance declared, “That it derived its power directly from Christ; and that every one, be his condition or dignity what it may, even be it the dignity of the Pope, is bound to obey it in those things which appertain to faith, etc.” (Labbe’s Councils, tom.INFALLIBILITY 187 XII, p. 22), which same decree that a Council is above the Pope was also upheld by the Councils of Pisa and Basil. But the Council of Florence, the Fifth Coun- cil of Lateran, and especially the Vatican Council in 1870 decreed that the Pope was above a Council. The Council of Laodicea, 360, A. D., decreed against the Apocrypha. But the Council of Trent in 1545 pronounced it Canonical. The Council of Constantinople in 754 decreed the removal of images and the abolition of image worship. But the Second Council of Nice decreed that image worship should be established. (See Fabir’s Diffi- culties of Romanism, p. 41.) The Council of Constance in 1415 decreed that the wine of Communion should not be given to the laity. But they evidently had forgotten that the Council of Clermont, held in 1095 and presided over by Pope Urban II in person, decreed in its 28th canon that “No one shall communicate at the altar without he receive the body and blood separately and alike.” Others could be cited but enough have been given to prove the point Proof No. 11. I have shown that Popes have taught direct op- posites, I have proven the same of Councils and now I will show that Popes and Councils have differed on matters of faith, thereby proving beyond question that neither the Pope nor Councils are infallible. In 1118 Pope Pascal decreed, “We know that the bread was given separately and the wine given sepa- rately by the Lord Himself; which custom we there- fore teach and command to be always observed in Holy Church.” But the Council of Constance in 1415 decreed that the wine should not be given to the laity, which same decree is still in force. In 492 Pope Gelasius decreed, “That the substance188 INFALLIBILITY or nature of the bread and wine of communion does not change and that the image and similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated.” But the Council of Trent in 1551 decreed the direct opposite, saying, “The whole substance of the bread is converted into the substance of the body of Christ, and the whole substance of the wine is converted into the substance of his blood.” Pope Clement in his famous bull, Unigenitus, says, “The reading of the Scriptures is for all men and to forbid Christians the reading of Holy Scriptures is to interdict the use of light to the sons of light.” But the Council of Trent says “It is expedient that they (the Scriptures) be not translated into the vulgate, or read or possessed by anyone without a written license from the inquisitor or the Bishop of the diocese.” Proof No. 12. Galileo declared that the earth was not the center of the world and that it moved with a diurnal motion, which same is now an established and universally ac- cepted fact. But Pope Urban XIII decreed that “In the name and by the authority of Jesus Christ, the plenitude of which resides in His Vicar, the Pope, we declare that the teaching that the earth is not the center of the world, and that it moves with a diurnal motion, is absurd, philosophically false and erroneous in faith,” and which same decree was signed by Car- dinals Felia, Guido, Desiderio, Antonio, Belligero and Fabrucus. This clearly proves the Pope fallible. Dear reader, without any further proof, I feel justi- fied in saying that I have proved, without a doubt, that 1st. The Pope is not infallible, 2nd. That Councils are not infallible and 3rd. That Councils with a Pope at their head are not infallible. To put it in other words, I have given twelve clear undisputable proofs that neither the Pope nor the Roman Catholic ChurchINFALLIBILITY 189 are infallible. These twelve proofs are easy to verify from any complete encyclopedia, to which I am only too glad to have you turn to see for yourselves that I am telling the truth, and from which you will find, by reading of the lives and acts of Popes, and of the decrees of Councils, that I have given but a small part of the decrees, acts, etc., which go to prove the depths of inconsistencies, denunciations, heresies and wander- ings from the faith, into which the Roman Catholic Church has fallen in the last few centuries. These twelve proofs are all historical and conclusive of Rome's fallibility, but now I wish to give a still stronger proof of her fallibility from the Scriptures themselves, showing that St. Peter whom Rome claims as her first Pope, was not infallible; that the Pope is not his successor; and that even the Pope's religion is Unchristian in many respects, and contrary to the teaching of Christ and St. Peter and the Bible. INFALLIBILITY DISPROVED BY THE BIBLE. Proof No. 13. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that Jesus Christ founded but one Church, and that was founded on Peter, which teaching is shown on pages 123 and 124 of Cardinal Gibbons' ‘‘Faith of Our Fathers/' which reads as follows: “Jesus, our Lord, founded but one Church, which he was pleased to build on Peter. Therefore, any church that does not recognize Peter as its foundation stone is not the Church of Christ, and therefore cannot stand, for it is not the work of God." The Cardinal, of course is speaking of the Roman Catholic Church, for in his eyes, that is the only Christian Church that there is, for, as his church expressly teaches, there is no salvation outside of Rome. To disprove the Cardinal's above assertion, which190 INFALLIBILITY is Rome's, we must turn to the Bible itself. The passage the Cardinal refers to is in the 16th chapter of St. Matthew and 18th verse. But first let us begin a few verses back and read up to the above passage so as to get an idea of what was said and how the Church was founded on Peter. In the first part of the chapter the Pharisees and Sadducees had been tempting Jesus and trying to have Him give them a sign from heaven, but Jesus became disgusted with them on account of their hypocrisies and left them, saying to His Disciples, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees." The Disciples did not comprehend His meaning, thinking they were not to eat the bread of the Pharisees, etc., which Jesus perceiving He said, V. 11, “How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees." V. 12. “Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees, and of the Sadducees." The Pharisees and Sadducees did not believe that He was Christ, the Son of the living God, but that He was an impostor. Then it came but as a natural question for Christ to ask His Disciples who they thought He was, V. 13, “He asked His Disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?" V. 14. “And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist; some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets." V. 15. “He said unto them, But whom say ye that I am?" V. 16. “And Sirpon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." V. 17. “And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou. Simon Barjona for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.’ ” V. 18. “And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."INFALLIBILITY 191 What have we to prove that Christ built His Church on Peter ? There had been a discussion between Christ and His Disciples about the doctrines of the Pharisees and Sadducees where Christ, speaking in a parable, had used the word leaven to mean doctrine; there also had been a discussion as to whom others thought Christ was, and now as if to see if they were thor- oughly convinced as to the point He had just made He said, “But whom say ye that I am?” Then Peter, al- ways impulsive, said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God/' What did Peter do? He confessed that he believed in Christ as the Son of God. Then Jesus answered him and said. “Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee but my Father which is in heaven.” By looking at Jesus as a man of flesh and blood, Peter, as the Pharisees and Sadducees in the first part of the chapter had done, would have said that Christ was a mere man, but Peter had seen more, he had seen God, working through Christ, performing miracles and doing deeds that no man of but flesh and blood could have ever done. Christ's divine Spirit had been revealed to Peter, as it had to the other Disciples, by His Father in heaven. It was now after Peter had confessed his belief in the divine Spirit of Christ, and after Christ had said that it was His Father in heaven that had revealed it, that Christ said, “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Note that Christ does not say, “Thou art Peter and upon thee will I build my Church.” No. Christ says, “upon this rock,” which was Peter’s confession of Christ as the Son of God, will I build my church. Christ died that all who believed in Him might be saved. Peter had just confessed his belief in Him as the Son of God and then Christ says, “Upon this will I build my Church.” This same idea is carried through the whole New Testament, that Christ built His church on faith and not on a rock or on Peter.192 INFALLIBILITY There are a number of passages to prove it, but I will give but one, which is conclusive, Romans 10, 9. “If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” Yes, Christ’s church was built on faith and it was this same faith in Christ that Peter had just confessed that caused Jesus to say that He would make this^rock (faith in Him) the foundation of His Church. Without this faith in Christ there would be no Christianity, so it is the basis of all of Christ’s revelation. And it is against this faith in Christ “That the gates of hell shall not prevail” as has been proven hundreds and thousands of times. If you will compare the above quoted passages with the parallel passages in Mark 8-29, in Luke 9-20 and in John 6-69 you will find no hint whatever of Christ’s having shown Peter any pre-eminence or given him any special privilege not likewise given to the other Disciples. Christ in speaking of faith as a rock is only con- tinuing in His teaching by parables as He had done in the first part of the chapter where He called the doc- trine of the Pharisees and Sadducees leaven. Again to show that Peter was not the foundation but that Jesus Christ himself was, I quote the following Bible passages which remove all doubt as to Peter being the foundation of the Church. Eph. 2-20. “And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.” I Cor. 3-11. “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” I Cor. 10-4. “And did all drink the same spiritual drink; for they drank of that spiritual rock that fol- lowed them; and that Rock was Christ.” What a pitiful ending it would make of Christ’sINFALLIBILITY 193 work if we would accept it as Rome teaches that the rock was Peter and the Church was built on him, for it is but four verses farther on in the same chapter that Peter rebuked Christ and then in the next verse we read, V. 23, “But he (Christ) turned, and said unto Peter Get thee behind me, Satan; thou art on offense unto me; for thou savorest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.” Surely Peter would be a frail foundation to build a church on and the gates of hell prevailed against him almost imme- diately. In Matt. 16-19 Christ says, “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven/ ” What are the keys of the king- dom of heaven? Is heaven a place that has to be opened with an iron key? Assuredly not; the keys which Christ here speaks of are His laws and doc- trines which He gives to His Apostles together with the power to change the old Jewish customs and prac- tices into the new covenant, loosing and binding as was necessary and preparing the way for mankind to enter heaven by faith in Christ. This same promise of Christ’s, given to all the Apostles, is likewise recorded in Matt. 18-18 and in St. John 20-23, so it is plain that Christ did not mean to confer this privilege on St. Peter alone or He would not have conferred it on the other Apostles as He did on two other distinct occasions. I have shown that Christ did not found His Church on Peter, but on faith in Himself as the Son of God, and that Christ Himself is the Rock on which the foundation is lain; Therefore I have proven Rome wrong and fallible in teaching that Peter was the foundation. ism INFALLIBILITY f Proof No. 14. Rome teaches that Peter was appointed by Christ as the chief of the Apostles and the head of His Church, which we take from their authorized Cate- chism of Christian Doctrine No. 3, by Kinkead. On pages 105 and 106 we find the following: “The Pope is the visible head of the Church because he is the suc- cessor of St. Peter whom Christ made the chief of the Apostles and the visible head of the Church.” This Roman belief in St. Peter’s supremacy is so generally accepted that further proof than the above quotation to show it their true teaching, is unnecessary. Again I turn to the Bible to prove Rome fallible by showing that Peter held no supreme authority over the other Apostles. Jesus Christ recognized no one of the Apostles as above the others and clearly taught that they should not be, as in the 23rd chapter of Matthew: V. 8. “But be ye not called Rabbi; for one is your Master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren. . V. 9. And call no man your father upon the earth; for one is your Father, which is in heaven. V. 10. Neither be ye called masters; for one is your Master even Christ. V. 11. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. V. 12. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.” What could be clearer and more direct? Christ says (speaking to His Disciples) you shall call no man your father upon the earth; neither shall ye be called masters; and again you are all brethren and whoever shall exalt himself shall be abased.” * Peter himself recognizes no supremacy over the other Apostles and in his epistles does not give a hintINFALLIBILITY 195, of any such power, but on the contrary speaks of him- self as one of the elders or Apostles. I Peter 5-1. “The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder and a witness of the suf- ferings of Christ.” II Peter 3-2. “That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the Apostles of the Lord and Saviour.” But Peter was chosen to be the Apostle of the cir- cumcision (the Jews who by the old laws practiced circumcision) while Paul was made the Apostle of the Gentiles (all outside of the Jewish race) by Christ Himself and was recognized as such by the other Apostles, Peter included. Then if any could claim to be the head of the Roman Church as their Pope (for they are Gentiles) it would be Paul, which Rome denies. Christ says to Paul at his conversion, Acts 26-16, “But rise and stand upon thy feet for I have appealed unto thee for this purpose to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;” V. 17. “Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee.” Gal. 2-7. “But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me (Paul) as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;” V. 9. “And when James, Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the heathen, (which Rome then was) and they unto the circumcision (or Jews). Another proof that Peter was not the head or chief is shown by the Apostles' sending him to do certain things. This they could not have done if he was the chief and had that power.INFALLIBILITY 195 Acts 8-14. “Now when the Apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John.” Peter if he was first Pope as Rome says he was, should by right have been at the head of all Apostolic Conferences or Councils. But that he not only did not claim this title but that some of the other Apostles did the presiding, is proof positive that Peter had no supremacy over the other Apostles. Acts 15-6. “And the Apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.” V. 13. And after they had held their peace James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me. V. ,19. Wherefore my (James) sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God.” The question was as to whether Gentiles* would have to be circumcised to be Christians, James giving his decision that it was not necessary. There are other proofs nearly as weighty to prove that Peter was not chief among the Apostles nor that he had any authority over them, but space forbids their enumeration and then what is the use? Any one of the above facts should be sufficient proof to prove Rome fallible in* teaching that Peter was the first Pope with supremacy over the other Apostles. See the array, viz.: 1st. Christ says that the one of them that tries to exhalt himself above the others shall be abased. 2nd. Peter himself says that he is but one of the elders or Apostles and recognizes no supremacy. 3rd. Christ made Peter the Apostle of the Jews while He made Paul the Apostle of all others, which is the Gentiles. 4th. The Apostles, Peter included, recognized Paul as the Apostle of the Gentiles and therefore the head of all outside of the Jewish race.INFALLIBILITY 197 5th. The Apostles sent Peter to Samaria, which would have been out of the question if Peter had been above them. * 6th. Peter did not preside at the Apostolic Coun- cils and did not claim the right to, as was his duty if he was chief among them. Proof No. 15. Rome teaches that Peter was infallible, this same infallibility being inherited by the Popes, from him. But now I will prove beyond a doubt that Peter was not infallible nor did he lay any claim to infallibility, thereby proving Rome in the wrong and her Popes fallible. Cardinal Gibbons, in his “Faith of Our Fathers,” page 151, in speaking of Peter’s infallibility, he puts these words in Christ’s mouth: “Thou O Peter, shalt be the foundation of this Church. It shall never fall, because thou shalt never be shaken.” In a previous proof I have shown that the first part of the Cardinal’s assumed speech, that the Church was founded on Peter, to be wrong. As to the second part, Peter’s infallibility or, as the Cardinal says, Peter shall never shaken, we shall soon see that he was shaken and even to the extent of denying Jesus Christ Himself. Matt. 14-28. “Peter answered Him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water. V. 29. Christ told him to come. V. 30. But when he (Peter) saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me. V. 31. And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand and caught him, and said unto him, O thou, of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?” Here Peter doubted Christ’s ability and showed his own lack of faith. Matt. 16-22. “Then Peter took him (Christ) andINFALLIBILITY 198 began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord; this shall not be unto thee. V. 23. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan; thou art an offense unto me; for thou savorest not the thing that be of God, but those that be of men.” Was Peter infallible here when he assumed the role of dictating to Christ Himself, rebuking Him, and saying what should not come to pass? Christ did not recognize it so but calls Peter Satan,, and an of- ense unto Him. Luke 9-33. “And it came to pass, as they departed from Him, Peter said unto Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here; and let us make three tabernacles; one for Thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias; not knowing what he said.” Here again Peter shows his fallibility, not knowing what he is saying and proposing things that are en- tirely out of place. Gal. 2-11. “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I (Paul) withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. V. 12. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles; but when they did come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. V. 13. Ahd the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. V. 14. But when I saw that they walked not up- rightly according to the truth of the Gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, if thou being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” Here we have a question of morals, Peter lived as did the Gentiles but at the same time he compelled the Gentiles to live as did the Jews. And what isINFALLIBILITY 199 more, the charge against Peter was so grave that Paul saw fit to withstand him to the face and that before them all. Mark 14-33. “And he (Jesus) taketh with him Peter, and James and John . . . V. 34. And saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death; tarry ye here, and watch. V. 37. And he cometh, and findeth them sleeping, and saith unto Peter, Simon, sleepest thou? Couldst thou not watch one hour?” Here Peter (with James and John) was fallible again. Jesus Christ had especially set them to watch, while He went forward a little to pray. He was gone but one hour but they relaxed their vigilance and slept and as a result, V. 41, “The son of man (Christ) is betrayed into the hands of sinners/’ Peter, who by Christ had been asked to watch, slept and Christ was betrayed. Matt. 26-31. “Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of Me this night; for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad. V. 33. Peter answered and said unto Him, Though all men shall be offended because of Thee, yet will I never be offended. V. 34. Jesus said unto him, Verily, I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow thou shalt deny Me thrice. V. 35. Peter said unto Him, Though I should die with Thee, yet will I not deny Thee.” But . . . V. 70. “Peter denied Christ once. V. 72. Peter denied Christ again with an oath. V. 74. (The third denial) Then began he (Peter) ( to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew.” Can you still call Peter infallible after reading the above? Can you say (with Cardinal Gibbons) that Peter shall never be shaken? Where was Peter’s faith200 INFALLIBILITY and "steadfastness in the above? He said he would not be offended but he was. He said he would die first before he would deny Christ, but yet the same night he denied his Master three times when brought to the test, even swearing and cursing. There are many other Scripture proofs of Peter's fallibility but I have given sufficient and of grave enough a character to remove all doubt as to his being infallible. The Roman Catholic Church claim a succession from Peter and thus derive their authority but even this claim is based on tradition which even the early fathers denied. But I have proven that the Church was not founded on Peter; that he had no supremacy over the other Apostles; and that he was fallible, so even if Rome could trace a succession to Peter it would be of no more value than if they had traced it to John or James or any of the other Apostles, for it would carry no special charge or blessing over that from the others. The only true church is the one that teaches Christ’s doctrines with no additions of their own. Proof No. 16. Jesus Christ speaking to the people says, Matt. 5-39, “Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they which testify of me.” Paul says, II Cor. 13-5. “Examine yourselves whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves.” But the Roman Catholic Church says that the peo- ple should not read the Bible, for the priest teaches them all they need of it. The Council of Trent decreed, “It is expedient that the Scriptures be not read or possessed by anyone without a written license from the inquisitor or the Bishop of the diocese.” Pope Innocent III in 1199 prohibited the privateINFALLIBILITY 201 reading or possession of the Bible. Other Popes have done likewise. In 1234 the Synod of Tarragona denounced as a heretic any one who having a translation of the Bible refused to surrender it to be burned within the space of eight days. Christ and the Bible say to the people, “Read the Scripturest” Rome and the Pope prohibit it. There- fore Christ being right, Rome and the Pope are fallible and perverters of Christianity. Proof No. 17. Jesus Christ, speaking to the people said, John 6-53, “Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.” (Speaking of the bread and wine of Communion.) But Pope Pius IV in his creed says, “I also confess that under either alone (the bread alone or the wine alone) Christ is received whole and entire, and a true sacrament.” (Ordo Administrandi Sacramenti, page 67.) And in 1415 the Council of Constance decreed that the laity should receive but the bread only. Christ says, “Unless ye drink his blood, ye have no life in you,” (meaning spiritual life). Rome and the Pope absolutely refuse the wine to the laity, thereby taking away one of the necessities of salvation. What could be a plainer proof of the Pope’s fallibility? Proof No. 18. Jesus Christ in speaking of His command to eat His flesh and drink His blood says they are spiritual, John 6-63, “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.”202 INFALLIBILITY Paul says, I Cor. 10-16, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the com- munion of the body of Christ ?” But Pope Pius IV says, “In Communion there are truly, really, and substantially the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. ” (Ordo Administrandi Sacramenti, page 67.) The Council of Trent, in Canon I, says, “If any one shall deny that the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and there- fore entire Christ, are truly, really, and substantially contained in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, let him be accursed.” Christ and the Bible say that the bread and wine'of communion are but the communion of Christ’s body and blood and that He is in them spiritually. Rome and the Pope say that they are not the com- munion of Christ’s body and blood, but are the real material body and blood of Christ. Proof No. 19. That Rome today enforces the Celibacy of all the clergy from the Pope to the Priest, together with Nuns, etc., is a self evident fact and needs no proof. But Peter, who they claim as 1st Pope, was a mar- ried man. Matt. 8-14. The Spirit (which is of Christ) says, I Tim. 4-1 to 3, “Some shall depart from the faith, and having their consciences seared as with a hot iron shall forbid to marry.” Paul says, Heb. 13-4, “Marriage is honoraable in all.” Paul says, I Tim. 3-2, “A bishop must be blame- less, the husband of one wife, etc.” Which same he commands, too, of deacons, I Tim. 3-12. The1 Bible teaches and commands marriage and es- pecially of Bishops and deacons. But Rome prohibitsINFALLIBILITY 203 it entirely to the clergy and others, doing directly op- posite to what the Bible teaches and plainly showing her fallibility. Proof No. 20. Christ says, Mark 7^-18, Whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man it cannot defile him. V. 19. Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly.,, Paul says, I Cor. 8-8, “Meat commandeth us not to God, for neither, if we eat, are we better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.,, And „Col. 2-16, “Let no man therefore judge you in meat.” The spirit speaking, says, I Tim. 4-1 to 3, “Some speaking lies of hypocrisy shall command to abstain from meats.” But it is a decree of Rome’s, in practice today, that she commands her followers to abstain from meats. Therefore she (for she alone forbids meat to her fol- lowers) is hypocritical and assumes a power that by the Bible is denied to everybody. Thereby proving her fallibility. \ Proof No. 21. Rome teaches that there is a Purgatory. And that people who die guilty of lesser sins of which^ they have not repented, and those who are guilty of greater sins but have not made full satisfaction for them, go there to be purified or purged before they go to heaven. But the Bible says, I John 1-7, “The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin.” St. John 5-24. Christ says, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.”204 INFALLIBILITY Rome teaches that any little sin, if proper satisfac- tion is not made for it, will send us to Purgatory. But this is entirely contrary to the Bible, which says Christ’s blood has already cleansed us from all sin; also to Christ’s own promise that all who believe will not come into condemnation, but are passed from death unto life. Proof No. 22. Christ says, Matt. 5-44, “But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless'them that curse you, do good to them that hate you ,and pray for them which despite- fully use you, and persecute you.” Christ’s second greatest commandment is, Matt. 22-39. “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” Rome counts Protestants as heretics or enemies of their Church. They are Rome’s neighbors and there- fore should be loved as themselves, blessed and prayed for, to do as Christ commanded. But they have done the very opposite and whenever they have made a new decree they have cursed all who would not believe it. And again, as if not satisfied, when they had the power, they established tribunals of torture, called the Inquisi- tion, to exterminate them and which same have been approved of by dozens of Popes of whom Urban IV, Alexander IV, Clement IV, Nicholas III, John XXII, etc., are but a few. Proof No. 23. From the “Glories of Mary,” Rome’s authorized doctrinal book about Virgin Mary, we find the follow- ing, viz.: Page 172. “God will never save us without Mary’s intercession.” Page 29. “She is sovereign, not to punish sinners, but to pardon and forgive them.” Page 171. “The salvation of all men is in the pro- tection of Mary.”INFALLIBILITY 205 But what does the Bible say ? The Bible says, Heb. 7-25. “Wherefore He (Christ) is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by Him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.” Col. 19. “For it pleased the Father that in Him should all fullness dwell.” Acts 4-12. Peter says of Christ, “Neither is there salvation in any other for there is none other name (than Christ's) under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” Rome, says, we cannot be saved without Mary's in- tercession and that she can forgive as well as does Christ. But the Bible says “Christ, in whom all full- ness dwells, is our intercessor and that there is a salva- tion in no other name under heaven (even Mary's). Therefore Rome teaches a false way to salvation. Proof No. 24. God's second commandment of the Old Testament and which was carried into the New as a command- ment, reads thus, Exodus 20-4. “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any- thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: V. 5. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them; for I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquities of the father upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.” Rome breaks this commandment by having images of things in heaven above, as of Christ, Peter, etc., placed in their churches and then in bowing down to them. Rome also holds that they should be worshiped or as St. Thomas Aquinas, one of Rome's greatest theo- logians, says, “Since, therefore, Christ is to be adored with the worship of latria, it follows that His image206 INFALLIBILITY is to be adored with the worship of latria. (Quest. 25, Art. 3, 3rd. Part, Sum. Theol.) The Second Council of Nice is also an authority for image worship having re-established it in the church and made it a part of Rome’s belief. And which same is contrary to the Bible, and adds another proof of the fallibility of Rome and the Pope. This book being designed more as a practical and pointed Manual, rather than a complete treatise has necessitated my making my proofs as brief as I could with consistency. In every chapter there have been proofs of weight which in cutting the chapter down to the space that I have were necessarily omitted. In this chapter on infallibility, which takes up about one- eighth of the whole book, but two or three proofs could be given to each part, thereby making the proofs seem rather blunt. I have given twenty-four clear proofs of the Pope’s and Rome’s fallibility. There are many others that I could add, but it is not'necessary, for if I had given but one-quarter as many my point would have been proven. Proof No. 25. To conclude the chapter I give a quotation from Chillingworth on the silence of the Bible and of the Early Church on Roman infallibility, which shows that it was not believed or taught by the Apostles nor by the Christians in the first three centuries and there- fore was an invented doctrine of Rome’s. He says, “In the meantime, give me leave to think i* strange, and not far from prodigy, that this doc- trine of the Romanish Church’s being the guide of faith, if it be true doctrine, should either not be known to the four evangelists, or, if it were known to them, that, being wise and good men, they should either beINFALLIBILITY 207 so envious of the Church's happiness, or so forgetful of the work they took in hand,—which was, to write the gospel of Christ—as that not so much as one of them should mention, so much as once, this so neces- sary part of the gospel, without the belief whereof there is no salvation, and with the belief whereof, unless men be snatched away by sudden death, there is hardly any damnation. It is evident they do all of them with one consent speak very plainly of many things of no importance in comparison hereof; and is it credible, or indeed possible, that, with one consent, or rather conspiracy, they should be so deeply silent concerning this. You may believe it, if you can; for my part, I cannot, unless I see demonstration for it. “In that great division of the Church when the whole world wondered, saith St. Jerome, that it was become Arian, when Liberius, bishop of Rome (as St Athanasius and St. Hilary testify,) subscribed their heresy, and joined in communion with them; or in the division between the Greek and the Roman Church, about the procession of the Holy Ghost, when either side was the Church itself, and each part heretical ahd schismatical to the other; what direction could I then, an ignorant man, have found frorri that text of Scrip- ture, ‘Unless he hear the church, let him be to thee as a heathen or a publican ?’ Again: Give me leave to wonder, “That neither St. Paul, writing to the Romans, should so much as intimate this, their privilege or in- fallibility ; but rather, on the contrary, put them in fear, in the eleventh chapter, that they, as well as the Jews were in danger of falling away: “That St. Peter, the pretended bishop of Rome, writing two catholic epistles, mentioning his depart- ure* should not once acquaint the Christians, whom he writes to, what guide they were to follow after he was taken from them: “That the writers of the New Testament should soINFALLIBILITY V* frequently forewarn men of heretics, false Christs, false prophets, and not once arm them against them, with letting them know this only sure means of avoid- ing their danger: “That so great a part of the New Testament should be employed about Anti-Christ, and so little, or indeed none at all, about the Vicar of Christ, and the guide of the faithful: “That St. Peter should not ever exercise over the Apostles any one act of jurisdiction, nor they ever give him any one title of authority over them: “That if the Apostles did know St. Peter was made head over them when our Saviour said, ‘Thou art Peter/ they should still contend who should be the first, and that our Saviour should never tell them St. Peter was the man : “That St. Paul should say he was in nothing in- ferior to the very chief Apostles: “That the catechumenists in the primitive church should never be taught this foundation of their faith.— that the Church of Rome was guide of their faith: “That the Fathers, Tertullian, St. Jerome, and Opatatus, when they flew highest in commendation of the Roman Church, should attribute no more to her than to all other apostolic churches: “That St. Cyprian, and the bishops of Afric were never urged with any such necessity of conformity with the Church of Rome, nor never charged with heresy or error for denying it: “That when Liberius joined in communion with the Arians, and subscribed their heresy, the Arians then should not be the church and the guide of faith: “That never any heretics, for three ages after Ch^st, were pressed with this argument of the infallibility of the present Church of Rome, or charged with denial of it, as a distinct heresy, so that Aeneas Sylvius should have cause to say that the ecclesiastical storyINFALLIBILITY 209 of those times mentions no acts of authority of the Church of Rome over other churches: “That Vincentius Lirinensis, seeking for a guide of his faith, and a preservative from heresy, should be ignorant of this so ready one—the infallibility of the Church of Rome.,,—Relig. Prot., Letter to Lewgar. Lond., 1845. uSALVATION AS CHRIST TAUGHT IT. Col. 2-8. “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” In other chapters I have proven that Rome teaches, 1st. That there is no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church; 2nd, that Mary (Virgin) can and does save the same as Christ does; 3rd, that by wear- ing the scapular and doing its office one will be taken from Purgatory on the Saturday after death; 4th, that by granting of indulgences one can obtain for- giveness for all venal sin; Sth, that by confession to a priest absolution and penance one is forgiven as by God; and 6th, that by the doctrine of intention one can never be sure and has no way of finding out whether their baptism and absolution are valid or not. By the above Roman ways of salvation one is con- founded as to which to choose and after they have chosen it they are still in doubt as to whether they are really saved or not, so as a rule they swallow the whole dose and consider themselves saved and all right. Why, yes, why do you put so much confidence in man- kind, who at best, is but a weak creature? Why don't you satisfy yourself beyond all doubt as to which is the true way of salvation ? Rome has made salvation so mysterious and complicated that her followers allow her to do all their thinking and reasoning for them rather than to do it for themselves. If Christianity is right, then Christ's Book is the one right book, there- fore the Bible and the Bible alone is our sure guide. Christ's *way of salvation is simple and He commands us to read the Scriptures the Apostles wrote in simple everyday language directly to all people and :om-SALVATION AS CHRIST TAUGHT 211 mands us to read and follow their simple teachings, but Rome says, “No,” the Rule of the Church is ahead" of the Bible and common man cannot interpret the Holy Scriptures. In another chapter I treat of the Bible as a book to be read and interpreted by every one of us and of its simplicity, but now I wish to prove from the Bible alone that Christ's way of salvation is contrary to all six of the above assertions, which are Rome's ways of salvation, and that in simple, everyday language, which needs no Pope to interpret it for us, His plan of salvation for all mankind without respect to per- sons, or of what denomination, whether Roman Cath- olic or Protestant. Col. 1-15. “(Jesus Christ) who is the image of the invisible God, the first born of every creature. V. 16. For by Him were all things created that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisi- ble, whether they be thrones or dominions, or princi- palities or powers; all things were created by Him and for Him. V. 17. And he is before all things, and by Him all things consist. V. 18. And he is the head of the body; the church; who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; that in all things He might have the pre-eminence. V. 19. For it pleased the Father that in Him should all fullness dwell. V. 20. And having made peace through the blood t of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto him- self.'' Which show Christ to be a co-partner with the Father in creating the world, which was created for Him; that He descended to Earth for a season in the shape of man and then died on the cross as a sacrifice for the sins of the world so that we could be recon- ciled to Him. St. John 14-6. “Jesus saith unto him, I am the212 SALVATION AS CHRIST TAUGHT way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by Me.” St. John 3-35. ‘The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things unto His hand.” Acts 4-11. St. Peter says that Christ “Is the stone which is become the head of the corner,” and Acts 4-12. “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” Which conclusively proves that Christ is the only way of salvation and that salvation by wearing the scapular, and salvation through Mary, are impossible. Roman 5-6. “For when we' were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. V. 7. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet preadventure for a good man some would even dare to die. V. 8. But God commended His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. V. 9. Much more then, being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. V. 10. For if when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. V. 11. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received, the atonement. V. 12. Wherefore as by one man sin entered the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon * all men, for that all have sinned. V. 15. But now as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. V. 16. The free gift is of many offences unto jus- tification. * V. 18. By the righteousness of one (Christ) theSALVATION AS CHRIST TAUGHT 213 free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.” Heb. 9-28. “So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many and unto them that look for Him shall He appear the second time without sin unto sal- vation.” Eph. 2-8. “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God.” The above shows that Christ died for sinners and not for the righteous, because it was not necessary to die for the righteous. He by His death on the cross atoned for the sins of all and now that our sins are atoned for we are given the gift of grace by God, as a gift which we are to accept as freely given and not as something we have got to work for, to get. Of course we have got to live in grace, but by Christ's death the gift of salvation is given free to us and we are only asked to accept it. Just as a fond father or mother would give their love to and their life for their children if they will only love and honor them, so God gives us salvation unto everlasting life free as a gift if we will only love Him and obey Him. In I John, 4th chapter, we are shown God's love for us and how we should return it, as: V. 10. “Herein is love, not that we loved God but that He loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitia- tion for our sins. V. 11. Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another. V. 12. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and His love is perfected in us. V. 16. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God and God in him. V. 19. We love Him, because he first loved us.” In St. John, 14th chapter, Christ tells of heaven and promises us life therein if we believe in Him. V. 1. “Let not your heart be troubled; ye believe In God, believe also in me. V. 2. In My Father's house are many mansions;214 SALVATION AS CHRIST TAUGHT if it were not so I would of told you. I go to prepare a place for you. V. 3. And if I go to prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.” Now that I have shown how Christ was from the creation of the Earth, how He died on the cross to atone for our sins; how He loved us; how salvation is a gift; and of His promises of heaven, I have tried to pave the way to the one point in how we are to re- ceive salvation and what our duty is in regard to the same. This is what I now wish to prove as God's plan of salvation “That we are saved only by faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and that we shall be rewarded according to our faith and works of faith." The Bible defines faith, Hebrews 11-1. “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” V. 3. “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. V. 4. By faith Abel offered up a better sacrifice than Cain. V. 5. By faith Enoch was translated (taken to heaven) that he should not see death. V. 17. By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac. V. 6. But without faith it is impossible to please him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” In short, faith is belief in God, Christ as His Son, and their promise and ability to save us. Following are some of the Bible promises of salva- tion or everlasting life by faith in Christ, viz.: Matt. 10-32. “Whosoever shall confess Me (Christ) before men, him will I confess also before My Father, which is in heaven.”SALVATION AS CHRIST TAUGHT 215 Mark 16-16. “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.,, Luke 7-50. “And he said4 to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee, go in peace.,, John 3-16. “For God so loveth the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. V. 17. For God sent nbt His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world, through Him, might be saved. V. 18. He that believeth on Him is not condemned; but he that believeth not is condemned already, be- cause he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. V. 35. The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things unto His hand. V. 36. He that believeth on the Son hath everlast- ing life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” St. John 5-24/ “Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that heareth My word and believeth on Him that sent Me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into con- demnation ; but is passed from death unto life.” St. John 6-36. Christ says, “He that cometh to Me I will in no wise cast out.” Acts 2-38. “Then Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” What can be more impressive and illustrative of Christ’s way of salvation, by faith in Him, than the story in Chapter 16, of the Acts of the Apostles, where an eathquake opened the doors of a prison where Paul and Silas were imprisoned. V. 27. The keeper think- ing the prisoners had all escaped, drew his sword to kill himself, when Paul cried, V. 28. Do thyself no harm; for we are all here. V. 29. And then he called216 SALVATION AS CHRIST TAUGHT for a light and sprang in and came trembling and fell down before Paul and Silas. V. 30. And brought them out and said: Sirs, what must I do to be saved? V. 31. And they said: Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved and thy house.” Romans 1-17. . “The just shall live by faith.” Romans 10-9. “If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shall believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shall be saved.” Could words be plainer than the above quotations? Rome says the Bible is so mysterious that only a Pope can interpret it correctly, but doesn’t the simple words above give Rome the lie? When Christ says believe on Me, that I am the Son of God and thou shalt be saved, what more do you need or want? Christ has pointed out the way and made it very plain. But it takes an Unchristian Church to twist the above promises around so as to make one believe that the Virgin Mary can save us, that a scapular can save us, that indulgences can help us, or that a priest must for- give us. No, not one of these is necessary for our salvation. They are one and all a damage to us, for they all lead us away from Christ who alone can for- give us and save us. We are saved by faith in Jesus Christ and by this faith only. But now as to our reward as to whether it be great or small, is according to our work here on earth. As some are given more here on earth than others, so in our rewards in the kingdom of heaven, some will receive more than others, and these will be measured according to our faith and works. Matt. 16-27. “For the Son of man (Christ) shall come in the glory of His Father, with His angels, and then shall reward every man according to his works.” I Cor. 3-13. “Every man’s work shall be made mani- fest; for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.”SALVATION AS CHRIST TAUGHT 217 James 2-14. “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith and have not works? Can faith save him? V. 21. Was not Abraham, our father, justified by works, when he had offered Isaac, his son, upon the altar ? V. 22. Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? V. 26. For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.” Heaven to one saved by faith without works would be like a feast where we were invited, but after get- ting there we find we are but to look at the viands and not touch them, while to one saved with works it is not only to be present at the feast but to enjoy the eating of it. The works of faith are all those coming under the commandment of love thy neighbor as thyself and the golden rule of doing to others as you would that they should do unto you, as for instance, the Beatitudes, Matt. 5-3 to 11, where Christ calls blessed the poor in spirit, the meek, the merciful, the pure in heart, the peacemakers, etc. Mark 9-41. “Whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in My name, shall not lose his reward.” Luke 6-38. “Give and it shall be given unto you; for with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.” I Thes. 5-14. “Now we exhort you brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, sup- port the weak, be patient toward all men. V. 15. See that none render evil for evil. V. 16. Rejoice evermore. V. 18. In everything give thanks. V. 21. Prove all things, hold fast that which is good, and V. 21. Abstain from all appearance of evil.” I Tim. 1-5. “Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience and of faith unfeigned.’'*218 SALVATION AS CHRIST TAUGHT All of which shows that the purer our lives the bet- ter we will be able to enjoy heaven when we enter therein. The quotations in this chapter are but a few of the hundreds given in the Bible, all of which are along the same line of salvation by faith in Christ Jesus and reward by works. There is not one word in the whole New Testament that can be taken to prove that there is salvation in any other or in any other thing. The whole Bible centers on this one fact that by believing on the Son of Man (Christ) we are saved by Him to everlasting life. , Rome has invented new dogmas upon new dogmas and tried to make her religion so complicated and mixed up that you will fall at her feet at her command and be her willing slave. You are brought up to it. It was instilled into your nature when a child and now you believe yburself right and so let it drop, thinking that if you go to church nearly every Sunday and do what Rome tells you to do, that you will surely be saved. But your ignorance of the Bible and Christ may mean your destruction. It is time for you to wake up and I Thes. 5-21. “Prove all things, and then hold fast to the good.” * The ways of salvation of Rome outside of salva- tion through Christ are Unchristian and worse than useless. By the Bible, Virgin Mary has no power to save you. The belief in reaching heaven by wearing a scapular is an insult to God. Salvation cannot be bought with indulgences. The Bible in no place gives a-priest power to forgive your sins. The only way of salvation is through faith in Christ, His promise and His power to give you everlasting life.GENERAL SUMMARY. Rome claims that common man is not capable of understanding the Bible or interpreting it, but that there must be an infallible interpreter. Stop and think for a while. The Bible is an infallible book, and sup- posing that the Pope was an infallible interpreter, the Bible would yet come to us through fallible sources for the priests are his teachers, but they lay no claim to infallibility. The Roman follower stands two chances of misinterpreting the Bible for the Pope may not interpret it correctly as I have proven and then the priest who interprets the Pope’s interpretation to the people may err in understanding the Pope, for the priest is fallible. But the Protestant who interprets the Bible direct stands but the one chance of mis- interpreting it. Outside of the Pope infallibility is not vested in any man or order of men, so Rome teaches. Bishops and Cardinals are held to be fallible. Now supposing a General Council is called. What have we? A few hundred fallible men. But can you say that they make an infallible body? Impossible. Their decrees are liable to contain errors and the priest in inter- preting these decrees is liable to error. Then you receive decrees that may be fallible through a fallible interpreter. Then where is your infallible interpre- tation? Considering the above, it is easy ip see what an ad- vantage a minister has over a A nries* ***■ only has to reinterpret the Pot the Bible to the people, but he al decrees of Councils for eighteen220 GENERAL summary to them as well, and on account of their great diver- sity of faiths it would be almost a miracle if he didn’t err many times in their interpretation. But a minister has only the Bible to interpret and teach. The Bible is the only infallible text book of Christianity and the minister has but this one thing to interpret and is not handicapped by hundreds of dogmas, decrees, bulls, etc., to lead him into speculation and doubt as to what is God’s law. He has but to turn to his one text book where he finds the plain truth in plain words. But you ask why we have ministers and teachers and why we go to church if we are to allow individual interpretation of the Bible? Why don’t we give the people the Bible and let them study out their own salvation? I will answer it by asking another. Why do we send our children to our public schools? Why not give them the Arithmetic and Grammar text books and let them study them by themselves? As teachers are needed in our schools to instruct the pupils in their studies, so ministers and teachers are likewise essential to the study of the Bible. As the Arith- metic teacher has studied and mastered Arithmetic so as to be able to teach it, so the minister studies the Bible and is prepared to teach the people its truths. But what is more, if he err in his teaching his congre- have the Bible to fall back on to correct him. In commencing this book, I started out to prove that any person cannot consistently believe in the infal- libility of both the Pope and Christ, and in writing it I have kept this one point in view. The Pope being considered by his followers as an infallible authority on all questions of faith and morals as he likewise is considered an infallible teacher of the Scriptures, he therefore is looked upon as their guide and ex- If he says Paul was not an n they are to and do believe f their faith, even though other d he was inspired and evenGENERAL SUMMARY 221 though Christ Himself had called him inspired. I have given clear proof that the Pope, as head of the Roman Catholic Church, is fostering onto his followers doctrines that are directly the opposite of what Christ taught as absolutely necessary to salvation. In the chapter on infallibility I have given some of these and others are scattered throughout the book. For instance, Christ says the wine of communion is abso- lutely necessary for us and that if we refuse to drink it then we have no life (spiritual) in us. Then what right has the Pope to absolutely forbid his lay follow- ers to drink it? Is he an infallible Christian authority and Bible interpreter when he does this? Jesus Christ gave His Disciples His doctrines and laws on how mankind was to obtain everlasting life. He inspired them and they wrote what we now have as the new Testament of the Bible. In it is to be found Christ's simple way to salvation and eternal life. He makes some things absolutely necessary and some things of an essential or benefiting nature as for instance, charity, kindness, etc. To be a Christian it is necessary for one to conform as nearly as possible to Christ's teachings and to do the things which He commands. Paul says, Galatians 1-7, There be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. V. 8. But though we or any angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be ac- cursed." I have clearly proven in this book that the Pope and Rome have perverted the gospel of Christ (Ne r Testament) teac; ^ect opposite in some thir ' ' \t in addition to this they have taken the lib ng some entirely new doctrines such as vation through Mary, salvation by Then can you deny that the ^er Paul’s curse ? They ounced accursed, and appar- ame.222 GENERAL SUMMARY If you believe in Christ you cannot consistently be- lieve in the Pope, for Christ teaches a definite way to salvation, but the Pope sets much of this teaching aside saying it is not necessary and invents new ways of his own, to take the place of it. If you say the Pope is right and infallible in doing this, as you must if you are a true Roman Catholic, then you make Christ fallible and His teaching of no authority. It is up to you to choose, you cannot believe in both. Your life in eternity is in the balance. Will you choose the Pope and run the risk of Christ’s anger, or will you turn to Christ, taking His inspired book (the Bible) as your guide and do as St. Peter says, I Peter 5-6 and 7, “Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time; casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you?” My Dear Reader, I have tried to give clear and honest proofs in this book. I invite your personal investigation of every quotation or fact that I have put forward. I was thoroughly convinced, before com- mencing this book, that I was right and as to you, if you have candidly and thoroughly read this book I ask you,—Can you say that I ha ve not proven the Roman Catholic Church to be a teacher of Unchristian doctrines, a perverter of the truth, and a misleader of mankind? What Christ said to the Scribes and the Pharisees, Matt. 23-28, “Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.” Could likewise be applied to Rome equally well. The followers of Rome, as i have proven. ’ on the brink of eternal damnation. Hov >t’s compassion and forgiveness will extern f even dare to prophesy, but this is steadfastly believe in R^n: a church which deliberately and laws aside; and which place commands and^nl .vaJL summary teaching hey mi LSt be believed on pain of eternal damnati* wor \ seem reasonable for Christ to eternally .mn tLOS who did believe them. Whether He will ,ee fit to o rlook or forgive them can only be solved by eternity If you saw your neighbor about to be crushed under some heavy object you would use all your force to save him from it. But now as to your neighbor who is being crushed spiritually, under the Unchristian doct ines of Rome, what are you doing? Are you usii * all your energy t.o save him? Are you even try g at all? Do you think God will hold you un- accountable in neglecting your neighbor’s spiritual welfare, when one little act of yours might turn him to ^ he truth ? Jesus Christ says, Matt. 19-29, “Every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for My name’s sake,* shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.,, What is your relation to God? Are you living just for the sake of living or are you living trying to make ? world better by your living in it and to enter aven when you die? If the latter, then haven’t i a Christian duty toward your fellowmen, to per- rm? If they are wandering away from heaven isn’t your duty to help bring them back ? I have worked two years to collect the material and write this book. I have not written it for financial profit, but for the good it may do, and I would feel Veil repaid for my labors if I could see it placed in the hands of a few thousand Roman Catholics, for then I could feel that my life had not been in vain. Though I would be satisfied if I could place a copy in the hands of a few thousand, yet it is my ambition to distribute it to as many as ible, for Jesus \ sake. But my limited me 11 ^ tb will have to rely on you. trGENERAL SbM AAKj. believers in Christ and the Bible, to help stribute * thjs book. 1 ask you in Jesus name to a r of joining their Church. If there is a Roman Catholic family in your neighborhood or if you have Roman Catholic relatives or acquaintances give them a copy* The price is so small that you can easily do :it. If you wish a copy sent through the mail to any address other than Tour own, we will be glad to comply with your wish. God will reward you accordi ng to your work. Th re- fore stand by the faith, help others to come out of the darkness into the light of the truth and then help them to do as Paul commands in Gal. 1-5, “Stand fast therefore in. the liberty , wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.”TESTIMONY OP PEDRO SURANO PART A VV “The details of the immorality of the friars are so base and so indecent that instead of smirching ^nc friars I would smirch, myself by relating Hmrn." INTERVIEW WITH AMBROSIA. FLORES “Then there was the fact of the fear which be- every mom, that if tho friar’s eye should, lir.hv umm his m ife or daughter* and if ho did not g *vc fclim.'i up he was lost." AMERICAN JOmtNALIST TESTIFIES “The priests hold them under, oppressed them, robbed them and 'used their women and. dastghtors just’as they pleased." MEMORANDUM OF CONFERENCE WITH CEFERINO JOVAN, ALCALDE OF BAVt- COLAR, Province of Prampanga “I have known a large number of friars living in concubinage with women and a number of ehUtRen the fruit of such ilicit relations." BRIG. GEN. R. P. HUGHES, UNITED STATE*: ARMY “It was a very general complaint that they.(th$ priests) corrupted the daughters of families," ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE ISLAND TESTIFIES “Gaming, concubinage and loose relation with women are well known of parish priests." FRANCO GONZALES “This friar, addicted to petticoats, was aecu‘-'Lv- to play ‘monte’ with his mistress and other bora in Ills own convent." LEADING RESIDENTS OF ARINGAY, Pro- i vinco Of La Union “Tho priests abused all kinds of females w - distinction of class’ ov age, and when some of j bees.mo with child they' gave them medicine t the foetus." TESTIMONY OF JOSE TEMPLO “Rather were they tho corrupters of youth. .; iiig the lenten period when- tho country p would come in to confess the parish priest . j give strict orders that the young unmarried w , be sent to his apartments whom ho obscenel. ^ licited." TESTIMONY OF DON JOSE C. MIJARES . “Some reverend friars arrogated to thems ; rights which in feudal times were called rigln “pernada' (the right asserted by curtain feudal of entering the marriage bed of a nowly-w*. bride before the husband)." TESTIMONY OF FRANCISCO AI VAREZ “Neither the sacredness of t’ie bridal chamber ■ the modesty of the virgin deR ned him (the pri. ' He seduced many married we men ny uWaU'.S i husbands from home." PfcUCKS 1 copy, postpaid.$ .10 ; copies, postpaid.$ 6 ........40 Address Or ns to AMERICAN LIBERT UBUSIIIIW tl*U Bo : f.6!st Congress) qfnjati? /Document 2d Session / SENAIE | No. 196 Lnporting Women for Immoral Purposes A Partial Report from the Immigration Commission on the Importation and Harobring of Women for Immoral Purposes 64 PAGES Every law-abiding man and woman should rested in stamping out the nefarious whito 'ic. This is an official document of the U. S. de, and reveals, to an astounding degree, the nt to ^vhich Jiis business liavS grown in this ■ntvy. PRICES 1 copy, postpaid 10 cents copies...,, &0.46 200 copies..,, ,,..$13.00 0 “ g{> 300 “ ... .... 18.00 3 “ .... 2.00 500 “ .... ... 27.50 0 “ .... 2.75 1000 " .... .... 50.00 i ..... .... o 2000 “ .... Add toss orders to American Liberty Publishing Go. NOT INC.) Box 811. Chicago, III.