BX 
 
 
 !ii?; 
 
 
 
 
'%. 
 
 %/. 
 
 #.c 
 
 'o 0^ 
 
 rU 
 
 \ %. 
 
 ^^^. 
 
 % 
 
 ^-tytA' 
 
 \ - s 
 
 
 
 
 ,^ 
 
 %. 
 
 
 o < 
 
 . -<^-*> 
 
 ^r-/ '-.''' 
 
 
 V 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 ^ ^, ^^^x;^. 
 
 5^ * ^,,x^' '^; 
 
 ,^' c^ 
 
 ^'<' 
 
 '^c 
 
 -^^. 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 \ ^ 
 
 ^'^.T^. 
 
 .'►^^^"'^ 
 
 
 
 x^^ ^^. 
 
 ^: 
 
 ^. '* 
 
 ,,< 
 
 xV</>, 
 
 
 
 
 
 A C 
 
 '^^'" 
 
 ^^•^ •% '-> 
 
 * . , <» N^" 
 
 v^v 
 
 
 ■^c^ 
 
«*> 
 
 
 C-, 
 
 
 ^^> 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 >^ 
 
 
 y 
 
 <;■ 
 
 
 \ 
 
t -TKii^" ™^ 
 
 iOMAN CATHOLIC 
 
 NOT 
 
 "THE ONE ONLY TRUE RELIGIOxN," 
 
 XOT 
 
 "In Infallible ihrnth!' 
 
 OF LECTURES BY REV. C. F. SMARIUS, IkHSSION- 
 ARY OF THE SOCIETY OF JESUS." 
 
 If I am wrong, O teach my heart 
 To find that better way."— Pope. 
 
 PRINTED FOK THE AUTHOR, 
 AND FOR SALE BY BOOKSELLERS GENERALLY. 
 
 1868. 
 
^> 
 
 
 Entered, according to' Act of Congress, in the year 1868, by 
 
 C. C. STOTESBURT, 
 
 in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the 
 Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 
 
My dear 
 
 The attempt to remove error, or supposed error, 
 from the mind of a friend, is one of the greatest 
 acts of friendship. And the graver the error is 
 deemed, the kinder is the attempt to remove it. It 
 was for this reason that I thanked you so sincerely 
 for your invitation to listen to the lecture of Father 
 Smarius on the " Real Presence," and for the loan 
 of his work on *^ Points of Controversy." In accept- 
 ing the latter, you will remember that I promised 
 to read it carefully and thoughtfully, provided that 
 you in turn, should I deem its arguments erroneous 
 and inconclusive, would read, as carefully and 
 thoughtfully, what I might write in reply. 
 
 As I promised, so have I done ; and I have greater 
 reason to thank you, as it has led me to give closer 
 attention to the arguments advanced by the Church 
 to which you belong, and because I have become 
 more convinced than ever that they are incon- 
 clusive, erroneous, and false, so far as regards my 
 own mind and my own convictions. 
 
 "But the influence which opinions, that we have 
 
4 LETTER. 
 
 been once led to entertain and approve of, have on 
 our future judgments is incredible. Whatever may- 
 appear to oppose itself to them is not for a moment 
 to be listened to, however well it may be supported 
 by either argument or evidence." Acknowledging 
 the truth and justice of these remarks of Mosheim, 
 I endeavour always to purge my mind from every 
 prepossession that might in any way prevent the 
 light of truth from entering into my understanding; 
 and in the examination of what I have to present 
 to you, I beg you, if you have any reverence for 
 the truth, to do the same, — not for my sake, but for 
 the truth's sake ; for, says Father Smarius, "Truth 
 and God are one." 
 
 Truly and faithfully, your friend, 
 
 Philadelphia, Oct. 1, 1868. 
 
PREFATORY REMARKS. 
 
 A FEW words as to the course pursued by me 
 in my answer to the Father. I have taken up 
 each of his lectures, and selected what I conceived 
 to be the foundations of his arguments. I have 
 not followed him in his appeals to the emotions 
 and to the sensibilities: these cannot affect the 
 reason, but can only affect the feelings, the sus- 
 ceptibilities, of weak, I will not say womanish 
 minds. For such appeals, — I speak it not un- 
 kindly, — they sicken me, and I have for them 
 the highest contempt. 
 
 A small specimen will suffice, taken at ran- 
 dom, p. 406. ^^Do you see that manly, noble, 
 reverential form which stands at the foot of ' 
 the altar, dressed in all the splendor of sacer- 
 dotal apparel? He is the son of a merchant 
 
 prince, the heir of millions. Scarcely had he 
 
 1* 6 
 
6 PREFATORY REMARKS. 
 
 finislied his academic course, when one bright 
 morning, in anguish, he remained, after mass 
 was over, kneeling in his pew, as if wrapped in 
 ecstasy and burning Avith charity. ' Dear, sweet 
 Jesus,^ whispered the youth, ^Thou hast given 
 me a heart to love,^ &c. &c.,^^ ad nauseam. What 
 puling sentimentality, fit for the readers of sen- 
 sational novels, but not for the earnest, sincere, 
 and eager inquirer after truth ! Nor Christ, nor 
 Peter, nor Paul, was ever 'guilty of the like of 
 this. 
 
 The following among other authorities have 
 been made use of in preparing these remarks. 
 
 The Douay Bible has been always quoted, ex- 
 cept where otherwise stated. 
 
 Points of Controversy: a Series of Lectures. 
 By Rev. C. F. Smarius, Missionary of the Society 
 of Jesus. Fifteenth thousand. New York: 
 Thomas McCurtain, 80 Centre Street. 1867. 
 
 History of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit 
 of Rationalism in Europe. By W. E. H. Lecky, 
 
PREFATORY REMARKS. 7 
 
 M.A. 2 vols. New York: D. Appleton & Co. 
 1866. Quoted Lecky. 
 
 An Inquiry into the Symbolical Language of 
 Ancient Art and Mythology. By R. P. Knight, 
 Esq. (Privately printed. 1818. 8vo.) Reprinted 
 and published by E. H. Barker, Esq. London: 
 Black and Armstrong, 8 Wellington Street, North. 
 1836. 
 
 Anacalypsis: an Attempt to draw aside the 
 Veil of the Saitic Isis; or, An Inquiry into the 
 Origin of Languages, Nations, and Religions. By 
 Godfrey Higgins, Esq., F.S. A., F. R. Asiat. Soc, 
 F. R. Ast. S., of Skellow Grange, near Doncaster. 
 2 vols. London : Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, 
 Green and Longman, Paternoster Row. 1836. 
 
 The True Intellectual System of the Universe, 
 &c. &c. By Ralph Cudworth, D.D., with notes 
 by Mosheim. Translated by John Harrison, 
 M.A. 3 vols. London: Thomas Tegg. 1845. 
 Quoted Cud. Int. Syst. 
 
 A Discourse on the Worship of Priapus, and 
 its Connection with the Mystic Theology of the 
 Ancients. By Richard Payne Knight, Esq. (A 
 new edition.) To which is added An Essay on 
 
8 PEEFATORY REMARKS. 
 
 the Worship of the Generative Powers during 
 the Middla Ages of Western Europe. London. 
 Privately printed. 1865. 
 
 The following Bibles : — 
 
 Douay Version^ approved by Bishop Hughes, 
 of New York. New York: Edward Dunigan. 
 1844. 
 
 King James's Version, 
 
 The Twenty-four Books of the Holy Scrip- 
 tures : carefully translated according to the Masso- 
 retic Texts^ on the basis of the English version, 
 after the best Jewish authorities; and supplied 
 with short explanatory notes. By Isaac Leeser. 
 Philadelphia: Published at 371 Walnut Street. 
 5614. 
 
 Historical Commentaries on the State of Chris- 
 tianity during the First Three Hundred and 
 Twenty-five Years from the Christian Era, &c. &c. 
 By John Laurence von Mosheim, D. D. 2 vols. 
 Vol. I. translated from the original Latin by 
 Robert Studley Vidal, Esq., F. S. A. Volume II. 
 translated, and both volumes edited, by James 
 Murdoch, D. D. New York: S. Converse, 1853. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 LECTURE PAGE 
 
 I. IXDIFFERENCE TO RELIGION 11 
 
 II. The Bible not the Eule of Faith 30 
 
 III., IV. The CnrRCH of Christ 56 
 
 V. Of Confession 74 
 
 VI. Of Purgatory and Indulgences 82 
 
 VII. On the Eeal Presence 83 
 
 VIII. Honour and Invocation of Saints — 
 
 Veneration of Images and Relics Ill 
 
 IX. On the Honour and Invocation of the 
 
 Blessed Virgin Mary 136 
 
 Conclusion 173 
 
 Appendix. 177 
 
LECTURE I. 
 
 INDIFFEEENCE TO KELIGION. 
 
 Father Smarius commences his lectures by- 
 asserting that " infidelity and a general indiffer- 
 ence to all religions are the characteristic traits 
 of our age/^ Let us examine. 
 
 L What is ^^ infidelity^' ? 
 
 The term infidelity is derived from two Latin 
 words, — in, not, and fides, faithful. In its largest 
 sense it simply means unbelieving ; in its narrower 
 sense it is used by all religionists — Mohammedan, 
 Jewish, Christian, and other — as a term of re- 
 proach against those who differ from them in be- 
 lief. In the law, an infidel means "one who 
 professes no religion that can bind his conscience 
 to speak the truth'' (Greenleaf on Evidence, 
 § 368) ; " one who does not believe in the exist- 
 ence of a God who will reward or punish, in this 
 world or in that which is to come." (Willes' Re- 
 ports, 550.) 
 
 11 
 
12 INDIFFEEENCE TO RELIGIOK. 
 
 2. What is religion ? 
 
 " Religion/^ says the Father, " has for its object 
 to make us acquainted with the nature of the 
 Deity, the relations in which we stand to him 
 and he to us, and, consequently, the obligations 
 which flow from those relations/^ (p. 21.) 
 
 Father Calmet says, in his Dictionary of the 
 Bible, "It is taken in Scripture (1.) For the ex- 
 ternal and ceremonial worship of the Jewish reli- 
 gion (Exod. xii. 43) ; (2.) For the true religion ; 
 the best means of serving and knowing God 
 (James i. 27) ; (3.) For superstition.'^ 
 
 Webster says, "Any system of faith and wor- 
 ship, — as the religion of the Turks, of Hindoos, 
 of Christians ; true and false religion.^^ 
 
 We now have learned the meaning of the 
 terms "infidelity^^ and "religion.^^ But what 
 does he mean by "characteristic traits of our 
 age'^ ? 
 
 Webster defines " characteristic,^^ " serving to 
 mark the peculiar distinctive qualities of a per- 
 son or thing,^^ and "trait^^ as "a distinguishing 
 or marked feature or peculiarity -J^ so that the 
 word " traits^^ appears to be redundant, it having 
 the same meaning as " characteristic.^^ 
 
 Father Smarius, therefore, should have asserted 
 that " infidelity and a general indifference to all re- 
 ligions are the characteristics or traits of our age.^^ 
 
INDIFFERENCE TO RELIGION. 13 
 
 Is this assertion true ? Are the Jews, the Mo- 
 hammedans, the Buddhists, the Mormons, indif- 
 ferent to their respective religions? In the ab- 
 sence of all proof, I think we may safely say 
 they are not. But let us suppose that the Father 
 does not mean what he says, in speaking so gene- 
 rally ; that when he says ^^all religion,^^ he 
 simply means the Christian religion. 
 
 Is it, then, true that the men of our age, 
 residing in countries where the Christian reli- 
 gion is professed, for the most part disbelieve in 
 God, — that is, are infidels, — or, believing in God, 
 are indiifferent ^^to the relations in which they 
 stand to him and he to them,''-^that is, to reli- 
 gion ? 
 
 You and I, and all with whom we have anv 
 acquaintance, are certainly not included in this 
 category. Certainly the Catholics are not indif- 
 ferent to religion, nor are they infidels. Are 
 they not building churches to an extent unknown 
 for a long period of time ? Protestants are not 
 infidels ; and that they are not indifferent to reli- 
 gion is shown by the number of churches they 
 are likewise building, and by the fact that ^^ since 
 the year 1800 the Bible has probably been trans- 
 lated into more languages and circulated to the 
 extent of at least twelve times as many copies as 
 in the whole eighteen hundred years preceding.'' 
 
 2 
 
14 INDIFFERENCE TO RELIGION. 
 
 (Curtis on the Human Element in the Inspira- 
 tion of the Scriptures.) So that, unless Father 
 Smarius considers non-Catholics to be infidels, 
 he is decidedly wrong. And it may be positively 
 asserted that '' infidelity and a general indiffer- 
 ence to all religion^^ are " not" the characteristics 
 or traits of our age. 
 
 Again, the Father lays down the following 
 proposition : — " God, to be worshipped as he de- 
 serves, must be known to the worshipper. How 
 could man otherwise tend to God as his last end ? 
 Our intellect, therefore, must study the nature of 
 the Deity and his attributes, both to satisfy its 
 infinite longings" after truth, and to furnish the 
 'will with the means by which it can reach the 
 goal to which it tends and for which it is created. 
 Religion is that means; for its object is to make 
 us acquainted with the nature of the Deity, the 
 relations in which we stand to him and he to 
 us, and, consequently, the obligations which flow 
 from these relations." 
 
 " Human reason can, absolutely speaking, 
 know that there is a being which is eternal, 
 omnipotent, supreme, infinitely perfect, and that 
 man owes him worship and adoration ; and the 
 human will can, absolutely speaking, practise the 
 obligations which flow from the knowledge of 
 our relations to God : yet all history and expe- 
 
INDIFFERENCE TO RELIGION. 15 
 
 rience teach us that, in point of fact, the one, un- 
 aided by revelation, has never understood the 
 full extent of these truths, nor the other, un- 
 assisted by grace, ever practised the obligations 
 which these truths naturally entail/^ (p. 21.) 
 
 '' It was necessary that God should attest the 
 fact of his having revealed such truths by unmis- 
 takable evidences, — such evidences as would con- 
 vince the reason of man that he truly revealed 
 them/^ '' These evidences consist of miracles and 
 prophecies/^ (p. 24.) 
 
 *^ Religion alone can teach us the nature of 
 those duties which we owe to God, and that the 
 religion which teaches them is necessarily one. 
 You cannot, therefore, please God in any other 
 than the one true relio-ion which he himself has 
 revealed and established upon earth ; and you 
 cannot possibly be happy out of that one only 
 true religion.'' (pp. 29, 30.) 
 
 "Look well into this matter. Your all de- 
 pends upon the choice you make in religion. 
 Your soul is at stake. Heaven and hell are in 
 the balance. There can be but one religion.'' 
 (p. 48.) 
 
 " God is truth. Put error in God, he will 
 cease to be the truth ; he will cease to be God.'^ 
 (p. 27.) 
 
 What is truth? It is the harmony or con- 
 
16 INDIFFERENCE TO RELIGION. 
 
 formity of our thoughts or ideas with the facts 
 of the universe ; conformity to fact or reality. 
 
 Is it, then, true (1.) "That religion can alone 
 teach us the nature of those duties which we owe 
 to God''? (2.) "That there can be but one re- 
 ligion'' ? 
 
 Some of the above propositions the Father *has 
 laid down very loosely. " Our intellect must 
 study ;" " Human reason can know ;" " Religion 
 alone can teach." 
 
 Intellect and reason are certain attributes of 
 man. Now, if the Father had said that " man 
 must study," that " man could know," then what 
 is obscure would be all plain ; and this is what I 
 suppose he means. 
 
 But what does he mean by " Religion alone 
 can teach" ? Moses taught a religion, Christ 
 taught a religion, Mohammed taught a religion, 
 and so did Joe Smith. But did you ever hear 
 of religion teaching either Moses, Christ, Mo- 
 hammed, or Joe Smith? We have already de- 
 fined religion : substitute the definition as teach- 
 ing, and see what nonsense it will make. 
 
 Again, we suppose the Father means to assert 
 that " man can arrive at the knowledge of the 
 existence of God, and of the relations he stands 
 in to us and we to him, and the obligations 
 which arise from these relations," — all which 
 
INDIFFERENCE TO RELIGION. 17 
 
 constitutes what is called " natural religion/' to 
 distinguish it from .those religions which are 
 modifications of natural religion, based on an 
 asserted revelation from God, and are therefore 
 called '' revealed reh'gion^/^ 
 
 Is it true (2.) that '^ there can be but one re- 
 ligion''? (p. 48.) 
 
 No ! Upon examination you will find that 
 there are many religions, which may be classed 
 as ancient, old, and modern. The ancient may 
 include (1.) As prevailing among all nations, the 
 worship of the sun, moon, and stars, or of the 
 spirit directing or guiding them ; (2.) The 
 Buddhist; (3.) The Mithraitic ; (4.) The Jewish. 
 The Buddhists to-day number probably some 
 six hundred millions, — one-half of the whole 
 population of the earth. The old religions may 
 include the Christian and the Mohammedan, and 
 the modern the Mormon. 
 
 Each of the teachers of these religions had 
 and has for his object "to make us acquainted 
 with the nature of the Deity, the relation in 
 which he stands to us and we to him, and, con- 
 sequently, the obligations which flow from these 
 relations." And, although the Father admits that 
 man "can absolutely know him, and can abso- 
 lutely practise the obligations which flow from 
 the relations in which he stands to us and we to 
 
 2* 
 
18 INDIFFERENCE TO RELIGION. 
 
 him/^ yet you will find that the priests of these 
 religions agree with him that a revelation was 
 necessary from God. You will further find that 
 each of these religions claims to be founded upon 
 revelations from the Deity^ which are contained 
 in sacred books, and which prescribe the duties 
 of the priests and the various rites and cere- 
 monies which, as they assert, God has ordained; 
 that many of these are claimed by their devotees 
 to be the only true religion, ^^and to be supported 
 by such unmistakable evidences as would con- 
 vince the reason of man that God truly revealed 
 them, the evidences of miracles and prophecies.^^ 
 (p. 24.) But, further, among all these reh'gions 
 are various sects, which have arisen from different 
 interpretations or understandings of their re- 
 spective sacred books. And the beliefs of these 
 various sects are also termed religions. Thus we 
 have the Christian religion, and the Catholic and 
 Protestant religions as varieties of it. 
 
 I will not enter into an examination of the 
 nature of man, of his love of power and influ- 
 ence, of the means by which he attains it, or of 
 the unfortunate abuse of it when obtained. His- 
 tory is fall of it. But we must examine how 
 religions are originated, and, when originated, 
 how sustained. An individual endowed with 
 force of character, ardent and enthusiastic, im- 
 
INDIFFERENCE TO BELIGION. 19 
 
 pelled by some motive or other, such as the 
 reformation of the abuses in a prevailing religion, 
 or ambitious to form a new one, addresses his 
 fellow-men and endeavours to imbue them with 
 his sentiments and feelings. He succeeds with 
 some; he forms a society, and he becomes their 
 ruler and priest. It matters not what may be 
 the nature of the revelations which he may claim 
 that the Deitv has revealed to him, or how wild 
 and incongruous the religion may be, among 
 the poor and the ignorant converts are easily 
 made. Witness the Mormon religion of our own 
 day. Read Hep worth Dixon^s late work, and 
 learn what marvels people under the influence 
 of an idea can accomplish. The religion, once 
 formed, growls by its own accretions. The chil- 
 dren of the religionists become members of the 
 same religion also. But — now, mark the dis- 
 tinction — those who first joined the religion did 
 so by choice; those who were born, as it were, 
 into it, never exercised any choice at all. And it 
 is in this latter way most of the members of all 
 religions, accidentally, have their peculiar beliefs. 
 
 But, says the Father, "Your all depends upon 
 the choice you make in religion. Your soul is 
 at stake. Heaven and hell are in the balance.^^ 
 (p. 48.) 
 
 What choice did you ever exercise? When 
 
20 INDIFFERENCE TO RELIGION. 
 
 you were young, your parents — like all other 
 parents — chose for you your food, your clothing, 
 your religion. Now you make choice of your 
 clothing, you visit the various shops, you ex- 
 amine the various patterns, you inquire as to 
 quality and price, you select, you choose, you 
 make a choice. Did you ever make a choice of 
 your religion? Have you ever examined into 
 the evidences of other religions, or of your own? 
 Or are you 
 
 " Your birth's blind bigot ! fired with local zeal" ? 
 
 Or can you say, with Dr. Young, — 
 
 " No : Reason re-baptized me when adult ; 
 Weigh'd true and false in her impartial scale : 
 My heart became the convert of my head, 
 And made that choice^ which once was but my fatej^ 
 
 Yes, says Father Smarius, you must make a 
 choice. " Heaven and hell are in the balance, 
 and your soul is at stake.^^ What is choice? ^'It 
 is the determination of the mind in preferring 
 one thing to another.^^ (Webster.) But before 
 you can make a choice, you must judge. What is 
 to judge? It is ^^to compare facts or ideas, and 
 perceive their relations and attributes, and thus 
 distinguish truth from falsehood.^^ (Webster.) 
 But to judge is to exercise your own judgment, 
 not another's; and your own judgment is private 
 
IXDIFFEREXCE TO RELIGION. 21 
 
 judgment. And then, notwithstanding Father 
 Smarius, Luther and Calvin must be right. 
 For, "if your soul is at stake, and heaven and 
 hell are in the balance^^ unless you exercise your 
 right of choice iu selecting your religion, and if 
 making your choice requires an act of private 
 judgment, then does the principle of private 
 judgment become to you, and to every one else, 
 " the highest and only authority in religion and 
 morality.'' (p. 8.) 
 
 But, says Father Smarius, " There can be 
 but one religion; for truth is one.'' (p. 48.) But 
 if there be but one religion, there can be no 
 choice. But we know that there are many re- 
 ligions. And we know that, for the most part, 
 all these religions teach the same moral truths. 
 For, says Buckle, in his great History of Civiliza- 
 tion, unhappily left unfinished through his death, 
 " There is unquestionably nothing to be found in 
 the world which has undergone so little change as 
 those great dogmas of which moral systems are 
 composed. To do good to others; to sacrifice for 
 their benefit your own wishes; to love your 
 neighbour; to forgive your enemies; to restrain 
 your passions; to honour your parents; to respect 
 those who are set over you: these, and a few 
 others, are the sole essentials of morals; but they 
 have been for thousands of years, and not one jot 
 
22 INDIFFERENCE TO RELIGION. 
 
 or tittle has been added to them by all the ser- 
 mons, homilies, and text-books which moralists 
 and theologians have been able to produce." (Vol. 
 i. p. 120.) ^^And," says Sir James Mackintosh, 
 "morality admits no discoveries. Therefore, as 
 there have been, and can be, no new discoveries 
 in morals, so far all religions teach one and the 
 same truths." 
 
 But, says the Father, "These truths are 
 supernatural through revelation, not as to their 
 objective verity, but as to the manner in which 
 they are made known." (p. 23.) So say the 
 priests of all religions. " Secondly, it comprises 
 truths which transcend the natural powder of 
 reason, and tke revelation of which is super- 
 natural as to their substance and their manner. 
 Such, for example, is the truth that God is one 
 in essence and three in person." (p. 23.) But this 
 is nothing new. Christianity has not taught this 
 originally. These things were taught long before 
 Christianity had any existence. "Almost every 
 nation in the world that has deviated from the 
 rude simplicity of primitive Theism has had its 
 Trinity in Unity." (R. Payne Knight, on the Sym- 
 bolical Language of Ancient Art and Mythology, 
 p. 72.) 
 
 But, says the Father, " These religions con- 
 tradict each other, both in points of speculation 
 
IXDIFFEREXCE TO RELIGION. 23 
 
 and practical doctrines.'^ (p. 27.) Let the Hindoos 
 answer him. " The great Triade had, at different 
 times, become incarnate in different forms and in 
 different countries, to the inhabitants of which they 
 had given different laws and instructions suitable 
 to their respective climates and circumstances : so 
 that each religion may be good w^ithout being ex- 
 clusively so, — the goodness of the Deity naturally 
 allowing many roads to the same end." (R. 
 Payne Knight, p. 74.) And Father Smarius 
 must agree with the Hindoos; for he says, ^^Has 
 he [God] not a perfect right to be known, to be 
 reverenced, served, and adored, as he pleases?'^ (p. 
 25.) ^^ Thousands of the immortal progeny of 
 Jupiter," says Hesiod, " inhabit the fertile earth 
 as guardians to mortal men." ^^An adequate 
 knowledge either of the numbers or the attri- 
 butes of these, the Greeks never presumed to 
 think attainable, but modestly contented them- 
 selves viith revering and invoking them when- 
 ever thev felt they wanted their assistance. If a 
 shipwrecked mariner were cast upon an unknown 
 shore, he immediately offered up his prayers to 
 the gods of the country, w^hoever they were, and 
 joined the inhabitants in whatever modes of 
 worship they employed to propitiate them, con- 
 cluding that all expressions of gratitude and sub- 
 mission must be pleasing to the Deity; and as 
 
24 INDIFFERENCE TO RELIGION. 
 
 for other expressions^ he was not acquainted with 
 them, cursing or invoking the divine wrath to 
 avenge the quarrels of men being unknown to the 
 public worship of the ancients. The Athenians, 
 indeed, in the fury of their resentment for the 
 insult offered to the mysteries, commanded the 
 priestess to curse Alcibiades; but she had the 
 spirit to refuse, saying that she was the priestess 
 of prayers, and not of cursing.^^ (R. Payne Knight, 
 §57.), ■ 
 
 ^^The same liberal and humane spirit still pre- 
 vails among those nations whose religion is 
 founded in the same principles.^^ ^^The Siamese/^ 
 says a traveller of the seventeenth century, 
 ^^ shun disputes, and believe that almost all re- 
 ligions are good. When the ambassador of 
 Louis XIV. asked their king, in his master's 
 name, to embrace Christianity, he replied that 
 it was strange that the King of France should 
 interest himself so much in an affair which con- 
 cerned only God; whilst he, whom it did con- 
 cern, seemed to leave it wholly to our discretion. 
 Had it been agreeable to the Creator that all 
 nations should have had the same form of wor- 
 ship, would it not have been as easy to his 
 omnipotence to have created all men with the 
 same sentiments and dispositions, and to have 
 inspired them with the same notions of the true 
 
IXDIFFERENCE TO RELIGION. 25 
 
 religion, as to endow them with such different 
 tempers and inclinations? Ought they not rather 
 to believe that the true God has as much plea- 
 sure in being honoured by a variety of forms and 
 ceremonies as in being praised and glorified by 
 a number of different creatures? Or why should 
 that beauty and variety, so admirable in the 
 natural order of things, be less admirable, or less 
 worthy of the wisdom of God, in the super- 
 natural?'' 
 
 "The Hindoos profess exactly the same opi- 
 nion. They would readily admit the truth of 
 the gospel,^' says a very learned writer long resi- 
 dent among them, '' but they contend that it is 
 perfectly consistent with their Sastras. The 
 Deity, they say, has app^red innumerable times 
 in many parts of this world, and of all worlds, 
 for the salvation of his creatures; and, though 
 we adore him in one appearance and they in 
 others, yet we adore, they say, the same God, to 
 whom our several worships, though different in 
 form, are equally acceptable, if they be sincere in 
 substance.^^ 
 
 '' The Pythian priestess pronounced from the 
 tripod that whoever performed the rites of his 
 religion according to the laws of his country per- 
 formed them in a manner pleasing to the Deity. 
 Hence the Romans made no alteration in the 
 
 3 
 
26 INDIFFEEENCE TO EELIGION. 
 
 religious institutions of the conquered countries, 
 but allowed the inhabitants to be as absurd and 
 extravagant as they pleased, and even to enforce 
 their absurdities and extravagances, wherever 
 they had any pre-existing laws in their favour/^ 
 (R. Payne Knight, Idem, §§ 58, 61, and the 
 authorities there quoted.) ^^ Even they who wor- 
 ship other gods,^^ says the incarnate Deity in an 
 ancient Indian poem, ^Svorship me, although 
 they know it not/^ (R. Payne Knight, § 62.) And 
 says St. Peter, " In very deed I perceive that 
 God is no respecter of persons: but in every 
 nation he that feareth him and worketh justice 
 is acceptable to him/^ (Acts x. 34, 35.) 
 
 Christian priests are, I am afraid, much less 
 reasonable and liberal. But no one has any doubt 
 about his own peculiar belief being iix perfect ac- 
 cord with the requirements of Deity. And although 
 Father Smarius tells you " that heaven and hell 
 are in the balance, dependent upon the choice 
 you make of a religion,^' he does not mean that 
 anv one who believes as he does should be under 
 the necessity of making a choice. Oh, no! He 
 is right. All others are wrong. Heaven is his 
 portion; hell, theirs. He very much resembles 
 Bishop Warburton, who, when asked by a peer 
 of the realm, ^^ What is orthodoxy?'' replied, " Or- 
 thodoxy, my lord, is my doxy; heterodoxy is 
 
INDIFFERENCE TO RELIGION. 27 
 
 yours." Listen to what the Father says in his 
 next lecture (p. 101): — ^' But this does by no 
 means imply that the faithful, who have believed 
 already, should test the word of God, which has 
 been preached to them by the written word, as 
 if they were allowed to doubt the veracity of the 
 word which was preached to them." What! 
 Not doubt! when, according to the father, "there 
 is but one religion, and all that are called re- 
 ligions in the world outside of that one religion 
 must be false, and your soul is at stake, and 
 heaven and hell are in the balance, depending 
 upon that choice!" "The faithful should not test 
 the word : they are not allowed to doubt." But 
 the faithful are those who are full of faith. 
 What faith ? Why, any faith, — all faiths. And 
 the priests of any and all faiths will tell you pre- 
 cisely what Father Smarius tells you. But does 
 not this lead to an absurdity? For — 
 
 (1.) If it is not necessary for the faithful, who 
 are those who are full of faith,^of any faith, all 
 faith, — to test the word of God which has been 
 preached to them, there is then no necessity of 
 making a choice of a religion. 
 
 (2.) If there is no necessity of making a choice, 
 surely your soul cannot be at stake. 
 
 (3.) If your soul is not at stake, heaven and 
 hell cannot be in the balance. 
 
28 INDIFFERENCE TO RELIGION. 
 
 But is not Father Smarius guilty of a greater 
 absurdity? In the preface to his work, he says, 
 "The little volume which we present to the 
 American public, in the form of doctrinal lec- 
 tures, was written for no other purpose than, 
 with the assistance of divine grace, to convert 
 souls to God/^ 
 
 Then, in his first lecture, he says, " A fatal 
 lethargy has come over the minds and hearts of 
 men, in which religion, virtue, duty, are looked 
 upon as empty phantoms in a dream, leaving a 
 momentary impression of their beauty, but soon 
 to be forgotten in the more attractive and ab- 
 sorbing interests of daily life/^ (p. 7.) " We are 
 becoming a godless people/' (p. 8.) 
 
 '[ A chief cause of this moral degeneracy may 
 be traced to the principle of private judgment 
 introduced by Luther and Calvin, as the highest 
 and only authority in religion and morality/^ 
 (p.8.) 
 
 " Your all depends upon the choice you make 
 in religion/' (p. 48.) 
 
 It has been already demonstrated that to make 
 a choice involves the exercise of private judg- 
 ment, and that without the exercise of private 
 judgment a choice cannot be made. 
 
 Therefore Father Smarius asks the " American 
 public'^ to niake use of their private judgment in 
 
IXDTFFEREXCE TO RELIGION. 29 
 
 order that they may be cured of '' their moral 
 degeneracy^^ and cease to be " a godless people ;'' 
 while in the same breath he tells them that the 
 principal cause of their moral degeneracy and 
 their being a godless people is owing to their 
 using their private judgment. Is this the rea- 
 soning by which he will '' convert souls to God'^ ? 
 
 3* 
 
LECTUEE II. 
 
 THE BIBLE XOT THE EULE OF FAITH. 
 
 In order that we may clearly understand the 
 above proposition, it will be necessary to consider 
 THREE things : — 
 
 1. What is the Bible? 
 
 2. What is a rule ? 
 
 3. What is faith? 
 
 (1.) What is the Bible? The word Bible 
 comes from the Greek ^c^Xoc; (biblos), a book, 
 and is a name given to a collection of sacred 
 writings. The Hebrews call it Lesson, Lecture, 
 or Scripture. The Jews and Protestants acknow- 
 ledge only twenty-two books as canonical, — to 
 wit : those containing the Law ; the former Pro- 
 phets ; the latter Prophets ; and the Sacred 
 Books, or Hagiographa. Most of these were 
 written in Hebrew; parts of Ezra and Daniel, in 
 Chaldee. To these books Catholics add what 
 are termed by some the apocryphal books, which 
 comprehend certain books which were in exist- 
 ence previous to Christ, but were not admitted 
 by the Jews into the canon of the Scripture, or, 
 
 30 
 
THE BIBLE NOT THE RULE OF FAITH. 31 
 
 • 
 
 as it is sometimes called, " The Old Testament/' 
 '' because they had no Hebrew original, or be- 
 cause they were regarded as not divinely in- 
 spired/' 
 
 To the above books are added certain other 
 books, forming a collection known as " The New 
 Testament/' These two collections, to which 
 Catholics add the Apocrypha, are by Christians 
 called the " Bible." 
 
 So that the Bible contains two collections of 
 sacred books, acknowledged by all Christians : — 
 one, called the Old Testament, containing a spe- 
 cial revelation, through Moses and the prophets, 
 to the Jews; the other, called the New Testa- 
 ment, containing a revelation, through Jesus and 
 the apostles, to Jews and Gentiles. 
 
 (2.) What is a rule ? 
 
 Webster defines a ^^ rule" to be " that which is 
 prescribed or laid down as a guide to conduct; 
 a minor law." 
 
 Worcester defines it to be " a precept by which 
 the thoughts and actions are directed, or accord- 
 ing to which something is to be done." 
 
 (3.) What is faith ? 
 
 " Faith" is defined to be " the doctrine or 
 tenets believed; a system of doctrine or religious 
 truth." 
 
 But the Bible, or book, is not a rule. The 
 
32 THE BIBLE NOT THE EULE OF FAITH. 
 
 paper^ or papyrus^ or vellum, and the words and 
 letters written thereupon, are not a rule. But 
 the ideas, the notions, the propositions, conveyed 
 into the mind of man by these letters and words, 
 through the medium of his sight and understand- 
 ing, may or may not be a rule. 
 
 So a man, let him call himself a priest, pro- 
 phet, or what he pleases, is not a rule in matters 
 of faith. But the ideas, the notions, the proposi- 
 tions, which he may convey through language 
 and the medium of our senses to our understand- 
 ings, may or may not be a rule. 
 
 Therefore, when Father Smarius says, "The 
 Bible not the rule of faith,^^ he speaks correctly. 
 But if he means to say that the Old and New 
 Testaments do not contain the history of the 
 revelations of God to man, " whether of a specu^ 
 lative or practical nature^' (p. 25), then he cer- 
 tainly asserts Avhat, according to himself, is erro- 
 neous and false. (See p. 25.) 
 
 But how are asserted revelations from God, 
 whether delivered orally or through writing, to 
 be proved ? Ideas, notions, propositions, are re- 
 ceived into the understanding, which are asserted 
 to be revelations from God. How shall it be 
 known that they are from God? Father Smarius 
 tells us " it was necessary that God should attest 
 the fact of his having revealed such truths by 
 
THE BIBLE ^'OT THE RULE OF FAITH. 33 
 
 unmistakable evidences, — such evidences as would 
 convince the reason of man that he truly revealed 
 them/' 
 
 '' These evidences he did give to man, and they 
 consist of miracles and prophecies/' 
 
 '^ Now, that such miracles have been wrought 
 and prophecies uttered in attestation of the reve- 
 lation made by God to man, is a well-known fact 
 of history/' 
 
 ^' The pages of the Old and New Testaments 
 abound with miraculous facts and prophecies. 
 We are bound to accept revelations thus attested 
 as the revelations of God himself." 
 
 '^ For w^hen God reveals any truth, whether of 
 a speculative or practical nature, he must do so 
 for an end," &c. 
 
 '^ Faith, therefore, in the doctrine of divine 
 revelation is necessary unto our real well-being 
 for time and eternity." (pp. 24, 25, 26.) 
 
 Therefore ^^ the doctrine of divine revelation, 
 w'hether of a speculative or practical nature, being 
 necessary for our real well-being for time and 
 eternity," and these "revelations being found 
 recorded in the pages of the Old and Ncav Testa- 
 ments with miraculous facts and prophecies, w^e 
 are bound to accept them as the revelations of 
 God himself." (See p. 25.) 
 
 Therefore Father Smarius himself proves that 
 
o 
 
 4 TPIE BIBLE NOT THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 the revelations contained in the Old and New 
 Testaments (Bible) are, and must be, '' rules of 
 faith/^ 
 
 Again : Father Smarius asserts, " We have 
 seen that faith is necessary to salvation/^ (p. 50.) 
 AVhat faith? That which he speaks of above, 
 — '' faith in the doctrine of divine revelation/^ 
 '' But it is clear that not every kind of faith is 
 suflScient unto salvation/^ (p. 50.) No Pro- 
 testant asserts it. The Protestants assert that 
 faith in the real presence, in the Virgin, in relics, 
 in saints, &c. &c., is not sufiScient unto salvation. 
 And so they agree with the Father that every 
 sort of faith is not sufficient. "There is, there- 
 fore, there can be, but one true faith.^^ (p. 50,) 
 This is what the Protestant believes, — that there 
 " is but one true faith, faith in the doctrine of 
 divine revelations w^iich are found recorded in the 
 pages of the Old and New Testaments.'^ (p. 25.) 
 
 Again : Father Smarius says, " Now, what is 
 this easy, certain, and secure means of having 
 faith, without which it is imnossible to be saved ? 
 Our separated brethren tell us it is the written 
 word, the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing 
 but the Bible, interpreted by every one's private 
 judgment.'' (p. 51.) 
 
 " This we Roman Catholics deny." (p. 51.) 
 
 Well, let us see what the Father has not only 
 
THE BIBLE NOT THE RULE OF FAITH. 35 
 
 admitted, but asserted. Let ns see what Catholics 
 and Protestants agree in, that we may the better 
 apprehend in what they differ. 
 
 1. Father Smarius admits and asserts ^^ that 
 faith is necessary to salvation.'^ (p. 50.) 
 
 2. That this faith is '' faith in the doctrine of 
 divine revelation.'^ (p. 26.) 
 
 3. " That these divine revelations are found in 
 the pages of the Old and New Testaments'' (p. 25), 
 or ^' written word, or the Bible, the whole Bible, 
 and nothing but the Bible." (p. 51.) 
 
 So far, then, Father Smarius and the Protestants 
 agree. In what, then, do they differ? In this : — 
 ^'interpreted by every one's private judgment." 
 In other words, the Father objects " to the right 
 of private interpretation." 
 
 What is it to interpret ? It is to define, — to 
 give the meaning of. " Interpretation" is mean- 
 ing, sense. (Webster.) 
 
 I think we may say of Father Smarius and 
 the Roman Catholic theologians, what Bishop 
 Berkeley says of himself and the metaphysicians, 
 '' That we have first raised a dust, and then com- 
 plain we cannot see." (Berkeley's Works, vol. i. 
 p. 74.) 
 
 Protestants do not interpret the Bible. They 
 interpret the rev^elations given by God which are 
 contained in the Bible. That is, each individual 
 
36 THE BIBLE NOT THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 endeavours to give a meaning to the revelations of 
 God so that he may understand them in precisely 
 the mode and manner in which God intended he 
 should understand them. So, when I heard the 
 Father lecture on the ^^ Real Presence/^ I endea- 
 voured to give such a meaning to the words 
 w^hieh he spoke as I supposed he wished to con- 
 vey to my understanding. And this meaning 
 which I gave Avas my interpretation ; and. being 
 mine, it was a private interpretation. So, in 
 reading his book, '' Points of Controversy,^^ I 
 must interpret his meaning from the words in 
 which he conveys it. When any one speaks or 
 writes, every individual gives to what is written 
 or spoken his own idea of what was intended to 
 be conveyed. But words and language are am- 
 biguous, and this leads to difficulties, — one mean- 
 ing being conveyed to one person's understanding, 
 another to another's ; each one insisting upon 
 his own understanding of what was written or 
 spoken ; and this is the " right of private inter- 
 pretation.'' 
 
 But in the revelations of God to man, the Father 
 has laid down a rule which is certain and infalli- 
 ble, to wit : — '^ God is infinite and infallible truth. 
 He cannot be deceived himself, nor can he de- 
 ceive us, in the revelation of his truths." (p. 26.) 
 •^ And these revelations he has accompanied with 
 
THE BIBLE NOT THE RULE OF FAITH. 37 
 
 such unmistakable evidences as would convince 
 the reason of man that he truly revealed them.'' 
 (p. 24.) Now, what is a " revelation" ? " It is 
 the act of revealing, or disclosing, or discovering, 
 to others what was before unknown to them." 
 In theology, ^^ that which is revealed by God to 
 man." (Webster.) Now, you perceive, it neces- 
 sarily follows that no man can ever be mistaken, 
 nor can ever give a false interpretation to a reve- 
 lation given by God to him. Because, — 
 
 1. Father Smarius says, ^^ God cannot decmve 
 us in the revelation of his truths." 
 
 2. Because, the revelation consisting in the 
 ideas which are conveyed into the minds and 
 understandings of men, and not in the words or 
 language, which are only the instruments, the 
 apparatus, the scaffolding used for conveying 
 them, unless the ideas conveyed into the mind 
 of a man are those ideas which God intended to 
 convey, it is no revelation at all. 
 
 Therefore it necessarily follows, from what 
 Father Smarius asserts, that every man's private 
 interpretation of the revelations of God contained 
 in the Old and New Testaments must be the true 
 interpretation. ^^ For God is infinite and infalli- 
 ble truth. He cannot be deceived himself, nor 
 can he deceive us, in the revelation of his truths." 
 (p. 26.) 
 
 4 
 
38 THE BIBLE NOT THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 But^ says the Father, " If the Bible or written 
 word alone was designed by Christ to be every 
 man^s rule of faith, then every man must be able 
 to find out whether he has the Bible, the whole 
 Bible, and nothing but the Bible/^ (p. 51.) 
 
 Again : '' Before you can believe any specific 
 article of faith on the authority of the Bible as 
 the word of God, you must first be infallibly 
 certain that the book in which you find that spe- 
 cific article is the word of God, and not the word 
 of man/^ (p. 52.) 
 
 But the Protestants agree, with Father Smarius 
 and the Catholics, ^Hhat the pages of the Old 
 and New Testaments abound with miraculous facts 
 and prophecies,^^ and '' that we are bound to 
 accept revelations thus attested as the revelations 
 of God himself;'^ and "that God has attested 
 them, the fact of his having revealed such truths 
 by unmistakable evidences, such evidences as 
 would convince the reason of man that he truly 
 revealed them'' (pp. 25, 26), fully proves. 
 
 There is one point, however, in which Pro- 
 testants do not agree with Catholics. To the 
 Protestants that portion of the Old Testament 
 termed the Apocrypha does not contain " unmis- 
 takable evidences'' of containing revelations from 
 God. Therefore they do not admit that they 
 contain such revelations. 
 
THE BIBLE NOT THE RULE OF FAITH. 39 
 
 But does not the Father, in his zeal against 
 Protestants, contradict himself when he says, 
 "Before you can believe any specific article of 
 faith on the authority of the Bible as the word 
 of God, you must first be infallibly certain that 
 the book in which you find that specific article 
 is the word of God, and not the word of man^^? 
 " No book or written document proves its own 
 authenticity. '^ " Witnesses — living witnesses — are 
 the only sufficient evidence of their genuineness ;'^ 
 and "these witnesses who were present at the 
 time it was first written," he asserts, " were the 
 first Christians, of course, — those who lived in 
 the days of the evangelists and sacred penmen 
 themselves. But these Christians were Catho- 
 lics." (pp. 52, 53.) 
 
 Father Smarius, having already asserted (and 
 Protestants agree with him) " that the Old and 
 New Testaments contain the revelations of God 
 to man" (p. 25,) "and that God has proved 
 these revelations to be his, by unmistakable evi- 
 dences, such evidences as would convince the rea- 
 son of man that he truly revealed them" (p. 24), 
 now starts an objection, " that no book or written 
 document proves its own authenticity." Who 
 says it does? No Protestant, surely. Again, he 
 says that " witnesses — living witnesses — are the 
 only sufficient evidence of their genuineness." 
 
40 THE BIBLE ^^OT THE KULE OF FAITH. 
 
 But he has ah^eady asserted "that God has 
 proved these revelations by unmistakable evi- 
 dences/^ Then it must follow, of course, that if 
 " living witnesses^^ were the only sufficient evidence 
 of his revelation, they must have been included 
 among the unmistakable evidences which God 
 presented. A child should discriminate, this. 
 
 But is this not disingenuous in the Father? 
 " So it is with the written word of God. Its 
 authenticity, its genuineness, its inspiration, must 
 be proved by living and credible witnesses. But 
 where and who are those witnesses? Those who 
 were present when the Bible was written, those 
 who knew the persons that wrote it, and those 
 who handed it down as it was written, during 
 the lapse of the ages.'^ (p. 53.) Now, having 
 spoken of the Bible, which consists of the Old 
 and New Testaments, he drops the word ''BibUy^ 
 and uses the word "Gospel,^^ — a word which he 
 has not used before. A method most admirably 
 adapted to mislead the unwary. He goes on :— 
 " Now, the Gospel bears the venerable age of 
 nineteen centuries! Who were the witnesses 
 present at the time it was first written? The 
 first Christians, of course, — those who lived in the 
 days of the evangelists and sacred penmen them- 
 selves. But these Christians were Catholics.^' 
 (p. 53.) 
 
THE BIBLE NOT THE RULE OF FAITH. 41 
 
 These latter admissions are certainly very 
 pregnant. One might suppose that the Father 
 doubted of the truths of his religion. The Father 
 asserts what every one admits who disputes the 
 asserted truths of revelation. The Father asserts^ 
 what Protestants do not admit, that the^^GospeF^ 
 — I suppose he includes under this term the 
 whole of the New Testament — was written by 
 ^^Catholics.^^ But living witnesses present at the 
 writing of any book or books could not prove 
 that the books were authentic or inspired, that 
 is, that what was contained in them was true and 
 from God, but only that they were genuine, — that 
 is, that they were written by the persons purporting 
 to have written them. But here is the Father's 
 disingenuousness! He might assert that " Chris- 
 tians'' wrote the books, and that these Christians 
 were ^^ Catholics," w^ith some probable pretence 
 of reason; for these books are believed not to 
 have been written until the latter part of the 
 first century or the commencement of the second 
 century of our era, — one hundred years, perhaps, 
 after the events and transactions recorded in 
 them are said to have taken place. But w^ho 
 were present at the time these events and trans- 
 actions took place which are related in the Old 
 and New Testaments? Jews. No Christians 
 were present. There- were at that time no 
 
 4* 
 
42 THE BIBLE NOT THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 Christians, much less Catholics, in the world. 
 No such persons as Christians were known until 
 a considerable period after the death of Christ; 
 for "^ the disciples were called Christians first at 
 Antioch'^ (Acts xi. 26); or, as the Douay version 
 has it, " so that at Antioch the disciples were 
 first named Christians/^ 
 
 But it is plain, from what follows, Avhat this 
 specious sophistry means. '^But these Chris- 
 tians were Catholics. Protestantism was not 
 born till A.D. 1517, sixteen centuries after the 
 Bible had been written. Our separated brethren, 
 then, must refer to Catholics, and Catholic tradi- 
 tion, or history, in order to settle the first question 
 of their faith. But to do this would be to con- 
 tradict themselves. For they look upon the 
 Roman Catholic Church as the parent of all 
 errors, so that whoever believes her testimony 
 believes a lie.'^ (p. 53.) 
 
 Here Father Smarius has dropped the word 
 ^'Gospel,^^ and comes back to^^Bible,^^ and would 
 lead you to infer that the Bible was written, by 
 Catholics only, sixteen centuries before the year 
 1517. Is this honest? 
 
 But, Father Smarius, which is true? That 
 which you have already asserted, and which the 
 Catholics and Protestants agree in, — 
 
 "That the Old and N^w Testaments contain 
 
THE BIBLE NOT THE RULE OF FAITH. 43 
 
 the revelation of God, attested by him by unmis- 
 takable evidences, such evidences as must con- 
 vince the reason of every man that he truly re- 
 vealed them, and that these revelations are the 
 only rule of taith''? (pp. 24, 25, 26.) 
 
 Or this, which you assert, and Protestants 
 deny,— 
 
 " That our separated brethren must refer to 
 the Catholics, and Catholic tradition, or history, 
 in order to settle the first question of their faith'^ ? 
 (p. 53.) 
 
 If the first be true, the second is false. If the 
 second be true, the first is false. 
 
 It is for the Father and the Catholics to deter- 
 mine. 
 
 Again, the Father says, " For they [Protestants] 
 look upon the Roman Catholic Church as the 
 parent of all errors, so that whoever believes her 
 testimonies believes a lie." (p. 53.) 
 
 Very incorrect, in statement and fact. Pro- 
 testants do not so believe. Protestants believe 
 that the Roman Catholic Church teaches much 
 that is true, a great deal that is false; that, 
 while much of her testimony is true, it is all to 
 be received with great caution, and to be exa- 
 mined critically and with care. Protestants believe 
 that they have retained all the doctrines of the 
 early Christian churchies which have been re- 
 
44 THE BIBLE NOT THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 tained by the Catholic Church ; while they have 
 discarded all the false doctrines and ceremonies, 
 which they regard as superstitious, with which the 
 Roman Catholic Church, as Protestants believe, 
 has overlaid and corrupted the pure and simple 
 religion of Christ. 
 
 Again : Father Smarius says, " Yea, the very 
 reformers who introduced the maxim that the 
 Bible, and the Bible alone, is every man's rule 
 of faith, were not agreed upon this question ;'^ 
 that is, were not agreed as to whether certain 
 books which entered into the collection called the 
 Bible did, or did not, contain revelations from 
 God. (p. 54 et seq.) 
 
 Now apply the test which the Father has him- 
 self supplied. "It was necessary that God 
 should attest the fact of his having revealed such 
 truths by unmistakable evidences, such evidences 
 as would convince the reason of man that he 
 truly revealed them/^ (p. 24.) 
 
 Now, if the reason of man must be convinced 
 by unmistakable evidence of the fact of a revela- 
 tion, and a book is placed before him claiming to 
 contain a revelation, and his reason is not con- 
 vinced, that book to him contains no revelation ; 
 for, according to the Father, "it is necessary that 
 God should convince his reason by unmistakable 
 evidence.'^ 
 
THE BIBLE NOT THE RULE OF FAITH. 45 
 
 The answer, therefore, of the Jews, and of such 
 others as do not agree with the Catholics as to 
 certain books which they (the Catholics) assert to 
 contain divine revelation, is, that to them God 
 has not convinced their reason by unmistakable 
 evidence. 
 
 Again, says the Father, '^ When God reveals 
 a truth, whether of a speculative or practical 
 nature, he must needs do so for an end. This 
 end can be no other than his greater glory and 
 our greater happiness. Both these motives oblige 
 us to accept and believe his revelation. Has he 
 not a perfect right to be known, to be reverenced, 
 served, and adored, as he pleases ?^^ (p. 25.) 
 
 Certainly. And these revelations, being con- 
 tained in the collection of sacred books called the 
 Bible, must necessarily become a "rule of faith" 
 to every one believing them to be revelations. 
 It matters not for what purpose God has made 
 them. From the relation in which God stands 
 to us as our Creator and we to him as his crea- 
 tures, they become a law, — rules of conduct im- 
 posed by the highest Power in the universe, the 
 Creative Power, and which the inferior — the 
 creature — is bound to obey. But Father Smarius 
 says, " The Bible is not the rule of faith." Cer- 
 tainly the revelations which are found therein 
 must be, or why is he constantly quoting them 
 
46 THE BIBLE NOT THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 to prove his positions, his assertions? Why- 
 quote that which has no authority? Why, in 
 questions concerning the faith of Christians, 
 quote the revelations contained in the Bible, if 
 they are not rules of faith ? 
 
 But, says the Father, the book is variously in- 
 terpreted : one says it means this, another that. 
 Who is to be the judge? The right reason of 
 every man, undoubtedly. He himself says so; 
 and he further says that that evidence must be 
 ^^ unmistakable,^^ as God would not ask our belief 
 upon any other terms. 
 
 Now, I want to point out the difference in re- 
 gard to matters of this kind and those which 
 arise upon matters of dispute in the business 
 aifairs of life between man and man ; and unless 
 you rightly understand this, you will be misled 
 by arguments seemingly applicable, but which 
 have no relevancy to religious questions, to mat- 
 ters of belief, at all, but are wholly sophistical 
 This difference is founded upon the maxim of 
 jurisprudence, '' Interest reipublicse ut sit finis 
 litium.'^ (^^ It is the interest of the state that an 
 end be put to litigation.^^) To this end courts 
 are established, with their apparatus of judges, 
 juries, <fec. ; maxims and rules are laid down for 
 the interpretation of statutes, of writings, and for 
 the reception of oral and written testimony ; and 
 
THE BIBLE NOT THE RULE OF FAITH. 47 
 
 there are courts of original and of appellate juris- 
 diction, — the latter being those of last resort, and 
 whose opinions and decisions are final. 
 
 But does this apparatus of courts determine 
 the truth of the matters referred to them ? They 
 may endeavour to do so, but it is notorious that 
 they do not. You will frequently find that, after 
 having adjudged in one way, at a subsequent 
 period, without there having been any change in 
 the law, they will reverse their own decision. 
 What, then, do they do ? Why, they settle the 
 dispute ; and although the parties to the dispute 
 may be dissatisfied, there is an end put to litiga- 
 tion, and so the peace of society is sustained. 
 
 But who is to determine upon abstract matters 
 of belief? Who is to determine upon the ^^un- 
 mistakable evidences of miracles and prophecies^^ ? 
 ^^ Christ cannot contradict himself.^^ (p. 50.) And 
 Christ says, '' Many will say to me in that day, 
 Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, 
 and cast out devils in thy name, and done many 
 miracles in thy name? And then will I profess 
 unto them, I never knew you : depart from me, 
 you that work iniquity.'^ (Matt. vii. 22, 23, 
 Douay version.) Therefore it appears that pro- 
 phecies, and casting out devils, and miracles, are 
 not necessarily " unmistakable evidences" of being 
 upon the side of Christ ; for it may be that those 
 
48 THE BIBLE NOT THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 who claim your belief and assent upon these 
 grounds may be those who work iniquity. There- 
 fore, if any man or society of men call himself or 
 themselves prophet, priest, pastor, church, con- 
 gregation, or what not, and I believe that they 
 are workers of iniquity, their evidence, though 
 based upon casting out devils, miracles, and pro- 
 phecies, ceases to be " unmistakable/^ I am 
 bound to reject it. 
 
 But, says Father Smarius, ^^ If the authority 
 of the Church of Rome is sufficient evidence to 
 you that they are not inspired, — that is, certain 
 ancient books not included in the canon of Scrip- 
 ture, — why is her authority not equally sufficient 
 when she tells you that others which you now 
 reject — such as the Maccabees — are really in- 
 spired?'' (p. 62.) But the authority of the 
 Church of Rome is not sufficient evidence. What 
 is evidence? ^^It is that which is legally sub- 
 mitted to a competent tribunal, as a means of 
 ascertaining the truth of any alleged matter of 
 fact under investigation before it ; means of 
 proof (Greenleaf.) In this case, according to 
 Father Smarius, the competent tribunal is the 
 '' reason of man,'' and the ^' means of proof" 
 the " unmistakable evidences" of "prophecies and 
 miracles" presented by those who are not " workers 
 of iniquity." We are not to believe according to 
 
THE BIBLE NOT THE RULE OF FAITH. 49 
 
 the dicta of a parcel of men calling themselves 
 a church (the Church of Rome), but upon the 
 authority of ^'unmistakable evidences presented 
 by God himself/^ 
 
 But, says the Father, " No one can be infallibly 
 certain, without an infallible authority outside of 
 the Bible, that he has the whole Bible and nothing 
 but the Bible/^ (p. 62.) Well, what of that? 
 Where is infallible certainty in regard to this 
 matter made a question of faith ? But no one 
 knows better than the Father, '' De non exis- 
 tentibus et non apparentibus eadem est ratio'' 
 {'' The same reason applies to things not existing 
 and not appearing'') ; and even '' a doubtful 
 law," the Father says, '^ is not binding." (p. 144.) 
 If God gives to man a revelation. Father Smarius 
 asserts he does it with *' unmistakable evidence." 
 If, therefore, there be no " unmistakable evi- 
 dence" of a revelation presented to man, it is the 
 same to him as if it did not exist. 
 
 But the Father gives himself a great deal of 
 trouble respecting translations, correctness of 
 copies, &c. Now, as regards these things (mat- 
 ters of religion), have we not already asserted 
 that the great masses are born into their faith 
 and belief? They would hardly understand 
 what he meant when he speaks about " Syro- 
 Chaldee," &c. Most Protestants would say to him^ 
 
 5 
 
50 THE BIBLE NOT THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 ^^ The book presented to me contains^ to my rea- 
 son, unmistakable evidences of prophecy and 
 miracles, which prove that it is a revelation from 
 God, and, being a revelation of his will, it be- 
 comes a law to me : if you have any other books 
 containing such ^ unmistakable evidences,^ present 
 them/^ Father Smarius does not assert or pre- 
 tend that the character of the book depends upon 
 the person or persons who present it, but upon 
 the " unmistakable evidence of miracle and pro- 
 phecy" contained therein or accompanying it. 
 But, says the Father, ^^ Before the art of printing, 
 all education was of necessity mainly oral." (p. 
 69.) Undoubtedly. What then? If there were 
 no ^^unmistakable evidences" presented to the 
 reason of man, he was not bound to believe. 
 What is writing or printing? It is nothing 
 more than a means of rendering permanent what 
 is spoken or thought. So that he who preaches, 
 if his sermon is written or printed, has for his 
 audience the men of all coming time who can 
 read or can have it read to them. So that Christ 
 preaches to a larger audience to-day than he did 
 at the time he delivered his sermons, &c. 
 
 But we have said already that people are born 
 into beliefs. "The number of persons who have 
 a rational basis for their belief is probably in- 
 finitesimal; for illegitimate influences not only 
 
THE BIBLE NOT THE RULE OF FAITH. 51 
 
 determine the convictions of those who do not 
 examine, but usually give a dominating bias to 
 the reasonings of those who do. They insensibly 
 judge all questions by a mental standard derived 
 from education; they proportion their attention 
 and sympathy to the degree in which the facts 
 or arguments presented to them support their 
 foregone conclusions; and, in the overwhelming 
 majority of cases, men of the most various creeds 
 conchide their investigations by simply ac- 
 quiescing in the opinions they have been taught.^^ 
 (See Lecky, vol. i. p. 13.) 
 
 Says the Father, ^'We allege proof upon proof 
 from Holy Writ to show our separated brethren 
 that our own doctrine has its foundation in the 
 written word of God ; while theirs can find no 
 sanction in the inspired volume.^^ (p. 101.) Why 
 allege proof from Holy Writ, if the Bible is not 
 the rule of faith? The Father's argument and 
 practice do not agree. If it be the "written 
 word of God,'' it must be the rule of faith. 
 
 We deny his assertion, that "theirs [the Pro- 
 testant doctrines] can find no sanction in the 
 inspired volume." (p. 101.) One of the Pro- 
 testant doctrines is, " For the end of the law is 
 Christ, unto justice to every one that belie veth. 
 For Moses wrote, that the justice which is of the 
 law, the man that shall do it shall live by it. But 
 
52 THE BIBLE NOT THE KULE OF FAITH. 
 
 the justice which is of faith speaketh thus: Say 
 not in thine hearty Who shall ascend into heaven? 
 that is, to bring Christ down : or^ Who shall descend 
 into the deep? that is, to bring up Christ again 
 from tlie dead. But w^hat saith the Scripture? 
 The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in 
 thy heart This is the word of faith which we 
 preach. For if thou confess w^th thy mouth the 
 Lord Jesus, and believe in thy heart that God 
 hath raised him up from the dead, thou shalt be 
 saved. For, with the heart, we believe unto 
 justice; but, with the mouth, confession is made 
 unto salvation. For the Scripture saith : Who- 
 soever helieveth in him, shall not be confounded. 
 For there is no distinction of the Jew and the 
 Greek : for the same is Lord over all, rich unto 
 all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call 
 upon the name of the Lord shall be saved,^' (To 
 the Romans, x. 4-13.) 
 
 The Father well knows that, in truth, the es- 
 sentials of the Protestant and Catholic religions, or 
 faiths, are one. And he as well knows that other 
 doctrines taught by Roman Catholics have not their 
 " foundation in the written word of God.^^ Why 
 otherwise should he say that the faithful must 
 not test what is preached to them by the written 
 word of God? (See p. lOL) He knows that the 
 worship or invocation of the Virgin, the saints, &c. 
 
THE BIBLE NOT THE RULE OF FAITH. 53 
 
 IS not to be found therein. How astonishing, 
 that while Protestants appeal to every one to 
 test their doctrines by the written word, the 
 Father tells the faithful — meaning those who 
 have been brought up ^^ their births' blind bigots" 
 — that they must not examine ! But perhaps 
 Father Smarius in no wise differs in this from 
 the priests of all other religions. Their own fol- 
 lowers, who are always the faithful^ who cannot 
 be wrong, are not to examine; for some might 
 not be satisfied that what had been taught them 
 was true; but only those who are outside, if so 
 perchance a convert may be made. 
 
 Let us see, however, whether Father Smarius 
 is right. St. Paul was brought up at the feet of 
 Gamaliel, among the most rigid of the Jewish 
 religion, which had been, even Father Smarius 
 will admit, to the time of Christ the true re- 
 ligion. When the martyr Stephen was stoned to 
 death, Paul held the clothes of those who stoned 
 him, and he says " he thought he was doing God 
 service.'' Just exactly as all persecutors, of 
 whatsoever religion they may be, when perse- 
 cuting those of other religions, think they are 
 doing God service. But he found out afterwards 
 " that he had done it in ignorance, in unbelief;" 
 and it made him more modest ever afterwards. 
 For in Hebrews xiii. 18, he says, ^^We trust we 
 
 6* 
 
64 THE BIBLE NOT THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 have a good conscience.'^ Most men^ like Paul, 
 think their conscience is good ; but it is not until 
 they are called upon to doubt and to examine 
 that they find they have been mistaken; and 
 then they become more modest, and will speak 
 doubtingly afterwards, and will ^' trust they have 
 a good conscience/' For conscience is nothing 
 more than our own opinion as to the pravity or 
 depravity of our actions and thoughts, (Locke.) 
 And as opinions are in the main, as has already 
 been shown, the result of the prejudices of birth 
 and education, it is not until we begin to doubt 
 whether our opinions be correct, that we are led 
 to examine them. And you well know that then 
 it will be found that most of our early opinions 
 have to be corrected. 
 
 But, says the Father, " Faith is one. The 
 njeans which Christ appointed to obtain that 
 faith must of its nature lead to unity.'' (p. 82.) 
 Now, the Father calls Protestants '^ separatists ;" 
 and he says the truth : for the early Reformers 
 were all brought up in the Catholic Church. 
 Then it is perfectly clear that the Roman Catho- 
 lic Church does not produce unity of faith. If 
 she did, there could not have been any "sepa- 
 ratists." Therefore, as the Roman Catholic 
 Church has not led to unity, it is not the 
 means appointed by Christ; for the means ap- 
 
THE BIBLE NOT THE RULE OF FAITH. 55 
 
 pointed by Christ " must, of its nature, lead to 
 unity." 
 
 "Christ cannot contradict himself," Father 
 Smarius asserts. We admit his assertion. Has 
 Christ given a test by which those who believe 
 shall be known? Undoubtedly! Why does not 
 Father Smarius give it? We will supply it. 
 The Father quotes from St. Mark xvi. 16: "He 
 that believeth not," says the Saviour, " shall be 
 damned." (p. 108.) What else does the Saviour 
 say? I quote the Douay version, the same 
 chapter (xvi.) and the verses following the 16th, 
 namely, the 17th and 18th verses. "And these 
 signs shall follow them that believe: In my 
 name they shall cast out devils: they shall speak 
 with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; 
 and if they shall drink any deadly thing, it shall 
 not hurt them : they shall lay their hands upon 
 the sick, and they shall recover." 
 
 Now, test Catholics and Protestants by this 
 test, and there will be found quite as many be- 
 lievers among the Protestants as among the 
 Catholics. 
 
LECTURES III AND lY. 
 
 THE CHUECH OF CHKIST. 
 
 " In the preceding lecture/' says Father Sma- 
 rius, " we have proved that the Bible alone, in- 
 terpreted by private judgment, could not be, and 
 is not, the rule of faith/' (p. 109.) Or the con- 
 trary, we think Father Smarius has proved that 
 it must, as containing the revelation of God's 
 will, ^^be the rule of faith/' He has, we think, 
 unintentionally proved that it must be ^^inter- 
 preted by private judgment," as has been already 
 shown. For if it is not to be interpreted by 
 private judgment, why is he constantly quoting 
 it, and appealing to every one's private judgment 
 to determine the weight of the arguments he pre- 
 sents? Does not God appeal to every man's pri- 
 vate judgment when he presents ^^to his reason 
 the unmistakable evidence of revelation and pro- 
 phecy" ? And as soon as any one's private judg- 
 ment becomes convinced that it is the revelation 
 of God's will, must it not, and does it not, neces- 
 sarily become " a rule of faith," a law ? If not, 
 what is the use of revelation ? 
 
 56 
 
THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. 57 
 
 But, with all modesty and due deference, we 
 think the Father has begun at the wrong end, 
 and for his purpose, which begins to appear, has 
 admitted entirely too much. He should have 
 said " that God gave his revelation to the Roman 
 Catholic Church, that he addressed the reason of 
 the Roman Catholic Church, not man's, and that he 
 convinced the reason of the Roman Catholic Church, 
 and, therefore, the reason of the Roman Catholic 
 Church being convinced that God had given it a 
 revelation, and that as part of that revelation was 
 to instruct man, the instruction of the Roman 
 Catholic Church became infallible, and men 
 obliged to receive whatever the Church of Rome 
 might teach, because they taught it by virtue of 
 that revelation.^' 
 
 But now the Father says, I have already stated 
 that '' God addresses the reason of man. But 
 the reason of man cannot comprehend what its 
 Creator addresses to it.'' To be sure, I did say 
 (p. 26) that " God is infinite and infallible truth. 
 He cannot be deceived himself, nor can he deceive 
 us, in the revelation of his truths;" and on page 
 25, " Both these motives [his greater glory and 
 our greater happiness] oblige us to accept and 
 believe his revelation." Never mind : I now 
 tell you that the interpretation thereof must be 
 left to '^ the infallible Church of Christ [meaning 
 
58 THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. 
 
 the Roman Catholic Church], which is at once the 
 commissioned guardian, interpreter, and judge 
 of all the doctrines that Christ ever taught, and 
 that are to be believed unto salvation/^ (p. 109.) 
 Is this the reasoning of an advocate for the truth ? 
 
 '' The real definition of Church,^^ says the 
 Father, " with which we have to do in this lec- 
 ture, is given by. Bellarmine in these w^ords : — 
 ' The Church is a society of men on earth, united 
 together by the profession of one and the self- 
 same Christian faith, and the communion of the 
 same sacraments, under the government of law- 
 ful pastors, and especially of the Roman Pontiff? ^^ 
 (p. 111.) We think all Protestants will admit 
 this definition, excluding the last clause, — " and 
 especially of the Roman Pontiff*/^ for, if it re- 
 quire the Roman Pontiff" to make a church, there 
 was certainly no church for many, many years 
 after the Christian era. I believe the Greek 
 Church is admitted to be a church apostolic; 
 and where is the Roman Pontiff*? 
 
 But the Church is a society of men. The 
 opinions and doctrines of the Church must, then, 
 be composed of the results of the private judg- 
 ments of all or a majority of the men composing 
 it. But, because the private judgment of twelve 
 men agree as to the truth of a fact, it does not 
 prove the fact to be true, if in truth it is not the 
 
THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. 59 
 
 fact. The private judgment of all the antedilu- 
 vians was that there would be no flood, and that 
 Noah was a fool ; but the fact proved that Noah 
 was right^ and all the rest wrong. But the 
 Roman Catholic Church is not singular. The 
 Protestant churches endeavour the same thing. 
 They say to their members, " You must hear the 
 Church. It is perfectly right and proper for you 
 to examine the doctrines, rites, and ceremonies 
 of the Church of Rome, and to discard its errors. 
 But we possess all the truth : no further examina- 
 tion is to be allowed as to our doctrines, rites, 
 and ceremonies. You must hear the Church.^^ 
 
 Perhaps, before proceeding further, it may be 
 proper to make some observations relating to the 
 several books called the Gospels, and which are 
 said to contain a history of Christ and his teach- 
 ings. The story or history of Christ is a Jewish 
 one, Christ having been a Jew, those to whom 
 he preached were Jews, the apostles were Jews, 
 and the country in which the matters related 
 took place belonged to the Jews. What was the 
 language of that country, and in which Christ 
 spoke? It was a patois, — a mixture of Hebrew 
 and Assyriac, sometimes called Aramean. Now, 
 it is very curious that there is no book extant 
 containing a history of Christ and the transactions 
 relating to him, written in Hebrew or Aramean. 
 
60 THE CHUECH OF CHRIST. 
 
 We have the Old Testament^ written, as we 
 have before stated, in Hebrew and Chaldee ; but 
 the only accounts of Christ are all written in 
 Greek. True, it is said that Matthew's Gospel 
 was originally in Hebrew; but this is only asser- 
 tion. The Greek Gospels were not written until 
 the end of the first and the commencement of the 
 second century after Christ. The only words 
 given in Christ's language are mostly Assyriac, 
 a few Hebrew. 
 
 We have shown, above, that Christ addressed 
 the people in his and their native tongue; the 
 crowds; as all crowds are for the most part, were 
 illiterate ; the men whom he chose to teach his 
 doctrines to were illiterate ; that this tongue was 
 a mixture of Hebrew and Assyriac, or Aramean. 
 Now, what did Christ say, in Matt. xvi. 18? 
 It is rendered from the Greek, by the Douay 
 version, thus : — " And I say to thee, that thou 
 art Peter ; and upon this rock I will build my 
 church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail 
 against it.'' 'But this translation does not convey 
 the pun which is found in the Greek upon the 
 name of Peter, — Tzezpo:; (petros), which stands for 
 a ^^rock" and is also a man's name. In the 
 French you will find the pun : — ^^ Tu es Pierre, 
 et sur cette pierre," &c. But what wa3 to be 
 built upon this petrosf A church; or, as the 
 
THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. 61 
 
 Catholics say, " The Church." Now, there was 
 not any word in Hebrew or Chaldee, nor in any 
 other tongue upon the face of the earth, at the 
 time in. which Christ spoke, conveying the idea 
 contained in the definition given of church, either 
 by Catholics or Protestants. Rev. Mr. Morais, 
 of the Jewish religion, a great Hebrew scholar, 
 says, " There are words conveying the ideas ex- 
 pressed by ^ synagogue^ and ^ sanctuary,^ but none 
 conveying the ideas contained in the word 
 ^church.'" The orio;inal word in the Greek thus 
 translated "church" is exxlrjdca [ecGlesia), and 
 simply means an assembly or congregation, which 
 may be either good or bad, lawful or unlawful. 
 In Acts xix. 32 it is used for a mob or confused 
 rabble gathered together against St. Paul, — ex/27j- 
 ata a'JYXcyjjfizvTj (ecdesia siighechumene), — which 
 the town-clerk distinguished (verse 39) from a 
 lawful assembly, — tvjoujjj exxlr^aca [ennomo ecde- 
 sia). (Clarke's Commentaries.) 
 
 Now, had Christ used a word not understood, 
 doubtless he would have been asked to explain 
 it ; but no such explanation was asked for. And, 
 speaking for myself, I much suspect that what he 
 spoke upon this occasion has not been correctly 
 given. 
 
 After the death of Christ, and before Chris- 
 tians had any stated buildings, they worshipped 
 
62 THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. 
 
 in private houses. " In Horn. xvi. 3-5, they 
 speak of the church which is in the house of 
 Priscilla and Aquila; and in Colos. iv. 15, of 
 the church in the house of Nymphas. Now, as 
 these houses were used for the worship of God, 
 each were termed xupcou orxo^ [huriou oikos), ' the 
 house of the Lord ;' which word, in process of 
 time, became contracted into xupcocx (kurioih) and 
 xupcaxYj [hiiriahe) ; and hence kirh of the Scotch, 
 and cypic (kirik) of our Saxon ancestors, from 
 which, by corruption, changing the hard Saxon 
 c into cA, we have made the word ^ church.^ In 
 the proper use of this word there can be no such 
 thing as ^ the church' exclusively: there may be 
 a church, and the churches, — signifying a parti- 
 cular congregation, or the different assemblies of 
 religious people.^' (Clarke, on Matt, xvi.) Now, 
 if you will examine critically the above, you will 
 discover that there was no word in existence at 
 the time Christ spoke — not even in Greek — 
 which conveyed the idea contained in our word 
 ^^ church,'' — the Greek word ecdesia simply 
 meaning an assembly, which might be a good or 
 a bad one, according as it was qualified by the 
 words connected with it. 
 
 Christ being a teacher, his followers looked 
 upon him as their head. And in St. Matt, xviii. 
 20, Christ says, " For where there are two or three 
 
THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. 63 
 
 gathered together in my name, there am I in the 
 midst of them/^ The Quakers lay great stress 
 upon this promise. They call their assemblies 
 not churches, but meetings, — that is, ecdesia, 
 "assemblies;" — the Quakers probably refusing 
 to call their assemblies churches, because the word 
 xupio^ ikurios) was the name given to Apollo, or 
 the sun, at Delphi, and the day dedicated to him 
 yjjpcaxTj (kuriaJce), or the Lord^s day. And it may 
 be observed that it is very singular, and some 
 think suspicious, that Jesus, in the Gospels, is 
 always called hurios, or Lord. This Jcurios is the 
 same word by wdiich the Hellenistic Jews, in 
 translating the LXX. into Greek, constantly 
 rendered the word n%1^ {i'^eue)] or, as the Maso- 
 rites render it, " Jehovah,^^ which has the same 
 meaning as H^ (ie); and this name was also given 
 to Apollo at Delphi. 
 
 ^' Finally," says Father Smarius, " if there is 
 no infallible Churchy then there is no rule of faith 
 at all; therefore no faith in Christ, therefore no 
 salvatian." (p. 139.) If the Father is right, 
 w^iere was the faith of the apostles, and of the 
 seventy, and other disciples of Christ? They 
 certainly had faith in Christ; but w4iere, at that 
 time, was the Roman Catholic Church of which 
 the Father speaks? Xowhere; it had no ex- 
 istence. Hov/ can the Father assert " that with- 
 
64 THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. 
 
 out an infallible Church (here is no rule of faith^^? 
 Is not that revelation which God has made to 
 man, and enforced upon his reason, a rule of 
 faith ? If not, of what use is the revelation ? 
 " But/^ says Father Smarius, " according to our 
 separated brethren, the only rules of faith, apart 
 from the infallible authority of the Church, are 
 the private spirit and private reason of each 
 individual/^ (p. 139.) The Protestant does not 
 think so. He thinks that the only infallible rule 
 of faith is that revelation, supported by the un- 
 mistakable evidence which God presents to his 
 reason, (p. 24.) If God's will regarding man^s 
 conduct is not a rule of faith, pray where did 
 the Church which calls itself infallible get its 
 faith from? The Protestant does not claim that 
 "the private spirit and private reason'^ of each 
 individual are the only rule of faith. But what 
 he does claim is this : — that the " private spirit 
 and private reason'^ of each individual are to 
 judge the "unmistakable evidences'' presented 
 to them by God or by man ; and that the evi- 
 dence of a revelation, whether to the private 
 spirit or private Reason,— whether presented by 
 God or man, — must be, as the Father himself 
 asserts, " necessarily unmistakable" in order that 
 it should become a " rule of faith." What has 
 the Father written " Points of Controversy" for, 
 
THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. 65 
 
 what is he engaged in lecturing to the people 
 for, if it is not for the purpose of convincing 
 " the private spirit and private reason'^ of those 
 whom he is addressing, that the evidence he pre- 
 sents to them, for that which he endeavours to 
 persuade them to, is unmistakable? The Pro- 
 testant asserts that the evidence of all religions 
 must be presented to the " private spirit and 
 private reason^^ before a rational choice can be 
 made among them ; and for this he has common 
 sense and common reason upon his side. How else 
 can that important choice be made of a religion 
 upon which Father Smarius asserts that heaven 
 and hell depend? 
 
 But whom are you to believe? — Father Sma- 
 rius, or Christ ? 
 
 Says the Father, " If there is no infallible 
 Church, then there is no rule of faith at all; 
 therefore no faith in Christ, therefore no salva- 
 tion." (p. 139.) 
 
 Says Christ (St. Matt. xxv. 31-40), "And 
 when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, 
 and all the angels with him, then shall he sit 
 upon the seat of his majesty; and all nations 
 shall be gathered together before him, and he 
 shall separate them one from another, as the 
 shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats : 
 and he shall set the sheep on his right hand, 
 
 6* 
 
66 THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. 
 
 but the goats on his left. Then shall the King 
 say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, 
 ye blessed of my Father, possess you the king- 
 dom prepared for you from the foundation of the 
 world. For I was hungry, and you gave me to 
 eat : I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink : I 
 was a stranger, and you took me in : naked, and 
 you covered me : sick, and you visited me : I was 
 in prison, and you came to me. Then shall the 
 just answer him, saying, Lord, when did we see 
 thee hungry, and fed thee? thirsty, and gave thee 
 drink? And when did we see thee a stranger, 
 and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? 
 Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and 
 came to thee? And the King answering shall 
 say to them, Amen, I say to you, as long as 
 you did it to one of these my least brethren, you 
 did it ,to me. And these shall go . . . : but the 
 just into life everlasting.'^ 
 
 Here is a description of the righteous, the just: 
 here is salvation secured. But here is no in- 
 fallible Church, ^^no rule of faith, no faith in 
 Christ;" but yet there is salvation. Yet Father 
 Smarius asserts '' there can be no salvation.'' 
 
 Choose ve between Smarius and Christ! 
 
 Father Smarius says, ^'Heaven and hell depend 
 upon the choice you make in religion." (p. 48.) 
 " There can be but one religion ; for truth is one." 
 
THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. 67 
 
 (p. 48.) St. James the Apostle says, *^ Religion, 
 clean and undefiled before God and the Father, is 
 this : to visit the fatherless and widows in their 
 tribulation, and to keep one's self unspotted from 
 this world." (St. James i. 27.) But here is no men- 
 tion of the infallible Church : yet it must be con- 
 ducive to salvation, or it could not be the true 
 religion. 
 
 It is not necessary to follow the Father any 
 further in regard to the Church of Rome as "the 
 infallible Church." Protestants deem her simply 
 a church of Christ which has become greatly cor- 
 rupted, imposing as Christ's doctrines the com- 
 mandments of men. (St. Matthew.) That after 
 she came into existence, owing to the prevailing 
 ignorance and the night of the dark ages, she 
 imposed her dogmas upon the people of Western 
 Europe, and that it was not until about the time 
 of the invention of printing, the restoration of 
 classical learning, and, above all, the study of 
 natural philosophy, that her doctrines came to be 
 examined and criticized, and that the " evi- 
 dences" which she presented to the private judg- 
 ment and private reason of men were found not 
 to be " unmistakable ;" that then many good, 
 true, and religious men separated themselves 
 from her; that this led to the establishment of 
 new churches, to the preaching of the true doc- 
 
68 THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. 
 
 trines of Christ, which had been held by the 
 Church of Eome, and which are still held, but 
 freed from the corruptions with which she had 
 overlaid them. 
 
 The Father talks a great deal about " unity 
 of the faith'^ as being necessary to salvation. 
 Christ never imposed unity of belief. Such a 
 thing is impossible. For God has endowed men 
 with different mental organizations, and it is as 
 rare to find two minds alike as to find two faces 
 alike. Christ says, " By this shall all men know 
 that you are my disciples, if you have love one 
 for another.^^ (St. John xiii. 35.) Love is, there- 
 fore, the test of discipleship, not unity of faith, 
 unless Christ is wrong and Father Smarius right. 
 And so says St. John in his epistle. " For this 
 is the declaration which you have heard from the 
 beginning, that you should love one another. 
 My little children, let us not love in word, nor 
 in tongue, but in deed and in truth. And this is 
 his [God^s] commandment, that we should believe 
 in the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one 
 another, as he hath given commandment unto 
 us.^' (1 Epis. of St. John iii. 11, 18, 23.) ^^ Be- 
 lieve in the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and 
 lov^e one another,^^ — not believe alike, not have 
 unity of faith. And it is the acting upon this 
 principle of love, the love of our common hu- 
 
THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. 69 
 
 manity, which leads to visiting the ' sick, the 
 prisoner, the wretched, and which, according to 
 Christ, secures salvation. 
 
 But, says the Father, " Christ would not have 
 sufficiently provided for his society if he had not 
 established an actually infallible authority, an 
 actually infallible Church.^^ (p. 146.) 
 
 Admitting, for the sake of argument, the truth 
 of the above proposition, that an infallible Church 
 was established by Christ, the question naturally 
 arises. Is the Roman Catholic Church that in- 
 fallible Church ? 
 
 What is the meaning of ^^ infallible'^? It is 
 thus defined : not capable of erring ; entirely ex- 
 empt from liability to mistake; unerring; inerr- 
 able. (Webster.) 
 
 If, then, the Catholic Church has taught things 
 as true which are erroneous, she is certainly not 
 infallible. 
 
 But the Roman Catholic Church formerly be-" 
 lieved in sorcery and witchcraft ; that old women 
 were turned into wolves and devoured the sheep 
 of their neighbours ; that others Avent to the 
 deviPs Sabbath ; that these old women practised 
 all sorts of malicious mischiefs. "The Church 
 of Rome proclaimed in every way that was in 
 her power the reality and the continued existence 
 of the crime. She strained every nerve to stimu- 
 
70 THE CHUECH OF CHRIST. 
 
 late the * persecution. She taught by all her 
 organs that to spare a witch was a direct insult 
 to the Almighty ; and to her ceaseless exertions 
 is to be attributed by far the greater proportion 
 of the blood that was shed. In 1484 Pope Inno- 
 cent VIII. issued a bull which gave a fearful 
 impetus to the persecution; and he it was who 
 commissioned the inquisitor Sprenger, whose 
 book was long the recognized manual on the sub- 
 ject, and who is said to have condemned hun- 
 dreds to death every year. Similar bulls were 
 issued by Julius II. in 1504, and by Adrian VI. 
 in 1523. A long series of provincial councils 
 asserted the existence of sorcery, and anathe- 
 matized those who resorted to it. The universal 
 practice of the Church was to place magic and 
 sorcery among the reserved cases, and at prones to 
 declare magicians and sorcerers excommunicated; 
 and a form of exorcism was solemnly inserted in 
 the ritual. Ecclesiastical tribunals condemned 
 thousands to death, and countless bishops exerted 
 all their influence to multiply the victims. In a 
 word, for many centuries it was universally be- 
 lieved that the continual existence of witchcraft 
 formed an integral part of the teachings of the 
 Church, and that the persecution that raged 
 through Europe was supported by the whole 
 stress of her infallibility.^^ (Lecky, vol. i. p. 32.) 
 
THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. 71 
 
 But you may say that Protestants believed the 
 same things. True, they did. But convicting 
 them of error does not affect the argument ; for 
 they lay no claims to '^ infallibility." 
 
 " If we ask why it is that the world has re- 
 jected what was once so universally and so in- 
 tensely believed, most persons would probably be 
 unable to give a very definite answer to the 
 question. It is not because we have examined 
 the evidence and found it insufficient; for the 
 disbelief always precedes, when it does not pre- 
 vent, examination. It is rather because the idea 
 of absurdity is so strongly attached to such nar- 
 ratives that it is difficult even to consider them 
 with gravity. Yet at one time no such impro- 
 bability was felt ; and hundreds of persons have 
 been burnt simply on the two grounds I have 
 mentioned." (Lecky, vol. i. p. 34.) 
 
 No amount of testimony could make you believe 
 that any of your poor neighbours — old women — 
 were witches, rode on broomsticks, turned them- 
 selves into wolves, with other such ridiculous 
 nonsense. Yet your Church so taught. It would 
 not dare to teach so now, — at least in an in- 
 telligent community. In regard to witchcraft 
 and sorcery she was in error ; therefore not in- 
 fallible. 
 
 So with regard to usury. " Usury, according 
 
72 THE CHUECH OF CHRIST. 
 
 to the unanimous teaching of the old theo- 
 logians^ consisted of any interest that was exacted 
 by the lender from the borrower solely as the 
 price of the loan.'' (Lecky, vol. ii. p. 247.) 
 " Usury had always been defined as any sum that 
 was exacted as the price of a loan ; and it had 
 been condemned, with unqualified severity by the 
 Fathers, by a long series of Popes and CouncilSj 
 by the most eminent of the mediseval theologians, 
 and by the unanimous voice of the Church.'' 
 (Lecky, vol. ii. p. 255.) 
 
 Does the Pope of Rome invite his people to 
 commit what the Church of Rome has denounced 
 as a crime? 
 
 In our day, and not long since, is it not noto- 
 rious that Pope Pius IX. has borrowed money 
 from his own people, as well as from others, on 
 usury ? He may say, as others have said before 
 him, that it is no sin to pay usury. But does he 
 persuade his people to sin by taking usury from 
 him ? No : there has a change taken place in 
 the views about usury. What the Church taught 
 at one time to be wrong she now admits to be 
 right : so that her teachings as regards usury 
 were not and are not infallible. 
 
 If a Church has taught erroneously in any one 
 thing, however trifling it may be, she can lay no 
 claim to infallibility. But the Church of Rome 
 
THE CHUECH OF CHRIST. 73 
 
 h^s taught erroneously as regards witchcraft and 
 usury : therefore she is not infallible. There- 
 fore, if Christ has erected an " infallible Church/^ 
 vou must seek for it elsewhere: it is not the 
 Church of Rome. 
 
LECTURE V. 
 
 OF CONFESSION. 
 
 The Father quotes, as the authority for the 
 usage of the Catholic Church upon this subject, 
 St. John XX. 21, 22, 23 :— 
 
 " He said, therefore, to them again. Peace 
 be to you : as the Father hath sent me, I also 
 send you. When he had said this, he breathed 
 on them; and he said to them, Receive ye the 
 Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they 
 are forgiven them ; and whose sins you shall re- 
 tain, they are retained. 
 
 Where is there here any direction as to con- 
 fession ? Where are you told to go to the priest 
 and confess your sins ? Where are you told, or 
 where were the Jews told, to go to the apostles 
 and confess your and their sins? The Father 
 produces no authority for it. Bat, if the apostles 
 had power given to them to forgive sins, what 
 power has the priest to forgive 3ins? You, when 
 Protestants assert it of you, deny that your priests 
 have power to forgive sins. But, if they do claim 
 that power, from whence do they derive it ? The 
 
 74 
 
OP CONFESSION. 75 
 
 'power to forgive, Christ gave to those upon whom 
 he breathed. With their death the authority 
 conferred ceased, and the power with it. But, 
 although it is written that this power was con- 
 ferred upon the apostles, it is strange that it is 
 nowhere written that they ever exercised it or 
 attempted to exercise it. If they did, where and 
 when did they do it? 
 
 We might ask, What necessity required the 
 transfer of this powder " to forgive sins^^ to the 
 apostles? God had already declared to the Jews, 
 if they confessed their sins, that upon the pre- 
 sentation of the proper sacrifice to the priest, 
 the priest should make atonement for them. But 
 the Jews never confessed to the priest: they con- 
 fessed to God alone. Probably, when an injury 
 was done by one to another, the party who com- 
 mitted the wrong might confess it to the party 
 injured, and ask his pardon. Upon looking at 
 the translations of Lev. v. in the Douay and 
 Protestant versions, and comparing them, I w^as 
 struck with the discrepancy which existed between 
 them, and supposed that the charge which I had 
 heard against Protestants might be true, and that 
 here was a sample of their ^' protestantizing,^^ — 
 the Douay version, verses 5, 6, being rendered, 
 " Let him do penance for his sin : and oflPer of the 
 flocks an ewe-lamb, or a she-goat ; and the priest 
 
76 OF CONFESSION. 
 
 shall pray for him and for his sin;" the Pro- 
 testant version being, " And it shall be, when he 
 shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall 
 confess that he hath sinned in that thing: and he 
 shall bring his trespass-offering unto the Lord for 
 his sin which he hath sinned, a female from the 
 flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats, for a sin- 
 offering ; and the priest shall make an atonement 
 for him concerning his sin." Now, here is no 
 mention of " his doing penance," or of " the 
 priest praying for him," as in the Roman Catholic 
 version. The only thing that I care about is the 
 truth ; for " truth and God are one," says Sma- 
 rius. I therefore called upon some of my Jewish 
 friends, and asked them about their custom in 
 relation to confession. They told me they con- 
 fessed to God alone in private. Once a year 
 a public confession is made, upon the day of atone- 
 ment, which comes, I believe, upon the latter 
 part of September. I also procured from them 
 the translation of the Scriptures, as corrected by 
 one of their learned rabbis, Isaac Leeser, — as it 
 is to be supposed that if anybody understands the 
 Scriptures it must be those to whom it was given, 
 and among whom the Hebrew language is more 
 or less used to the present day. His translation 
 is (Lev. V. 5, 6), '' And it shall be, if he have 
 incurred guilt by any one of these (things), that 
 
OF CONFESSION. 77 
 
 he shall confess that concerning which he hath 
 sinned ; and he shall bring his trespass-offering 
 unto the Lord for his sin which he hath com- 
 mitted, a female from the flocks, a sheep or a 
 goat, for a sin-olfering; and the priest shall make 
 an atonement for him concerning his sin/^ The 
 Catholic version has greatly the semblance of a 
 " pious fraud/^ 
 
 God says, " When the wricked turneth away from 
 his wickedness which he hath committed, and exe- 
 euteth justice and righteousness: he shall indeed 
 preserve his soul alive. Because he hath con- 
 sidered and turned away from all his transgressions 
 which he hath committed : he shall surely live, 
 he shall not die.^^ (Ezekiel xviii. 27, 28, Leeser^s 
 translation.) 
 
 If, my dear Miss, you will examine into the 
 Jewish laws, you will find that in all cases an 
 atonement was to be made by the priest for the 
 party who presented the proper sin-offering for 
 sacrifice. It is to this custom, and to the great 
 atonement made once a year, that the Apostle to 
 the Hebrews alludes, where he says (vii. 24 et 
 seq,)y " But this (Jesus), for that he continueth 
 forever, hath an everlasting priesthood, whereby 
 he is able also to save forever them that come to 
 God by him ; always living to make intercession 
 
 for us. For it was fitting that we should have 
 
 7* 
 
78 OF CONFESSION. 
 
 such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, sepa- 
 rated from sinners, and made higher than the 
 heavens; who needeth not daily (as the other 
 priests) to offer sacrifices first iov his own sins and 
 then for the people^s : for this he did once, in offer- 
 ing himself. . . . Nor yet that he should offer 
 himself often, as the high priest entereth into the 
 holies every year with the blood of others. For 
 then he ought to have suffered often from the begin- 
 ning of the world : but now once at the end of ages, 
 he hath appeared for the destruction of sin, by the 
 sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto 
 men once to die, and after this the judgment: so 
 also Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of 
 many.^^ (Heb. ix. 25 et seq., Douay version.) 
 
 If Christ has destroyed sin, by the sacrifice of 
 himself, and is constantly interceding for us, what 
 need of confession save to God alone ? (Matthew 
 vi. 6.) '' But thou, when thou shalt pray, enter 
 into thy chamber, and having shut the door, pray 
 to thy Father in secret; and thy Father who 
 seeth in secret will repay thee.^^ 
 
 '^ But that you may know that the Son of man 
 hath power on earth to forgive sins (he saith to 
 the sick of the palsy), I say to thee, Arise,^^ &c. 
 (Mark ii. 8, 12; Smarius, 255.) "He proves to 
 them, and confirms his proof by a miracle, that it 
 is possible, yea, a fact, that the Son of man — not 
 
OF CONFESSION. 79 
 
 the Son of God, as such only, but the Son of man 
 — hath power, not in heaven, but on earth, here 
 among men, to forgive sins ; and by that same 
 miracle he proves, once for all, that the same 
 power may be possessed by other men, not indeed 
 through condignity of nature, but by delegation 
 of power/' 
 
 Christ calls himself and is called ^SSon of 
 man" about eighty times, in the Evangelists. He 
 calls himself the ^^ Son of man'' in speaking of 
 his power to forgive sins. Now, you say Christ 
 is God. Therefore the " Son of man," as being 
 Christ, must be God. God has undoubtedly the 
 power to forgive sins. He has undoubtedly the 
 right and power to delegate that power to an- 
 other. Christ, Son of man, as you say, " God," 
 conferred that po^ver upon his apostles; but it 
 cannot be shown that he ever gave them the 
 authority to delegate or transmit that power to 
 another. Says St. John (First Epistle i. 9), 
 " If we confess our sins ; he (God) is faithful and 
 just, to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us 
 from all iniquity." St. John does not say that 
 he will forgive, or that the priest or church will 
 forgive, but " God will forgive." St. John does 
 not drop a hint that he himself could forgive 
 sins. St. James, chap. v. 16, says, "Confess, 
 therefore, your sins one to another, and pray for 
 
80 OF CONFESSION. 
 
 one another, that you may be saved. For the 
 continual prayer of a just man availeth much." 
 But he does not say it absolves the sinner. 
 
 The Father quotes a " Chillingworth/^ and a 
 ^' Luther." We care not what Chillingworth or 
 Luther said or believed, any further than what 
 they said or believed may be found consistent 
 with the truth. This is not a question to be 
 settled by what men believe, but by what God 
 commands, orders, and directs. The prejudices 
 of centuries are not thrown aside in a moment. 
 The stain of error is hard to be effaced. 
 
 "Yes, kind reader, it is mainly to the con- 
 fessional that the world is indebted for the little 
 virtue that still exists among men." (p. 289.) 
 However little virtue may be found among 
 men, undoubtedly quite as much will be found in 
 Protestant as in Catholic countries, — probably 
 quite as much among Mohammedan and Buddhist 
 as among either. For as Knox, in his work upon 
 man, very justly remarks, "the morale of a race 
 is never altered by its religion." 
 
 We ask, and we ask boldly and confidently, for 
 Father Smarius to point out the place where 
 Christ gave to any man or set of men the author- 
 ity to delegate to others the power of " forgiving 
 sins." The fact is sufficient : without the fact, all 
 that was or ever can be written is useless. 
 
OF CX)NFESSTON. 81 
 
 But what need is there for the priest ? Do you 
 believe the Apostle to the Hebrews ? '^ But this 
 Jesus, for that he continueth forever, hath an ever- 
 lasting priesthood. Whereby he is able also to 
 save forever them that come to God by him : 
 always living to make intercession for us.'^ (Heb. 
 vii. 24 et seq.) And Christ says, St. John xiv. 13, 
 " And whatsoever you shall ask the Father in 
 my name, that will I do.^^ Again : Christ says, 
 St. Matt. vi. 14, "For if ye forgive men their 
 trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive 
 you.^^ And does he not direct us, St. Matt. v. 
 45—48, "Love your enemies; do good to them 
 that hate you. Be ye therefore perfect, as also 
 your heavenly Father is perfect" ? Must not, 
 therefore, God love all, even his enemies ? Yes, 
 truly, for he is perfect, " for he knoweth our 
 frame; he remembereth that we are dust." (Ps. 
 cii. 14.) 
 
LECTURE VI. 
 
 OF PUEGATOEY AND INDULGENCES. 
 
 This lecture is soon dismissed. Listen to 
 Jesus. " And in vain do they worship me [God], 
 teaching doctrines and commandments of men." 
 (St. Matt. XV. 9.) God has not revealed, nor 
 Christ taught, any thing concerning these things. 
 And '' why do you also transgress the command- 
 ment of God for your tradition?'^ (St. Matt, x v. 
 3.) For, says Christ, " Every plant, which my 
 heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted 
 up." (xv. 13.) 
 
 82 
 
LECTURE yil. 
 
 ON THE KEAL PEj:SENCE. 
 
 " So that whoever receives the consecrated 
 bread, receives the body of the Lord, the very 
 same body and blood, that were conceived of the 
 Holy Ghost in the Virgin's womb; the same 
 body that suffered, and the same blood that was 
 shed for us, from the garden to Calvary.'^ (pp. 
 342, 343.) 
 
 " So that, after the words of consecration, there 
 are no longer present real bread and wine, but 
 only the appearance of bread and wine, — there 
 are present truly, substantially, and really, the 
 body and blood, together with the soul and 
 divinity, of Jesus Christ; the same that was 
 born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius 
 Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried ; the 
 same that rose again from the dead, ascended into 
 heaven, is there seated at the right hand of his 
 Father, and shall thence come again, to judge 
 the living and the dead/' (p. 344.) 
 
 This is what the Roman Catholics call the real 
 presence, — a doctrine to my mind, and which I 
 
 S3 
 
84 ox THE REAL, PRESENCE. 
 
 think I can demonstrate to be, irrational, foolish, 
 absurd, and preposterous, — it may be, sacrilegious 
 and blasphemous. 
 
 The argument of the Father is based upon the 
 sixth chapter of the Gospel according to St. John, 
 as follows : — 
 
 "35 And Jesus said to them, I am the bread of 
 life : he that cometh to me shall not hunger ; and 
 he that believeth on me shall never thirst. 
 
 48 I am the bread of life. 
 
 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the desert^ 
 and are dead. 
 
 50 This is the bread which cometh down from 
 heaven, that if any man eat of it he may not die. 
 
 51 I am the living bread which came down 
 from heaven : 
 
 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live 
 forever ; and the bread that I will give is my 
 flesh, for the life of the world. 
 
 54 Then Jesus said to them, Amen, amen, I 
 say unto you : except ye eat the flesh of the Son 
 of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have 
 life in you. 
 
 '55 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my 
 blood hath everlasting life ; and I will raise him 
 up in the last day. 
 
 56 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood 
 is drink indeed. 
 
ON THE REAL PRESENCE. 85 
 
 57 He that eateth ray flesh and drinketh my 
 blood abideth in me, and I in him. 
 
 58 As the living Father hath sent' me, and I 
 live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the 
 same also shall live by me. 
 
 59 This is the bread which came down from 
 heaven : not as your fathers did eat manna and 
 are dead: he that eateth this bread shall live 
 forever. 
 
 61 Many, therefore, of his disciples hearing it, 
 said, This saying is hard, and who can hear it ? 
 
 62 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his dis- 
 ciples murmured at this, said to them. Doth this 
 scandalize you ? 
 
 63 If, then, you shall see the Son of man 
 ascend up where he was before ? 
 
 6-4 It is the Spirit that quickeneth ; the flesh 
 profiteth nothing : the words that I have spoken 
 to you are spirit and life. 
 
 67 After this time many of his disciples went 
 back, and walked no more with him.'^ 
 
 The Roman Catholics assert that these words 
 are to be taken literally ; the Protestants assert 
 that they are to be taken figuratively or sym- 
 bolically. (See Smarius, p. 350.) 
 
 It appears that those of the Jews who were 
 present at the time these words were spoken by 
 Jesus — at least, those who turned away from him 
 
 8 
 
86 ON THE REAL PEESEXCE. 
 
 — understood him literally. Understanding him 
 literally, what he required of them was to violate 
 the Mosaic laws. For ^' the Lord spoke to Moses, 
 saying, Moreover, you shall not eat the blood of 
 any creature whatsoever, whether of birds or 
 beasts. Every one that eateth blood shall perish 
 from among the people.^^ (Lev. vii. 22, 26, 27.) 
 But did the apostles understand him literally? 
 Undoubtedly, no. Read the fifteenth chapter of 
 Acts, in which will be found the proceedings 
 of what the Roman Catholics are pleased to call 
 the First Council, which was held at Jerusalem, 
 where St. Paul and Barnabas, St. Peter and 
 James, were present, and where the question to 
 be decided upon, and for which they were called 
 together, was, whether the Gentile converts should 
 be bound to observe the Mosaic laws, as certain 
 of the Jewish converts held them to be. Now, 
 what was determined upon in this council ? 
 What Father Smarius asserts? (p. 82.) "So, on 
 the other hand, there are many things clearly 
 prescribed in the Scriptures, which our separated 
 brethren observe no more than we. Who among 
 them, except the Tunkers, wash the feet of the 
 disciples before they take the Lord's Supper? 
 Who of them abstain from any kind of meat, 
 whether strangled or not ? and from blood-pud- 
 dings, which were forbidden, in the name of the 
 
ON THE REAL PRESENCE. 87 
 
 Holy Ghost, by the apostles to the first Chris- 
 tians?^' Is this what was determined upon by 
 the Holy Gliost and by the apostles in that first 
 council, — that they were to abstain from blood- 
 pudding ? May I not say with Mosheim, in his 
 "History of Christianity in the First Three Cen- 
 turies," Century II. § vii., " With the greatest 
 grief we find ourselves compelled to acknowledge 
 that the upright and laudable exertions thus 
 maxle by the wise and the pious part of the Chris- 
 tian community were not the only means which 
 in this century were employed in promoting the 
 propagation of the Christian faith" ? What were 
 the means which these " Christians, or rather, 
 perhaps, an association of Christians," made use 
 of, and which have acquired the name of Pious 
 frauds? Why, forgeries upon the public, — of 
 which he says, " I yet cannot take upon me to 
 acquit even the most strictly orthodox from all 
 participation in this species of criminality ; for it 
 appears, from evidence superior to all exception, 
 that a pernicious maxim was very early recog- 
 nized by the Christians, and soon found among 
 them numerous patrons, — namely, that those who 
 made it their business to deceive with a view of 
 promoting the cause of truth, were deserving 
 rather of commendation than censure." Have 
 you not acted upon this theory, Father Smarius? 
 
88 ON THE REAL PRESENCE. 
 
 Do you not know that there is no such word as 
 " blood-pudding^^ used in the whole Scriptures ? 
 Or did you see its application, and therefore wish 
 to deceive your readers — most of them probably 
 unlearned and careless — by falsifying the quota- 
 tion ? Is this honest and manly ? And must 
 not such conduct almost justify the opprobrious 
 definition given to the word " Jesuitism/^ — " de- 
 ceit; hypocrisy^^? (Webster.) 
 
 But what was determined upon in that council? 
 Why, the following : — '' For it hath seemed good 
 to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no further 
 burden upon you than these necessary things : — 
 
 "That you abstain from things sacrificed to 
 idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, 
 and from fornication ; from which things keeping 
 yourselves, you shall do well. Fare ye well.^^ 
 (Acts XV. 28, 29.) 
 
 But, according to the Roman Catholics, " except 
 you [actually] eat the flesh of the Son of man, 
 and [actually] drink his blood, you shall not have 
 life in you.^^ (St. John vi. 54.) What, then, is to 
 become of the poor Gentile converts ? " For it 
 hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us 
 [the apostles, &c.] that ye abstain from blood.'^ 
 What is to be done, if Christ says, " You must 
 drink my blood/^ and the Holy Ghost says, " You 
 must abstain from blood,^^ and Christ and the 
 
ON THE REAL PRESENCE. 89 
 
 Holy Ghost are co-equal with God the Father, 
 and the three are one? 
 
 Why, Christ hiruself has solved the difficulty. 
 The words are not to be taken literally. " It is 
 the Spirit that quickeneth : the flesh profiteth 
 nothing ; the words that I have spoken to you, 
 are spirit and life.'' (St. John vi. 64.) What ! 
 the flesh profiteth nothing ! Wh.at, then, becomes 
 of the body and blood of Christ ? " for since the 
 resurrection of Christ his body is impassible, and 
 his blood can no longer be really separated from 
 his flesh, so that wherever his flesh is, there also 
 is his blood.'' (p. 396.) If the flesh profiteth 
 nothing, the blood can profit nothing ; for, Smarius 
 says, it cannot be separated from the flesh. Of 
 what use, then, is the doctrine of the real presence ? 
 Admitting, for the sake of argument, that the 
 wafer is turned into the body and blood of Christ, 
 " if the flesh, and consequently the blood, pro- 
 fiteth nothing," and if you cannot take the flesh 
 without partaking of the blood, ^^ and it seemeth 
 good to the Holy Ghost' that you should not 
 partake of blood," the wafer after consecration 
 becomes a snare to any one who partakes of it, — 
 becomes, in fact, a sin against the Holy Ghost ; 
 and Christ saith, " And whosoever shall speak 
 a word against the Son of man [meaning himself], 
 it shall be forgiven him : but he that shall speak 
 
 8* 
 
90 ON THE REAL PRESENCE 
 
 against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven 
 him, neither in this world, nor in the world to 
 come/' (St. Matt. xii. 32.) 
 
 Taken literally, as the Roman Catholics assert 
 it must be, Christ says, " This is the bread which 
 Cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat 
 thereof and not die.'' (St. John vi. 50.) Do those 
 who eat of your consecrated wafer die ? I trow 
 they do. Then your consecrated wafer cannot be 
 Christ's flesh and blood, as you assert ; for that 
 was the bread that cometh down out of heaven, 
 and of which those who eat do not die. 
 
 " While 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. 
 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave 
 to them, saying ; Drink ye all of this, for this is 
 my blood of the new testament, which shall be 
 shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matt, 
 xxvi. 26-28.) Says the Father, ^^ Those who 
 hear the Saviour on this solemn occasion are 
 simple, uneducated fishermen. They can scarcely 
 understand the commonest expressions of their 
 own language. Their reason, like their speech, 
 is untutored and uncultivated. They would 
 scarcely think of such nice distinctions as the 
 difference, in a given instance, between a figurative 
 and a literal expression of speech. How much 
 
ON THE REAL PRESENCE. 91 
 
 less were they capable of nicely sifting out the cer- 
 tainly-concealed figurative expression of Christ's 
 thought which our separated brethren appeared 
 to have discovered in the text!'' (pp. 360^ 361.) 
 They undoubtedly understood him. For the 
 former address upon the same subject could not 
 have left them in doubt, in which he told them 
 that the words he spake to them " were spirit and 
 life, and that the flesh profited nothing.'' This 
 amounts almost to a demonstration. For, other- 
 wise, how could they in that first council at Jeru- 
 salem say ^^that it seemed good to the Holy 
 Ghost and to us that you should abstain from 
 blood," and, according to Father Smarius, conse- 
 quently, flesh ? for he says, " his blood can no 
 longer be separated from his flesh." 
 
 But Father Smarius has not given us all that 
 Jesus said upon that occasion. Let us supply it 
 (St. Matt. xxvi. 29) : — " And I say unto you, I 
 will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of 
 the vine until that day when I shall drink it with 
 you new in the kingdom of my Father." Why 
 did not these ignorant, illiterate men, these fisher- 
 men, ask him if they cultivated grapes in heaven 
 and made new wine there, and whether one of 
 the joys of heaven was to drink new wine ? 
 
 But the Father becomes very facetious, and 
 makes use of an argument which is altogether 
 
92 ON THE EEAL PRESENCE. 
 
 applicable to himself and to the Roman Catho- 
 lics, but in no wise to the Protestants or to any 
 person professing common sense. He says, " Sup- 
 pose you are the father of a family, and about to 
 die. You wish to make your last will in behalf 
 of your children. In the presence of the notary 
 public and two witnesses you dictate as follows :— 
 ^ To my daughter Mary I leave this house with 
 all its appurtenances. To my daughter Sarah I 
 leave the block of houses situated on Verona 
 street. To my son John I leave my farm of 
 one hundred and fifty acres, and all the improve- 
 ments on the same.^ Suppose, further, that you 
 are dead, and that your children go to the pro- 
 bate court to settle the question of their inherit- 
 ance. There they are told by the judge, ^ Well, 
 Mary, you doubtless imagine that your father left 
 you the real, substantial brick-and-mortar house 
 in which he died ? ' Most certainly, your honour,^ 
 replies the girl. ^ Yet I am sorry to say,^ re- 
 turns the judge, Hhat you are mistaken. The 
 words of the last will of your father mean that 
 some time before he fell sick he had a photograph 
 taken of his house, which must be somewhere 
 hanging or lying in a room ; and that is the portion 
 of your inheritance.^ ^^ (pp. 362, 363.) Let us 
 examine who are guilty of such absurdities, the 
 Roman Catholics or the Protestants. 
 
ON THE REAL PRESENCE. 93 
 
 It is the Protestants who assert " that it is im- 
 possible for the same thing to be and not to be.'^ 
 It is the Protestants who assert ''' that the same 
 material thing or substance^ under the same con- 
 ditions and circumstances, presented to the same 
 organizations, if those organizations be in a normal 
 condition, must always present the same pheno- 
 mena/^ The Protestants assert " that the bread, 
 or wafer, and wine, after the consecration, have 
 undergone no change, but are still bread and wine ; 
 that the chemical and physical characters are in 
 no wise changed ; that the wine will intoxicate 
 as it did before/^ No Protestant calls a landscape 
 view of a farm a farm, nor bread and wine flesh 
 and blood. That is for Father Smarius and the 
 Roman Catholics to do. What would those Jews 
 who turned away from Jesus when he told them, 
 " unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood 
 you shall not have life in you,^^ have said ? Sup- 
 posing they had come to the determination of 
 eating Christ's flesh and blood, and that they 
 had applied to Father Smarius and the Roman 
 Catholics to furnish it to them, and that Father 
 Smarius and the Roman Catholics consecrated, as 
 they term it, a wafer, and presented it to those 
 Jews, and told them that it was the flesh and 
 blood of Christ : would they not have thought the 
 Father and the Roman Catholics were mocking 
 
94 ON THE REAL PRESENCE. 
 
 them ? "Would they not have turned away from 
 them, as they did from Jesus, saying, " This is a 
 hard saying : who can hear it ?'^ 
 
 The Father and the Roman Catholics say, 
 "You must drink Christ^s blood/^ 
 
 The Holy Ghost and the apostles say, "You 
 must abstain from blood/^ 
 
 Which is right, judge ye. 
 
 Again, Father Smarius quotes the testimony 
 of St. Paul (1 Cor. xi. 23-29, p. 366 et seq.). 
 Then he says, "How can any one be guilty of 
 the body and blood as our separated brethren 
 teach ?^^ And I ask him, in reply, how dare 
 Father Smarius and the Roman Catholics par- 
 take of it, if it be in reality such body and blood 
 as he and they contend for, when St. Paul and 
 St. Peter, and others forming the first council, as 
 they term it, at Jerusalem, say to the Gentile 
 converts, " For it hath seemed good to the Holy 
 Ghost and to us to lay no further burdens upon 
 you than these necessary things: That you ab- 
 stain from things vsacrificed to idols, and from 
 blood: from which things keeping yourselves, 
 you shall do well" ? (Acts xv. 28, 29^ 
 
 Take notice of this : " necessary things,'^ — not 
 trifling, unimportant, but necessary things, — such 
 as are indispensable, requisite, essential, — such as 
 must be. 
 
ON THE REAL PRESENCE. 95 
 
 The poor Gentile converts, according to the 
 Father and the Roman Catholics, must be in a 
 bad way. If they don't drink blood, they have 
 no life in them; if they do, they sin against the 
 Holy Ghost. Their position reminds one of Lo- 
 renzo Dow's couplet, — 
 
 "You can and you can't, you will and you won't; 
 You'll be damn'd if you do, and you'll be damn'd if you 
 don't." 
 
 The Protestants believe in no such absurdity. 
 St. Paul undoubtedly speaks figuratively when 
 he says, ^^ Therefore, whosoever shall eat this 
 bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord, un- 
 worthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the 
 blood of the Lord.'' (1 Cor. xi. 27.) " But let a 
 man prove himself; and so let him eat of that 
 bread and drink of the chalice." (1 Cor. xi. 28.) 
 
 Xow, St. Paul does not say, ^^Eat this flesh and 
 drink this blood;" but, "Eat this bread and 
 drink this chalice." Again: what does St. Paul 
 mean when he uses the words "shall eat and 
 drink unworthily," and " but let a man prove 
 himself"? Let St. Paul explain himself. " For 
 it is impossible for those who were once illumi- 
 nated, and have tasted also the heavenly gift, 
 and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 
 have moreover tasted the good word of God, 
 and the powers of the world to come; and are 
 
96 ON THE EEAL PRESENCE. 
 
 fallen away; to be renewed again to penance; 
 crucifying again to themselves the Son of God, 
 and making him a mockery/^ (Heb. vi. 4-6.) 
 
 Is this figurative, or literal? Certainly figura- 
 tive. Why? Because Christ was once crucified, 
 and cannot be crucified again. 
 
 "For then he ought to have suffered often 
 from the beginning of the world : but now once 
 at the end of ages, he hath appeared for the 
 destruction of sin by the sacrifice of himself: 
 
 "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, 
 and after this the judgment: 
 
 " So also Christ was offered once to exhaust the 
 sins of many; the second time he shall appear 
 without sin to them that expect him, unto sal- 
 vation/' (Heb. ix. 26-28.) 
 
 But Father Smarius and the Roman Catholics 
 certainly do not believe what they teach and 
 assert; otherwise they would act differently. St. 
 Paul says, " For as often as you shall eat of this 
 bread, and drink this chalice, you shall show the 
 death of the Lord until he come.^' 
 
 But, say Father Smarius and the Roman 
 Catholics, Oh, no ! this is not necessary : the wafer 
 is all that is essential for the laity. Yet Christ 
 says (St. John vi. 54), " Except you eat the flesh 
 of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you 
 shall not have life in you.'' Says Father Sma- 
 
ox THE REAL PRESEXCE. 97 
 
 rius, ^^The Avafer, being turned into his flesh, 
 niust necessarily contain his blood/' (See p. 396.) 
 How necessarily? You are reasoning now from 
 the human senses. I deny it. I affirm it to be 
 true flesh without blood. It does not follow 
 because all sensible flesh has more or less blood 
 with it, that this miraculous, ineffiible, and won- 
 derfully-produced flesh has blood. No. It is 
 pure flesh without any blood; and it lies upon 
 Father Smarius to show us where Christ or his 
 apostles said that the bread after blessing was 
 flesh and blood. Christ said, " Take, eat: this 
 is my body," speaking of the bread; not, my 
 body and my blood, but, my body. But to par- 
 take of this alone Christ does not say is suffi- 
 cient; but, '^except ye eat my body, and drink 
 my blood, you have no life in you.'' Xot, eat 
 my body, and eat my blood; but, ^^eat my body, 
 and drink my blood." For where is the drink- 
 ing in eating the consecrated wafer? If the blood 
 could not be separated from the flesh, did not 
 Christ know it as well as Father Smarius? But 
 his flesh contained no blood. Protestants, in a 
 matter of such great importance, want '' unmis- 
 takable evidence" presented to their reason. The 
 opinions of all the Fathers of the Church, or 
 any other men or set of men, are of no account 
 unsupported by ^* unmistakable evidence." 
 
 9 
 
98 ON THE REAL PRESEXCE. 
 
 Yet some of these Roman Catholic gentlemen 
 awaken a smile at their arguments. Father Sma- 
 rius quotes with great unction the argument of 
 St. Cyril of Jerusalem. Speaking of the bread 
 and wine^ St. Cyril says, "Judge not of the 
 thing by your taste, but by faith.^^ And, further, 
 " Jesus Christ at Cana of Galilee, once changed 
 water into w^ine by his will only; and shall we 
 think him less worthy of credit when he changes 
 wdne into blood ?'^ (Smarius, pp. 374, 375.) 
 
 A better test could not have been offered. At 
 Cana of Galilee Christ turned the water into 
 wine. Did they tell the company " not to judge 
 of the thing by your taste, but by faith'^? This 
 would be a cheap way of treating your friends. 
 
 My dear , trouble yourself no further about 
 
 the expense of company. Call your friends to- 
 gether; set the water before them; tell them it 
 is Hock, Champagne, Sauterne, Sherry, TeneriflPe, 
 brandy, whisky, — what you please. Say to your 
 friends, "Judge not of the thing by your taste, but 
 by faith.^^ " Faith !^^ your Irish friend would say, 
 " to my taste this is water, not whisky.^^ " Oh, 
 no : you are wrong,'^ would be your reply ; " by 
 faith it is whisky. Being ^instructed by faith, 
 you will correct your judgment.^ ^^ (See Smarius, 
 p. 393.) 
 
 But at Cana of Galilee did the master of the 
 
ox THE REAL PRESENCE. 99 
 
 feast judge by his taste, or by faith? By his 
 taste, undoubtedly. It required no faith ; for the 
 water was turned into wine; it was water no 
 longer; and the wine was so good, so unusually 
 good, that it attracted the attention of the master 
 of the feast, so that he called to the bridegroom, 
 not knowing whence the whie came, saying, 
 " Every man at first setteth forth good wine, and 
 when men have well drunk, then that which is 
 worst; but thou hast kept the good wine until 
 now/' (St. John ii. 10.) But perhaps St. Cyril 
 wishes to convey the idea that the miracle was 
 all gammon, and that the whole party were 
 so drunk that they did not know water from 
 wine, and so judged not from their taste, '^ but by 
 faith.'' 
 
 But let Father Smarius and the Roman Catho- 
 lic priests consecrate your wafer and your wine, 
 and take them into the same kind of company as 
 that at Cana of Galilee, and not tell them whence 
 they come, and see whether they will be called 
 "flesh and blood.'' 
 
 Therefore, at Cana of Galilee Christ did 
 perform a miracle; for the water was turned into 
 wine, so that the senses recognized it as such. 
 The priests do not turn, nor does Christ turn, the 
 wafer and wine into flesh and blood, because the 
 senses perceive no change, but recognize still the 
 
100 ON THE EEAL PRESENCE. 
 
 wafer and the wine. Christ is still worthy of 
 credit; for he did not at the Last Supper pretend 
 to work a miracle. 
 
 But we have said that the doctrine of the real 
 presence is not only absurd, but perhaps sacri- 
 legious and blasphemous. 
 
 What is the doctrine of the real presence? 
 Let Father Smarius answer: — "By the words 
 of consecration we believe the substance of the 
 bread and wine to be changed into the real body 
 and blood of Jesus Christ, which united— as 
 these to his soul and divinity — form the sole 
 object of their worship and adoration." (p. 404.) 
 
 Look, I beseech you, in the second chapter of 
 Acts, to what occurred upon the day of Pente- 
 cost. Listen attentively to what St. Peter says to 
 the multitudes who were astonished at the mira- 
 cle of the " tongues of fire," and the " speaking 
 in divers tongues." 
 
 " Ye men of Israel, hear these words : Jesus 
 of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you 
 by miracles and wonders and signs, which God 
 did by him in the midst of you, as you also 
 know. 
 
 "This same, being delivered up by the de- 
 terminate counsel and foreknowledge of God, 
 you by hands of wicked men have crucified and 
 slain. 
 
ON THE REAL PRESENCE. 101 
 
 ^^ Whom God has raised up, having loosed the 
 sorrows of hell, as it was impossible that he 
 should be holden by it. 
 
 "For David said concerning him, I foresaw the 
 Lord before my face ; because he is at my right 
 hand, thai I may not be moved. 
 
 "For this my heart hath been glad, aiid my 
 tongue hath rejoiced: moreover, my flesh also shall 
 rest in hope, 
 
 ''Because thou ivilt not leave my soul in hell, nor 
 suffer thy Holy One to see corruption, 
 
 "Foreseeing this, he spoke of the resurrection 
 of Christ; for neither was he left in hell, neither 
 did his flesh see corruption.^^ (Acts ii. 22-27, 31; 
 and see Ps. xv. 10.) 
 
 Xow, this prophecy of King David is applied 
 to Christ, not only by St. Peter, but by all com- 
 mentators, Roman Catholic or Protestant. 
 
 Turn now to the accounts of Christ's burial 
 and resurrection, as found in the Gospels : — 
 
 " He [Joseph of Arimathea] went to Pilate, 
 and asked the body of Jesus. Then Pilate com- 
 manded that the body should be delivered. 
 
 "And Joseph, taking the body, wrapt it up in 
 a clean linen cloth, 
 
 "And laid it in his own new monument, 
 which he had hewn in a rock.^^ (St. Matt, xxvii. 
 58-60.) 
 
 9* 
 
102 ON THE REAL PRESENCE. 
 
 "And the angel answering said to the woman, 
 Fear not you : for I know that you seek Jesus, 
 who was crucified. 
 
 " He is not here : for he has risen.'^ (St. Matt. 
 xxviii. 5, 6.) 
 
 "And Joseph, buying fine linen, and taking 
 him down, wrapped him up in the fine linen, 
 and laid him in a sepulchre which w^as hewed out 
 of a rock.'' (St.- Mark xv. 46.) 
 
 "And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Mag- 
 dalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, 
 brought sweet spices, that coming they might 
 anoint Jesus. 
 
 "'And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a 
 young man sitting on the right side, clothed with 
 a white robe: and they were astonished. 
 
 "Who saith to them: Be not affrighted; you 
 seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified : he is 
 risen . . ^ (St. Mark xvi. 1, 5, 6.) 
 
 St. Luke's account is nearly the same. 
 . St. John says, " He [Joseph of Arimathea] 
 came, therefore, and took away the body of 
 Jesus. 
 
 "And Nicodemus also came, he who at the 
 first came to Jesus by night, bringing a mixture 
 of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pounds 
 weight. 
 
 " They took, therefore, the body of Jesus, and 
 
ON THE KEAL PRESENCE. 103 
 
 bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as the 
 manner of the Jews is to bury. 
 
 ^' Now, there was in the place where he was 
 crucified a garden : and in the garden a new sepul- 
 chre, wherein no man yet had been laid. 
 
 " There, therefore, because of the passover of 
 the Jews, they laid Jesus, because the sepulchre 
 was nigh at hand.'' (St. John xix. 39-42.) 
 
 ^^ Jesus saith to her [Mary Magdalene]: Do 
 not touch me; for I am not yet ascended to my 
 Father.'' (St. John xx. 17.) 
 
 How careful to avoid all corruption ! A new 
 tomb, clean linen, spices. He rises immediately, 
 and will not let even Mary Magdalene touch 
 him, because he has not yet ascended to his 
 Father. 
 
 "Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell [not 
 hell, but the grave; so says the Rabbi Isaac 
 Leeser], nor suffer thy Holy One [servant, says 
 Leeser] to see corruption." (Ps. xxi. 10.) 
 
 Now, this sentiment regarding corruption, or 
 putrefaction, was a very ancient one. "As putre- 
 faction was the most general means of natural 
 destruction or dissolution, the same spirit of 
 superstition, which turned every other object of 
 nature into an object of devotion, consecrated it 
 to the personification of the destroying power; 
 whence, in the mysteries and other sacred rites 
 
104 ON THE REAI. PRESENCE. 
 
 belonging to the generative attributes, every thing 
 putrid, or that had a tendency to putridity, was 
 carefully avoided ; and so strict were the Egyp- 
 tian priests upon this point that they wore no 
 garments made of any animal substance, but cir- 
 cumcised themselves, and shaved their whole 
 bodies, even to their eyebrows, lest they should 
 unknowingly harbour any filth, excrement, or 
 vermin supposed to be bred from putrefaction. 
 The common fly, being in its first stage of exist- 
 ence (a maggot) a principal agent in dissolving 
 and dissipating all putrescent bodies, was adopted 
 as an emblem of the Deity to represent the 
 destroying attribute; whence the Baal-Zebub, or 
 Jupiter Fly, of the Phoenicians, when admitted 
 into the creed of the Jews, received the rank and 
 office of Prince of the Devils/^ (R. Payne Knight 
 on the Symbolical Language of Ancient Art and 
 Mythology, p. 37, and authorities there quoted.) 
 
 Baal-Zebub, you therefore see, was among the 
 Jews the prince of the devils, the prince of 
 corruption, of which the grave, Sheol in Hebrew, 
 sometimes rendered ^Miell,^' w^as perhaps the 
 symbol. Therefore says St. Peter, '' God having 
 loosed the sorrows of hell, as it was impossible 
 that he should be holden by it," (Acts xi. 24,) 
 and that God would not suffer ^^ his Holy One to 
 see corruption." (Acts v. 28.) 
 
ON THE REAL PRESENCE. 105 
 
 Now, what do Father Smarius and the Church 
 of Rome say? Read, and mark it well. 
 
 " So that whoever receives that consecrated 
 bread receives the body of the Lord, the very 
 same body and blood that were conceived of the 
 Holy Ghost in the Virgin^s womb ; the same body 
 that suffered and the same blood that was shed for 
 us, from the garden to Calvary.'^ (pp. 342, 343.) 
 
 " So that after the words of consecration there 
 are no longer present real bread and wine, but 
 only the appearances of bread and wine ; there are 
 present truly, substantially, and really the body 
 and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of 
 Jesus Christ; the same that was born of the 
 Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate and 
 was buried ; the same that rose again from the 
 dead, ascended into heaven, is there seated at 
 the right hand of his Father, and shall thence 
 come again to judge the living and the dead/^ 
 (p. 344.) 
 
 They — Father Smarius and the Roman Catho- 
 lics — believe that when the bread and wine are 
 changed by consecration, are united to Christ soul 
 and divinity, they form the sole object of their 
 worship and adoration. (See Smarius, p. 404.) 
 
 Enter a Catholic church at the performance of 
 the mass, as the consecration of the bread and 
 wine is called. As they are consecrated, the priest 
 
106 ON THE REAL PRESENCE. 
 
 successively raises the bread and the chalice, — now, 
 as they affirm, the body and blood, soul and 
 divinity, of Christ, — and as they are raised the 
 people successively acknowledge it as their God, 
 and bow their heads and worship it. And what 
 then ? Wonderful to be told, they eat him, — dead 
 or alive ! 
 
 They must eat him alive. For, says Smarius, 
 it is the same " that rose again from the dead, 
 ascended into heaven, and shall thence come again 
 to judge the living and the dead/' (p. 344.) Their 
 God gulped down as you would gulp a live 
 oyster ! 
 
 I defy so monstrous an absurdity to be pointed 
 out among any other religionists, Jew or Gentile, 
 Greek or Pagan, among black, red, or white 
 men, upon the face of the earth. Men have 
 recognized their God in various animals and 
 plants and stones ; but from that time they became 
 sacred and it was death to injure them. In 
 Egypt, where they worshipped various animals, 
 ^'it is reported that in time of a famine, which 
 drove the inhabitants to the cruel necessity of 
 devouring one another, there was no one person 
 accused of having tasted of any of these sacred 
 animals.^^ (Universal History, 2d ed., vol. i. 
 p. 229.) 
 
 And Du Chaillu says that the "Fans,'' a 
 
ON THE REAL PRESENCE. 107 
 
 tribe of cannibals which he discovered, would 
 not eat their relatives and friends. 
 
 But that the Roman Catholics should first 
 make their God, and then eat him, is an absurdity 
 so great that, did they not persist in it with so 
 great pertinacity and strenuousness, it would be 
 impossible to believe it. 
 
 They assert that they eat the body and blood 
 of a man, the soul and divinity of a God. 
 
 What indignities did the Jews offer to Christ ? 
 fSt. Matt, xxvii. 30, 34.) ^' And spitting upon him, 
 they took the reed and struck his head.^^ 
 
 " And they gave him wine to drink mingled 
 with gall. And when he had tasted, he would 
 not drink.^^ 
 
 But what do these Roman Catholics do, when 
 they eat their God-man? They plunge their 
 God into a bath of spittle, and then they swal- 
 low him. What then becomes of him ? He 
 passes into the stomach ; the juices of the stomach 
 act upon him, and the veins absorb a portion of 
 him, which passes into the economy as nourishment. 
 The larger portion passes into the duodenum, into 
 a bath of gall and pancreatic juice. It thence 
 passes into the small intestines, of which it 
 traverses some twenty-five or thirty feet, thence 
 into the large intestine, or colon, thence into the 
 rectum, from whence it is cast out upon the dung - 
 
108 ON THE REAL PRESENCE. 
 
 hill. The other portions, after being used in the 
 economy, pass off through the kidneys, in the 
 shape of urine, and through the other emuncto- 
 ries of the body as perspiration and so forth. 
 
 So that which they worship and bow down to 
 as a God to-day they cast out upon the dunghill 
 to-morrow. 
 
 King. — Now, Hamlet, whereas Polonius ? 
 
 Hamlet. — At supper. 
 
 King. — At supper ! where ? 
 
 Ham. — NTot where he eats, but where he is eaten; a 
 certain convocation of politic worms are e'en at him. 
 Your worm is your only emperor for diet: we fat all 
 creatures else to fat us, and we fat ourselves for maggots ; 
 your fat king and your lean beggar is but variable ser- 
 vice ; two dishes, but to one table : that's the end. 
 
 King. — Alas, alas ! 
 
 Ham. — A man may fi?h with the worm that hath eat 
 of a king [and, if the Eoman Catholics be right, of a king 
 that has eat of his God] ; and eat of the fish that hath 
 fed of that worm. 
 
 King. — What dost thou mean by this ? 
 
 Ham. — Nothing, but to show you how a king may go 
 a progress through the guts of a beggar. (Shakspeare, 
 Hamlet, Scene III.) 
 
 So the Eoman Catholics may say, We eat the 
 real flesh and blood, soul and divinity, of Christ, to 
 show you how a God '' may go a progress through 
 the guts of a beggar.^' What absurdity ! What 
 horrid blasphemy, if what they assert were true 1 
 
ON THE REAL PRESENCE. 109 
 
 The Jews crucify and slay him. The Pope, 
 priests, and members of the Roman Church assert 
 they eat him. After the Jews had crucified and 
 slain him, he did not, says St. Peter, '' see corrup- 
 tion.^^ After the Pope, priests, and members of 
 the Roman Catholic Church eat him, he does see 
 corruption, if what they assert be true, and, 
 further, has been undergoing corruption of the 
 vilest kind — not in a new tomb, not wrapped in 
 fine linen and spices, but in the vilest and most 
 offensive places kno\vn to man — for nearly nineteen 
 hundred years. 
 
 But let us for a moment suppose that it was 
 the Protestants, and not the Church of Rome, 
 who taught and practised this doctrine. What 
 would Father Smarius and the Church of Rome 
 exclaim? Would they not say to us, ''Dear 
 separated brethren, the doctrine which you be- 
 lieve and practise must be false. If it be not 
 false, ' his Holy One' does see corruption, and that 
 in a more corrupt place than Sheol, whether it be 
 translated ' helP or ' the grave.' If it be not false, 
 —if it be true, as you assert it to be, that you eat 
 ' the very same body and blood that were con- 
 ceived of the Holy Ghost in the Virgin's womb,' 
 — does it not lay you open to be called man- 
 eaters, cannibals? If you also believe and assert 
 that, ' together with his body and blood, you eat 
 
 10 
 
110 ON THE REAL PRESENCE. 
 
 the soul and divinity of Jesus Christ/ do you not 
 render yourselves liable to the epithet of ' God- 
 eaters^ ?• ^ Would not the Church of Rome fulmi- 
 nate her thunders against such doctrines, and call 
 them heresies, and denounce those who practise 
 them? Would she not warn her own people, 
 saying to them, in the words of the patriarch 
 Jacob, '^ Let not my soul go into their counsel, 
 nor my glory be in their assembly^^ ? (Gen. 
 xlix. 6.) 
 
LECTURE VIII. 
 
 HOXOUK AND INVOCATION OF SAINTS— YENE- 
 EATION OF IMAGES AND KELICS. 
 
 I. Honour and invocation of saints. 
 
 1. "What are saints f The Father asks the 
 question, and replies, "Saints are the spirits of 
 the departed who reign with Christ in glory/' 
 (p. 411.) 
 
 " Saint is a term sometimes put for the people 
 of Israel, sometimes for Christian believers. The 
 Hebrews are called a holy nation : — ^ Ye shall be 
 unto me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' 
 (Exod. xix. 6 ; 1 Pet. ii. 9 ; Deut. vii. 6 ; xiv. 
 2, 21.) Nothing is more frequent in Paul than 
 the name of saints given to Christians (Rom. i. 7 ; 
 viii. 27, 28; xii. 13; xv. 25, 32; xvi. 2, &c.) 
 Saint signifies, in particular, good men, and the 
 servants of God (Prov. ix. 10) ; and is often put 
 for angels (Job v. 1 ; xv. 15; Dan. iv. 23; Deut. 
 xxxii. 2, 3)." (See Calmet's Dictionary of the 
 Bible, h. t) 
 
 ^^Now, the question is," says the Father, 
 
 111 
 
112 HONOUR AND INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 
 
 "should we honour these samts? Who dares' 
 deny it f^ (p. 411.) 
 
 If by honour the Father means that we should 
 respect and esteem every one who possesses great 
 excellence of character, high moral and religious 
 worth, integrity, and manliness, we say, " Yes.'^ 
 
 But, if the Father means by " honour'^ that 
 we should pay to them that reverence and vene- 
 ration which we pay to God, we answer, " No," 
 
 Says Father Smarius, " We invoke them, we 
 pray to them; and should we not?" (p. 413.) 
 
 With regard to the honour which is given by 
 us to the saints, our catechism teaches : — " We 
 are to honour saints and angels as God^s special 
 friends and servants, but not with the honour 
 which /belongs to God." And, w^ith regard to the 
 prayers we address to them, the Catechism of the 
 Council of Trent, published in virtue of its de- 
 cree, by order of Pope Pius V., says, "God and 
 the saints are not to be prayed to in the same 
 manner: for we pray to God that he hhioself 
 icould give us good things and deliver us from all 
 evil things; but we beg of the saints, because 
 they are pleasing to God, that they would be our 
 advocates, and obtain from God what we stand in 
 need of." (Part IV.) 
 
 " Hence our forms of prayer differ. We say 
 to God, ' Have mercy on us,' ' Deliver us/ 
 
HONOUR AXD INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 113 
 
 ^ Grant us/ ' Save us ;' to the saints we say, ^ Pray 
 for us/ ^ Intercede for us/ And if at times the 
 forms of prayer are identical, the faith which 
 offers them is quite different.'' (pp. 426, 427.) 
 
 The Father, in his argument respecting this 
 subject, reminds us very much of an amusement 
 which we have seen frequently performed by 
 boys, and which, in our younger days, we have 
 engaged in ourselves, — the standing up on end 
 of a number of bricks, so arranged in a row as to 
 be within striking distance of each other, and, 
 having placed the last one, tilted it towards its 
 neighbour, causing in succession the whole row 
 to fall. For the Father, having employed some 
 twenty-five duodecimo pages in stating his argu- 
 ment, arrived at the end, says, — 
 
 '^ Finally, observe that the Church does not 
 teach that it is necessary unto salvation to pray 
 to the saints. All she says is that ^it is good 
 and usefuF suppliantly to invoke them and to 
 have recourse to their prayers.'' (p. 428.) 
 
 It is a very pleasant thing to find our brethren 
 of the Roman Catholic Church agreeing upon 
 any subject with those whose fathers were obliged 
 to separate from them on account of matters which 
 the Roman Catholic Church insisted upon as being 
 '^ good and useful," but which were not " neces- 
 sary to salvation." We cheerfully assent to the 
 
 10* 
 
114 HONOUR AND INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 
 
 statement of the Father, that the "honour and 
 invocation of saints'^ are not necessary to salva- 
 tion. 
 
 Bat, like our fathers, we disagree with the 
 Roman Catholic Church about the "good and 
 the useful.'' Why? The Father admits that 
 " at times the prayers of the saints are identical 
 w^ith those that are made to God,'' and that " the 
 only difference in them is that which may arise 
 in the faith that offers them." (p. 427.) 
 
 The great objection lies here, that the prayers 
 to the saints being the same at times as those 
 made to God, the great masses, who are the un- 
 reflecting and ignorant, as well as many who are 
 intelligent but careless and heedless, will cease 
 or forget to distinguish between God and the 
 saints. Now, this, in innumerable cases, is un- 
 doubtedly the fact ; and thus it may be questioned 
 whether the Roman Catholic Church, by method 
 and rule, does not lead^ or at least cause, her 
 members to fall into idolatry, — which the Father 
 defines (p. 426) as " giving to a creature the wor- 
 ship which is due to God alone." But this, so 
 far from being " good and useful," is dangerous 
 and bad. 
 
 If God commanded the honour and invocation 
 of saints, it would be necessary to salvation. The 
 Father admits that it is not necessary to salva- 
 
VENERATION OF IMAGES AND RELICS. 115 
 
 tion : then such honour and invocation must be 
 a precept of men ; if so, it cannot be ^^ good and 
 useful ;'^ for, says Christ, ^^ In vain do they worship 
 mcy teaching doctrines and precepts of menJ^ (St. 
 Mark vii. 7.) 
 
 Finally, it is a maxim in ethics, that " where 
 one of two courses of conduct is known to be 
 right, and the other is doubtful, you are bound 
 to pursue that which you know to be right.^^ It 
 follows that, as the " honour and invocation of the 
 saints^' are not necessary to salvation, and are of 
 doubtful and questionable expediency, and have, 
 with other matters of similar character, led to a 
 separation among brethren who otherwise might 
 have dwelt in unity, such worship and adoration 
 can be neither '^ good^^ nor " useful.^^ 
 
 II. Veneration of images and relics. 
 
 " With regard,^^ says the Father, ^^ to pictures 
 and images of Christ and of the saints, the 
 Church teaches as follows: ^The images of Christ, 
 of the Virgin mother of God, and the other 
 saints, are to be kept and retained, particularly 
 in the churches, and due honour and veneration 
 is to be paid them; not that we believe that 
 there is any divinity or power in them for which 
 we respect them, or that any thing is to be asked 
 of them, or that trust is to be placed in them, 
 
116 VENERATION OF IMAGES AND EELICS. 
 
 as the heathen of old trusted in their idols . . . ; 
 but the honour which we pay to images is re- 
 ferred to the originals whom they represent : so 
 that by means of images which we kiss, and 
 before which we kneel, we adore Jesus Christ 
 and venerate his saints/ ^^ (Council of Trent^ Sess. 
 25.) 
 
 " Notwithstanding this plainest and clearest 
 possible statement of our doctrine on the respect 
 and honour due to pictures and images, our sepa- 
 rated brethren have, from the beginning of the 
 so-called Reformation till this day, never ceased 
 to misrepresent it in their pulpits. It is objected 
 by them that it is forbidden by the second (first 
 they should say) commandment. [And Pro- 
 testants say that it is no matter whether it be 
 first or last, whatever and whenever God com- 
 mands, his command is equally binding on his 
 creatures.] ^Thou shalt not make to thyself a 
 graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that 
 is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor 
 of those things that are in the water under the 
 earth.^ (Exod. xx. 4.)'' (pp. 428, 429.) 
 
 ^' What, then, did he [God] forbid? To make 
 them our gods, our idols, and to adore them and 
 serve them. Hence the commandment, Thou 
 shalt not adore them, nor serve them. (Exod. 
 XX. 5.)'^ 
 
VENERATION OF IMAGES AND RELICS. 117 
 
 " * But you Catholics adore them ; for you kiss 
 them, bow your heads to them, take off your 
 hatsj you kneel to them; you pray to them/ 
 
 "We never kneel or pray to any picture, 
 image, or likeness whatsoever, but before them. 
 To kneel and pray to an image would suppose 
 life, energy, power, consciousness, in the picture 
 or the image, if, namely, these acts, as the preposi- 
 tion to would seem to indicate, terminate on the 
 image or the likeness; but to perform these same 
 acts before them, while they are expressions of 
 respect, honour, and veneration, are not acts which 
 terminate on the picture or likeness as such, but 
 are, through them, referred to the originals whom 
 they represent.'' (pp. 431, 432.) 
 
 In regard to graven images, what has God 
 commanded? God says, "Thou shalt not make 
 unto thyself any graven image, or any likeness 
 of any thing that is in the heaven above, or that 
 is on the earth beneath, or that is in the Avater 
 under the earth. Thou shalt not bow thyself 
 down to them, nor serve them." (Exodus xx.4, 5, 
 Leeser's version.) 
 
 But, says the Father, "It is rather strange 
 that God should forbid the making of any like- 
 ness in heaven or on earth, and yet allow so many 
 of them in his very temple.'' (p. 430.) 
 
 The question is not as to what is "rather 
 
118 VENERATION OF IMAGES AND RELICS. 
 
 strange/^ but whether God has not a right to 
 make a general law and then make as many ex- 
 ceptions to it as he pleases. '' Shall the Judge 
 of all the earth not exercise justice ?'V (Genesis 
 xviii. 25, Leeser.) Human legislators exercise 
 this power; and if any person violates a general 
 law, and wishes to escape the penalty, he must 
 show that he is within the exceptions which may 
 have been made to it, or he will be held guilty 
 of an infraction of the general law. Now, Pro- 
 testants grant that God has made exceptions to 
 his general laws. He directed cherubim, to be 
 placed upon the ark. '' And the cherubim shall be 
 spreading forth their wings on high, overshadow- 
 ing the cover with their wings, with their faces 
 turned one to the other; toward the cover shall 
 the faces of the cherubim be directed. And I 
 will meet with thee there, and I will speak with 
 thee from above the cover, from between the two 
 cherubim which are upon the ark of the testi- 
 mony, all the things which I will command thee 
 unto the children of Israel.^^ (Exod. xxv. 20, 22, 
 Leeser.) 
 
 ^'Nor,'^ says the Father, "is this practice for- 
 bidden by the Scriptures;'^ namely, "to kneel or 
 pray before any image or likeness.^' " How other- 
 wise could Joshua fall upon his face before the 
 ark of the Lord until the eventide, he and the 
 
VENERATION OF IMAGES AND RELICS. 119 
 
 elders of Israel, and exclaim, ' O Lord God, 
 why wouldest thou bring this people over the 
 river Jordan, to deliver us into the hands of the 
 Amorrhite,' &c.? (Josh. vii. 6, 7.) Thus, God 
 ordered Moses and Joshua to put off their shoes, 
 because the ground on which they stood was 
 holy.^' (p. 432.) 
 
 If this practice of kneeling and praying before 
 any image is not forbidden, pray what does God's 
 commandment in Exodus chapter xx. go for? 
 Joshua and the elders fell upon their faces before 
 the ark, because God himself spoke from be- 
 tween the cherubim. It was to God, therefore, 
 that Joshua and the elders fell upon their faces. 
 When Moses and Joshua put off their shoes, they 
 did it by God's express command. If the reason 
 of any Protestant is convinced by " unmis- 
 takable evidence'' that God commands him to 
 do any thing, he will perform it, because it is his 
 duty to obey God whether God gives a reason 
 for his command or not. So that neither of 
 these authorities which the Father has quoted 
 supports or has any application to the point at 
 issue. 
 
 The commandments were given to the Jews. 
 Now, what did they understand by this com- 
 mand, — ^^Thou shalt not make to thyself any 
 graven image," etc.? (Exod. xx. 4, 5.) 
 
120 VENERATION OF IMAGES AND RELICS. 
 
 Moses said to the Jews (Deut. c. xxix. § 21-16, 
 Leeser), ^^And ye saw their abominations, and 
 their idols, of wood and stone, silver and gold, 
 which they had with them.'^ 
 
 What is an ^^idol"? Webster defines it to be — 
 1. An image, form, or representation of any 
 thing. It is derived " from the Greek ecdoXou, 
 {eidolon). 2. An image of a divinity; a repre- 
 sentation or symbol of a deity, made as an object 
 of worship. 
 
 Now, it is to be supposed that the Jews under- 
 stood what that '' idolatry'^ was that was for- 
 bidden to them. Philo-Judseus, who was born 
 before Christ and was contemporaneous with 
 him, says, ^^ Wherefore, removing all such im- 
 posture, let us worship no beings that are by 
 nature brothers and germane to us, though en- 
 dued with far more pure and immortal essences 
 than we are. For all created things, as such, 
 have a kind of germane and brotherly equality 
 with one another, the Maker of all things being 
 their common Father. But let us deeply infix 
 this first and most holy commandment in our 
 breasts, to acknowledge and worship one only 
 highest God.'^ (Cud. Int. Syst. vol. ii. 180.) 
 
 St. Peter acted upon this principle: "And it 
 came to pass, that when Peter was come in, Cor- 
 nelius came to meet him, and falling at his feet 
 
VENEKATION OF IMAGES AND RELICS. 121 
 
 adored. But Peter lifted him up, saying, Arise: 
 I myself also am a man." (Acts x. 25, 26.) 
 Again, in the case of St. John. "And I, John, 
 who have heard and seen these things. And 
 after I had heard and seen, I fell down to adore 
 BEFORE the feet of the angel, who showed me 
 these things. And he said to me: See thou do it 
 not: for I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy 
 brethren the prophets, and of them that keep the 
 words of the prophecy of this book. Adore 
 God." (Kev. xxii. 8, 9.) 
 
 Take notice that St. John fell down to adore 
 " before,^ not to, the angel. Yet the angel forbade 
 him,tand said to him, what Protestants say to the 
 Roman Catholics, " See you do it not. Adore 
 God." 
 
 The celebrated Jewish scholar Maimonides, 
 who was born at Cordova in a.d. 1139, says, 
 " The foundation of that commandment against 
 strange worship (now commonly called idolatry) 
 is this, that no man should worship any of the 
 creatures whatsoever, neither angel, nor sphere, 
 nor star, nor any of the four elements, nor any 
 thing made out of them. For though he that 
 worships these things knows that the Lord is God, 
 and superior to them all, and worships those crea- 
 tures no otherwise than Enosh and the rest of 
 
 that age did, yet is he nevertheless guilty of 
 
 11 
 
122 VENERATION. OF IMAGES AND RELICS. 
 
 strange worship, or idolatry. You know that 
 whosoever committeth idolatry, he doth it not as 
 supposing that there is no other god besides that 
 which he worshippeth, for it never came into the 
 minds of any idolaters, nor never will, that that 
 statue which is made of them of metal, or stone, 
 or wood, is that very God who created heaven 
 and earth; but they worship those statues and 
 images only as the representation of something 
 which is a mediator between God and them/' 
 (Cud. Int. Sys. vol. ii. pp. 183, 184.) 
 
 The Jew Moses Albelda says, ^' The idolaters 
 first argued thus in respect of God : that since he 
 was of such transcendent perfection above, men, 
 it was not possible for men to be united to or 
 have communion with him otherwise than by 
 means of certain middle beings, or mediators, as 
 it is the manner of earthly kings to have petitions 
 conveyed to them by the hands of mediators and in- 
 tercessors. Secondly, that as to themselves being 
 corporeal, so that they could not comprehend God 
 abstractly, they must needs have something sen- 
 sible to excite and stir up their devotion and fix 
 their imagination upon.'' (Cud. Int. Sys. vol. ii. 
 p. 185.) Rabbi David Kimchi says, ^^All the 
 polytheism and idolatry of the pagans is reduced 
 to these three heads. First, when they wor- 
 shipped the ministers of God, as thinking to 
 
VENERATION OF IMAGES AND RELICS. 123 
 
 honour him thereby ; secondly, when they wor- 
 shipped them as orators and intercessors for them 
 with God; and lastly, when they worshipped 
 statues of wood and stone for memorials of him.'^ 
 (Cud. Int. Sys. vol. ii. p. 186.) Again: Julian, the 
 Roman Emperor, who was born in the year 331, 
 and to whom the Christians gave the name of 
 the Apostate, because, having been brought up in 
 Christianity, he returned to the religion of his an- 
 cestors, writing in defence of idolatry, says, '^ But 
 (the Galileans will say) O ! you have admitted 
 into your soul every multitude of demons, whom, 
 though according to you they are formless and un- 
 figured, you. have fashioned in a corporeal resem- 
 blance. It is not fit that honour should be paid to 
 divinity through such works. How, then, do we 
 not consider as wood and stones those statues 
 which are fashioned by the hands of men? O 
 more stupid than even stones themselves ! Do 
 you fancy that all men are to be drawn by the 
 nose, as you are drawn by execrable demons, so 
 as to think that the artificial resemblances of the 
 gods are the gods themselves ? Looking, there- 
 fore, to the resemblances of the gods, we do not 
 think them to be either stones or wood ; for 
 neither do we think that the gods are these re- 
 semblances ; since neither do we say that royal 
 images are wood, or stone, or brass, nor that they 
 
124 VENERATION OF IMAGES AND RELICS. 
 
 are the kings themselves, but the images of kings. 
 Whoever, therefore, loves his king, beholds with 
 pleasure the image of his king ; whoever loves 
 his child is delighted with his image ; and whoever 
 loves his father surveys his image with delight. 
 Hence, also, he who is a lover of divinity gladly 
 surveys the statues and images of the gods ; at 
 the same time venerating and fearing with a holy 
 dread the gods who invisibly behold him/' — Ex- 
 tracted from the fragment of an oration or epistle 
 on the duties of a priest. (Arguments of Celsus, 
 Porphyry, and the Emperor Julian against the 
 Christians, &c. &c., London, Thomas Rodd, 
 1830, pp. 64, 65.) 
 
 Thus, Father Smarius uses almost the identical 
 arguments for kneeling and praying before images 
 that the Jews use to define idolatry, and that the 
 Emperor Julian uses to defend it. (See pp. 415, 
 416, 417.) 
 
 And now we take direct issue with the Father. 
 " ^ But do not the Catholics, especially the igno- 
 rant portion of the Church, believe that there is 
 some life, power, or ^virtue in those images and 
 statues V 
 
 ^' By no means ; and the Catechism which every 
 child, rich and poor, lettered and unlettered, has 
 to learn before he is admitted to holy communion, 
 plainly tells him that he is forbidden Ho pray 
 
VENEEATTON OF IMAGES AND RELICS. 125 
 
 to images and pictures/ ' because tliey have neither 
 life nor sense to hear us/ ^^ (p. 437.) 
 
 Now, we assert, notwithstanding what the 
 catechism teaches, that Roman " Catholics, espe- 
 cially the ignorant portion of the Church, DO 
 believe that there is some life, power, or virtue 
 in those images and statues.^^ 
 
 " Nothing is more common among the miracles 
 of Popery than to hear of images that on certain 
 occasions had spoken, or shed tears, or sweat, or 
 bled. And do not we find the very same stories 
 in all the heathen writers? — of which I could 
 bring numberless examples from old as well as 
 neio Rome, from pagan as well as Popish legends, 
 Rome, as. the describer of it says (Rom. Mod. R. 
 di Monti, 21), abounds with these treasures or 
 speaking images; but he laments the negligence 
 of their ancestors in not recording so particularly 
 as they ought the ver^y words and other circum- 
 stances of such conversations. They show us here 
 an image of the Virgin which reprimanded Gre- 
 gory the Great for passing by her too carelessly ; 
 and, in St. PauVs Church, a crucifix which spoke 
 to St. Bridgith, Durantus mentions another Ma- 
 donna, which spohe to the sexton in commendation 
 of the piety of one of her votaries. And did not 
 the image of Fortune do the same, or more, in old 
 
 Romef — which, as authors say, spohe twice in 
 
 11* 
 
126 VEXERATIO]^^ OF IMAGES AND RELICS. 
 
 praise of those matrons who had dedicated a temple 
 to her? 
 
 '^ They have a church dedicated to 8t Mary the 
 Weeper^ or to a Madonna famous for shedding 
 tears. They show an image, too, of our Saviour, 
 which, for some time before the sacking of Rome, 
 wept so heartily that the good fathers of the monas- 
 tery were all employed in wiping its face with 
 cotton. They have another church built in honour 
 of an image which bted very plentifully from a 
 blow given to it by a blasphemer. And were not 
 the old idols, too, as full of blood, when, as Livy 
 relates, all the images in the temple of Juno were 
 seen to siveat with drops of itf (Middleton^s 
 Letters from Rome, pp. 202, 203, 204.) 
 
 "The facts already produced sufficiently prove 
 that it is no mistake to affirm that the Catholic 
 borrowed from the heathen, or that pagan cere- 
 monies were introduced into the Church ; while 
 there were strong prejudices subsisting in favour 
 of them, — which, from these beginnings, have 
 been operating in it ever since, with more or less 
 effect, in proportion to the decay of its discipline 
 and the corruption of its rulers, till they have 
 perfected that form and system of worship which 
 we now distinguish by the name of Popery. 
 
 " From the first promulgation of the gospel, as 
 all history informs us, there was a perpetual con- 
 
VENERATION OF IMAGES AND RELICS. 127 
 
 test between the pagan and Christian riteSy through 
 a long succession of ages ; in which the pagan 
 rites were forcibly imposed upon the Christians 
 by the pagan emperors, rejected again in their 
 turn by the Christian emperors, and all of them 
 distinctly marked out and described at different 
 times by the imperial laws, so as the Christians 
 in all ages might clearly know and avoid them.- 
 For example, the laws of Theodosius forbade all 
 people, under severe penalties, to light up candles, 
 burn incense, or hang up garlands to senseless 
 images, Now, these laws, from the time of their 
 publication, have been in the constant possession 
 of the Romish Church, perpetually read, com- 
 mented, and published by their clergy ; so that, 
 when the particular rites therein prohibited were 
 introduced into the Christian worship, in what 
 age soever we should suppose it to have hap- 
 pened, the introducers could not be ignorant of 
 their being pagan rites, and, consequently, could 
 not be originals, or inventors, but, as I have 
 affirmed in my Letter, the mere borrowers of them 
 from their pagan ancestors,^^ (Middleton^s Let- 
 ters from Kome, Letter to Warburton, pp. 245, 
 246.) 
 
 In the year 726, "the pope and the em- 
 peror came into violent collision. In that year, 
 Leo the Emperor (Leo III., surnamed the Isau- 
 
128 VEXERATION OF IMAGES AND RELICS. 
 
 rian) conceived it to be time to make his pro- 
 jected reform in the Catholic religion ; and he 
 published an edict in which he declared/^ That, 
 in acknowledgment of the blessings with which 
 God loaded him since his elevation to empire, he 
 wished to destroy idolatry introduced into the 
 Church; that the images of Jesus Christ, of 
 the Holy Virgin, and of the saints, were idols to 
 which were rendered honours of which God was 
 jealous; that he ordered, in consequence, to have 
 these removed from the churches, from oratories, 
 and from private houses, and to break them in 
 pieces/ Thus broke out the heresy of the Icono- 
 clasts, or image-breakers, — the Greek word icono- 
 clast having that significauce. Leo is said to 
 have conceived his idea from a Jew. The 
 source was bad enough for the emanation of any 
 wicked principle against the religion of Him 
 whom the Jews crucified. The emperor followed 
 up his edict by presenting it for acceptance to St. 
 Germanus, the Patriarch of Constantinople ; but 
 that prelate refused to subscribe to it. ^ The 
 Christians,^ he said to Leo, ^ do not adore images, 
 but they honour them because they present to 
 them the remembrance of the saints and of their 
 virtues. Painting is an abridged history of reli- 
 gion for the Christians: it is not an idolatry. 
 We must not confound an absolute with a rela- 
 
VENERATION OF IMAGES AND RELICS. 129 
 
 tive worship/ The Isaurian (meaning Leo), 
 however, did not comprehend this just doctrine, 
 and he proceeded to secure universal effect for 
 his absurd laws/^ (Popular Lives of the Popes, 
 from Peter to Pius IX. Approved by Rt. Rev. 
 Bishop Wood [Roman Catholic Bishop of Phila- 
 delphia, Penna., U.S.A.]. Written for the '' Uni- 
 verse, A Catholic Review of the Times,^^ and 
 published in vol. xxxix., No. 5, Philadelphia, 
 Sunday, May 24, 1868. 
 
 "Leo is said to have conceived his idea from a 
 Jew. The source was bad* enough for the ema- 
 nation of any wicked principle against the re- 
 ligion of Him whom the Jews crucified.^^ 
 
 Permit me here to protest, in the name of 
 justice, of equity, and of righteousness, in the 
 name of humanity, and of the same God whom 
 we both worship in common, against the oppro- 
 brium and hatred and persecution with which 
 the Jews have been visited by those who call 
 themselves Christians. Who are the Jews? 
 Were they not the chosen people of God? Are 
 they not the conduit, the medium, through which 
 we at this day are .illuminated with the know- 
 ledge of the one true God ? Do we not to-day 
 employ the songs of David, the great King of the 
 Jews, in our worship? Do not the utterances of 
 the prophets fill our souls with holy, ardour and 
 
130 VENERATION OF IMAGES AND RELICS. 
 
 divine fire? I protest, in the name of that great 
 Jew St. Paul, against the vituperation and abuse, 
 against the fiendish cruelty, which for nineteen 
 hundred years , has been waged against this 
 people. Who among all the Christians from 
 the day of Christ to this day is greater than St. 
 Paul? If you cannot name one, listen to him 
 until you find a greater authority. 
 
 '' I .speak the truth in Christ, I lie not, my 
 conscience bearing me w^itness in the Holy Ghost, 
 
 '' That I have great sadness and continual sor- 
 row in my heart. 
 
 " For I wished myself to be an anathema from 
 Christ for my brethren, who are my kinsmen ac- 
 cording to the flesh : 
 
 "Who are Israelites; to whom belongeth the 
 adoption as of children, and the glory, and the 
 testament, and the giving of the Law, and the 
 service 0/ 6roc?, and the promises : 
 
 "Whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ 
 according to the flesh, who is over all things, 
 God blessed forever. Amen!^^ (St. Paul to the 
 Romans ix. 1-4.) 
 
 Shall we persecute and abuse and deride those 
 to whom we are indebted for so many and so 
 great blessings? Who more admirably adapted 
 to teach Leo than a Jew? Might we not, had it 
 not been for the Jews, have been plunged into a 
 
VENERATION OF IMAGES AND RELICS. 131 
 
 common idolatry ? If a Jew did not understand 
 what idolatry was, who did? 
 
 The Jews are an eminent example of the 
 tenacity with which men hold to the faith of 
 their fathers. Now, do not suppose that the 
 mental constitution of the Jew differs in the 
 least from other people^s. It was the great diffi- 
 culty which arose from the tenacity of those who 
 are termed idolaters to the religion of their an- 
 cestors, which undoubtedly led the Roman Catho- 
 lic Church to introduce images into their wor- 
 ship, and thus enable them to increase their 
 members by making their religion a modified 
 idolatry or a modified Christianity. 
 
 The Jews, the Mohammedans, the ancient 
 Persians, the Protestants, the Greek Church, are 
 all iconoclasts. That is, they consider the use 
 of images in churches, to be knelt before in the 
 performance of prayer, as idolatry, and are in 
 the habit of destroying them. 
 
 But if St. Peter and the angel would not 
 permit Cornelius and St. John to fall down 
 before them to adore, saying, '' Stand up ;^^ ^^ See 
 thou do it not: worship God,^^ what would they 
 have said had they seen Cornelius, or St. John, 
 falling upon their faces or kneeling before their 
 images ? 
 
 Yet says the Father, ^^Nor is this practice 
 
132 YENEHATION OF IMAGES AND RELICS. 
 
 forbidden by the Scriptures/^ (p. 432.) Why, it 
 certainly is forbidden. If Cornelius and St. 
 John were forbidden to kneel and adore, the 
 first before St. Peter, the second before the angel, 
 how much more before their images! 
 
 But, admitting, for the sake of argument, that 
 it is not forbidden, where is it commanded us 
 of God? Nowhere! Then it is not essential to 
 salvation. Then it is a precept of men, — there- 
 fore not ^^ good and useful. ^^ " For in vain do 
 they worship me, teaching doctrines and precepts 
 of men.^^ (St. Mark vii. 7.) 
 
 But the maxim in ethics, before quoted, ap- 
 plies with great force to this case. No one says 
 that not to bow down before, to pray before, 
 images, or not to give them ^'due honour and 
 veneration,^' is idolatry. 
 
 But many consider that to pay '' honour and 
 veneration^^ to them is idolatry. 
 
 Therefore, as it is not commanded, but as 
 many believe is forbidden, of God, it is safest to 
 omit it, or not to practise it. 
 
 That the Jews from the earliest periods to the 
 present day consider the falling down before 
 images and relics as idolatry — that idolatry 
 which was forbidden by God — admits no doubt. 
 God wished to be known and worshipped as a 
 being far above any human conception. God 
 
VEXERATIOX OF IMAGES AXD RELICS. 133 
 
 wished all worsliip to be confined to himself. 
 Knowing, therefore, the nature of man, that he 
 was more emotional than intellectual, God for- 
 bade the use of images and relics, because they 
 would lower that conception of him which he 
 desired his worshippers to have. This result 
 was undoubtedly obtained; for nowhere do we 
 find such exalted ideas of the Deity as we find in 
 the Jewish writings. " Thus hath said the Lord, 
 The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my 
 footstool; where is there a house that ye can 
 build unto me? and where is the place of my 
 rest?" (Isaiah Ixvi. 1, Leeser.) 
 
 How strong this emotional tendency is, is evi- 
 denced by the Jews themselves, particularly 
 before the captivity, who were constantly lapsing 
 into idolatry, and also by the history of other 
 nations, and the tendencies of our own day. 
 Says Godfrey Higgins, — 
 
 " I beg to remind my reader that originally 
 in Rome, Greece, and Egypt, which conveys with 
 it India, there was no idolatry, except it was 
 simply the Linga, as the emblem of the creative 
 power." (Higgins, Anac, vol. i. p. 520.) 
 
 '' The Cobra, the loni, and Linga, seem to be 
 the only emblems admitted in the early Buddhist 
 monuments; while I have no doubt that the ear^ 
 Rest had no emblem. The god was represented 
 
 12 
 
134 VENERATION OF IMAGES AND BELICS. 
 
 seated^ naked, contemplative, and unornamented. 
 By degrees, emblems increased in long periods 
 of time. If we suppose only one emblem to 
 have been admitted in a generation, in thirty 
 generations, or one thousand years, there would 
 be thirty emblems. A single new emblem in a 
 generation would not alarm the worshippers; and 
 thus the abuse might creep on till it arrived at 
 the state in which we find it both in India and 
 in the Romish Church at this day. The Pro- 
 testants are doing the same thing: the last gene- 
 ration introduced pictures into churches; the 
 cross is now following in order. They go on 
 slowly at first : at length, the minds of men be- 
 coming accustomed to innovations, they proceed 
 in geometrical progression. Thus, figments of 
 nonsense go on increasing till some intrepid 
 fanatic takes ofience at them and preaches 
 against them; a bloody civil war then arises 
 about nothing, — and the emblems, and the beau- 
 tiful temples which contain them, are destroyed.^' 
 (Hig. Anac, vol. i. pp. 522, 523.) 
 
 Had Higgins lived, he would have seen not 
 only the cross, but tapers, incense, tinselled 
 robes, genuflexions, — all that those whom we call 
 idolaters invented, and which the Roman Catho- 
 lic Church adopted, — now being introduced into 
 some churches that are called Protestant. We 
 
YENERATIOX OF IMAGES AND RELICS. 135 
 
 believe that these things were forbidden by God, 
 because he wished his worship to be more intel- 
 lectual than emotional; because he wished the 
 intellect, which distinguishes man above the 
 beasts, to dominate that which man has in com- 
 mon with them, — the emotions. 
 
 Beware, then, of all symbolical worship. It 
 will lead to 'idolatry. Rely upon it, "God is 
 wiser than man.^^ 
 
LECTUEE IX. 
 
 ON THE HONOUK AND INVOCATION OF THE 
 BLESSED YIEGIN MAEY. 
 
 " In very ancient as Vv^ell as modern times^ the 
 worship of a female, supposed to be a virgin, 
 with an infant in her arms, has prevailed. This 
 worship has not been confined to one particular 
 place or country, but has spread to nearly every 
 part of the habitable world/^ 
 
 The Virgin Mary, in most countries where the 
 Roman Catholic faith prevails, is called the Queen 
 of Heaven. This is the very epithet given by the 
 ancients to the mother of Bacchus, who was said 
 to be a virgin. (Higgins, Anac, vol. i.. p. 303.) 
 
 " Perpetual virginity was also the attribute of 
 many of the ancient goddesses, and — what may 
 seem extraordinary — of some who had proved 
 themselves prolific. Minerva, though pre-emi- 
 nently distinguished by the title of the Virgin, is 
 said to have had children by the sun, called Cory- 
 bantes, who appear to have been a kind of 
 priests of that god, canonized for their knowledge, 
 and therefore fabled to have been his children by 
 
 136 
 
INVOCATION OF THE VIRGIN. 137 
 
 Divine Wisdom. Diana, who was equally famed 
 for her virginal purity, has the title of mother, in 
 an ancient inscription ; and Juno is said to have 
 renewed her virginity every year, by bathing in a 
 certain fountain in the Peloponnesus, the reason of 
 which was explained in the Argive mysteries, — in 
 which the initiated were probably informed that 
 this was an ancient figurative mode of signifying 
 the fertilizing quality of those waters, which re- 
 newed and reintegrated annually the productive 
 powers of the earth. This figurative or mystic 
 renovation of virginity seems to be signified in the 
 Orphic hymns by the epithet HO A YnAPdENOI ; 
 which, though applied to a male personification, 
 may equally signify the complete restoration of 
 the procreative organs of the universe after each 
 periodical effort of nature.'^ (R. Payne Knight, 
 Sym. Lan. § 226.) 
 
 '^ Ovid, Fasti III., makes Libera, the name of 
 Ariadne, Bacchus's pretended wife, whom Cicero, 
 (de Nat. Deor.) makes to be Proserpina, Bacchus's 
 mother. The story of this woman being deserted 
 by a man and espoused by a god has somewhat 
 so exceedingly like that passage. Matt. i. 19, 20, 
 of the Blessed Virgin^s history, that we should 
 wonder at it, did we not see the parallelism infi- 
 nite between the sacred and the profane history 
 before us.'^ 
 
 12* 
 
138 INVOCATION OF THE VIRGIN. 
 
 " Ariadne was translated into heaven, as is said 
 of the Virgin, and her nuptial garland was 
 turned into a heavenly crown: she was made 
 queen of heaven.^^ 
 
 ^^ There are manv similitudes between the 
 Virgin and the mother of Bacchus in all the old 
 fables; as, for instance, Hyginus (Fab. 164) 
 makes Adoneus, or Adonis, the son of Myrrha. 
 Adonis is Bacchus, beyond controversy. 
 
 "Adonis is the Hebrew ^JTJ< (Adni), Adonai, 
 which the heathens learned from the Arabians, 
 one of the sacred names of the Deity. Mary, or 
 Miriam, St. Jerome interprets Myrrha, Maris. 
 Mariamne is the same appellation, of which 
 Ariadne seems a corruption. Orpheus calls the 
 mother of Bacchus Leucothea, a sea-goddess,^^ 
 (Rev. Dr. Stukeley.) 
 
 Thus the reverend and learned Dr. Stukeley 
 has clearly made out that the story of Mary, the 
 queen of heaven, the mother of U1f< (Adni), 
 Adonis, or the Lord, as our book always renders 
 this word, with her translation to heaven, &c., 
 was an old story long before Jesus of Nazareth 
 was born. After this, Stukeley observes that 
 Ariadne, the queen of heaven, has upon, her head' 
 a crown of twelve stars. This is the case of the 
 Queen of Heaven in almost every church on the 
 continent (Europe). 
 
INVOCATION OF THE VIRGIN. 139 
 
 In the service or liturgy of the Carmelites, 
 which I bought in Dublin, at the Carmelite Monas- 
 tery, the Virgin is called stdla Maris; that is, in 
 fact, the star of the sea, " Leucothea/^ " Venus 
 rising from the sea/^ 
 
 Isidore of Seville says that the meaning of 
 the word Mary is one who begins to illuminate, 
 — ''Maria illuminatrixy He gives to this virgin, 
 as her mother, a person called Anna, an allegorical 
 name, by which the Romans meant the annual 
 revolution of the sun, which they personified, and 
 for whom they had a festival, under the name of 
 Anna Perenna, at the beginning of the year. 
 The Hindoos have the same person as a goddess, 
 under the name of Anna or Unnu Poorna. 
 Poorna is evidently Perenna, or Porana.^^ 
 
 Dr. Pritchard says, " The beneficent form of 
 Bhavani, termed Devi or Anna Purna, is doubt- 
 less, as Sir W. Jones remarked, the Anna Perenna 
 of the Romans." Again : " Anna Purna is, how- 
 ever, also the counterpart of the Egyptian Isis. 
 She is figured as bent by the weight of her full 
 breasts, and reminds us of the statues of Isis 
 Multimammia." Again : " Bhavani is invoked 
 by the name of Ma, as was Demeter among the 
 Greeks by that of Maia. In the passages where 
 the Hebrew word U'^^ {Mrim) of the Old Testa- 
 ment is translated by the Vulgate, it is rendered 
 
140 IX VOCATION OF THE VIRGIN. 
 
 Maria, and the LXX. render it (Mariani) Mapcafi, 
 All this clearly proves that they are the same 
 name.'^ 
 
 ^^ Though there can be no doubt that the celestial 
 virgin of the sphere was. one original source 
 whence the Madonna, Eegina Coeli (Queen of 
 Heaven), deozoxo^, and Mater Dei (Mother of 
 the Gods), were derived, yet the goddess Cybele 
 was another. She was equally called the Queen 
 of Heaven and the Mother of the Gods. As devo- 
 tees now collect alms in the name of the Viro^in, 
 so did they in ancient times in the name of 
 Cybele, in which they were protected by a law 
 when begging was not otherwise allowed. ^^ The 
 Galli now used in the churches of Italy were 
 anciently used in the worship of Cybele. Our 
 Lady Day, or the Day of the Blessed Virgin, of 
 the Roman Church, was heretofore dedicated to 
 Cybele. "It was called Hilaria," says Macro- 
 bius, "on account of the joy occasioned by 
 the arrival of the equinox.'^ Lampridius also 
 says that it was a festival dedicated to the Mother 
 of the Gods. A Greek commentator on Diony- 
 sius, cited by Demster in his Antiquities, also 
 states that the Hilaria was a festival in honour 
 of the Mother of the Gods. In the fourth 
 century there existed a sect of Christians, called 
 Collyridians, who made offerings of cakes to 
 
INVOCATION OF THE VIRGIN. 141 
 
 the Virgin Mary as a goddess and queen of 
 heaven/^ 
 
 ^' It is very evident that the idea of Mary being 
 the mother of God, and also God himself, in 
 some way or other arose from the Maia of India, 
 the spouse of Brahme. Maia was the female 
 generative power, and, as such, the Deity, and the 
 mother of Buddha, or Divine Wisdom, or the 
 Logos. Thus she was the mother of Jao, or 
 of IHI, or of Jesus, and still a part of the 
 Deity.^^ 
 
 ^^The 25th of March was a day of general 
 festivity throughout the ancient Grecian and 
 Roman world, and was called Hilaria. The 
 Phrygians kept the same holiday, and worshipped 
 Atys, the mother of the gods, with similar rites. 
 Hence the appointment of this day. Lady-day, to 
 the honour of the mother of Jesus, called by the 
 Catholics the mother of God.'^ 
 
 '' The circumstance of the Virgin almost always 
 having the lotus or lily, the sacred plant both of 
 Egypt and India, in her hand (or an angel has it, 
 and presents it to her), is very striking. It is 
 found. Sir R. Kerr Porter observes, in Egypt, 
 Palestine, Persia, India, all over the East, and 
 was of old in the tabernacle and temple of the 
 Israelites. It is also represented in all pictures 
 of the salutation of Gabriel to the Virgin Mary, 
 
142 I^^YOCATION OF THE VIRGIN. 
 
 and, in fact^ has been held in mysterious venera- 
 tion by people of all nations and times/^ 
 
 " The worship of the black Virgin and Child 
 probably came from the East. The white one is 
 the goddess Nurtia or Nortia of the Etruscans. 
 I saw in the Palazzo Manfreni, at Venice, in a 
 collection of Etruscan antiquities, some small 
 figures of the Virgin and Child, in bronze, evi- 
 dently originally from Egypt. In the Museum 
 F. Gorii will be found a print of an Etruscan 
 Virgin and Child, the goddess Nurtia, or Nortia, 
 as he calls her.^^ 
 
 " The Virgin, having generally the lotus^ but 
 sometimes the ear of icheat, in her hand, arose 
 from a very profound mysterious doctrine, con- 
 nected with the pollen of plants.'^ (Higgins, 
 Anac, vol. i. book vi. chap, ii.) 
 
 '' That Buddha and Mercury, sons of Maia, 
 were the same person, receives a very remarkable 
 confirmation from the fact that Mercury was 
 always called by the Gentiles the Logos : — ^ The 
 Word that in the beginning was God, and that 
 also was a God.^ But this Logos we have also 
 shown to be the Divine Wisdom^ and he was, ac- 
 cording to the pagan Amelius, the Creator. He 
 says, ' And this plainly was the Aoyo^^ by w^hom 
 ^11 things were made, he being himself eternal, 
 as Heraclitus would say; and by JoVE, the same 
 
INYOCATIOX OF THE VIRGIN. 143 
 
 whom the barbarian affirms to have been in the 
 place and dignity of a principal, and to be with 
 God, and to be God, by whom all things were 
 made, and in whom every thing that was made 
 has its life and being; who, descending into body 
 and putting on flesh, took the appearance of a 
 man, though even then he gave proof of the 
 majesty of his nature: nay, after his dissolution 
 he was deified again/ If this does not prove 
 the identity of Buddha and the Romish Jesus, 
 nothing can do it." 
 
 " The circumstance of Maria being called Mania 
 is worthy of observation. In the old language, 
 without vowels, MX means moon. Is this one of 
 the reasons why Mary is always represented with 
 a moon, in some way or other, — :generally stand- 
 ing on it? If Maria be the same as Maia, and is 
 the female generative power, we see why she is 
 always connected with the moon. This Mary is 
 found in the kingdom of Sion, or Siam, in the 
 city of Judia." (Higgins, Anac, vol. i. p. 309.) 
 
 '^ M. Dupuis says the celestial sign of the Vir- 
 gin and Child was in existence several thousand 
 years before the birth of Christ. The constella- 
 tion of the celestial Virgin, by its ascension 
 above the horizon, presided at the birth of the 
 god Sol, or light, and seemed to produce him 
 from her side. Here is the origin of Jesus 
 
144 INVOCATION OF THE VIRGIN. 
 
 born from the side of his mother. The Magi, 
 as well as the priests of Egypt, celebrated the 
 birth of the god Sol, or light, or day, incarnate 
 in the womb of a virgin, — which had produced 
 him without ceasing to be a virgin, and with- 
 out connection with man. This was he of whom 
 all the prophets and mystagogues prophesied, 
 saying, ^A virgin shall conceive and bear a son,^ 
 (and his name shall be Om-nu-al, Om our God.) 
 One may see in the sphere the image of the 
 infant god Day, in the arms of the constellation 
 under which he was born; and all the images 
 of the virgin offered to the veneration of the 
 people represent her as in the. sphere, nursing a 
 mystical infant, who would destroy evil, con- 
 found the prince of darkness, regenerate nature, 
 and rule over the universe. On the front of the 
 temple of Isis at Sais was this inscription, below 
 that which I have given above (I, Isis, am all 
 that has been, that is, or shall be; no mortal man 
 hath ever me unveiled) : — ^ The fruit which I 
 have brought forth is the sun/ This Isis, Plu- 
 tarch says, is the chaste Minerva, who, without 
 fearing to lose her title of virgin, says she is 
 mother of the sun. This is the same virgin of 
 the constellations, whom, Eratosthenes says, the 
 learned of Alexandria called Ceres, or Isis, who 
 opened the year, and presided at the birth of the 
 
INVOCATION OF THE VIRGIN. 145" 
 
 god Day [Winter Solstice, 25th December, which 
 we call the Nativity of Christ]. It was in honour 
 of this same virgin (from whom the sun ema- 
 nated, and by whom the god Day or Light was 
 nursed) that, at Sais, the famous feast of lights was 
 celebrated, and from which our Candlemas, or our 
 feast of the lights of the purification, was taken. 
 Ceres was always called the Holy Virgin.^' 
 
 " The Christians have a feast called the As- 
 sumption of the Blessed Virgin. In one of the 
 ancient gospel histories an account is given of 
 the assumption of Mary into heaven, in memory 
 of which this feast was kept. On this feast M. 
 Dupuis says, ^ About the eighth month, when the 
 sun is in his greatest strength and enters into the 
 eighth sign, the celestial Virgin appears to be ab- 
 sorbed in his fires, and she disappears in the midst 
 of the rays and glory of her son. The Roman 
 calendar of Columella marks at this epoch the 
 death or disappearance of the Virgin. The sun, it 
 says, passes into the Virgin, the thirteenth before 
 the Kalends of September. The Christians place 
 here the assumption or reunion of the virgin to 
 her son. This used to be called the Feast of the 
 Passage of the Virgin. At the end of three weeks 
 the birth of the Virgin Mary is fixed. In the ancient 
 Roman calendar the assumption of the Virgin As- 
 trea, or her reunion to her son, took place at the 
 
 13 
 
146 IXyOCATION OF THE VIRGIN. 
 
 same time as the assumption of the Virgin Mary, 
 and her birth^ or her disengagement from the 
 solar rays, at the same time with the birth of 
 Mary/ How is it possible to believe that th^se 
 extraordinary coincidences are the effect of acci- 
 dent? As the Christians celebrated the decease 
 or assumption of the celestial Virgin into heaven, 
 called by them the Virgin Mary, so also they 
 did her impregnation or annunciation; that is, 
 the information communicated to her that she 
 should become pregnant by the Holy Ghost. 
 * The Pamylia were on the twenty-fifth of the 
 month Phamenoth ; and on the new moon of that 
 month the ancient Egyptians celebrated the en- 
 trance of Osiris into the moon,^ or Isis. This, 
 Plutarch says, ^ is the beginning of the spring. . .^ 
 ' The moon is impregnated by the sun :' nine 
 months after, Harpocrates is born. It is no 
 wonder, therefore, that Dupuis compares th^ 
 Pamylia — a word which in Coptic, according to 
 Jablonski, means annunciation — to the annun- 
 ciation of the Blessed Virgin, which is marked 
 in our calendars on the twenty-fifth of March, 
 four days after the vernal equinox, and nine 
 months before the birth of Christ. 
 
 ^^The identity of the Holy Virgin of the 
 Christians and of that of the Gentiles had been 
 observed before M. Dupuis's time. Albert the 
 
INVOCATION OF THE VIRGIN. 147 
 
 Great says that the sign of the celestial Virgin 
 rises above the horizon at the moment in which 
 we fix the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ. All 
 the mysteries of his divine incarnation, and all the 
 secrets of his miraculous life, from his conception 
 even to his ascension, are traced in the constel- 
 lations, and figured in the stars which announced 
 them. Bochart says that Leo X. gave the Virgin 
 Mary the title of goddess. Pel lou tier has ob- 
 served that more than a hundred years before 
 the Christian era, in the territory of Chartres, 
 among the Gauls, honours were paid to the 
 virgin (ViRGixi Paritur^e), w^ho was about to 
 give birth to the God of Light. That this was 
 really the Buddhist worship, I have no doubt. 
 
 "Adonis, the Syrian god, was the son of 
 Myrrha. This JMyrrha was feigned to be changed 
 into a tree of the same name with it. This was 
 what was offered by the Magi to Christ at his 
 birth. The trifling, but still striking, coinci- 
 dences between the worship of the god Sol (the 
 sun) and the stories of Jesus are innumerable.^^ 
 (Higgins, Anac, pp. 313, 314.) 
 
 "The truth is, that the worship of the Virgin 
 and Child which we find in all Eomish countries 
 was nothing more than a remnant of the worship 
 of Isis and the god Horus.'^ (Higgins, Anaca- 
 lypsis.) 
 
148 INVOCATION OF THE VIRGIN. 
 
 Higgins speaks of a '' black Virgin.'^ Let us 
 examine what he says about this elsewhere : — 
 
 " The adoration of a black stone is a very sin- 
 gular superstition. Like many other supersti- 
 tions, this also came from India. Buddha was 
 adored as a square black stone ; so was Mercury ; 
 so was the Roman Terminus. The famous Pessi- 
 nuntian stone, brought to Rome, was square and 
 black. The sacred black stone at Mecca many 
 of my readers are acquainted with. 
 
 ^^ In Montfaucon, a black Isis and Orus are 
 described. 
 
 " Pausanias states the Thespians to have had 
 a temple and statue to Jupiter the Saviour ; and 
 a statue to Love, consisting only of a rude stone ; 
 and a temple to Venus Melainis, or the black. 
 
 '' Ammon was founded by black doves,— -/ir/^s- 
 
 " At Corinth there was a black Venus. 
 
 " Osiris and his Bull were black ; all the gods 
 and goddesses of Greece were black : at least, this 
 was the case with Jupiter, Bacchus, Hercules, 
 Apollo, Ammon. 
 
 '' The goddesses Venus, Isis, Hecate, Diana, 
 Juno, Metis, Ceres, Cybele, are black. The 
 Multimammia is black in the Campidoglio at 
 Rome; and in Montfaucon, Antiquity Explained. 
 
 " It has been observed that in the galleries we 
 
INVOCATION OF THE VIRGIN. 149 
 
 constantly see busts and statues of the Roman 
 emperors, made of two kinds of stone, — the 
 human part of the statue of black stone, the 
 drapery tvhite or cdioured. When they are thus 
 described, I suppose, they are meant to be repre- 
 sented as priests of the sun : this was probably 
 confined to the celebration of the Isiac or Egyp- 
 tian ceremonies. 
 
 " On the colour of the gods of the ancients, 
 and of the identity of them all with the god Sol, 
 and with the Cristna of India, nothing more need 
 be said. The reader has already seen the striking 
 marks of similarity in the history of Cristna, and 
 the stories related of Jesus in the Romish and 
 heretical books. He probably will not think 
 that their effect is destroyed, as Mr. Maurice 
 flatters himself, by the word ^ Cristna,' in the 
 Indian language, signifying black, and tlic god 
 being of that colour, when he is informed of what 
 Mr. Maurice was probably ignorant, — that in all 
 the Romish countries of Europe — in France, 
 Italy, Germany, &c, — the God Christ, as well as 
 his mother, are described in their old pictures 
 and statues to be black. The infant God, in the 
 arms of his black mother, his eyes and drapery 
 white, is himself perfectly black. If the reader 
 doubt my word, he may go to the cathedral at 
 Moulins, to the famous Chapel of the Virgin 
 
 13* 
 
150 INVOCATION OF THE VIRGIN. 
 
 at Loretto, to the Church of the Annunciation, 
 the Church of St. Lazaro, or the Church of St. 
 Stephen at Genoa, to St. Francisco at Pisa, to 
 the church at Brixen in the Ty.rol, and to that 
 at Padua, to the Church of St. Theodore at 
 Munich, — in the two last of which, the whiteness 
 of the eyes and teeth and the studied redness of 
 the lips are very observable ; to a church and to 
 the cathedral at Augsburg, where are a black 
 Virgin and Child as large as life ; to Rome, — to 
 the Borghese chapel Maria Maggiore, — to the 
 Pantheon, — to a small chapel of St. Peter's, on 
 the right-hand side on entering, near the door ; 
 and, in fact, to almost innumerable other churches, 
 in countries professing the Romish religion. 
 
 "There is scarcely an old church in Italy 
 where some remains of the worship of the Black 
 Virgin and Black Child are not to be met 
 with. Very often the black figures have given 
 way to white ones, and in these cases the black 
 ones, as being held sacred, were put into retired 
 places in the churches, but were not destroyed, 
 but are yet to be found there. In many cases 
 the images are painted all over, and look like 
 bronze, often with coloured aprons or napkins 
 round the loins or other parts ; but pictures in 
 great numbers are to be seen, where the white of 
 the eyes and of the teeth, and the lips a little 
 
INVOCATION OF THE VIRGIN. 151 
 
 tinged with red, like the black figures in the 
 Museum of the India Company, show that there 
 is no imitation of bronze. In many instances 
 these images and pictures are shaded, not all one 
 colour, of very dark brown, so dark as to look 
 like black. They are generally esteemed by the 
 rabble with the most profound veneration. The 
 toes are often white, the bronze or black paint 
 being kissed away by the devotees and the white 
 wood left. No doubt, in many places, where the 
 priests have new-painted the images, they have 
 coloured the eyes, teeth, &c., in order that they 
 might not shock the feelings of devotees by a 
 too sudden change from black to w^iite, and in 
 order, at the same time, that they might furnish 
 a decent pretence for their blackness, — vijz., that 
 they are imitations of bronze ; but the number 
 that are left with white teeth, &c. let out the 
 secret. 
 
 ^^ When the circumstance has been named to 
 Romish priests, they have endeavoured to dis- 
 guise the fact by pretending that the child had 
 become black by the smoke of the candles ; but 
 it was black where the smoke of a candle never 
 came ; and, besides, how came the candles not to 
 blacken the white of the eyes, the teeth, and the 
 shirt, and how came they to redden the lips? 
 The mother is always black when the child is. 
 
152 INVOCATION OF THE VIBGIN. 
 
 Their real blackness is not to be questioned for 
 a, moment. 
 
 " If the author had wished to invent a circum- 
 stance to corroborate the assertion that the Romish 
 Christ of Europe is the Cristna of India, how 
 could he have desired any thing more striking 
 than the fact of the black Virgin and Child being 
 so common in the Romish countries of Europe ? 
 A black virgin and child among the white Ger- 
 mans, Swiss, French, and Italians ! V' (Higgins, 
 Anac, book iv. chap. i. §§ 8-10, and authorities 
 there quoted.) 
 
 ^^ Another mode by which this black colour is 
 accounted for was, that the mediaeval artists gave 
 it to the Virgin in allusion to the description in 
 the Song of Solomon : — -^ I am black, but beauti- 
 ful, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of 
 Cedar, as the curtains of Solomon. Do not con- 
 sider me that I am brown, because the sun has 
 altered my colour.^ (Canticle of Canticles, chap. 
 i. 5, 6.)^' (See note, Lecky, Reformation in 
 Europe, vol. i. p. 224.) 
 
 By reference to the prophet Jeremiah you will 
 find that the worship of the '' Queen of Heaven'^ 
 was followed by the Jews, particularly the Jewish 
 women in Egypt. This must have been the 
 worship of Isis and Horns. The statues of Isis 
 and Horus abound in all the museums of an- 
 
INVOCATION OF THE VIRGIN. 153 
 
 tiquity in Europe. The writer has seen them in 
 the British Museum and in the Egyptian Museum 
 in the Louvre at Paris. Some time ago there 
 was a very beautiful specimen in the Egyptian 
 Museum which was exhibited in New York. 
 Isis and Horus would be taken at once for the 
 Roman Catholic representation of the Virgin 
 and infant Jesus. For this worship the prophet 
 says,— 
 
 " They shall be consumed from the least even 
 to the greatest, by the sword and by the famine 
 shall they die ; and they shall be for an execra- 
 tion, and for a wonder, and for a curse, and for a 
 reproach. 
 
 ^^Then all the men that knew that their wives 
 sacrificed to other gods; and all the women of 
 whom there stood by a great multitude, and all 
 the people of* them that dwelt in the land of 
 Egypt in Phatures, answered Jeremias, saying, 
 
 " As for the word which thou hast spoken to us 
 in the name of the Lord, we will not hearken to 
 thee. 
 
 "But we will certainly do every w^ord that 
 shall proceed out of our own mouth, to sacrifice 
 to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink- 
 offerings to her, as we and our fathers have done, 
 our kings and our princes in the cities of Juda, 
 and in the * streets of Jerusalem : and we were 
 
154 INVOCATION OF THE VIRGIN. 
 
 filled with bread, and it was well with us, and we 
 saw no evil. 
 
 ^^ But since w^e left oflF to offer sacrifice to the 
 queen of heaven, and to pour out drink-offerings 
 to her, we have wanted all things, and have been 
 consumed by the sword and by famine. 
 
 "And if we offer sacrifice to the queen of 
 heaven, and pour out drink-offerings to her ; did 
 we make cakes to worship her, to pour out drink- 
 offerings to her, without our husbands V^ (Jere- 
 mias xliv. 12, 15-19.) 
 
 That the Collyridians, a sect of Christians w^ho 
 are said to have originated in the fourth century, 
 and w^ere so called from the collyrides, the name 
 given to the cakes which they offered once a year 
 to the Virgin Mary, had their rise at that period, 
 is here shown to be conclusively erroneous. They 
 practised the same rites which Jeremias denounced, 
 and which were practised ages before Christ. 
 
 Ezekiel in his vision was commanded, " Go in, 
 and see the wicked abominations which they com- 
 mit here. And he brought me in by the door of 
 the gate of the Lord^s house, which looked to 
 the north : and behold women sat there mourning 
 for Adonis.^^ (Chap. viii. 9, 14.) 
 
 " Ceres and Bacchus, called, in Egypt, Isis 
 and Osiris, and in Syria Venus and Adonis.^^ 
 (R. Payne Knight on Sym. Lan. Anc, Art and 
 
INVOCATION OF THE VIRGIN. 155 
 
 My., § 18.) In the Hebrew, Adonis was called 
 Tarn muz. 
 
 Thus you see how extended the worship of the 
 Queen of Heaven was, and how favourite a wor- 
 ship it was among the women of antiquity, not 
 exceeded by the adoration of the Virgin, as the 
 Queen of Heaven of the Roman Catholic women, 
 •with which undoubtedly it was identical. 
 
 Let us now turn our attention to an examina- 
 tion of the New Testament. 
 
 The birth of Jesus from the womb of a virgin 
 is certainly found narrated in the gospel histories 
 of St. Matthew and St. Luke. It is not once 
 mentioned in the Gospels of St. Mark and St. 
 John. 
 
 Kow, I wish to call your attention to the follow- 
 ing facts. That Jesus Christ himself, through- 
 out the whole of his ministry, never appeals, not 
 even by implication, neither directly nor indirectly, 
 to the miraculous character of his birth. That, 
 with the exception of the accounts by St. Matthew 
 and St. Luke, neither St. Peter, St. Paul, St. 
 John, St. James, St. Jude, nor Matthew nor 
 Luke except as first stated, ever mentions it. 
 That none of the Jews ever allude to it. 
 
 It is certainly very curious, to say the least of 
 it, that so miraculous a thing could have taken 
 place and never have been once mentioned to the 
 
156 * INVOCATION OF THE VIRGIN. 
 
 Jews or to the churches. We should have sup- 
 posed that, had it been known, all would have 
 crowded round Jesus and gazed upon him with 
 curiosity, wonder, and awe. But nothing of this 
 kind took place. On the contrary, the people 
 say, ^' Is not this the carpenter's son ? is not his 
 mother called Mary? and his brethren James 
 and Joseph, and Simon and Jude? And his sisters, 
 are they not all with us ? whence therefore hath 
 he all these things ?" (St. Matt. xiii. 55.) Is it not 
 niarvellous that these people should speak thus, 
 when they knew ^^that the birth of Jesus was 
 announced by anthems from heaven, with a new 
 star appearing in the east, with the recognition of 
 the Magi, or wise men, bringing costly presents, 
 with the declaration that he w^as born of the Holy 
 Ghost and that his mother was a virgin^' ? Here 
 was no salutation of ^^ blessed art thou among 
 women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb ! 
 Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee : 
 blessed art thou among women.'' (St. Luke i. 
 28, 42. 
 
 Let us see how Christ himself speaks of his 
 mother. In St. Luke xi. 27 there was a splendid 
 opportunity offered, leading him, as it were, to 
 speak of his miraculous birth. Does he do so? 
 No. ^^ And it came to pass, as he spoke these 
 things, a certain woman from the crowd, lifting 
 
INVOCATION OF THE VIRGIN. 157 
 
 up her voice, said to hira : Blessed is the womb 
 that bore thee, and the paps that gave thee suck. 
 
 "But he said: Yea, rather, blessed are they 
 who hear the word of God and keep it." (St. 
 Luke xi. 27, 28.) 
 
 So at another time, " while he yet talked to the 
 people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood 
 without, desiring to speak with him. Then one 
 said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy 
 brethren stand without, desiring to speak with 
 thee. But he answered and said unto him that 
 told him, Who is my mother? and who are my 
 brethren? And he stretched forth his hands toward 
 his disciples, and said. Behold my mother and my 
 brethren. For whosoever shall do the will of 
 my Father which is in heaven, the same is my 
 brother, and sister, and mother." (St. Matt. xii. 
 46-50, King James's version.) 
 
 But says St. John, vii. 5, " For neither did his 
 brethren believe in him." The miraculous events 
 of his birth had no effect upon them ! 
 
 At the marriage at Cana of Galilee, in address- 
 ing his mother, "Woman, what is it to me and 
 to thee ?" (St. John ii. 4,) he speaks to her no 
 more respectfully than he does to the woman 
 taken in adultery, but uses the same style: 
 "Woman, where are they that accused thee?" 
 (St. John viii. 10.) Again : " Now there stood by 
 
 14 
 
158 INYOCATIOX OF THE VIRGIN. 
 
 the cross of Jesus his mother. When Jesus 
 therefore had seen his mother and the disciple 
 standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother, 
 Woman, behold thy son ! After that, he saith to 
 the disciple. Behold thy mother ! And from that 
 hour the disciple took her to his own." (St. John 
 xix. 25-27.) Nothing of '' Hail, thou blessed,'^ 
 &c. No calling her the " Queen of Heaven," " the 
 Blessed Virgin," " Mother of God," &c. &c. 
 
 Look now again at the second chapter of Acts. 
 St. Peter addresses the multitudes on the day of 
 Pentecost, and witnesses what David spake of 
 Christ; but nothing of Isaiah^s prophecy, — " Be- 
 hold, a virgin shall conceive" (Isaiah vii. 14), — 
 because he well knew that that prophecy did not 
 point to Christ. He never speaks of the mira- 
 culous birth at all, that most striking incident in 
 the whole history of Christ. 
 
 St. John takes Christ's mother home to dwell 
 with him: yet St. John neither in his epistles 
 nor in his Gospel history once speaks of Christ's 
 mother as being a ^* virgin," — in fact, never again 
 mentions her : not a word about the immaculate 
 conception, or about the womb ^^that neither 
 before nor afterwards conceived any thing mortal." 
 (Smarius, p. 483.) So that it appears " that all 
 generations did not call her blessed." 
 
 Says Father Smarius, ^^ Behold, from this day, 
 
INVOCATIOX OF THE VIRGIN. 159 
 
 in which I am the mother of Christ, true God 
 and true man, all Christian generations shall 
 call me blessed/^ (p. 454.) Smarius, clearly per- 
 ceivins: that no one in Christ^s time called her 
 " blessed/' (jualifies "all generations'' by the word 
 " Christian.^' " For the disciples were called 
 Christians first at Antioch" long after Christ's 
 death. 
 
 Much controversy has been bestowed upon 
 the words "brethren and sisters" of Christ, as 
 proving that Mary could not have been always 
 a virgin. But, by reference to what has been 
 already said, you will perceive that this fact of a 
 woman having children did not among the an- 
 cients prevent her from being a virgin. She had 
 but to bathe in some "fountain," as Juno did, 
 who by this means renewed her virginity every 
 year. And Diana and Minerva, equally famed 
 for their virginity, were not deprived of it by 
 becoming mothers. 
 
 Is it not possible, nay, very probable, that this 
 whole history of the Immaculate Conception is an 
 interpolation into the Gospel histories of St. Mat- 
 thew and St. Luke? It is well known, and ad- 
 mitted by orthodox writers, that the orthodox, 
 formerly, would forge and interpolate all holy 
 writings, if by that means they thought they 
 could advance their notions of what was the true 
 
160 INVOCATION OF THE VIRGIN. 
 
 faith. (See Mosheim's Hist. First Three Cen- 
 turies of Christianity, Cen. II. § vii.) Nor need 
 we go as far back as the ancients. The very 
 book and the very author that we are considering 
 present a specimen of it. Does not Father Sma- 
 rius misquote, or rather garble, the instructions 
 of what he pleases to call the First Council at 
 Jerusalem, when he says that the Gentile con- 
 verts w^ere forbidden to eat " blood-pudding/^ 
 when he knew the prohibition was against 
 " blood'^ ? So by many Christian divines, even 
 by those holding the doctrine of the Trinity, 
 the three heavenly witnesses (St. John, 1st Epis. 
 V. 7) are considered to be an interpolation. (See 
 Adam Clarke's Comm.) 
 
 We perceive by Jeremiah and Ezekiel that the 
 worship of the Queen of Heaven and the mourn- 
 ing for Adonis were very popular not only in 
 Egypt, but in Judea and Jerusalem, particularly 
 among the women. We know with what tenacity 
 the people resist all innovations upon the religion 
 of their fathers. To give a very curious instance 
 of this, we may refer to a letter from Sir William 
 Hamilton, K.B., His Majesty's Minister at the 
 Court of Naples, to Sir Joseph Banks, Baronet, 
 President of the Royal Society, dated Naples, 
 December 30, 1781, in which he says, ^^ Having 
 last year made a curious discovery, that in a 
 
INVOCATION OF THE VIRGIN. 161 
 
 province of this kingdom, and not fifty miles 
 from its capital, a sort of devotion is still paid 
 to Priapus, the obscene divinity of the ancients 
 (though under another denomination), I thought 
 it a circumstance worth recording, particularly 
 as it offers a fresh proof of the similitude of the 
 papist and pagan religion, so well observed by 
 Dr. Middleton in his celebrated ^ Letter from 
 Rome;' and therefore I mean to deposit the 
 authentic proofs (a specimen of each of the ex 
 voti of wax, with the original letter from Isernia) 
 of this assertion in the British Museum when a 
 proper opportunity shall offer/' He further says, 
 ^^A new road having been made last year from 
 this capital to the province of Abruzzo, passing 
 through the city of Isernia (anciently belonging 
 to the Samnites, and very populous, — population, 
 at that time, 5156), a person of liberal education, 
 employed in that work, chanced to be at Isernia 
 just at the time of the celebration of the feast of 
 the modern Priapus, St. Cosmo; and, having been 
 struck with the singularity of the ceremony, so very 
 similar to that which attended the ancient cult of 
 the God of the Gardens, and knowing my taste 
 for antiquity, told me of it. I did intend to have 
 been present at the feast of St. Cosmo this year ; 
 but — the indecency of this ceremony having 
 probably transpired, from the country's having 
 
 14* 
 
162 INVOCATION OF THE VIRGIN. 
 
 been more frequented since the new road was 
 made — orders have been given that the great 
 toe [a word to the wise] of the saint should no 
 longer be exposed„'^ 
 
 Sir William states that ^^ on the 27th of Sep- 
 tember^ at Isernia, one of the most ancient cities 
 of the kingdom of Naples^ situated in the 
 province called the Contado di Molise^ and ad- 
 joining to Abruzzo, an annual fair is held three 
 days. The situation of this fair is on a rising 
 ground between two rivers^ about half a mile 
 from the town of Isernia, on the most elevated 
 part of which there is an ancient church, with a 
 vestibule. The architecture is of a style of the 
 lower ages, and it is said to have been a church 
 and convent belonging to the Benedictine monks 
 in the time of their poverty. This church is 
 dedicated to St. Cosmus and Damianus. One 
 of the days of the fair, the relics of the saints are 
 exposed, and afterwards carried in procession 
 from the cathedral of the city to this church, at- 
 tended by a prodigious concourse of people. In 
 the city and at the fair, ex voti of wax [delicacy 
 forbids me quoting this part of the letter] are 
 publicly offered for sale. There are also waxen 
 vows that represent other parts of the body 
 .mixed with them ; but of these there are few in 
 comparison of the number of the . . . The 
 
INVOCATION OF THE VIRGIN. 163 
 
 devout distributors of these vows carry a basket 
 full of them in one hand, and hold a plate in the 
 other to receive the money, crying aloud, ' St. 
 Cosmo and Damiano !' If you ask the price of 
 one, the answer is, ^ Piu ci metti, pitt meritV 
 (^ The more you give, the more's the merit.') In 
 the vestibule are two tables, at each of which one 
 of the canons of the church presides, this crying 
 out, ^ Qui si riceveno le 3Iisse, e Litaniey [' Here 
 Masses and Litanies are received ;') and the 
 other, ' Qui si inceveno li Voti/ (^ Here the Vows 
 are received/) On each table is a large basin for 
 the reception of the different offerings. The vow^s 
 are chiefly presented by the female sex . . ." 
 
 This account, which was giVen to Sir William 
 in 1780, he says, "has since been fully confirmed 
 to me by the Governor of Isernia. The vow is 
 never presented without being accompanied by a 
 piece of money, and is always kissed by the de- 
 votee at the moment of presentation. 
 
 " At the great altar of the church, another of 
 its canons stands to give the holy unction, with 
 the oil of St. Cosmo; which is prepared by the 
 same receipt as that of the Roman ritual, with 
 the addition only of the prayers of the holy mar- 
 tyrs St. Cosmus and Damianus. Those who have 
 an infirmity in any of their members, present 
 themselves at the great altar, and uncover the 
 
164 INVOCATION OF THE VIRGIN. 
 
 member affected (not even excepting that which 
 is most frequently represented by the ex voti), 
 and the reverend canon anoints it, saying, Per 
 intereessionem beati Cosmi, liberet te ah oijini malo. 
 Amen/*' (R. Payne Knight on the AVorship of 
 Priapus.) 
 
 To how great an extent this worship retained 
 its influence in the Roman Catholic Church may 
 be discovered by consulting ^^ Histoire abregee 
 de differens Cultes, par J. A. Dulaure/' second 
 edition, Paris, 1825. 
 
 If, now, this the most indecent worship of an- 
 tiquity is found to have existed in Italy, the seat 
 of the Roman Catholic Church, as late as the be- 
 ginning of this century, — if, as we have shown, 
 this abominable worship was under the protection 
 of that Church which calls itself eminently the 
 "Christian Church,'^ the " infallible Church,'^— 
 how much more readily could they have adopted 
 the worship of the Queen of Heaven, of Leucothea, 
 the star of the sea, and, for the purpose of con- 
 cealing it, have interpolated the Gospels of St. 
 Matthew and St. Luke, — making Mary the Vir- 
 gin, Mother of God, &c., although they do not 
 call her so in the Gospels, — all of this being 
 an after-thought, — although, as we have shown, 
 neither Christ, nor his brethren, nor any of the 
 apostolic writers in other places, whether address- 
 
INVOCATION OF THE VIRGIN. 165 
 
 ing the Jews or the churches, ever made any 
 reference to such a fact. 
 
 The worship of the Queen of Heaven was de- 
 nounced by Jeremiah the prophet. AVhen and 
 where did God cease to denounce it? When and 
 where did Christ or his apostles command, order, 
 and direct that- the mother of Jesus should be 
 addressed in prayer? Where is that ^^unmis- 
 takable evidence to convince the reason of man^^ 
 that such a case requires ? 
 
 . From our own examination into this subject, 
 we believe that this worship of the Virgin Mary 
 is altogether derived from the symbolical reli- 
 gions of antiquity, which we call idolatry, and 
 that at first it originated from a consideration of 
 the phenomena of nature. Those who early were 
 interested in searching out the hidden mysteries 
 of the world, recognized the fact that life had its 
 origin in two natures, — the one male, which they 
 considered as the active principle of life ; the 
 other female, which they considered as the passive 
 principle of life; and that the conjunction of 
 these two principles — the active and the passive 
 — was necessary to its production. As they saw 
 all things living thus proceeding from previous 
 beings, they were finally led to conceive of one 
 from whom all things were originally derived. 
 This being they invested with the attributes of 
 
166 INVOCATION OF THE VIRGIN. 
 
 the active and passive principles, — the male and 
 the female, — thus making it androgynous or her- 
 maphrodite. In course of time, questions arose 
 concerning the relative importance of these prin- 
 ciples, — some asserting that the male principle 
 — the active principle, which in man was found 
 connected with the largest amount of the intellec- 
 tual principle, and which dominated his emotional 
 nature — was the greater; while others asserted 
 that the female, or passive principle — which in 
 woman was found connected with a larger amount 
 of emotional nature than man possessed, and 
 which in woman dominates the intellectual prin- 
 ciple — was the greater. This controversy led, it 
 is said, to strife and to bloody religious wars. 
 
 Among those who adopted the male deity, un- 
 doubtedly, were the Jews ; and we therefore find 
 that among them the predominance is given to 
 the intellect. The Protestants have taken sides 
 with the Jews. Around the Mediterranean Sea, 
 in Egypt, Asia Minor (excepting that portion in- 
 habited by the Jews), Greece, Italy, &c., the wor- 
 ship of both the male and female attributes pre- 
 vailed, — the female attributes being worshipped 
 under the forms of Isis, Venus, &c., as we have 
 already shown. 
 
 Now, in the attempt to. introduce among the 
 Greeks and Romans the simple worship of God 
 
IXYOCATIOX OF THE VIRGIN. 167 
 
 as instituted by Christ, which took the Jewisli 
 views of the Deity, it was probably found impos- 
 sible to overcome the prejudices of the people to 
 the new reh'gion until, among other things, the 
 worship of the Queen of Heaven was introduced, 
 under the name of the Virgin Mary, so as to be 
 almost identical with their previous worship. In 
 truth, this worship is the recognition of the female 
 attribute in Deity. The consequence has been 
 that her worship — the worship of the female 
 attribute — has acquired the predominance over 
 the male Deity of the God of the Jews in the 
 Roman Catholic religion. In fact, as the Jewish 
 w^omen, upbraided by the prophet Jeremiah for 
 their worship of the Queen of Heaven, gave as 
 the reason of their worship their great prosperity, 
 — " We were filled Avith bread, and it was well 
 with us, and we saw no eviP' (Jer. xliv. 17), — so 
 the Roman Catholics of our day give for the same 
 worship almost the same reply. 
 
 " If we seek for causes of this wonderful growth 
 [the increase of the Roman Catholic churches], 
 we must not fail to reckon among them that our 
 Lord holds this country in especial favour, be- 
 cause it is especially associated with the honour 
 of his blessed mother. The great Columbus, in 
 coming to seek the land, chose for his ship the 
 name of Santa Maria. The first island he dis- 
 
168 INVOCATION OF THE VIRGIN. 
 
 covered he named after the Saviour of the world, 
 and to the second he gave the name of the most 
 pure conception of his blessed mother. The first 
 bishop of the United States chose for the day of 
 his consecration the day of our Lady's triumphant 
 assumj^tion into heaven; and this venerable cathe- 
 dral is dedicated likewise in honour of the same 
 great festival. The entire Church of the United 
 States has for its patronal feast her immaculate 
 conception ; and at least one church in every five 
 throughout the whole country has for its patroness 
 the ever-glorious* Mother of God.'^ (Sermon of 
 the Right Rev. William H. Elder, D..D., Bishop 
 of Natchez, from ^^ Sermons delivered during the 
 Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, October, 
 1866,^^ pp. 99, 100.) 
 
 I would call your attention to the fact that 
 Isis, Queen of Heaven, was called Mother of 
 God, as being the mother of Horus, who was the 
 sun ; that the pictures of the Virgin Mary with 
 the infant Jesus must have been taken from the 
 figures of Isis and Horus, for they were almost 
 identical ; that the Queen of Heaven, the virgin 
 of the sphere, as found in the Zodiac, formerly 
 disappeared in the month of August, because at 
 that time the sun was in that sign, and the con- 
 stellation was lost in his superior effulgence, — 
 the virgin was swallowed up in the rays of the 
 
INVOCATION OF THE- VIRGIN. 169 
 
 sun. This period is kept by the Roman Catholic 
 Church as a festival, and is called the Assump- 
 tion of the Virgin ; for then she disappeared, as 
 it were, into heaven. In September, the sun 
 proceeding into the next sign, the virgin reap- 
 peared ; therefore the Roman Catholic Church 
 had another festival, and called it the Nativity 
 of the A^irgin. On the 25th of December, the 
 sun appeared to be born from her side ; and, as 
 this took place every year, and as the virgin of 
 the heavens was always virgin, this has given rise 
 to the doctrine of the immaculate conception, and 
 ever virgin ; for the sun was born from her side 
 every year, and she was always virgin, — all astro- 
 nomical, symbolical, pertaining to what was termed 
 the idolatrous worship, and which, with other 
 things like it, formed the mysteries of the ancient 
 religion, the meaning of which was known to the 
 priests, but hidden from the people.* 
 
 * ^' Before the introduction of the doctrines of Christianity 
 into Rome, there existed the festival called the Hilaria, dedi- 
 cated to Cybele, the mother of the gods : this festival took 
 place upon the 25th of March. This goddess, Cybele, or 
 Rhea, is said to have been the consort of Saturn, and the 
 parent of the great classical triad, Jupiter, Neptune, Pluto.'' 
 (Origin of Pagan Mythology, by Rev. G. S. Faber, vol. iii. 
 p. 50.) The Orphic poet also styles the black Venus the 
 mother both of gods and men, the generative source of all 
 things. (See the same, vol. iii. p. 49.) 
 
 15 
 
170 INVOCATION OF THE VIRGIN. 
 
 Springing from these two religions, the worship 
 of the male and the worship of the female princi- 
 ple, the Protestant religion being the exponent of 
 the first, the Roman Catholic religion being the ex- 
 ponent of the latter, we have a great divergence 
 in practice, leading to most important results. 
 
 Protestantism, which was nothing more than a 
 return from the Roman Catholic religion as it 
 existed at the time of Luther, to the simple reli- 
 gion of Christ as practised by the apostles and 
 disciples of Jesus during the first century after 
 his death, resulted from the exercise of the intel- 
 lect of Luther, which was stimulated by the sale 
 of indulgences by Tetzel to test the Roman 
 Catholic religion by the word of God. From 
 that time Protestants have insisted upon "the 
 right to judge, the duty to examine, the right to 
 decide and choose,'^ and this has led Protestants to 
 insist upon the duty of establishing schools, in 
 which the masses should be instructed and taught 
 the use of their intellect. The more rigid the 
 Protestantism, the more rigidly did they require 
 this. At the same time, they rejected the magnifi- 
 cent robes, the imposing rites and ceremonies, the 
 processions of priests, the use of images and 
 relics, — all those things which pertained to the 
 old idolatrous worship which had been engrafted 
 upon the simple Christian religion by the Roman 
 
INVOCATION OF THE VIRGIN. 171 
 
 Catholic Church in order to render it agreeable 
 to the idolatrous Romans, and that it might be 
 made, thus modified,, the religion of the State, a 
 Roman Catholic religion, — that is, a universal 
 Roman religion. All these things were rejected 
 by Protestants because they appealed only to the 
 emotions, amusing the masses, and keeping out 
 of sight the necessity of the culture of the intel- 
 lect. This culture of the intellect has not only 
 been adopted in the Protestant Church, but also in 
 Protestant States; and as a consequence the daily 
 prayer of all true Protestants is, that all govern- 
 ments may be established upon such wise, just, and 
 generous principles that civil, political, and reli- 
 gious liberty may be secured to all people, — that 
 the down-trodden and oppressed of the earth may 
 be enabled to rise, and that they may be placed 
 above w^ant ; that the darkness of error and of su- 
 perstition may be dissipated from every mind, and 
 that the light of truth, of knowledge, of learning, 
 and of wdsdom may irradiate every understanding. 
 On the contrary, the Roman Catholic Church, 
 openly in some places, secretly in others, opposes 
 by every means in her power the culture of the 
 intellect among the masses. She teaches that " the 
 right to judge, the duty to examine, the right to 
 decide and choose, is heresy.'^ She obstructs the 
 minds of her masses from "the right to judge, 
 
172 INVOCATION OF THE VIRGIN. 
 
 the claty to examine and choose/^ by images and 
 relics, wonderful tales of the saints, by magnifi- 
 cent robes, by imposing rites and ceremonies, by 
 long processions, — every thing that can act upon 
 the emotions and keep the intellect in bondage. 
 This has been the means, in the Roman Catholic 
 Church and in monarchical states, by which the 
 masses have been held in subjection. This is the 
 plan adopted in all Roman Catholic countries, 
 and so successfully that the people really believe 
 that the culture of the intellect is wrong. In 
 France, which is to a great extent Catholic, some- 
 body has disinterred this extract from the journal 
 of proceedings of a French village council : — " At 
 the meeting of the municipal council of Livais 
 (Orne county), held on the 18th of August, 1833, 
 resolved, unanimously, that the inhabitants of 
 this village wish neither male nor female teachers 
 in their midst, but wish to remain as their fathers 
 were in days past.'^ (Paris correspondent Ameri- 
 can Literary Gazette, &c., vol. xi. No. 10, Phila- 
 delphia, Sept. 15, 1868, p. 224.) When the de- 
 mands of society require schools, as far as possible 
 the Church keeps control over them, particularly 
 through her priests and the order of the Jesuits, in 
 order that, whatever may be taught, this be taught 
 in particular, that ^^ the right to judge, the duty to 
 examine, the right to decide and choose,^^ is heresy. 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 In conclusion, let us consider — 1. Whether 
 Father Smarius has proved that there is ^^ one 
 only true religion/' and that that religion is the 
 Roman Catholic. 
 
 2. Whether, if Christ has provided an " In- 
 fallible Church/' the Roman Catholic Church be 
 that " Infallible Church/' 
 
 1st. Is the Roman Catholic religion the "only 
 true religion" ? 
 
 In considering this question, we may lay down 
 this proposition as an axiom, that, whatever a true 
 religion must include, it must exclude every thing 
 that is vain, useless, idolatrous, doubtful, or false. 
 
 Now, we have slio wn that God never commanded 
 nor Christ taught " the doctrines of Purgatory 
 and Indulgences, Confession, the doctrine of the 
 Real Presence, the Honour and Invocation of 
 Saints, or the Honour and Invocation of the 
 Blessed Virgin Mary." 
 
 That the Father himself admits that some of 
 these are not necessary to salvation, therefore not 
 commanded by God or Christ. That being the 
 case, we have proved that they are, as Christ de- 
 
 15* 173 
 
174 CONCLUSION. 
 
 clares^ " in vain f that is, such doctrines are^ as 
 Webster defines "vain/^ "to no purpose, fruit- 
 less, ineflPectual.'^ 
 
 That some of these things are those which the 
 Jews, to whom the commandment was given by 
 God to avoid idolatry, have always considered as 
 idolatrous. 
 
 Therefore, as these things are comprised in the 
 Roman Catholic religion, it cannot be a true 
 religion, therefore not that " only true religion.^^ 
 
 2d. Is the Roman Catholic Church an " In- 
 fallible Church^^ ? 
 
 We hav€ shown that to be infallible it must 
 not admit the least tincture of error. But the 
 Roman Catholic Church teaches the Roman Ca- 
 tholic religion, which we have shown to abound 
 in that which is doubtful, absurd, idolatrous, and 
 false. Therefore it is not an " Infallible Church. ^^ 
 
 Therefore, if Christ have established " one only 
 true religion" and an " Infallible Church,'^ we 
 have demonstrated that " the Roman Catholic 
 religion" is not that "only true religion," nor 
 "the Roman Catholic Church" that "Infallible 
 Church." 
 
 Protestants claim for their religion that it 
 includes the recognition of God, the mediator- 
 ship of Christ, the sanctifying influences of the 
 Holy Ghost, the universal principles of morality, 
 
CONCLUSION. 175 
 
 the doctrine of baptism, and the eating bread 
 and drinking wine in remembra'nce of the Lord's 
 death nntil he come. They exclude all those 
 things which we have demonstrated to be doubt- 
 ful, absurd, idolatrous, and false. 
 
 Therefore, if there be but ^^one only true re- 
 ligion,'' as Roman Catholics admit the belief and 
 the doctrines of the Protestant religion to be essen- 
 tial and true, if the Protestant religion be not 
 that '' only true religion," it must be much nearer 
 to it than the Roman Catholic, as excluding that 
 which w^ have shown to be absurd, idolatrous, 
 and false. 
 
 Therefore, every Protestant who examines and 
 makes a choice cannot but choose to remain in 
 the Protestant Church. And were Roman Ca- 
 tholics permitted to examine, to judge, to choose, 
 they would, upon examination, choose the same. 
 But they are not permitted to examine, to judge, 
 to choose. Their emotions are cultivated ; their 
 intellect, their reason, is suppressed. Should they 
 undertake to examine, they are called '^heretic,'^ 
 the most opprobrious name that can be lavished 
 upon a Roman Catholic, and which they are 
 taught from their earliest infancy to fear and 
 dread. 
 
 " Heresy means a choosing for one's self; and, 
 if men have the right to judge, they have also 
 
176 CONCLUSION. 
 
 the duty to examine and the right to decide 
 and choose. Hence heresy becomes itself a 
 means of salvation; which is an absurdity .^^ 
 (Sermon by the Rt. Rev. John McGill, D.D., 
 Bishop of Richmond^ delivered during the Second 
 Plenary Council of Baltimore, &c. Approved 
 by Archbishop Spalding: Baltimore, 1866, p. 
 149.) 
 
 '' Look well into this matter. Your all de- 
 pends upon the choice you make in religion. 
 Your soul is at stake; heaven and hell are in the 
 balance.^' (Smarius, p. 48.) ^ 
 
 A bishop of the Roman Catholic Church 
 teaches '' that to choose for one's self the means 
 of salvation is a heresy and an absurdity. '' And 
 this is approved by an archbishop of the same 
 Church! 
 
 Father Smarius, of the Society of Jesus/ a 
 missionary of the same Roman Catholic Church, 
 says, '' Heaven and hell are • in the balance, de- 
 pending upon your choice;'^ that is, that your 
 salvation depends upon heresy and an absurdity. 
 
 What think you of such a religion ? 
 
 What think you of such an '' Infallible 
 Church''? 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 To demonstrate how the simple doctrines 
 of Christianity, as taught by Christ and prac- 
 tised by the various Christian Churches during 
 the first century of Christianity, have been as it 
 were drowned in the great ocean of paganism, 
 idolatry, or symbolical worship, particularly by 
 the Roman Catholic Church, we have selected 
 some of the offices, rites, and ceremonies of 
 paganism as it existed for centuries before 
 Christ. Those who would learn more, we would 
 refer to the work whence the following have 
 been taken, and where they will find all the 
 authorities upon which they are based, — Higgins, 
 Anacalypsis, vol. ii.book ii. 
 
 To how great an extent the Roman Catholic 
 Church adopted the symbolical or idolatrous rites 
 of the pagans will appear from the following : — 
 
 '' Dionysius of Halicarnassus assures us that 
 the Pontifices Maximi had a sovereign authority 
 in the most important affairs; for to them was 
 
 177 
 
178 APPENDIX. 
 
 referred the judgment of all causes which con- 
 cerned sacred things, as Avell those in which indi- 
 viduals were concerned, as those of the public. 
 They made new laws on their own authority as 
 new occasions called for them. They had the 
 care of all sacrifices, and. generally, of all the 
 ceremonials of religion. They had also the juris- 
 diction of all the officers employed in the affairs 
 of religion. They were the interpreters of the 
 prophecies, concerning which the people were 
 used to consult them. They had power to 
 punish at their discretion those who failed to 
 execute their commands, according to the exi- 
 gencies of the case, but were themselves subject 
 to no other person, and were not obliged to 
 render an account either to the Senate or to the 
 people. When the high-priest died, his place was 
 filled by the choice of the college, and not by the 
 Senate or people.^^ 
 
 Let us see how exactly this has been copied by 
 the Roman Catholic Church. 
 
 Ale:siander ab Alexandro says, '' The sove- 
 reign Pontiff was elevated in honour above all 
 others. The people had as much veneration for 
 his dignity as for that of the kings. He had 
 his lictors and guards, his peculiar chair and 
 litter, the same as the consuls: he alone had the 
 power of ascending to the Capitol in a chariot. 
 
APPENDIX. 179 
 
 He presided and ruled in the sacred college over 
 all the other pontiffs: the augurs, the priests, 
 and the vestal virgins, all obeyed him : he had 
 the power of chastising them at his pleasure. 
 He governed according to his pleasure all sacred 
 things. He ordered on what altars, to what 
 gods, by what hosti^, victims, on what days, and 
 in what temples, the sacrifices should be made: 
 he fixed the feasts and the fasts, when it was 
 permitted to the people to work, and when it was 
 forbidden. The canonists maintain that the Pope 
 is not subject to any human law ; that he can- 
 not be judged either by the emperor or by the 
 clergy collectively, neither by the kings nor by the 
 people; that it is necessary to salvation to believe 
 that all creatures are subject to him; that as the 
 sun is said to be lord of the planets, so the Pope 
 is the father of all dignities.'^ 
 
 " In short, Baronius shows that the conformity 
 of the modern to the ancient Pontiffs — called 
 kings of the sacred affairs — is as close as possible, 
 even to the most trifling things, such as not 
 being expected to salute any person, or to un- 
 cover his head, but that he was used to wear the 
 same purple robes as kings, and a crown of gold 
 on his head.^^ 
 
 ''The Pontifex Maximus had under him a 
 regular gradation of priestly officers, precisely 
 
180 APPENDIX. 
 
 like those of the Pontifex Maximus of the 
 moderns, the Pope. He had, in the first place, 
 his college of high-priests, of whom his council 
 was composed, with whom he deliberated con- 
 cerning important affairs. To answer to this, the 
 Pope has his cardinals. The Pontifex Maximus 
 had also persons called highnesses, who answered 
 to the primates, the archbishops, and the bishops. 
 He had also lesser ones, who answered to the 
 parsons and curates of the Pope, and were called 
 curiones, whence comes our word curate. He 
 had also a number of Flamens, that is to say, 
 [Prestres)' -priestSy who assisted in the offices of the 
 church as at this day. The Abbe Marolles con- 
 fesses the conformity, including the vestals, who 
 are the nuns.'^ 
 
 " The ancients had an order of priests called 
 parasiti, or parasites. These answered correctly 
 to our modern chaplains.'^ 
 
 The Roman Pontiff had the name of Papa, 
 which is the same as the natives of Central Asia 
 gave to their principal god Jupiter, as may be 
 seen in the fourth book of Herodotus. He was 
 also called the Sovereign Pontiff, which was 
 the title that the pagans gave to their chief 
 priest. 
 
 " The Roman emperor and the Pontifices drew 
 imposts from all the nations of the world. The 
 
APPENDIX. 181 
 
 Pope in like manner had his Peter's pence, under 
 which name all Europe paid him tribute/^ 
 
 " It was permitted by the emperors for any one 
 to kill those who were devoted to the infernal 
 gods ; this was exactly imitated by the Popes, who 
 granted leave to any person to kill those who 
 were excommunicated. The emperors and pagan 
 Pontiffs had habits and shoes of purple; their 
 senators were clothed in the same colour, which 
 they call trabea. The Pope has the same habit 
 and the same shoes, as may be seen in the book 
 of sacred ceremonies. The cardinals who com- 
 pose his senate, and whom Pius II. called sena- 
 tors of the city of Rome, are also clothed with 
 purple.^' 
 
 " When a Pope is crowned, a triumphal pro- 
 cession takes place from the Vatican to the 
 Church of the Lateran, during which the new 
 Pope throws money to the people, precisely as the 
 emperors of old were accustomed to do in the 
 processions on their coronation. As the emperors 
 and Pontiffs were accustomed to send to their 
 allies, as an acknowledgment of their good offices, 
 a baton of ivory, a painted robe, or similar trifling 
 presents, so the Popes send to kings and princes 
 sometimes a rose, sometimes gloves, and some- 
 times a sacred sword, or an Agnus Dei.'^ 
 
 " The emperors had the title of God, Deus, or 
 
 16 
 
182 APPENDIX. 
 
 Divus. Virgil, in his first Eclogue, so calls Octa- 
 vius ; and Suetonius, in his life of Domitian, says 
 he wished, when his commands were sent to his 
 lieutenants, that the words The Lord our God com- 
 mands it should be used. The same, nearly, was 
 attributed to the Pope. ^ As there is only one 
 God,' says he, ^ in the heavens, so there ought to 
 be one God only on earth/ Du Perron, in his 
 letter of thanks to Pope Clement VIII. for his 
 promotion to the rank of cardinal, says, ^ / have 
 always revered your beatitude as God on earth J ^^ 
 
 ^' The last excess of baseness required by the 
 Emperors Caligula and Heliogabalus was the 
 kissing of the foot. This every one knows is 
 done continually to the Pope." 
 
 '^ But the kissing of the toe was of much older 
 date than the times of Calio:ula and Helioo-abalus. 
 Julius Caesar, in quality of Pontifex Maximus, 
 held out his foot to Pompeius Paenus to kiss, in 
 a slipper embroidered with gold, — socculo aurato. 
 This was the practice of the Arch-Druid in Gaul.'^ 
 
 ^^The title of Pontifex Maximus is strictly 
 heathen. When the Pope is elected, he is borne 
 in great state to the high altar in St. Peter's, on 
 which he is placed, and where he receives the 
 adoration of all the cardinals. This is a close copy 
 of the same practice of the heathen to their high- 
 priest. And it appears that Martin IV. was ad- 
 
APPENDIX. 183 
 
 dressed, ^0 Lamb of God, who takest away the sins 
 of the world, grant us thy peace? The very words 
 used iu their service by the Carnutes of Gaul/^ 
 
 " It was the custom of the Pagan priests to 
 confess before they sacrificed, demanding pardon 
 of the gods and goddesses. Numa ordered this 
 to be observed by the Romans, not esteeming the 
 sacrifice good unless the priest had first cleared 
 his conscience by confession. The Romish [Catho- 
 lic] priests are expected to do this before they 
 celebrate the mass.^^ 
 
 " Xuma ordained that the priest who made the 
 sacrifice should be clothed in white, in the habit 
 called an alba. This is the alb which he carries 
 w^ho celebrates the mass. Above the albs, Xuma 
 ordered the sacrificer to carrv a coloured robe, with 
 a pectoral or breastplate of brass, which is now 
 often changed into gold or silver. This is what 
 is called chasuble. The priests use also a veil, 
 with which they cover the head, called amict. 
 All these ornaments were introduced by Numa. 
 They are also most of them found among the 
 Jews.'^ 
 
 ^' The turnings and genuflexions of the priests, 
 and their circular processions, were all ordered by 
 Numa. The last w^ere also the Deisuls of the 
 Druids. Du Choul has shown that the custom 
 of having the mass in the morning was taken 
 
184 APPENDIX. 
 
 from the Egyptians, who divided the time, like 
 the Romish Church, into prime, tierce, and 
 sexte/^ 
 
 ^^The Pagans had music in their temples^ as the 
 Romish devotees have in their churches. Galien 
 says, ^ they have no sacrifice without music.^ ^^ 
 
 ^' Silius, speaking of the strange rites used in 
 the Gaditan temple of Hercules, says the priests 
 officiated there barefooted, practised chastity, had 
 no statues, used white linen surplices ; and it was a 
 notorious custom with the ancient Phoenicians to 
 pay tithe. The shaving of the head, and surplices, 
 were borrowed from the Egyptian priests, and the 
 crosier, or pastoral staff, was the lituus of the 
 Roman augurs. The tonsure of the priests and 
 monks is an exact imitation of that of the priests 
 of Isis ; and St. Epiphanius witnesses also that 
 the priests of Serapis at Athens had the head 
 shaved.^' 
 
 " The use of lamps and candles in the daytime 
 in the churches was copied from the Egyptians, 
 who, according to Clemens Alexandrinus, first 
 invented them.^^ 
 
 " The use of incense was common both to Jews 
 and Gentiles." 
 
 " The processions around the streets and towns, 
 in Catholic countries, are exact imitations of those 
 of the pagans. When the priests of the Mother 
 
APPENDIX. 185 
 
 of the Gods made their processions through the 
 streets, they carried the image of Jupiter, which 
 they placed for a short time in small bowers 
 dressed out for him, precisely as is done in Paris 
 at the Fete-Dieu." 
 
 " As the Roman [Catholic] Church has its pro- 
 cessions for rain or fine weather, or to avert tem- 
 pests or famine, &c., so the pagans had theirs 
 exactly in the same manner : they are copies of 
 one another/^ 
 
 ^' Mr. Maurice shows that purgations or lus- 
 trations by water, and holy water, were equally 
 used by the Jews, Persians, Hindoos, and Druids 
 of Britain. Potter, in his Antiquities, proves 
 that every ancient temple had a vase, filled with 
 holy water. This was called a Piscina, and was 
 probably the Bowli of India.^^ 
 
 " The doctrines of Penance and Purgatory are 
 the same in principle as the penance and metemp- 
 sychosis of the Pythagoreans, Platonists, and 
 Indians.^^ 
 
 " On several of the ancient monuments in the 
 Campidoglio at Rome are bas-reliefs of the ancient 
 sibyls, or of females performing penance, which 
 leave no room to doubt that this sacrament was 
 in use by the Romans. The Flagellants were 
 exact copiers of the priests of Bellona, and of the 
 priests of Baal.^' 
 
 16* 
 
186 APPENDIX. 
 
 ^^ The hermits of Italy are humble imitations 
 of the Fakirs of India^ who were well known in 
 ancient times. St. Austin says, ' They abstain 
 from women, and philosophize naked in the soli- 
 tudes of the Indies. From the rising to the 
 setting of the sun they remain with their eyes 
 steadfastly fixed upon it. Others stand per- 
 petually on one leg. They expose themselves 
 without complaint to the extremes of cold and 
 hunger.^ ^^ 
 
 " The doctrine of purgatory and the efficacy of 
 the prayers of the living to relieve the deceased 
 from their sufferings is a correct copy of the doc- 
 trine and practice of the pagans. Ovid says that 
 ^neas was the first person who introduced the 
 doctrine into Italy. The pagans differ from the 
 Eomish priests in this, that they offered up their 
 prayers for the dead on the ninth day, the Romish 
 on the seventh. This is confirmed by Polydore 
 Yirgil.'^ 
 
 " The pagans, besides their pontiffs, their 
 priests, and their curiones, had different convents 
 or orders of religious men and women, who took 
 the epithet of holy or divi. They called them- 
 selves brothers, because they were bound to one 
 another by reciprocal charity and alliance, and 
 were all on an equal footing. The monks among 
 the pagans were proprietors of land. T. Livy 
 
APPENDIX. 187 
 
 says tlir^t jSTuma instituted the Quirinales and the 
 Vestals, and established for them a revenue. 
 Others were mendicants, as the religious of the 
 Great Mother of the Gods, who answered exactly 
 to the Christian mendicants begging for the Vir- 
 gin, the Mother of God. Apuleius, in his Golden 
 Ass, has ridiculed them for their hypocrisy, by 
 which they, under the pretence of poverty, ac- 
 quired riches. The Romish mendicants, like 
 those of the pagans, were the great dealers in 
 saints, in relics, in apostolic letters, indulgences, 
 and other trumpery. They in both cases had 
 particular habits and long beards. If they had 
 not been particularly dressed, they would not 
 have been known from other people, says Bellar- 
 mine. Their silence was an exact copy of the 
 silence of Pythagoras ; and their vow of poverty 
 was an imitation of that of some of the ancient 
 philosophers, who distributed all their substance 
 to the poor.'^ 
 
 '' When young Persians came to be from twelve 
 to fifteen years of age, prayers and ceremonies 
 took place, and they were invested with the 
 girdle. They were then supposed to be capable 
 of understanding the doctrines of the religion. 
 It was, in fact, the ceremony of confirmation.'^ 
 
 ^' The whole of the ancient Gentile and Druidi- 
 cal ceremonies of Easter or Eostre — the Sidonian 
 
188 APPENDIX. 
 
 Asteroth or Astarte — is yet continued over all 
 the Christian world. This festival began with 
 a week^s indulgence in all kinds of sports, called 
 the carne-vale, or the taking 2i farewell to animal 
 food, because it was followed by a fast of forty 
 days. Its existence over all the north of Europe, 
 long before the time of Christ, cannot be dis- 
 puted.'' 
 
 THE EXD, 
 
 683 
 
 f 
 
 STEREOTYPED BY MACKELLAR, SMITHS & JORDAIT, 
 PHILADELPHIA. 
 

 '^^ <^^ 
 
 C^ ■''c^. 
 
 » <t , ./- 
 
 -~\ " N ^/>*=;^.^ 
 
 // O 
 
 
 
 
 ^-J- 
 
 :^' 
 
 ^, 
 
 ^ \ 
 
 
 .^' 
 
 A^" -^ 
 
 ""' ''^M,'v,\ 
 
 ^■V^^>^^^^xv , ^^.^^0^^,^ 
 
 > K^ 
 
 C' 
 
 
 
 
 ■f- 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■^^ 
 
 ^^' 
 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 % 
 
 
 .^' 
 
 
 
 /' 
 
 u 
 
 
 - 
 
 y // 
 
 
 
 
 ' ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 X -f:*. 
 
 v^-' 
 
 .^' 
 
 
 °' \..^' -^^■■ 
 
 .^•^ '^r- 
 
 
 S^% 
 
 
 . O N <. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .^^ 
 
 
 
 
 '.^;^a*^.\ .'^' ^^ -, 
 
 ^ "-^^ ^V 
 
 ^^ v^ 
 
 D- ^ 
 
 
 . V 
 
 .^- 
 
 V .0 . 
 
 c 
 
 ^%- ■ 
 
 
 
 ^^^>^' 
 
 
 nO°<. 
 
 <i'^ 
 
 
 ' o :c' 
 
 ^ '' V ^ ,^ 
 
 ^^ 
 
 Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process, n 
 Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
 Treatment Date: Jan. 2006 
 
 PreservationTechnologies 
 
 A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 
 
 111 Thomson Park Dnve 
 Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
 (724)779-2111 
 
^> ' 
 
 \ 
 
 '<f 
 
 -^.. .-?^ 
 
 -6.'' 
 
 ■^^ .^' 
 
 -t o 
 
 
 .^ "^ 
 
 ci- 
 
 %. ,<^^' 
 
 
 ^^ >' 
 
 *bo^ 
 
 .■v^ 
 
 >~^ ^^. 
 
 •p^ 
 

 
 ^ ■<•■:.' 
 
 
 mm