Glass BXitfe Z Book ^^ ^'! "At midnight he was removed to Newgate.-' Page 543. Errors and Persecutions OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, BY SOME OF THE MOST EMINENT DIVINES OF THE DIFFERENT DENOMINATIONS OF THE PRESENT DAY, INCLUDING THE CHOICEST SELECTIONS FROM THE LECTURES OF THE LATE BISHOP 'E. M. MARVIN ox TRAN SUBSTANTIATION. Ik. TO WHICH IS ADDED: The lives, SUFFERINGS and DEATHS OF THE Apostles and Evangelists INCLUDING THE PROTESTANT MARTYRS, UNDER THE POPISH PERSECUTIONS. ALSO,- ACCOUNTS OF THE INQUISITION; THE MASSACRE OF ST. RAIMII OLOM K W, THE MASSACRE IN FMANC^F AND CJFNKRAL rEKSECCTlONS OF I'ROTESTANTS BY THK ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. EMBELLISIIEJ) WITH .// FULL rAG£^^^<^^$K V-' c' ST. LOnS: nniiirli ()(!i('(\s: (MiicM^iro, HI., AUainSv.tj^^ H'MH>»»^"' JO EntGrcd ticcordiiii? to Act of CTongrc>.s, in the year 1878, by JAMES II. CHAMBEr.S, In the Office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington. PUBLTSPIER'S ANNOUNCEMENT. Never before in tlie history of America Las tlie subject of Eomanism commauded so mucli attention as at x^resent; and any real alarm for the safety of our republican institutions against the insidious encroachments of the papal system, has not until recently been felt to any great extent. The present manifest disposition on the part of the American ])eople to know what Eomanism is, and a determined eflbrt on the part of the Eomisli priesthood to cover up and apologize for its errors, suggested the publicaiion of these Lectures. In the arrangement of the work, the different branches of the Christian Church are represented by its contributors, and each deals with the great question from his respective stand-point, which more certainly insures a comprehensive and complete presentation of each subject in particular and together as a whole. This arrangement gives variety to tlie reader — a feature much prized and enjoyed by those who •x'lieve it their privilege to think for themselves. The best artists have been employed in the ])roduction of the ])ortraits, which in every instance are taken fioai l)hotographs, and therefore, may be relied upon as accuratt^ly true to the original, as also the facsimiles of the autographs. 3 ANNOUNCEMENT ENLARGED EDITION, The favor with which former editions of this work have been re- ceived, together with the increasing demand for more light on the subject of Romanism, has encouraged the publishers to enlarge the work by the addition of carefully compiled matter of facts from the records of authentic history — facts of the sufferings of Rome's victims, facts which blaze in the light of the stake and speak in tones of thunder against the rule of Romanism. It is the boast of the- Papal Church that it has never changed in doctrine or practice In spirit therefore, it is the same to-day that it was under the reign of the Inquisition and only lacks the power to rule as it did under Pope Gregory YII. when bigotry had extinguished all reason, religion and even natural affection, and Popish arrogance, cruelty, superstition, excess of pride and idolatry caused the blood of the martyred to cover the land. The illustrations in every case are true to the text and will greatly aid the reader in forming a correct idea of the modes of punishment and sufferings of the Christian Martyrs whose blood stiU cries to Him who says, " VeLgeance is Mine, I will repay. " CONTENTS. PAGK Fkontispiece Preface List of Illustrations PROROGUE. <' Rome's Rule is Ruin. " By Rev. S. H. Ford, D.D.,L.L.D., (Baptist.) - - 5 LECTURE I. " Christ in the Sacrament — Transul)stantiation tested by Scripture." By Rev. Bishop E. M. ^larvin, D.D. - 21 LECTURE IE Practical Results of the Doctrine of. Transu1)st:intia- tion. By Rev. Bishop E. ]M. Marvin, D.D. - 33 LECTURE IIL '' Church Unity— Romanist Tlieory." r>y Rev. Bislio}) E. M. Marvin, D.D. - . . . . T)') LECTURE IV. * Unity of the Chuivh— Tho True Idea.'' \W Rev. Bishop E. M. Marvin, D.I). . . - . 77 CONTENTS. LECTURE V. " The Ministry of Christ's Church contrasted Avith th Priesthood of the Pope's Church." By Eev. Bishop E. M. Marvin, D.D. - - - - 103 LECTURE VI. " Purgatory, Penance, and Persecution." By Rev. John A. Wilson, (United Presbyterian) _ - - 129 LECTURE VII. " The Romish Mass viewed in the light of Scripture, Reason, and Histor}'." By Rev. George A. Lof- ton, D.D., (Baptist) 155 LECTURE VIII. "Images, Indulgences, and Infallibility." By Rev. John A. Wilson. ------ 189 LECTURE IX. "Peter, not the Church "—The Issue Defined. By Rev. J. G. Wilson, D.D., (Methodist) - - 217 LECTURE X. " Celibacy of the Clergy." By Rev. Thos. O. Sum- mers, S.T.D.,L.L.D., (Methodist) - - 235 CONTENTS. LECTURE XL " Somethings Catholics do Believe." By Elder Thos. P. Haley, (Christian) ' - - - - 2.57 LECTURE XII. " The Charge of Idolatruos Worship made against liie Roman Church : Is it True? By Rev. Samuel J. Niccolls, D.D., (Presbyterian) ... 299 LECTURE XIII. "Romanism Enslaves, Degrades,' Corrupts." By Rev. Bishop Thomas Bowman, D.D., (Methodist) - 323 LECTURE XIV. " The Appeal of Romanism to Educated Protestants." By Rev. R. S. Storrs, D.D., (Congregational) - 359 LECTURE XV. " The Ancient Heresies in the Creed of Rome." By Rev. P. G. Robert, (Protestant Episcopal) - 395 LECTURE XVI. "The Origin, Rise and Development of the Papacy." By Rev. G. W. Hughey, A.M., (Methodist) - 415 "Lives, Sufferings and Martyrdoms of the Apostles, Evangelists and Primitive Christians," - - 418 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS AND CONTRIBUTORS. " At midnight he was removed to Newgate/' - - F -^^ntispiecc. Portrait. Ecv. S. H. Ford, D. D., L. L. D., - - . Woo 4 Portrait. Per. Bishop E. M. Marvin, D. D., - - ^ 20 Christians worried by dogs, - - - - . ''■ First time of torturing, - - - - - Protestant women led to execution, - - - Arrest of Pobert Oguier, - - - Jerome of Prague, - - - - - "Cut the throats of four-score men, women and children Portrait. Rev. Geo. A. Lofton, D. D., Execution of Jerome of Prague, - - - - "Many perished in the mountains," - - - -.A Portrait. Pev. John A. "Wilson, - - * - ■.'.> " She tied with her child to the woods,'' - - ylKi Portrait. Rev. J. G. Wilson, - - - - ' 210 Execution of Sir John Oldcastle, - - - :'" Portrait. Rev. Thos. O. Summers, S. T. D., L. L. D., - " Such as you bear us little favor,'' - - - ^ ' ^ :i Portrait. Rev. Thos. P. Haley, - - - - • - i^'if; Public burning of the New Testament, - - ^' ::72. He commended himself unto God, - - - - " 290 Portrait. Rev. Sam'l J. Niccolls, D. D., - - ^- " !>98 Four martvrs burned at Canterburv, - - - - '^ %)% Portrait. Rev. Bishop Thomas Bowman, D. D., - - " 322 " I pray God to strengthen thee, my son," - - - " 332 •Ridley writing in prison, - - - * . ^' 344 Rev. R. S. Storrs, D. D., - - - - - - " 359 " Have mercy on this realm of England," - - - ^^ 362 Burning of Ridley and Latimer, - - - - " 380 Portrait. Rev. P. G. Robert, - - - - - ^^ 394 Place of martyrdom of Ridley and Latimer, at Oxford, - " 404 Portrait. Rev. G. W. Hughey, A. M., - - - " 414 Rev. Geo. Marsh going to execution, - - - - '^ 426 " The hand with which he had struck the priest was cut otT," '' 448 " Clapped his hands thrice together," - - - ^^ 464 '' His last words were those of prayer,"- - ^ - - " 480 Young wife perishing with her husband, - - - " 490 •^ The cellars of his palace were turned into dungeons," - " 496 ''The iron bar fell on his chest," - - - - '^ 512 Bun van in Bedford gaol, - - •% - - - '^ 530 Death of the Prince of Conde, - - . - ^^ 550 Martyrdom of Rawlins White, - - - - - '' 568 Scourging of George Penn, ----- '^ 596 ' Massacre at Barletta, - - - ,'..." gOQ y^<^<^ PROLOGUE. home's rule is ruin. REV, S. H. FORD, LL.D. In the stone crypt under the great dome at Milan in Italy repose the remains of Cardinal Borommeo. His skeleton form, robed in gorgeous vestments, •lies in a crystal casket. The curious are permitted to gaze on the ghastly face, the eyeless sockets, the grinning teeth, the horrid aspect, of what once beamed with intelligence. On the breast lies the great cross of his ghostly order, set in gleaming jewels, whose brilliancy and beauty seem to smile in mockery at the hollow pomp of that decaying corpse. It is corruption mouldering amid priceless gems and gilded trappings — a picture of Romanism — a soulless, ghostly skeleton in stately pomp and jeweled splendor, in the midst of a living age and beneath the sunlight of God's Word — the Man of Sin whose presence is corruption, whose odor is plague, and whose touch is death. The time was when this corpse was a living power for God and truth and freedom. Paul wrote to the Church in Rome, and embodied in that Epistle living truths wliicli still stir humanity 5 6 REV. S. H. FORD, LL.D. with lofty conceptions of duty and destiny — of indi- vidual responsibility to God, and to no one else, in all mat- ters of conscience. But no priestly or papal domination — no soul- withering dogmas of Church infallibility or priestly absolution — are hinted at in that comprehensive document. Neither the writer nor the Church in Rome had any concep- tion of the inventions of ambitious priests, which have counterfeited Christianity, corrupted human morals, and laid in ruins the true column of majesty in man — his God- given reason. Not for 600 years after the advent of the Redeemer — not till the spirit of truth had taken its flight from the Roman body called a Church — did a mortal claim universal dominion. Then commenced the struggle among the foes of* freedom, as to who should be earth's master — enslave and ruin it. The city of Rome had long been the mistress of the world. An awe was inspired by her very name. Con- stantinople was the imperial residence, eclipsing with its growing splendor this rival city of the Seven Hills. Which of the two principal pastors in those great and rival cities should be the bishop of bishops? They both claimed it, while each upbraided the other' s arrogance. "I confidently say," wrote Gregory the Great, bishop of Rome, ''that whosoever calls himself 'universal bishop' or desires to be so called, in his arrogance, is the forerun- ner of antichrist." This dispute was decided in the year 606, by Phocas, who had murdered the Emperor of Rome, Mauritius, and his six sons and two daughters. To reward the Roman bishop, he conferred on him the ambitious title of "universal ROME'S RULE IS RUIN. 7 bishop;" and to obtain this prize, the bishop sanctioned the murderer and usurper. With demon cruelty Phocas despatched the ministers of death to Chalcedon, where the aged Emperor had taken refuge, after resigning all claims to the purple. He was dragged from his sanctuary, and his five sons were successively murdered before the eyes of their agonized parent. ''At each stroke which he felt in his heart, he exclaimed : Thou art just, O Lord, and Thy judgments are righteous." The tragic scene was closed by the death of the Emperor himself. Over this dark tragedy, Gregory, afterwards called saint, raised a shout of joy. The title of ''universal bishop" had been settled on the Patriarch of Constantinople by a decree of the fallen Emperor. Gregory rejoiced in his fall, and in fulsome flattery wrote to the murderer : ' ' We have hitherto been most grievously afflicted ; but the Almighty hath chosen you, and placed you on the imperial throne, to banish, by your merciful disposition, all our afflictions. Let the heavens, therefore, rejoice ; let the earth leap for joy ; let the whole people return thanks for so happy a change. May the Holy Ghost, that dwells in your breast, ever guide and assist you, that you may, after a long coui'se of years, pass from an earthly and temporal to an ever- lasting and heavenly kingdom." The thing was done — the conspiracy between the traitor and tlie murderer was successful. Phocas became Emperor ; and though Gregorj^ did not live to receive in his own person the coveted title and power for which he liad successfuU}^ struggled, Boniface HI., three years after the death of Gregory, 8 ^ REV. S. H. FORD, LL.D. prevailed on the bloody monster, Phocas, to revoke the former decree, and settle on the bishop of Rome the title of universal bishop. This was the origin of the papacy — the triumph of soul-oppression. Thenceforth its champions uttered their thunders from the Vatican. The title of '^ universal bishop" had been worn by the patriarchs of Constantinople as a proud badge of honor, but transferred to the pope, he used it as an iron wheel to torture and grind down humanity. What a bishop of Rome had branded as ''vain, proud, impious, blasphemous, anti- christian, heretical, execrable, diabolical," when transferred to himself, was worn and claimed as the crown of Christianity. Though obtained by intrigue and treachery, and granted by a base and bloody tyrant, it was soon made an article of faith, the rejection of which was to be visited by banishment and death here, and eternal ruin hereafter. Right and liberty were gone, oppression and corruption everywhere prevailed. Says a great Romanist writer: ''These times, through the ambition and cruel tyranny of the popes, were extremely unhappy ; for the popes, setting aside the fear of God and His worship, fell into such enmities among themselves, as cruel tyrants exercise to one another." {Phil, Burgomansis^ ann, 908.) This is the picture of -papal Rome's meridian glory, drawn, not by the hand of an opponent, but by her learned defender. "We begin," says Hallam, in investigating this period, "in darkness and calamity; and though the shadows grow fainter as we advance, yet we are to break off our pursuit as the morning breathes upon us, and the twilight reddens iiito the luster of day. " "I cannot, indeed, Rome's rule is ruin. 9 conceive any state of society more adverse to the intel- lectual improvement of mankind, than one which admitted of no middle line between gross dissoluteness and fanatical mortification." ^'Such implicit submission could only have produced superstition and hypocrisy in the lait}^, and prepared the road for a tyranny not less oppressive than that of India or ancient Egypt." It was the day of triumph of the foes of freedom. It was the iron rule of spiritual despotism — the reign of terror and of superstition — the ghostly night of the dark ages — the period to which the soldiers of the pope point us as the noontide splendor of their Church, and whose return is the cherished object of their aims, The dim visions of universal dominion which kindled the ambition of Pope Gregory the Great, in deepening splendors thronged on the soul of his successor, Hildebrand — Gregory the VII. With him they were not mere visions. They were glorious realities almost within his grasp ; and only to be battled for in order to be won. The impending struggle was before him, and he girded him- self for the contest. When he ascended the throne, wliose first occupancy fable gave to a piarried apostle, his holiness was shocked at the impurity of that holy rite, which did not sully even the spotless innocence of Eden. A council was called at Lateran, and not only the marriage of priests was forbidden, but every married priest was commanded at once to put away his wife. The decree was answered by complaints and reproaches. *'Were ties the most sacred to be suddenly severed at the bidding of an Italian priest T' 10 REV. S. H. FORD, LL.D. Were men to become angels, or were angels to come down from heaven to minister to men ? ' ' Never was eloquence more toucliing, more just, more unavailing. The struggle was brief. Gregory triumphed. The decree of Hildebrand still rules the Latin Church, a gloomy monument of papal despotism. This first victory was followed by yet bolder undertakings. Concentrating all the power of the infallible Church in himself, he taught the faithful that he was an unerring being — ''a God upok earth." Before his eyes rose a vast theocratic state, wide as the world, and blending and har- monizing in its government religion and politics, while the ''King of kings," from the city of the Caesars, should rule it with absolute sway. From his throne, beneath the sculptured roof of the Vatican, robed in the gorgeous vestments of his pontifical sovereignty, and looking down through the far receding aisles on the array of ecclesiastical princes and lords, before whom "Henry, Emperor of Germany, was sum- moned to be tried " — asserting a jurisdiction so majestic, and saluted by the roll of music and ascending incense, symbolic of the prayers of the universal Church — "Hildebrand arose and, lifting his eyes to heaven, with a voice echoing amid breathless silence through the fretted arches of that lofty hall, he invoked the holy Peter, and in the name of the Trinity, and by the power and authority of Peter," interdicted to King Henry, son of Henry the Emperor, the government of the whole realm of Germany and Italy ; absolved all Christians from their oaths of allegiance to him, and bound him with the bond of anathema. Rome's rule is ruin. 11 The Church of Rome with its head the pope, claims infallibility. Hence these actions and utterances remain authoritative to this hour and apply to this country in all their primitive force. To remove any doubt in regard to this, we cite the following Bull of Pope Boniface, called . Unum Sanctum^ and recently quoted by Archbishop Manning as the proof that the pope can still decide how far his authority shall enter into civil government. Here is the Bull. ^'We are taught by the words of the evangelist: In his power there are two swords, the spiritual and temporal. For when the apostle said : ^ Lo ! here are two swords ; ' namely, in the Church ; when the apostle spoke, the Lord did not say, ^It is too much,' but, 'It is enough.' Certainly he who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of St. Peter, badly attends to the word of our Lord, saying : ' Put thy sword in its sheath.' Both swords, therefore, are in the power of the Church ; namely, the spiritual sword and the material sword ; but the one is to be exercised by the Church, and the other for the Church ; that is the property of the priest in the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the nod and sutfrance of the priest ; for it behooves that one sword be subject to the other, and that the temporal authority be subject to the spiritual power. ''For, truth bearing witness, the spiritual power can appoint the earthly power, and judge it, if it be not good ; for this the prophecy of Jeremiah truly states of the Church and the power of the Church. 'Behold, I have set thee over nations and kingdoms,' etc., which 12 REV. S. H. FOKD, LL.D. follow. Therefore, if the earthly powep deviates^, it is judged by its superior ; but if the supreme power deviates, it can be judged by God alone, not by man. Moreover, we declare, affirm, define, and pronounce, that it is altogether a matter of necessity to salvation, for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiflf." Five hundred years have passed since Boniface died a miserable death ; but never has a single instance occurred of any pope of Rome since having surrendered that claim ; but they have either explicitly announced the doctrine, or else by significant silence, tacitly endorsed it. No pope has denied the indirect temporal authority of the Holy See ; not one instance of the kind can be produced. We see all this refers to the present surroundings and to this last refuge of freedom, America. In proof of it we quote from cotemporary Romanist journals. Let these utterances be heeded by all who love freedom. "For our own part we take this opportunity of ex- plaining our hearty delight at the suppression of the Protestant Chapel at Rome. This may be thought intolerant ; but when, we would ask, did we ever profess to be tolerant of Protestantism, or to favor the doctrine that Protestantism ought to be tolerated ? On the contrary we hate Protestantism — we detest it with our whole heart and soul, and we pray that our aversion to it may never decrease. We hold it meet that in the Eternal City no worship repugnant to God should be tolerated, and we are glad the enemies of the truth are no longer allowed to meet together in the capital of the Christian world.'' —Pittshurgli Catholic. ROME'S RULE IS RUIN. 13 ^' No good government can exist without religion — and there can be no religion without an Inquisition, which is wisel}^ designed for the promotion and protection of the true faith." — Boston Pilot. '^ You ask if he (the pope) were lord in the land, and you were in a minority, if not in numbers yet in power, what would he do to you ? That, we say, depends entirely on circumstances ; if it would benefit the cause of Catholi- cism, he would tolerate you, if expedient, he would imprison you, banish you, fine you, possibly he might even hang you — but, be assured of one thing, he would never tolerate you for the sake of the ' glorious principles of civil and religious liberty.' " — Rambler^ principal organ of the Catholic Church in England, '^Protestantism of every form has not, and never can have, any rights where Catholicity is triumphant." — BrownsorC s Review. ''I never think of publishing anything in regard to the Church, without submitting my articles to the bishop for inspection, approval, and endorsement," — Ibid. ''I declare my most unequivocal submission to the Head of the Church, and to the hierarchy in its difi'erent orders. If the bishops made a declaration on this bill, I never would be heard speaking against it, but would submit at once, unequivocally, to that decision. They have only to determine, and I obey. I wish it to be understood that such is the duty of all Catholics." —Daniel O' Connelly lSJf3. "Heresy and unbelief are crimes^ and in Christian countries, as in Italy and Spain, for instance, where all 14 KEY. S. H. FORD, LL.D. tlie people are Catholic, and where the Catholic religion is an essential part of the law of the land, they will be punished as other crimes/' — Kendric'k. Roman CatJioUc ArcTibisltop of St. Louis '^X heretic, (^xamined and convicted by the Church, used to be delivered over to the secular power and punished with death. Xothing has ever appeared to us more neces- sary. More than one hundred thousand people perished in consequence of the heresy of John Wir-kiifie: a still greater number for that of John Huss; ai/d :t would not be possible to calculate the bloodshed caused by Luther, and it is not yet over.'' — Paris Uaivers. organ of the ArcTibisTtop of Paris. ''As for myself, what I regret. I frankly own, is. that they did not burn John Huss sooner, and Lhat they did not likewise burn Luther; this happened because there was not found some prince sufficiently politic to stir up a crusade against the Protestants." — Ibid. '* Protestantism of every kind. Catholicity inserts in her catalogue of mortal sins. She endures it when and where she must, but she hates it, and directs all her energies to its destruction." — St. Louis Shepard of the Ycdley^ 1852. "As long as I live, the religious press of Paris shall be watched, and if necessary, repressed by spiritual weapons of which I can dispose. It shall either remain within the line of duty, or leave this diocese and seek elsewhere a more complacent jurisdiction to preach contempt for the hierarchy, and make war on the authority which I hold from Divine Mercy and the grace of the Holy Apostolical See." — ArchMsTiop of Paris. home's rule is ruin. 15 ''The absurd and erroneous doctrines or ravings in defense of liberty of conscience, is a most pestilential error — a pest of all others most to be dreaded in a State." — E i toy clical Letter of Phts 7X., Aug. 15, 18J^6. ''The profession of the papist is mdispensable as a qualification for the exercise of civil and political rights." — Pope Pius, Mo.rcli IJ^, 181^8, The infallible and '^saintly" Pope Pius, from his pontifical cliair, tells us that the profession of the popish religion is indispensable as a qualification for the exercise of civil and political rights. Where would these rights be, had the present pope the power to enforce his decrees? Ah ! Rome tells us she endures Protestantism where she must, but let her have the power in this land, as she has liad in others, and what becomes of our right to worship Crod according to the dictates of our conscience? What becomes of human freedom ? What becomes of all that is dear to us as the descendants of a noble ancestry who won for us the freedom we now enjoy ? These are the current and outspoken testimonies of what Rome is to-day, and show what blight and ruin her full sway would bring on us, as it has on every land where she has had rule. She has blasted with worse than withering mildew the brightest garden-spots of the old world. Spain, the home of chivalry, the once proud mistress of the world, whose navies swe])t the seas, whose dependencies circled the earth, and whose guarantees of liberty were in advance of any cotemporary nation. Spain seemed placed by Providence under priestly ruh\ to show the world the efiects of spiritual despotism on the 16 REY. S. H. FORD, LL.D. happiness and prosperity of a nation. And look at her now, with all her efforts to break the shackles of slavery — a dreary waste, haunted by monks and beggars. And shall this clime of ours ever be darkened by the gloom that has settled on that country of the orange and the nightingale — that once glorious land ? Look at Italy, the land of poetry and beauty, around whose name gather the glorious associations of antique freedom and noble heroism. Paralj^zed through centuries by the gloom and curse of priestly oppression, it took almost a miracle to arouse her from her death-sleep and regain her capital from the grasp of an usurping priest. Pope Alexander VI. invited the French into Lombardy, and gave up its fairest cities to the ferocit}^ of his son Csesar Borgia. He was the center figure in the celebrated League of Cambrai, in which foreign tyrants joined to prostrate the powder and w^ealth of the ^'Qaeen of the Adriatic" — the Republic of Venice, and to destroy her nationality and her liberties. Pope Julian betrayed Naples into the hands of invading despots by a scheme of infamous hypocrisy, and when men eulogized the late Pope Pius, because he emptied the gloomy prisons of Rome of 1,500 political prisoners, and permitted thousands of banished men to return to their families, what a comment w^as this simple act of justice on the despotism of his predecessor, who made arbitrary arrests and imprisoned and banished men and women for daring to breathe a wjiisper of freedom! But the eulogized Pope Pius simply followed the iron, unalterable law of Romanism. The Council of Trent decreed: Rome's rule is ruin. 17 ^'If AKY OlS^E SHALL PRESUME TO TIIIIS^K OR TEACH DIFFEREI^TLY FROM THESE DECREES, LET HIM BE AC- CURSED." '^ If any one disobey, let him be denounci^I by the ordinaries and perish according to law." Here is Rome's veto on thought itself. No clashing of thought with thought must agitate, no breath of human discussion awaken or disturb the dead, stagnant, prostra- tion of all that stamps divinity on the immortal mind. Ruin is the result ; and Ireland under this rule, although she glorifies her Protestant patriots, Robert Emmet and Grattan and Curran and Mitchell, sinks back powerless beneath the weight of a crushing hierarchy, and the ''Green Isle,"^ with all its genius and its patriotism, lies helpless in her chains, while her exiled sons still bow to the ghostly power that enslaves them. When all these patent facts front us, what is our duty in regard to that monstrous power which is intent upon the destruction of all that is dear to Americans, and all that gives glory to our country? Shall we send our daughters to gloomy convents, where secluded superstitious women will use all their influence to check the inquiring spirit, all that gives strength to the mind and fits women for Mfe' s battle ? Shall we send our sons to teachers who have never been trained by independent thought, by the clash of mind with mind, to grapple with the problems of the hour and stimulate mind to its highest and grandest efForis? Are we ever to be fascinated b}^ the silence and obscurity of men and women of whose antecedents we can know nothing, whose qualiiications to teach must be taken for granted, and whose known object 2 18 REV. S. H. FORD, LL.D. in establisliing colleges and schools is to bow the intellect to Roman authority and pervert the heart from the truth of God? Let every parent and guardian ask, Are Romanist colleges and convents erected for the purpose of educating, of enlarging and storing the mind ? The answer of every intelligent man and Avoman must be, No. If education was the object, these hordes of foreign priests and nuns would find ample work in their own benighted lands. The sole object of their teaching is to build up Romanism, to bias the j^oung mind and immesli it in the net of their false system. When they ftxil in doing this they fail in their great object, and can it be that Protestants will stilly make their children the victims of their machinations and subject them to the rule that ruins ? Thank God the veil is partially lifted from the eyes of Protestants. The supposed learning of priests— of a class of men not one of whom has produced a book of character in America, and of women who, with a smattering of languages and a know- ledge of fancy needle-work, have never caused one ripple on the current of public thought — priests and nuns, scarce one of whom could get from any impartial board of examiners a certificate of qualification to teach in our common schools — this supposed learning has bt?en shown to be a fancy; and ignorance has been disclosed as lurking beneath priestly robes and black veils. And let the object and qualifications of these men and women be fully known, and fevv^ Protestants will sacrifice their children to swell the current of Romanist perverts, and help fulfill the priestly prophecy ''that America will soon bow beneath the rule. ROME'S RULE IS RUIN. . 19 America is tlie strong-hold of freedom. Against it the engines of despots are directed. Once destroyed, and the very name of freedom is gone. Here, then, the final battle must be fought. Here the triumph of oppression would tell on tlie wide world through all coming time. Foes are mustered for the combat ; the notes of preparation are heard. Lovers of your country, inheritors of the glory with which your ancestry have crowned it, the eyes of the world are upon you ; the temple of liberty is committed to your keeping. Guard it, defend it ; send up for it your prayers ; if need be, sacrifice for it your lives. '*We must forget all feelings save the one] we must resign all passions save our purpose ; we must behold no object save our country, and only look on death as beauti- ful, so that the sacrifice ascend to heaven and draw down freedom on her universe." PUV. BISHOP E.M.MAKVnST, D.P, LEOTTJI^ES OF ENOCH MATHER MARVIN, LATE BISHOP OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH. CIIIUST IN THE SACRAMENT — TRANSUBSTANTIATION TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. " These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the "Word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so." — [Acts, xvii. 11. I READ this Scripture, not for purposes of exposition, but as indicating the spirit in which I desire these lectures to "be received. And, by the way, these persons are com- mended for testing by Holy Scripture what they heard. The right of j)rivate judgment is made indubitable by this in- spired approval . I shall consider, this evening, the fact and manner of Christ' s presence in the Sacrament. There is scarcely any doctrine more consolator}^ to the true Christian than that of the Savior's presence with him. When assembled for tlie worship of God, witli a few of liis chosen, what comfort you have received, my bretluvn, from tliat gracious assurance, '' Where two or tlmv are gathertnl together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.'' 21 22 LATE BISHOP E. M. MARVIN. To liis ministers Jesus said : '^Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." Nor does he confine him- self to his ministers. " He that loveth me," so speaks our Lord, ' ' shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. " ' ' If a man love me he will keep my words ; and my Father w411 love him, and we will "^come unto him, and make our abode with him." (John, xvi: 2I3 23.) To his assembled worshippers, to his ministers, and to every man that loves him, Jesus has pledged his perpetual presence. Imagine the emotions of the little persecuted Church of Smyrna, which had been serving, and sufiering for, an un- seen Master, unnoticed in their sorrows, when, all unex- pected, a message comes from Him : '^I know th}^ works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich)." Though unseen, their Master was not absent, and what a joy must that have been which had its birth in the knowledge that he was witness of their suffering and their fidelity ! Hence- forth tribulation for His sake must be a luxury, and the loss of all things in His service, the best of riches. Let Christ but turn the eye of His compassion upon me, and the pang of death itself is turned to rapture. Never is the blessed Savior more eminently present than when His people are gathered around the table, in the communion of His body and His blood. Never are His followers more conscious of His presence than when en- gaged in that most solemn service. They are within the very shade of Calvary. They are in sympathy with the sorrow that broke the Savior' s heart. The fact of His presence in the Eucharist is denied by no Christian, and I shall not waste time in ofiering proof of an unchallenged proposition. But in what manner is He present — physically or spirit- aally? Is the substance of bread transformed into His body, and the substance of wine into His blood I Is the CHRIST IN THE SACRA:MEjST. 23 whole Christ, soul and Godhead, under the appearance of bread, distributed amongst the communicants, and re- ceived and eaten by them ? Or is He present in a spiritual manner, and so received by faitli ? The advocates of transubstantiation insist upon the literal rendering of the words of institution — " This is my body — this is my blood;" while the advocates of the spirit- ual presence maintain that the language is figurative, that its meaning is simply, ''This represents my body — this rej^reserds VLiy blood." Now, is there an intelligible method by which the com- mon mind may definitely settle this dispute? We shall see. On the part of the literalist it is maintained that figura- tive language is necessarily mystical, and of doubtful meaning, and that, on such a subject and at such a time, our Lord would express himself in no dubious terms. Tiiat considerations of infinite moment prompted him to intelli- gible statement, I admit. But that figurative language is of questionable import invariably, or that it baffles the understanding of ordinary men, is contrary to fact and daily observation. In common conversation men of every grade, the cultivated and the uncultivated, are almost con- stantly expressing themselves by figures. Take a homely instance. A man undertakes to describe a worthless and inipiacticable fellow, of whom no use can be mad(^ for val- uable ends, and condenses a whole paragraph info a pithy figure : '' He is a crooked stick." No man misunderstands that. No man can misunderstand it. Why, even children use this species of expression, and understand each other perfectly. Figurative language has this advantage, tliat while it is often no more liable to misinterpretation than litcMal state- ment, it conveys a much more livi^ly im})ressien. 1( arrt sts the attention, penetrates the mind, and infixes itselT in the 24 LATE BISHOP E. M. MARTIN. memory more effectually. It combines the qualities of statement, argument and illustration It draws a picture of the truth, and hangs it up before the mind. In fact, no man makes himself so well and- ] perfectly understood, or brings his matter so a^ccurately to the minds of others, as he who is master of figurative speech. For this reason it is the most fitting vehicle of vital truth. Hence its so frequent use in Scripture, as we shall see, in the communication of most essential doctrine. Matter that required to be seen, and felt, and remembered, was put into this most attractive shape, and sent upon the mission of enlightenment and love. There is then, in the nature of this mode of utterance, no reason why it should not have been used in the institution of the Sacrament; but, on the contrary, its properties, as given above, indicate its fitness for that great occasion, above all other forms of language. It is a canon of interpretation universally accepted, that the various parts of any waiting are to be. understood in harmony with the whole. Bear this in mind as we proceed with the investigation. Now, that this language is figurative, is rendered highly probable by the fact that figures of the same class and form are of frequent recurrence in the Bible. Take the familiar case of the dream of Pharaoh, as interpreted by Joseph. He saw seven fat cattle devoured by seven lean ones, and afterwards seven full ears of corn consumed by seven blasted ears. The seven fat kine are seven j^ears of plent}^ — the seven lean kine are seven years of famine — the seven full ears are seven fruitful years — the seven blasted ears are seven years of dearth. Who makes any difficulty of understanding all this? The child who reads it for the first time needs no one to tell him that the cattle and the ears of corn of certain descriptions simply represent years of corresponding description. And it is the very figure of the eucharistic law — ' 'this is my body." CHRIST IN THE SACRAMENT. 25 With this single passage from the Old Testament, let us come to the New. And that our instances may be the more strictly pertinent, we will confine our examination to the language of Christ himself : ^^I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord," &c. No one understands the first clause of this passage literally. As these characters stand, one at each extremity of the alphabet, so Christ embraces all things in the compass of his immortal existence. The Alpha and the Omega represent his all-comprising nature. ''I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." This text is purely figurative, and precisely of the same class with those already given. The neuter verb, to he^ is put for the active verb, to represent The root from which the plant springs repre- sents Christ's relation to David, in his divine nature, as the Creator, the source of life. In his human nature he is David's offspring. As the ''teacher sent from God," he is represented by the bright star whose rays mitigate the gloom of midnight, and light the traveler in safety along his dubious way. And the morning star, herald of the coming day, expresses, with sublime beneficence, the promise which his advent and his resurrection give, of a perfect immortality at hand. Passing from this book of symbols, the Apocalypse, from which these two last passages are taken, let us admire the profusion with which just such figures are scattered throughout the whole extent of our Savior's teaching during the period of his incarnation. In the Sermon on the Mount, the great Teacher gives an epitome of Christian ethics. To his disciples lie says, ''Ye are the light of the world — ye are the salt of \\w (^aith/' Here is our figure again — tlie lUMitcn* verb ])iit Wov the active — to he^ signifying to represent. And if evt^' i)hiinnt\-^s and certainty of meaning w(*re demanded, it was in this 26 LATE BISHOP E. M. MARVIN. case, when lie gave tlie principles wliicli underlie tlie whole stracture of his religion. Perspicuity and impres- siveness were required, and a figurative style, within just limits, exactly met the requisition. Again, the world stands before the Divine Instructor, in the person of its representative, Nicodemus. Ignorant humanity waits in his presence for words which shall be tlie key of salvation. The words are uttered — and tltey are figurative — ''Ye must be born again.'' ''Except a man be born again he can not see the kingdom of God." At another time. He is passing through Samaria, and as he approaches the city of Sychar, coming to Jacob's vfell, he reposes there, while his disciples go into the city for the purpose of procuring food. A woman comes to the well to draw water, and he asks her to give him drink. . Such was the national animosity between the Jews and the Samaritans, that the woman expressed her surprise that He should ask of her even so small a favor as that. With what compassion Jesus answered, ''If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me drink, thou wouldst have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water." The w^oman was incredulous, and objected that the well was deep, and he had nothing to draw with, ''Art thou greater," said she, 'Hhan our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle ?" Jesus replied, "Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again ; but whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlast- ing life." In this instance the Savior instructs a woman, ignorant of divine things, in the great principles of his doctrine, and makes water, and the drinking of it, repre- sent the saving grace of the Spirit. Water, essential to vitality, and refreshing to the famished as it is^ conveys a CHRIST IN THE SACRAMENT, 27 most lively idea of the vitalizing presence of the Holy Spirit. And I have never heard that any one, however dull, understood this scripture literally, and supposed that the ''gift of God" was nothing more nor less than the com- mon substance, water, a well of which, ''springing up," was to be located in every believer. Br.t, to the brief, look at the following statements of our Savior : ''I am the true vine — ye are the branches — my father is the husbandman." ''I am the way, the truth and the life." ''I am the good Shepherd." ^'I am the door ; by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture." Now, in view of this array of texts, note the following facts : First, our Lord was in the habit of using figurative language. Secondly, lie used it on the most important occasions, as in his Sermon on the Mount, and his dis- course to Nicodemus. Thirdly, he announced his most important doctrines in this v/ay, such as the new birtli, tlie access by himself alone into spiritual life, and tlie conserv- ing influence of his people upon the world. Figures were not the mere fringes and decorations of his stj'le, but the very garments in Avhich his truili appeared. Tiiey were not tlie frescoing and cornice- work, but the beams and girders of the structure lie erected were laid in this most expressive style. And, fourthly, a larg(^, a Tcry large ])]'()portion of his figures are identical with that used ill ( -.o institution of the Eucharist, supposing it to bi^ ()n(\ I; ar^y all tlie instances cit(Hl above, the neuter verb is e^ iiuti^d for the active — t')l)*\ Wn- to represcui. ii any man suppose tliat in the institution of his k r, a nnniiorial of his sufterings, he wouUl have used a ..ill of speech whi(*li his invaiiable custom had conse- cr h (I \() Jlffiirative us(% in a littM'al sense? Such a. (hpar- tui»' ironi iiis own (\sta,blished usag(^ would ha\"(^ Ihm'U suih^ to deceive. Ijut wiien he who had said, '*Ye ai\^ the 28 LATE BISHOP E. M. MAItYlN. light of the world/ ' '^Ye are the salt of the earth," ^'I am the way,'' ''lam the vine,'' ''I am the shepherd," ''lam the door," said again, ''This bread is my body," he in- tended to be understood just as in former cases. The common sense of mankind can never be turned aside from this plain view of it. And one of the instances given above was part of a discourse to the Disciples at the very time when the Euchar- ist was instituted. "I am the true vine, and my father is the husbandman," (John xv. 1.) In a preceding chapter an account of the Supper is given, and this is in a conver- sation that ensued. In the brief hours that intervened between the Supper and the betrayal, when the echo of the words, "This is my body," had scarcely died, he said, "I am the vine." The latter was figurative; AVas the farmer literal ^ Xot one of you believes it, or can believe it If this form of expression is necessarily literal, then Christ teaches that his kingdom is a material edifice, when he says, "I am the door;" and we must suppose that he is an opening in the wall, or perhaps a door hung on hinges, to admit or obstruct ingress and egress. To such extremity must those be driven who are obliged, under the fulmination of horrible anathemas, to maintain an unreasonable dogma. It would be infinitely easier to maintain it among a people who had not been bewitched by the right of private judgement. But I must call your attention now to a Scripture which is most imjDortant in this discussion, for two rea- sons : First, it contains this very species of figure of which I have said so much; and, secondly, it is analogous in other respects to the language used in the Law of the sacrament. Let me urge you to turn to the place and read it very carefully. It is in John vi. 30, 65. In the hope that you will examine for yourselves, I ask CHRIST IN THE SACRAMENT. 29 your attention to what I have to say in reference to this important place. The Jews, demanding a sign of Jesus, refer him to the miracle of the manna, on which their fathers fed in the desert, conveying the intimation that some such divine vindica- tion of his claim was requisite. He at once informs them that not Moses, but God, gave them the bread, "For my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world?'^ He said, on more than one occasion, ''I am the Life!" Here he declares that he gives life to the world — the same thought — alluding to the fact that the life of the ancient Hebrews was preserved in the desert by manna, or bread from heaven. As that was sent for their physical life, so he came to give spiritual life to men. He then immediately proceeds to show (v. 35) how this life .may be secured. "He that cometh to me shall never hunger ; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." The same thing is reWerated twice in the succeeding verses (verses 37, 40). But the Jews "murmured at him because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven," (v. 41.) Then he renewed with great emphasis the reiteration of the great truth that the life he came to give was to be received by coming to him — by faith^ (vs. 44, 45, 47.) '^ He that helieveth on me, Jiath everlasting life^ Having thus repeatedly and with emphasis guarded them against a gross literal interpretation of his words, he returns to the forcible and expressive figure: "I am that bread of life,'' (v. 48.) Having secured the figurative interpretation, he proceeds to give the figure in the boldest manner, to render it the more deeply impressive (vs. 50 to 58.) "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my iiesh aiul drinketh ni}- blood hath eternal life; and I Avill raise him up at the 30 LATE BISHOP E. M. MARYIN. last day." (Compare this with v. 40, ''And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day." This shows the ^ identity of the meaning in the words eating and helieving^ as used in this discourse. Of conrse the term eating is figurative). His auditors, however, persisted in being offended at His language. The eating of His flesh, and drinking of His blood, vras to them a "hard saying." Jesus seemed almost indignant at the perverseness of their understanding. ''AVhat," said He, ''and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" Do you suppose I intend to parcel my body out among you to be literally eaten ? No, verily, it shall go intact to heaven. I am not talking literally about eating flesh. ' ' It is the spirit that quickeneth ; the flesh profiteth nothing ; the words that I speak unto j^ou, they are spirit and thej^ are life"^v. 63). Thus He closed with a formal and solemn repudiation of a literal interpretation of this peculiar language, and fixed forever its spiritual and vital import. It is not at all surprising to me that our friends, who desire to establish the literal import of these passages, should also desire to withdraw the Scriptures from the private judgment of mankind, and secure a monopoly of interpretation for themselves. This place requires a world of interpreting to make it appear that the flesh of Jesus is literally to be eaten. If I desired to induce the people to believe tliat^ I should follow their example, I am sure. I should want the interpreting all in my own hands. But it is too late. The spark of thought that Luther struck, more than three hundred years ago, has kindled a flame that can never be extinguished. You will observe that the form of this figure is the same which we have found so often in the Saviors teaching, and CHRIST IN THE SACRAMETs^T. 31 the same that He used at the Last Supper. '^I am that bread." And again, that the matter is analogous, lie represents himself by bread in both places. AYe have seen that, in this place, he expressly gives his language a figurative or spiritual meaning. Is it possible, then, that in the other it is to be understood literallj^ or physically ? One other remark in reference to this passage, and I dismiss it. If you will take the pains to compare it witli the conversation with the woman of Scamaria, already cited, you will discover a striking parallel, both in the matter and language of the two places, water being the basis of the figure there and bread here. At this point the argument stands thus : our Lord habitaally used this form of speech in a figurative way ; He used it in this way on the most important occasions, and for communicating the most important matters ; He used it in this figurative way in reference to matter strictly analo- gous to the eucharistic institution; and finally He used it in this way in a conversation just after the sacramental Sapper. All the surrounding facts, then, point, with un- broken consent, to the figurative character of the language used on that solem^n occasion. Now let us examine the passages in wliich the institution is given, and question them directly as to their import. In the first place, take into account tlie occasion on which the sacrament was instituted. Christ was celebrat- ing, witli his disciples, the feast of the Passover. You are familiar with the history of that feast. It was commemo- rative — and that of an event which prefigured tlie slijuhliiig of Christ's blood, and its happy result to His peopl(\ Th^^ paschal lamb was not repi'oduced, but the i)aschal schmu^ was recalled. So the disciples, taking the hint from 1 his, would un- d(M'stand that the ])assion of (.-lirist was commtMnorahnl in th(.^ Suppc^r whick he then establislK^i. IT there had bccMi 32 LATE BISHOP E= M. MAR YIN. any doubt of this, his words confirmed it: ''This do in remembrance of me." This bread is to be broken, and this wine poured out, to recall the breaking of my body, and the shedding of my blood. If Christ is reproduced^ He is not remembered^ and His words — ''This do in remembrance of me'' — have no signifi- cance. If He is reproduced and eaten, He is received, and not recalled. Another fact which we find in the words of institution is this : that Matthew and Mark give the words in reference to the wine — '"'this is my blood of the new testament;" while Luke gives them thus — " this is the new testament in my blood." Now, if the words are literal, then there is a contradiction between Luke and the other two evangelists; for the blood of Christ, and the new testament in His blood, are difi'erent things. But, on the contrary, the figurative in- terpretation covers both statements, for the wine represents both the blood and the new testament established in it. So, you see, the language, interpreted in its own light, is unquestionably figurative. If anything can add to the certainty of the result already arrived at, it is the fact that the inspired writers of the Xew Testament, with one accord, -so far as they speak on the subject, depose against transubstantiafion. See Acts ii. 46, and XX. 7. If transubstantiation were true, the substance received and eaten in the Eucharist is not bread, but the flesh of Christ. But the sacred historian calls it bread. See also 1 Cor. x. 16, and xi. 23, 29. Here you discover the same fact, the substance eaten is not the body of Christ, but bread. "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death until He come." Perhaps I have wearied you with proofs. I will for- bear. Enough has been said for the present. You have your Bibles. Be thankful for the boon, and search them "whether these things are so." OF ENOCH MATHER MARVIN, LATE BISHOP OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH. PRACTICAL RESULTS OF THE DOCTRINE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. " And their word will eat as doth a canker."— [2 Tim. ii. 17. As most of you are already aware, I have, this evening, to deal with the practical results of the doctrine of Tran- substantiation. In doing so, I will, in the beginning, make this disclaimer : I do not charge that every individual who holds this doctrine realizes, in his own character, all the bad results which naturally flow from it. I have personal friends who are members of the Roman Church — persons of intelligence, and, I doubt not, of piety. A principle does not produce all of its own proper results in every mind that embraces it, for the reason that other causes meet it, and counteract it, and modify its influence. So, doubtless, this unfortunate dogma is received by many persons who escape, in a measure, the disastrous con- sequences of their faith. As this may be accounted for, first, by the fact that in their creed there are recognized some of the great truths of 3 33 34 LATE BISHOP E. M. MARVIN* religion, which they apprehend with sufficient clearness to break the force of this capital error ; and, secondly, living in the midst of a community where the Bible is untram- meled, and the true light shines, their characters are, from that source, unconsciously benefited. So that, partly from within, and partly and more largely from without, redeem- ing influences save them from the full measure of calamity in which, otherwise, the doctrine of tran substantiation would involve them. Yet I have no doubt that, even in this country, great numbers do realize the results which are to be hereafter specified ; and that, in those countries where the Papacy is supreme, they are well nigh, or quite, co-extensive with the influence of the Church. What I charge is, that these are the logical and philosophical sequences of the doctrine, and that, just so far as it has its course unchecked by other and correcting influences, it inevitably produces them. I ask a candid hearing of my friends of the Papal commu- nion. It can do no harm to consider what I say. Think of it. Do not spurn it because it comes from a source you have been taught to distrust. If my statements and argu- ments have not the marks and brands of truth, you can easily discard them ; if they have, I beseech you to weigh them with candor. You may not find all those evils in your own case, but may it not be that you have been saved from them by causes outside of your own Church ? Pos- sibly you owe more to Protestantism than you suppose. But if you are exempt, still ask yourself, and ask facts and history, if what I say is not true, and if it has not found sad exemplification in millions of cases. No error is found by itself ; they go in herds, so that whenever you find one you are sure to find others keeping it company. There is always a leader in each group, and whichever way that one goes the rest are sure to follow. Error itself does homage to truth, in that it strives to DOCTRINE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 35 resemble it. Nor does it make any great headway among men, except as it does, in some particulars, resemble that which is true. One of the most striking features of truth is, that in all its parts it is consistent with itself. The mind recognizes this instinctively, and will tolerate nothing that can not bring this testimony in its favor. So each particu- lar truth must be in keeping with every other one. This pervading characteristic of truth must be simulated by every falsehood before it can gain any credit. Every prin- ciple, true or false, stands related to other principles ; and every fact, true or assumed, stands related to others ; and in each case there must be consent and concurrence among them all, otherwise their disagreement proves their false- hood. There is a native, inevitable logic, that will proceed from one thing to another, and from a fact, or an assump- tion, construct a system. And every member of this system will be homogeneous with the first. If the initial assump- tion be true, so will the rest be true ; if it be false, so will they. If one error could be maintained by itself, it would not be so bad ; but if I hold one, it must precipitate me head- long into a whole class. All truth is important, and it is a positive misfortune to me to believe any falsehood — even such as have no connection with practical life. It puts me, just to the extent of its own magnitude, out of adjustment with the universe. But in those relations in wliich error connects itself with life and character, it is terribly perni- cious. An error of this class, to the whole extent of its meaning, perverts the life and deforms the character of those who embrace it. But the harm stops not there ; it brings along after it its whole famil}", brothers, cousins and all, and the whole greedy tribe feed upon the lite, and sub- sist upon the blasted character, of their unhappy victim. The doctrine of transubstantiation belongs to tliis mis- chievous class of errors. It stands in a false relation to 36 LATE BISHOP E. M. MARYIN. •almost every vital truth of both theoretical and practical religion, and once it is received, they must either lose their significance, or be exchanged for falsehoods. Unlike them, and contradictory to them as it is, it can not be received while they remain nncorrupted. There they stand, witness- ing with divine authority against it ; and they must be put out of the way, or corrupted in the mind of the believer, until they become homogeneous with it. Such havoc does it produce in the beautiful garden of truth. ''Their word will eat as doth a canker." To show you that I am not talking at random, i proceed to specifications and proofs. 1. The doctrine of transubstantiation materializes reli- gion. It ofiers us a corporeal Christ, and teaches us that we are to receive Him, and be united to Him by a physical act. Our Savior calls Himself the vine, and His people branches of the vine. Using the same figure, the apostle represents the true spiritual Church as an olive tree. The Jews were the natural branches, and were broken ofi" by icnbelief. The Gentiles were grafted in by faith. No one can fail to see the exalted spiritual truth herein conveyed — the personal, spiritual union of Christ and His people. He is the head, they are the body, and faith is the act by which the union is consummated. Christ is not received in any corporeal act, but by a spiritual one — hy faith. " As many as received Him, to them gave He the power to be- come the sons of God ; even to them that believe on His name." Believing on His name, and receiving Him, are, in this Scripture, the same thing. It is the soul that re- ceives Christ, and not the teeth and the stomach. ''The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." Can you believe that the spiritual life is sustained, just as the animal life is, by eating? — that spiritual food is masticated, and spiritual nutrition obtained, by manduca- Christians Worried by Do^^s. Fagc 457. DOCTRINE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 37 tion? By this theory man is materialized, and religion is materialized for him. The soul is assimilated to the body, and lives in the same way. Infinitely diverse from this is the doctrine of Christ. His people are born again — born of the Spirit, born to a new life. The nutrition of this life is not bread, but grace ; it is not eaten, but received by faith, as Christ himself so plainly teaches in the sixth chapter of John. Now, where this fictitious eating of Christ is substituted for the spiritual reception of him in the new birth, the most deplorable con- sequences must follow. Religion becomes mere formalism. Th^ pJiysical is made the basis of the real. Do you ima- gine that that alone is real which is outward and palpable \ Do you imagine that flesh is more a substance than spirit ? No ! it is spirit that is pre-eminently actual. The basis of being is here. " Gfod is a Spirit," and he is the Fountain of Being. Surrounded by the material so completely as we are, we need to be constantly lifted up to the perception of the spiritual life. This is the office of religion ; and what a misfortune has befallen us when, instead of lightening the material load.that weighs down our thoughts, it adds to it yet more and more ! Oh, Religion ! art thou not indeed then celestial ! Hast thou abandoned us to the flesh ! Vital piety can not flow from this corporeal ministra- tion of grace. I do not say that there may not be by this means a development of religious sentiment. But the question is, Is it the true religious sentiment 1 There may be, and often is, a religious feeling which will impel tlie subject of it to many acts of self-denial, and to a laborious pietism, which yet is not true piety. The Pharisees of our Savior' s day were illustrious examples of this. They fasted twice a week ; they bestowed alms; they paid the full titlio with rigid exactness; they made long prayers, often on the corners of the streets. Yet tlie}^ robbed widows' houses, and made the temple a den of thieves. Even the giMitle 38 LATE BISHOP E. M. MARYIN. spirit of Christ became indignant wlien he saw their officious parade of counterfeit religious wares. " Hypocrites — brood of vipers" — these were the mildest appellations by which they could be characterized. Paganism develops reli- gious sentiment to a very high degree. What sacrifices have not been made to the gods ! How strong must that sentiment be which causes the Hindoo devotee to elevate his arm, and hold it there until it becomes rigid ? Does the Christian martyr die ? Yes, for his faith he will die. When driven to the last alternative, to deny his Lord, or burn, he will burn. So will the Hindoo die. Voluntarily, to enhance his merit in the eyes of his God, the Hindoo gives himself to death. Here are the most commanding senti- ments, and, in their way, they are religious. The truth is, the religious consciousness is native in the human breast. It is there, and it responds to the call of . error as well as to that of truth. And it is often aroused to feverish and exaggerated strength under the teachings of a false faith. It is, therefore, no test of true religion that there is a strong religious consciousness. . It may exist and express itself in the most elaborate formalism. But ''the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but rlgJiteousnesSy enid peace ^ iMxd. joy in the Holy Ghost,'''' True godliness expresses itself, not so much in a bustling parade of forms, as in a pure life. It loves religious forms for the spirit that is in them. But it does not rest in the form. And when you see a punctilious observance of forms, with a profane and licentious life, you may bo sure there is something sadly out of joint. Is there not a deadly wrong when the beer garden and the grog shop are the favorite evening haunts of those who were devout in the morning? These are sober considerations. My candid friend, think. This, then, is the first count in the indictment of the doctrine of transubstantiation, that it materializes religion, DOCTRINE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 33 destroys its vitality, and so leads to formalism, and defeats that practical, purifying effect upon character which true Christian doctrine produces. 2. The second count in the indictment is, that it vitiates the loor ship of God, ''God is a Spirit, and they tliat wor- ship Him, must worship Him in spirit and in truth." (John iv. 24). The object of the second commandment of the Decalogue is to secure this purity and spirituality of worshij). ''Thou shalt not make unto thyself any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them; for I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God," etc. (Ex xx. 4, 5. See, also. Lev. xxvi. 1; Dent. iv. 16-19, 8, andxxvii. 15; and Ps. xcvii. 7). This point was guarded with special care. God knew with what facility the mind would come to stop at the image, and cease to look beyond it to that which it represented. Hence the law prohibits the making of any image to represent either created things, false gods, or the true God, for purposes of worship. God would have the mind of the worshipper directed immediately to himself. He would have the thought unoccupied with any other ob- ject, lest his glory should be divided with another. We are in danger of doing injustice to the idolatrous religions of the world, by supposing that they teach the worship of mere images. Their images are hut images, intended to express some trait in tlie character of the god they represent, and thus aid tlie mind in its conception of the divinity wliich is the object of worship. Often, no doubt, tliey sup- posed the God to be present in tlie image. They imagined thenis(3] ves to be paying lionmge to the Divine nature ; they were sadly mistaken. The case of the worshipof the host is not strictly parallel, but, at the sani(3 time, it is analogous. Though th(^ l)i<'ad is not an imag(^, yet they suppose it to be inhabiUited by 40 LATE BISHOP E. M. MARYIN. the true God, and, nnder tliat idea, ''bow down themselves to it." They worship God under a false view; they wor- ship him under a false form. They worship him, but not in truth. And though the mind of the cultivated Roman- ist may, by an effort, raise itself from the bread to the Divine nature, yet is it not inevitable that the untaught and unskillful mind will be arrested by the material object before it, and that that object will receive a share, at least, of its homage? Is not this idolatry? Even those most skilled in discrimination, if they suppose the wafer to be in a special manner the receptacle of. God, and conceive of it thus, confer a species of divine honor upon the insensible creature before them, and must regard it with a degree of reverence not due to any creature. How much does this want of idolatry ? I submit the question to yourselves for decision. The thoughtful Romanist, who examines this subject thoroughly, will scarcely bow before the wafer without misgiving. Pause at the check of conscience, and ask your soul if you are not giving the glory of the great God to another. Can you bow before that wafer, and then meet God with confidence and composure ? Oh ! my brother, I entreat you, for your own sour s sake, suffer not your priest to lead you into sacrilege. 3. This dogma perverts the ministerial office. The attentive reader of the New Testament must have observed that the chief function of the ministerial office is that of preaching. The Divine "Word, the Truth, is the prin- cipal instrument selected by the Almighty for the turning of men to himself. The Word of God is the good seed in the parable of the sower. (Mat. xiii. 3-8, 18-23.) According to Peter, it is the incorruptible seed by which we are born to a new life. (1 Pet. i. 2, 3.) James declares, with^ equal plainness, that the spiritual life comes to us through the Word. ( James i. 18.) For this reason the divine injunc-. tion to ministers of the gospel is, '' PreacJi the Word,''^ DOCTRINE OF TRANS UBSTANTIATION. 41 "Gro ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." (Mark xvi. 15.) ''Go ye, therefore, and TEACH all nations." (Mat. xxviii. 19.) Such is the commission. It expresses, in language that absolutely precludes misunderstanding, the nature of the ministerial calling. The ministef s vocation is to preach. The pas- toral office is incident to this. He is to preach not only publicly, but also ' 'privately, from house to house. ' ' He has charge of the flock, that he may feed it with the word of truth. And this charge involves certain responsibility in the discipline of the Church, as explained by the apostle in tlie epistles to Timothy. But all this grows naturally ^nd necessarily out of the original design of the office — the preaching of the gospel. This is the extent of ministerial powers as given in the Christian Scriptures. But transubstantiation, and the sacrifice of the mass, require a priesthood, whose office is, having procured the divine change in the elements, to offer them as a sacrifice to God. N'ow, in the Christian dispensation, there is no human priest as an officer in the Church. The Lord Jesus is himself the only priest, and has offered the only sacrifice. This I proved to you in my last lecture. Those men who assume the sacerdotal office, do actually usurp the office of the Lord Jesus Christ. To such sacrilege does this fatal dogma lead them. O ! ye priests of Rome, tlie best of you, though ye were pure as an apostle, are jowv hands clean enough to off'er that immaculate victim, tlie Lamb of God ? How dare you, to assume the peculiar office of the Son of God ? For such temerity you must one day answer to your Maker. Before the reformation of the sixteenth cc^itury, pri^ach- ing had fallen almost wholly into disuse ; so much so, tliat .in the Apocalypse the revival of pn^aching is rtH^o^niziHl as tlu^ significant fact of the nc^v n^ligious inoviMutvut. You remember the vision of the a,ng(4 ilyiiig through the 42 LATE BISHOP E. M, MARVIN. midst of lieaven, liaving tlie everlasting gospel to preach. It was the sign of returning vitality in the Church of God. Ev^en now, in Papal countries, there is scarcely any preach- ing. When the pulpit is brought into requisition, it is usualljT^ to harangue tlie audience upon the miracles of some saint, the wonderful virtue of some relic, or upon some otlier topic equally useless, and equally foreign from the gospel. The preaching of the pure gospel is a priceless blessing to the world. The truth of God, so potent in itself, coming from a heart that feels it, produces results sucli as Christ foresaw when he instituted the ministry. The world needs ^4ine upon line, line upon line, precept upon precept, pre- cept upon precept ; here a little and there a little," now, as much as when the prophet wrote. This demand is met by the living ministry. It is not met by any other agency in existence. Where this light goes out, the world is in darkness. The effect is seen in the morals of the people. I shall not venture an attempt to describe the injury which Rome inflicted on our race when she usurped the office of the Divine Redeemer in his priesthood, and put out the light of the pulpit. But it was the logical and neces- sary consequence of the Papal doctrine of the Eucharist. 4. It degrades tlie atonement of Christ. His offering of himself to God was a perfect sacrifice. So the apostle teaches. He offered himself "once for all." There is no need that he should be offered often. This point was established in my last lecture. But the doctrine of the priests, that he is ofteji offered by them, is in direct conflict with this plain teaching of the New Testament, and degrades the atonement in two ways. First, it represents the passion of Christ as being insuf- ficient, so that he must be offered frequently until the end of time. It puts the suffering of Christ on a level with the offerings of the Jewish ritual, which, the apostle says, DOCTRINE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 43 had constantly to be repeated on account of their imper- fection. So low do they bring my Savior. And, secondly, it puts the Son of God into the hands of mere men, to be offered by them. According to the Scriptures, he was the only priest worthy to officiate in the offering of that august sacrifice. Jesus ! how do they degrade thee ! How do they crucify tliee afresh! More cruel than the nails, more murderous than the spear, are the words with which they mangle thee. In this degradation of the atonement, a false and unworthy object of faith is offered to the penitent — a pre- tended atonement where there is none. ''Their word will eat as doth a canker." 5. It mvests the priest with a fictitious and danger- OILS cojiseqitence in liis own eyes^ and in the eyes of thoSe loho 'beliem the dogma. They regard him as a worker of divine wonders. The man who, by pronouncing a few words, can produce such a change as that claimed in transubstantiation, must be regarded with no common reverence. Then he conies between the people and God, as their priest, authorized to offer sacrifice for them, not only while living, but after they shall be dead. The Papist, in proportion as his reliirious convictions are sincere and thorouo'li, must look upon liis priest with a superstitious awe. If the better educated of them are raised above this feeling, it is ibr- tunate for them. But, with the great mass, it is otherwise. And this result is augmented by the habit of confessing to 1 w priest. Auricular confession is itself an nppeiulagi^ of i '. ])riestly office, and so is traced directly \o iis ]):ittM'- hiiy in transubstantiation. It belongs to the faiuiiy oi al)ir es, that has descended from this dogma. Nothing can be blotter calculatnl to inspin^. a cringing drt^nd of th(^ "[)i'i('st than this. Think of a man r(H*eiving Ww coniession ^f another man, which ought to be made to God — the con- 44 " LATE BISHOP E. M. MARVIN. fession of all his sins, public and secret — sins of the heart as well as of the life — sins of thought and imagination, as well as those that have ripened into action. He stands in the place of God to that man, and from that day the pen- itent must cringe before his father confessor. The priest must, also, himself come to feel a sort of consequence from the relation he assumes toward the layman that will tempt him to abuse it. And I utter what every one must admit to be true, when I say that there is an amount of power thus secured to the priest which is unsafe in the hands of any uninspired man. He will begin to feel soon that his is an authority that must not be resisted. From this position there is but one short step to the theory that the Church has the right to coerce conformity to her. creed. Persecution of heretics must come of it. What we would thus be led, a priori^ to expect, maybe read on many a blood-red page of history. The Church of Rome indeed has avowed her claim to the right of enforc- ing her creed by persecuting even to death. And once committed to the claim she can never retract it. Is she not infallible? The history of the Inquisition must ever be regarded with horror by outraged humanity. This revolting tribunal was established in the twelfth century. It originated under the auspices of a Pope of Pome named Innocent. The eccle- siastics of that day, not satisfied with the ordinary judicial processes in the case of heretics, and seeking their extermi- , nation, invented a mode of haunting them out of every secret place, that none might escape. Hence the name of the tribunal, The Inquisition. A vague suspicion was sufficient for a man's apprehension, and, once in the hands of the Inquisitors, the victim was most affectionately urged to confess, by the potent solicitations of torture. Under the influence of the Popes and the clergy, the princes of several European countries sanctioned and supported this blood- OCTRINE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 45 thirsty tribunal, so that no man dared to oppose it. Those whose friends were seized by it, were mute with fear. Though the suspicion on which they were arrested might be ever so unfounded, so pervading was the tyranny and so terrible the power of the inquisitors, that none might inter- pose to save them. Even when innocent, he could bring no witness to establish the fact, but must undergo torture to extort confession, and if he escaped at last, it was usually with his life alone. Once under suspicion, it were as well to be guilty as innocent, for what of life was left to those against whom nothing could be proven, and from whom no confession could be wrung, was scarce worth the having. If the slightest evidence pointed to guilt, the suspected were delivered over to the. civil authority, in a solemn public manner, to be burned. And the kind-hearted priest, after hunting up his victim and torturing him, and condemning him for no other purpose than to see him burned, graciously enjoined the secular officers not to touch Ms hlood^ or put his life in danger!! But the recent secular officers, always would burn them. You may meet with men who will deny that the Inqui- sition was an ecclesiastical tribunal. They will asseverate that it was a civil court, and charge its atrocities upon the Spanish Government. Such men "know not what they say, nor whereof they affirm." It has existed in ahnost every papal country of Europe, first or last. The Church created it. In various countries the civil autliorities liad more or less connection with it. Indeed, the execution of the sentence always devolved on them. And it* any one should doubt my testimony because I am a heretic, I refer him to the following unquestionable witness — one wlio is, at any rate, above the suspicion of bearing false witness against the Roman Church. I quote from a book Ix^aring the following title: ''Tlie Primaiy of the A])()stolio See vindicated, by Francis Patrick Kearick, Archbishop of 46 LATE BISHOP E. M. MAKYIN. Baltimore. The Arclibisliop says : ' ' The qucesitores jide% or Inquisitors, were first appointed by Innocent III." Again: ''The ecclesiastical character of the tribunal is evident from its judges^ wTio loere clergymen^ from the cMef matter of cognizance, which was heresy, and from its original organization, which was planned and directed hy the Pontiff, It assumed a secular character by the action of the emperor and of other potentates, who attached civil effects, especially capital punisliment, to its sentence. For this reason, it could nowhere exist without tJie concurrence ofhothparties,^^ (pp. 353-4). But we are often told that at least the Spanish Inquisi- tion was an affair of the state, for which the Church is not responsible. The Archbishop aforesaid does his best to cast the odium of it entirely upon the Spanish monarchy. But he is compelled to admit facts which contradict his as- sertions. (See Primacy, p. 356). ''At the solicitation of Ferdinand Sixtus IV., in the year 1478, authorized the erection of a tribunal of inquisition throughout the Spanish dominions." Who is the more deeply implicated, the King who solicited, or the Pope who authorized ? But the Arch- bishop insisted that "the Spanish Inquisition may be styled a royal tribunal, since the King appointed the supreme inquisitor/V^om among the Msliops, loith the assent of the Pope, and otherwise exercised an influence equiva- lent, in many instances, to control." (Id). Now I submit, if a tribunal which was instituted to take cognizance of religious causes, whose chief ofiicers are ecclesiastics ap- pointed with the assent of the Pope, is not, at least, as much an ecclesiastical as it is a civil court? All this Archbishop Kenrick admits of the celebrated Spanish Inquisition. The truth is, it seems to me to be at least four-fifths ecclesi- astical. Finally, on this subject, I will introduce the testimony of Joannes Devotus. His w^orks are endorsed at Rome. DOCTRINE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 47 He is, at leasts as good authority as any papal writer in tliis country. It is only about sixty-seven years since lie wrote. In liis Institutions^ vol. 4, under the head, " Inqui- sitors of Heretical Pravity,^^ you may find the following: '' The cause of instituting the tribunal, called the Inquisition, was this : At first even- Bisliop in his own diocese, or a number of Bishops assembled in a Provincial Council, made inquisition of those errors which arose in the diocese or province ; but the more weighty matters were always referred to the Apostolical See, and thus every Bishop or Provincial Council took care to bring it to its proper issue, whatever was decreed by the Apostolical See. But in processes of time, when greater evils pressed, it became necessary for the Pope to send legates into those regions in which heresy had long and widely spread, that they might assist the Bishops in restraining the audacity of abandoned men, and in deterring Christians from foreign and depraved doctrines. But when new errors daily sprung up, and the num- ber of heretics was greatly increased— seeing that the legates could not always be at hand, nor apply the proper remedy, it was determined to institute a Bianding tribunal, that should always be present, and at all times, and in every country, should devote their minds to i)re- serving the soundness of the faith, and to restraining and expelling heresies as they arose. Thus it was that the Inquisitors were first appointed to perform the office of Vicars to the Holy Sa. "But as, in a matter so weighty as the preservation of the purity of the faith, the Inquisitors needed that close union of mind and sentiment which is proper to the Apostolical See, as the center of unity, there was instituted at Home, by the Popes, an assembly or congregation cf Cardinals in which the Pope presides. This congregation is tlie licad of all Inquisitors over THE*VVH0LE WORLD ; to it they all refer their more difficult matters; and its authority and Judg- ment are final. It is rightly and wisely ordered that the Pope's office and power should sustain this institution. For he is the center of unity and head of the Church; and to him Christ has committed plenary power to feed, teach, rule, and govern all Christians." These statements, be it remembered, are endorsed at Rome. They were not made especially for American ears, to be sure, but all the better for that. Henceforth, if any man tells yon the Inquisition is not a tribunal of the Ro- man Chnrcli, tell him he knows not what lie says. Rome! alas for her, she had no Scripture to put down the Waldenses and other evangelical heretics with, and Avliat could she do? What? The sword was within her reach, and with its point she might open a way into human hearts for the introduction of her creed. And she did. In Sj^nin a]on(% as the r(H'X)i'ds of the Incpiisition show, near lialf a. million sufllered the most horrible death under sentenct^ of this tribunal. The massacre of St. Bartholomew's Pay in Franct^ is a matter of public history. On the occasion ol' certain nup- 48 LATE BISHOP E. M. MARVIN. tial festivities in the French court, the Protestant noble- men of tlie nation were brought together to be butchered. And they were butchered. Ten thousand fell in three days in the city. The best blood of the kingdom ran down the gutters' into the river. Throughout the land, by secret orders from the king, Protestants were given to the knife. Some estimates put the number of victims at one hundred thousand ; others as low as thirty thousand. But how was the news received in Rome? ''When the letters of the Pope's Legate were read in the assembly of the Cardinals, by which he assured the Pope that all was transacted by the express will and command of the King, it was immediately decreed that the Pope should march with his cardinals to the Church of St. Mark, and in the most solemn manner give thanks to God for so great a blessing conferred on the See of Rome and the Christian world ! ' ' On the following Monday, Mass was celebrated in honor of the event. They ordained, also, a universal Jubilee, that thanks might be given and rejoicings celebrated every- where, for the destruction of the enemies of the truth and Church in France. Thus was the whole Romish Church committed to the butchery of St. Bartholomew's day. In- nocent men, collected on a festive occasion, under fraud- ulent pledges of friendship and safety, are treacherously given to slaughter, and ''the Church" endorses the decep- tion and the murder, and rejoices in it greatly. This is the infallible Cluirch — the Church that never errs, and can never retract. Even now the cries of the Jew, Moktara, are echoing through the world. Robbed of his child by force, and fraud, he is a swift witness against tlie persecuting tyranny of the Romish priesthood. But why does not Rome persecute in this country? DOCTRINE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 49 Freemen ! Can you tell me why ? Sons of the revolution ! Why? Some years ago there was a paper published in this city, entitled The Shepherd of the Valley. It existed under the auspices of the Church of Rome, and in November, 1851, it contained the language which I am about to recite. This language excited a good deal of interest, and was, as it must always be, condemned by many. It was, therefore, repudiated by some Papal organs, who charged that the editor of the Shepherd was an irresponsible man, speaking without authority. This the editor of the Shepherd denied, and declared in his paper that he enjoyed the sanction of the Archbishop of St. Louis. Accordingly the endorse- ment of ''his Grace" stands at the head of the sheet, with the signature and sign duly appealed. Hear him : ''If the Catholics ever gain — which they surely will do, though at a distant day — an immense numerical superior- ity, religious freedom in this country is at an end. So say our enemies. So we believe. But in what sense do we believe it? In what sense are we the advocates of religious intolerance? In the sense in which the enemies of the Church understand the word? By no means. We simply mean that a Christian people will not consider the ridicule of Christianity, the denial of its fundamental truths of the immortality of the soul, and the existence of God, the over- throw of all religion and morality, matters beneath their notice and condemnation ; that the foundation will be laid for a legislation which shall restrain the propagation of certain doctrines; that men will no longer he permitted to attacTc dogmas with which morality is inseparably connected.^'* Of course, when that time comes, "the Church will be the sole arbiter of the question — which are tlie "dogmas with which morality is inseparably connected V From the crook of such a Shepherd^ good Lord, deliver us. 4 50 LATE BISHOP E. M. MARVIN. No goodness of individual character in the priests of Rome can save them from the philosophical tendencies of their system. They are not persecutors, because they are naturally worse than other men, but because their priestly assumptions lead to that result. They are but men. They find irresponsible power in their hands. The most natural thing in the world is, that they should become impatient of contradiction, and at last enforce submission to their authority. The people, once receiving them in their assumed character of priests and confessors, and assenting to their miraculous claim of changing bread into the person of the Son of God, will be ready to second them in almost anything. Hence the truth of the statement, made by the benevolent Shepherd of our Yalley, that when Rome gets the ascendency, religious toleration ceases. ^ My brother of the Roman communion m our happy America, pause and think I Remember your own Lord Balti- more, who inaugurated religious liberty in Maryland. Shall the blood of ecclesiastical martyrs ever stain the soil conse- crated to freedom by the Revolution ? May God forbid it. But you tell me that Protestants have persecuted. Yes ! and we can never forgive the deep perversion of the human mind by the Church of Rome, which it took Protestantism two hundred years to outgrow. But, thank God, Protest- antism is not committed to persecution. No one has ever had authority to commit it to such a thing. It can be pledged to nothing except by the Word of God. There is nothing in the tendency of Protestant principles to lead to persecution. In Rome it is far otherwise. With her claim of infallibility, the precedents of the hoary past bind her to intolerance wherever she may have power. The very elements of her priestly office constitute an inward impul- sion in the same direction. If the blows of the secular arm in this country were directed by Roman nerves, this lecture would cost me my life. DOCTRINE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 51 6. The last count of this indictment is that the doctrine of transubstantiation leads to infidelity. The infidelity of the educated classes in Papal countries is a notorious fact, and one that is readily accounted for. To their minds, Romanism and Christianity are synonymous terms. The religion of our Savior is held accountable for all the impossibilities of the Papal creed. The result is inevitable. Infidelity or the Papal creed — this is their alternative. The creed is impossible to them. They fall, as they must do, on the other horn. Men who think, see the great corporation of facts carry- ing on the business of existence in the utmost harmony. They discover certain principles that are universally pre- dicable of facts — principles that are so palpable as to be named axioms. 'No fact ever ousts them. One is one , and not two. So the sovereign axiom decrees, and all facts yield their ready suffrage. But here is a new comer that sets up its claims and demands a place in the guild of facts. But it must have its own way. It don't like the sovereign authority of axioms. It is refractory. One is not only one — it is a million. Impossible ! A universal voice scouts the interloper. By ballot, every vote of facts and principles blackballs the stranger. If introduced, he will set the whole corporation by the ears. But some sagacious objector replies: These facts of religion are independent of axioms — they are on higher ground — they are mysteries. There is the Trinity, for instance, which makes one to be three, and three one. I deny it. The Trinity involves no such absurdity. It teaclies that there are three persons in one Godhead — not that three persons are one person. No axiom is contradicted here. The world is full of illustrations of the fact that many persons may constitute one organization. Every corporation in the land is an illustration. The Supreme Court of your State is an illus- 52 LATE BISHOP E. M. MARYI>'. tration. There are three judges and one court. I do not say that these are illustrations of the mode of the Trinity in the Godhead. In the mode there is mystery. But they illustrate the fact of unUplurality. This is all that the doctrine of the Trinity needs to save it from absurdity. The incarnation of Christ is given as carrying with it contradic- tions equal to those of transubstantiation. Nothing is more unjust. That two natures may be united in one person is all that the doctrine of the incarnation requires to protect it fi'om the charge of absurdity. Every man presents an illustration of this in his own person. Flesh and spiiit are blended into a single existence. Why, then, may not the human and the divine ? The fact is vindicated — the mode is mysterious. And where are any facts whose modes and processes are not mysterious ? Is not nutrition so? Are not sensation and consciousness, thought and affection, so ? Is not every movement of the human body, every development of the human mind, mysterious in its modes ? Thus do the great truths of revealed religion establish their claim to membership in the great guild of facts. They become visible just sufficiently to establish their consis- tency and harmony with other facts, and then sweep up into the inaccessible empyrean of thought, above the sight of men, above the sight of angels. But transubstantiation, when it comes, fights loith all facts ^ and yet claims to be one. Alas I for the man who knows no Christianity that does not involve transubstantiation. The impossible dogma must be repudiated, and the world's hope, having been joined to it in unlawful bans, by unauthorized and usurp- ing priests, must go with it. O I France, France I St. Bartholomew* s Day made thee over to infidelity ! The French mind was too much cultivated to believe in this dogma. Protestantism, sent of God to DOCTRINE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 63 the relief of awakening intellect, was strangled on that black day. Infidelity became inevitable. Infidelity gave France np to anarchy, and the lustration of many revolu- tions has not yet washed out the stain. Such are the necessary results of this doctrine. It materializes religion, it perverts the ministerial office, it degrades the atonement, it vitiates worship, it gives the priest a fictitious and dangerous consequence in his own eyes, and in the eyes of the devotee, and it tends, among cultivated meii, to infidelity. OF ENOCH MATHER MARVIN, LATE BISHOP OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH. . CHURCH UNITY— ROMANIST THEORY. \ ^'For it hath been declared to me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there arc contentions among you. Now, this I say, that every one of you Siiith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? Wius Paul crucified for you ? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I bap- tized none of you, but Crispus and Gains; lest any should say that I had baptized in my own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanus; besides, I know not whether I bajv tized any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gosj)el ; not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect."— [-1 Cor. i. 11-17. I II AVE been hearing a good deal lately of efforts to make tlie impression that I misrepresent the Roman Church. It is all very vague. No one seems to know definitely in what particular the misrepresentations consist. I know not that I ought to bo surprised at this. There are a great many t'iin2:s which the defenders of that Cliurcli would have con- coaled from the attention of the American public. That I have brought those things to light, sufficiently accounts for any efforts to discredit my statements. That a great num- ber of the members of that Church suppose those things not to be true, I have no doubt. If they did but know their own Church, they would cease to be members of it ; 56 LATE BISHOP E. M. MARVIN. but, in their strong attachment to it, they are ready to reject whatever evidence may militate strongly against it, and, no doubt, many of them believe, in the goodness of their hearts, that I have been misled. Perhaps they even suspect me of something worse. All this I can understand and appreciate. It is my misfortune, however, and not my fault, if I lose their confidence. I have not intentionally, nor do I believe I have in fact, misrepresented that Churchy in a single iota. I do not profess to be infallible ; but I do profess to be careful in ascertaining and stating facts. I have consulted none but the most respectable authorities, and the worst I have ever said in reference to the history of Romanism has been given in the words of Romanist his- torians. If there has been any misrepresentation, it was made by their own authors. Do you believe that Baronius has borne false witness against his own Church ? And, in my delineations of the Church itself, I have gone to the decrees and canons of the Council of Trent. Will they repudiate that? In doing so, they would repudiate their own existence. And now I pledge myself here, before God and this large audience, that if any man will prove to me that I have, in anything, misrepresenied the Roman Church, or done it injustice, in these lectures, I will make the correction as public as I have made the allegation. If I have wronged any man, or any class of men, I desire to know it. And to all who may suppose that I have wronged them, I say come to me. State the facts to me. Point out my error, and prove it to be one. I have nothing against any Romanist, in my feelings, priest or layman ; nor do I believe I have wronged their Church in any particular; nor shall I believe it until I see the proof. Then I will, and I now renew my pledge to correct it. I am, in this and the next lecture, to invite your attention to the unity of the Christian Churchy and especially, this evening, to the Roman idea of Church untiy. First time of Torturintj, Page 469. CHURCH UNITY — ROMANIST THEORY. 57 Let ns understand wliat that idea is, and then proceed to test its truth. The theory is, that the Pope, as the successor of Peter, is the supreme head of the Church on earth, and that those Churches, and only those, which acknowledge the suprem- acy of the Roman See, are true Churches of Christ; and that they are so in virtue of that fact. On the contrary, those Churches which are not in communion with Rome, are schismatic bodies; and for that, even if there be no other reason, they are no part of the true Church. The unity of the Church, then, con^i^i^ primarily in the connection of individual Churches with this central one at Rome. What- ever else may be evolved in the development of the theory, it comes to this, in the last analysis. Rome is the ''mother and mistress of Churches," and in connection with her is the test of all other Churches. All this rests on the hypotJie- sis that Peter was constituted by Christ supreme head of the Church on earth, that he established himself at Rome, and that the Popes are his successors; That this system does secure an owtward and formal unity, there is no doubt. A stupendous organization clus- ters around the person, or, if you prefer it, the office of ^'His Holiness. ^^ The question is as to whether this unity of organism is the unity of Christ. The argument of this lecture must be of a negative character, and can not be fully appreciated except in connection with the positive aspect of the subject. This I propose to give on next Sunday evening. And I confess to the weakness of desiring the same audience in delivering that lecture, that listens to this. The unity of the Church, in tlie true idea of it, extends to all places^ and through all ages of its existence. No one will controvert this proposition, and I desire you to ap- ply it to the facts and arguments that I shall present you this evening. And further, whatever is essential in the constitution of 53 LATE BISHOP E. M. MARTIN. the Church at one time, and in one place, is so in all places and times. And any given organization, which claims a monopoly of Christian Church unity, must show an unbroken history in this particular. It must invariably receive what is essential in the Christian Church, and it must never im- pose upon mankind as essential what is not so. These statements are so evidently axiomatic that I have but to announce them. They need no proof. One more statement I will make as the corollary of this last one. Any given organization that presents a variable and contradictory history in those matters which are essen- tial in the existence of the Church, forfeits the claim of unity. No outward, organic unity can compensate the want of a consistent history in those vital matters. You admit this. You can not do otherwise. And, as the corol- lary of this again, whatever is heretical and schismatical at one time, is so at all times. Otherwise, the Church is a variable, capricious organization, wholly unlike its Divine Author. I have thought it best to postulate these palpable and evident principles and facts at the outset, and shall recur to them as the progress of the argument may indicate. In applying these principles to the Roman Church, I shall call your attention — I. To her dogmas. These she makes absolute terms of communion, and tests of heresy. Variations in these must destroy her essential unity. If that is heresy now which was not so once, the change amounts to this, that the Church is not the same now that it was once, and unity ^ as it re- spects time, is destroyed. Or if that was once heretical in the Church wliich is not so now, the same result follows. In reference to this I assert, and shall proceed to prove, the following facts : 1. That the Clnircli of Rome has, from time to time, enacted new decrees and canons, in which she has imposed CHURCH UNITY — ROMANIST THEORY. 59 new dogmas upon her members. The result is, that new definitions of heresy have prevailed, so that what has been considered heresy in one age, has not been so considered in another, and so unity is destroyed. I know that the writers of that Church affirm that the canons of the Church do not create new dogmas^ but only define old ones which have been held from the beginning. But this affirmation is not only without the support of history : it is directly contradictory of the most unquestionable history. Tran- substantiation, the sacrifice of the mass, communion in one kind, purgatory, extreme unction, and many other things, the denial of which is now heretical, were at one time unknown in the Church. These traditions of the Church consist of notions that originated in imaginative minds, and were set afloat in a superstitious age, and variously received, or disbelieved, or modified, until some General Council took them up and made dogmas of them. Their his- tory, for the most part, may be satisfactorily traced to their origin, and through the various phases of their existence and progress, until they became part and parcel of the creed. Take purgatory as an example of this. In my last lec- ture I gave you the testimony of eminent Papal authors to the fact that it was unknown in the early Church. Every one acquainted with the doctrines of the Cliurch in the first centuries knows this to be true. The history of purgatory, in brief, is as follows : First, Christians began to allow and practise prayers for the dead. The first traces of this prac- tice are found about two hundred years after Christ. But there was no purgatory yet. They prayed with the luuhn-- standing that their friends were either in lieaven or liell, and on the supj)ositi()n tliat their prayers wouki heighten tlie joys of the one, and render tlie other more tokn-able. Tertullian is the first who mentions ])rayers for the dead, and this after he had embraced tht3 iieresy of Montanisni. 60 LATE BISHOP E. M. MARVIN. At the funeral of the Emperor Constantine the people '' supplicated God, with tears and lamentations, for his soul." But tliey believed, at the same time, that he was in heaven. Augustine had no doubt that Monica, his mother, was in heaven when he prayed for her. The custom, no doubt, originated in a blind sentiment, and when men be- gan to reason about it, and account to themselves for it, they assigned the reason I have already given. As to the ancient Liturgies, no one can tell what altera- tions were made in them in early times, and at any rate they make nothing for purgatory. They contain forms of prayer for those who had ''gone in purity of soul and body to Grod/' and for the Virgin Mary by name. In the Liturgy of Basil, the supplicant ''remembers all the departed clergy and laity, particularly the most holy, glorious, immaculate, blessed, God-bearing lady." Origen has been given as teaching the doctrine of purgatory. He did, indeed, assert that all men, both good and bad, should, at the general judgment, pass through the fire of the general conflagration, and be thus purified as metal is separated from its dross. The Eomanists certainly will not take this for purgatory. Origen was an accomplished man and brilliant writer, and gained many adherents to his views. By a strange inconsistency, Augustine sometimes denies any middle state, and at other times supposes a purgatorial process, and is, perhaps, entitled to the distinction of having invented purgatory. The suggestion, however, was found among the traditions of the Jews, and the vagaries of the pagans, in various forms. It gained upon the belief of the Christian Church, however, but slowly. It was never received in the Greek Church, and, according to the cele- brated historian, Otho, of the twelfth century, it was but partially received in the Latin Church in his. day. The schoolmen found it an ample theme, and, passing through their hands, it reached the Council of Florence, which, in CHUKCH UNITY — ROMANIST THEORY. 61 the twenty -fifth session, A. D. 1438, enacted it into a dogma, which was sanctioned by Pope Eugenius. It holds canonical dignity nnder the protection of an ngly anathema in the proceedings of the Council of Trent. (Ses. vi., Canon 30. See also Ses. xxv., Decree Concerning Purgatory.) I have shown you, in a previous lecture, that the idea and essence of the doctrine of transubstantiation originated with Eutyches, as a part of his heresy of Monophysitism, or, at least, as an incident of it, and that it was condemned by the writers of his time, and especially by the Pope Gelasius. This was in the fifth century. When Pascasius revived the discussion in the ninth century, the great names of Christen- dom were against it, such as Bertramn and Scotus, and the celebrated Archbishop of Mentz; and no one thought of stigmatizing them as heretics on that account. Berengarius, after the middle of the eleventh century, was, so far as I can learn, the first of all the great opposers of transub- stantiation who was condemned as a heretic, and required to recant. In the time of Eutyches, transubstantiation was heresy in the Church of Rome, and in the time of Beren- garius it was heresy to oppose it. And so that Church lias gone on, adding dogma to dogma, until it is positively a task to enumerate them. Now, you will observe that tlie question in tliis argument is not whether these various dogmas are true or not. It is simply this : Has the liomau Church made that heresy at one time which she did not at another? Might a man hold and maintain a certain belii^f, and yet be a good, orthodox Romanist, which liis son, after him would be made a heretic for ? But we need not go so far for examples. I am but a young man, and yet it is since I have been preacliini>: that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the A'ii'i;in Mary has been ''promulgated." I remember w(^ll tliat I was on horseback, riding along the Boone's Lick road, in St. Charles county, when, taking a newspaper out of ni\' 62 LATE BISHOP E. M. MARTIN. saddlebags, and glancing over it, I saw the account of tlie deliberations at Rome, by which the Virgin was so mnch honored. And lo ! from that ''day and date" any ques- tion of the fact is heresy. Now I submit, that if the Virgin was immaculate in her conception, that circumstance has been a fact for near two thousand years. And yet to dis- believe it has not provoked ecclesiastical anathema against the offender until within a very few years past. Amongst the many sympathy meetings on the Pope's behalf, recently held, I have been struck with a portion of the proceedings of one which came off in New Orleans. Those who attended the meeting rejoice, because, say they, ''we have enjoyed the happiness of living in the age that has witnessed the promulgation of the ineffably cherished dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and in a country that has been especially placed under its protection," and "do invoke, with all our souls, the intercession of the Virgin, most pure, holy and powerful, for him who, by proclaiming the Queen of Heaven immaculate in her conception, has added to her crown its brightest gem." This is a plain in- timation that the Pope, who has proclaimed the Virgin immaculate, has some claim upon her in his present emer- gency, and that she may be expected to reciprocate the favor. "One good turn deserves another." The pontificate of Pio Nono is likely to become historical from two circumstances', possibly three — the flight of Gaeta, the promulgation of the Immaculate Conception, and, per- adventure^ the dismemberment of the ecclesiastical terri- tories. Besides this I know of nothing in his administration that can claim a place in history, except it may be that he has erected a college in Rome, for the special benefit of jimerican youth. The college was dedicated on the eve of the Immaculate Conception, in December last. So great is the Pope' s affection for our country. We ought, I suppose, to be duly grateful to him for placing our country under CHURCH UNITY— ROMANIST THEORY. 63 the special protection of Ms favorite dogma. There is one question I have thought of, though, and that is, whether the Virgin will feel herself bonnd to obey the Supreme Pontiff, or not ? Will she bestow her patronage as he may direct X It is a question of jurisdiction. Has the ''Head of the Church" authority over the ''Queen of Heaven f Perhaps, however, she may waive any claim of precedence in the case of this particular Pope, to whom she is so deeply in- debted. But may we hope that she will be so complaisant toward his successor ? But by the time she has had charge of us for a few years she may take a liking to us, and con- tinue her patronage voluntarily. Who knows \ Doubtless we have ground to congratulate ourselves upon our pros- pects for the future. But we must not forget the argument. How has the basis of membership changed since the time when men were admitted on the "Apostles' Creed!" Tlie whole Church of that day would be excluded for heresy now. This Church is not the same as that. The unity is gone — " clean gone forever." Put the argument into syllogistic form. Variations in the essential doctrine of the Church destroy its unity — there are variations in the essential doctrine of the Roman Church ; therefore the unity of the Roman Church is de- stroyed. The major none will controvert ; the minor I have proved ; the conclusion is inevitable. Dogmas limiting the area of the Church belong to its essence, and any change in them breaks the unity of the Church. The dogmas of tlie Roman Church do define its area, and they have often boon changed by additions. Her unity is an empty assumption. 2. But there have been, not only additions of new dogmas, but, also, more palpable variations. The Clnuvh of Rome has enacted and rescinded dogmas. I proved to you, in a former lecture, that a Council did enact an Arian creed, which was endorsed by a Pope. The Council was 64 LATE BISHOP E. M. MARVIN. that of Sirmium, and the Pope was Liberius, who is a saint in the Roman calendar. Again, the Arian creed was dis- placed, and declared heretical. Now, take any given Church, with a Trinitarian creed, and suppose it to relapse into Arianism. Is it the same Church after that event as before ? Can it claim historical unity ? No more can the Church of Rome. This point requires no elaboration. The fact is historical and incontrovertible, and is fatal to the preten- sions of ^Hlie Churchy II. Passing from the dogmas^ let us examine i\\Q spirit of the Church of Rome. Perhaps we shall find the boasted unity there. But no ; wherever there can be found a center around which selfish interests would naturally rally, we discover sources of contention and of acrimonious wrangling. Na- tional ecclesiasticism has almost constantly arrayed itself against the universal ecclesiasticism; the latter asserting prerogatives which the former has resisted. Among these contested prerogatives, that of presentation to benefices and dignities of the Church, and the appropriations of ecclesiasti- cal revenues, have been, perhaps, the source of more conten- tion than any other. In these contests the ''Holy See " and the national Churches have alternately triumphed over each other. Readers of Church history will recur especially to the French Church as an instance of this strife, perhaps the most remarkable of any other. Then each one of the monkish orders has its own distinct existence and j^eculiar interests. Nor have the contentions of Protestant sects equaled the wrangling of these parties, who say, '^I am of St. Dominic, and I of St. Benedict, and I of St. Franciscus^ and I of St. Ignatius Loyola." Among the contentious parties of the Corinthian Church, claiming to be of Paul and Apollos, and Cephas or Peter, there was one, equally factious in spirit, that profaned the sacred name of the Son of God, by vociferating, ''we are of Christ." The follow- CHURCH UNITY — ROMANIST THEORY. 65 ers of Ignatius have emulated their ancient exemplars in this particular. They are Jesuits, or the Society of Jesus. It is a well known fact, that when there are parties of any kind, the nearer they are together the greater is tlie acrimony of their disputes. A divided family is the worst of all divided things. Such a house can not stand. The ecclesiastical bond that encloses the various orders in the Eoman Church, brings them into the very relations that aggravate their feuds. Their emulations involve conflicting interests. It becomes a matter of interest with each one to obtain controlling influence in the chief ecclesiastical offices. If, for instance, the Dominicans can secure for one of them- selves the highest office of the Church, they may approach the Vatican freely, and obtain large patronage. It is im- possible for us, at this distance, to understand the compli- cated and warring interests that are brought into full play at the time of a pontifical election. This much we know, however, that all the intrigues and maneuvering that are known to political aspirants have been often resorted to by candidates for the Papacy. Some of the games that have been played for this high stake might be studied with ad- vantage by the devotee of the chess-board, if not, indeed, by gamesters of a less honorable class. In all these strifes do you discover ''the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace ? ' ' The political complications of the Papacy increase the occasions of strife and bad temper. The Papacy, as you are well aware, is half secular. The Prince-Prelate has not only double duty to do, but clashing interests to manage. History is familiar with Papal armies, paid out of tlie treasury of the Church, commanded by Papal officers, rav- aging Papal countries, and butchering the children of the Church. It was not against heretics that the fighting Pope, Julius II., at the opening of the sixteenth century, directed his arms, but against ''the faithful." Julius often headed 5 66 LATE BISHOP E. M. MARVIN. his own armies, and, in justice to the old hero, I must say, he was one of the best and boldest chieftains of his age. He was a perfect lion, with a spice of the tiger. In those wars you might have seen ecclesiastics of all grades, from the cardinal down, in hostile armies seeking each other' s blood. Before Ravenna, you might have seen a cardinal in tlia army of the French, foremost in the foray, and another in tho army of the Pope, less ferocious, but quite as brave. I might adnaire them as rival chiefs, hewing their way to for- tune with their swords, but as representatives of a united Church, I gain a lesson from them. This complication of the secular with the spiriiual has destroyed the spirit of unity. Even the timid and feeble Pius IX. has afforded us abundant exemplification of this fact. He has been com- pelled to resort to arms. And even now he is at feud wilji the '^eldest son of the Church," on political issues. And even now, as that affectionate son charges, he is giving us an instance of the use of the spiritual sword to accomplish political ends. He writes an ''Encyclical letter," under ecclesiastical forms, but for political objects. Do you tell me that the organic integrity of the Roman Church, which holds in its capacious grasp all this quarreling and blood- shed, meets the ideal of Christian Church unity ? And the extensive sympathy manifested toward tiie '' Holy Father " in his present political straits is significant. Of what? Unity of the Church ? Rather of a great political combina- tion. A distinguished European prelate has compared Napoleon III. to a highway robber, and the Pope is the victim. The robber demands all his valuables, graciously leaving him his life and Ms clothes. Alas ! does the spir- iiual supremacy amount only to this? Does it consist merely of the pontifical rohes f This is only one of many facts of history which show that the unity of the Papal Church is based upon a loordly spirit, '' My kingdom," said Christ, '4s not of this world : CHURCH UNITY— ROMANIST THEORY. 67 if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight." Christ's kingdom is spiritual, and that fact is the rallying point of. its unity. Contrast this with the history of the Roman Church ; contrast it with the Crusades^ when Papal Christendom poured its countless armies into Asia to rescue the tomb of Christ from the infidel. ^'If my king- dom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews." (John xviii. 86.) But Rome perverted that kingdom and made it '^ of the world," and did fight to deliver from the infidels the toiiib of that Christ who would not allow his servants to fight to prevent himself from being delivered to the Jews. The unity of the Papal Church has never exhibited itself in so much vigor as in the Crusades — those gigantic but fruitless efforts to re- cover the land first sanctified by the cross. But the spirit of that unity was false. It was the fighting spirit. It was of the world. And the same spirit controls the councils of Pius IX. to-day. It is fostered by a gorgeous ritual of worship. It clusters around a temporal throne. It turns pale at the thought of losing political sovereignty. It is ready to fight. The Church of Christ united in a contest over the pos- session of political power, and that a power distasteful to those who are the subjects of it ! What a spectacle ! Unity it is, but it is sheer profanation to call it Christian, And the word cliurcli has degenerated greatly to become the name of an organization that is actuated by that spirit. On the eve of his crucifixion, our Lord said to his dis- ciples, ' ' Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you : not as the world giveth give I unto you." (John xiv. 27.) The kingdom of God is ''righteousness, and peace, and Joy in the Holy Ghost." (Romans xiv. 17 ; also verse 19.) '' Let us, therefore, follow after the things that make for peace." ''God hath called us to peace." (1 Cor. vii. 15.) "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all 68 LATE BISHOP E. M. MARTIN. Churches of the saints.'' (1 Cor. xiv. 33.) And if the Church contends^ it is not for secular distinction or power, but for XYlb faith. (Jude 3.) That organization that has lost the legacy of peace which Christ left to his Church, sets up the claim of unity on other grounds in yain. ^'Loye not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him." (1 John ii. 15.) From what has been said, you will see the force and bearing of the following observations : First, the history of the Roman Church has been emi- nently marked by dissensions, quarrels and fighting ; from the wrangling of monks to the wars of Popes. Secondly, the unity of the Papal Church is, to a large extent, based on wordly interests, and its development be- trays at every step the love of the world. Thirdly, there is, therefore, no real Christian unity. So far from this, where there is unity it is carnal, and not of God. As the unity of the Papal Church fails in the \\\^- iorj oi^ien dograaSs so also it fails in the development of her spirit. III. The unity of the Roman Church is maintained tjy force. You will remember what I said in my last lecture, concerning the authority asserted by the Council of Trent over such as have been baptized in their infancy. The Council distinctly ordains that compulsion is to be used in the case of the refi^actory. And so teaches the celebrated Bellarmine, in Book 3, on the Laity, chapter 22. In addi- tion to much more of the same kind, he affirms that '*as the Church has ecclesiastical and secular princes, who are her two arms ; so she has two swords, the spiritual and ma- terial ; and therefore when her right hand is unable to convert a heretic with the sword of the Spirit, she invokes the aid of the left hand, and coerces heretics with the ma- terial sword." He assigns as the reason why the Apostles CHURCH UNITY — ROMANIST THEORY. 69 never invoked the secular arm against heretics, that ' ' there v/as no Christian prince whom they could call on for aid." But afterward, in Constantine' s time, he says : " the Church called in the aid of the secular arm." To show that terror • is useful in keeping down heresy, he says that experience j)roves it, ''for the Donatists, Manicheans and Albigenses were routed and annihilated hy arms, '^^ If the peaceful solicitations of the spirit fail to draw men, they are to be driven in at the point of the material sword. Nor can the reply be made that these things belong to the past. Because, in the first place, any such plea in favor of the Roman Church is unavailing, in view of the claim of infallibility ; and in the present argument, unity must extend to all time. If she ever did lesort to force to maintain her unity, she placed it upon false ground, and the argument remains good against her continuity forever. But it is not true. The Roman Church still persecutes wherever she can. In Funchal, Madeira, in January, 1843, Maria Joaquina Alves, a woman of blameless life, was torn from her family of seven children, thrown into a filthy dungeon, confined there a year and three months, and then brought to trial and condemned to death. For what? Let the sentence pronounced upon her by the judge tell. This sentence bears date May 2, 1844. ''In view of the answers of the jury, and the discussions of the cause, etc., it is pioved that the accused, Maria Joaquina, perhaps forgetful of the principles of the holy religion she received in her first years, and to which she still belongs, has maintained con- versations and arguments condemned by the Church; maintaining that veneration should not he giixm to i})ut(jcs ; denying the real presence of Christ in the sacred liost ; the Mystery of the most Holy Trinity ; blaspheming against the most holy Virgin, the motht^r of (u)d, and advancing other expressions against the doctrines received and ToHowed 70 LATE BISHOP E. M. MARTIN. hj the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, expounding these condemned doctrines to different persons, thus com- mitting the crimes of heresy, blasphemy, &c. I condemn the accused, Maria Joaquina, to stiver death as promded in the law; the costs of process, &c., to be paid out of her goods." This sentence of death is placed solely on the ground of ecclesiastical offenses. On a hearing in the Ap- pellate Court in Lisbon, the penalty was ultimately chang- ed to three months' imprisonment and a pecuniary fine. But, on a failure of payment^ she was confined nearly two years. Such an overgrown ecclesiastical establishment is dan- gerous, when it claims the right of maintaining its unity by force. See how it must work practically. By the multi- plication of her dogmas, she makes it impossible for mul- titudes of intelligent and sincere minds to receive her creed, while she claims the right to compel them. In proportion as she extends the area of her creed she increases the grounds of disbelief in it, and introduces motives to schism. But those who are dissatisfied with her dogmas, at least if they were once baptized, must be compelled to submit. Don't complain against me for that word 'compel- led;" it is the very word used by the great Council of Trent. Then we have '*the Church," Avith a long, unrea- sonable, unscriptural creed, and an earthly head, and repre- sentatives or ofiicers, bound to him by oath, scattered all over the world, whose duty it is to enforce the creed. For your information on this subject, I will give you the oath which every Romanist Bishop takes to the See of Rome " I, N., elect of the Church of N.. from henceforward will be faithful and obedient to St. Peter the Apostle, and to the Holy Roman Church, and to our Lorcl, the lord X, Pope X., and • his successors, canonically coming in. I will neither advise, consent nor do anything that they may lose life or member, or that their persons may be seized, or hands in any wise laid upon them, or any injuries offered to them under any pretense whatsoever. The counsel xchich they sluill entrust to me withal, by themselves, their messengers, or letters, I u-ill not knowinQiy reveal to any to their prejudice. I will help them to defend and keep the Roman Papacy, and the royalties of St. Peter, saving my order against all men. The Legate of the Apostolic See, CHURCH UNITY — ROMANIST THEORY. ' 71 going and coming, I will honorably treat and help in his necessities. The rights, honors, privileges and authorities of the Holy Roman Church of our lord the Pope, and his aforesaid successors, I will endeavor to preserve, defend, increase and advance. I will not be in any council, action or treaty, in which shall be plotted, against our said lord, and the said Roman Church, anything to the hurt or prejudice of their persons, right, honor, state or power ; and if I shall know any such thing to be treated, or agitated, by any whatsoever, I will signify it t > our said lord, or to some other by whom it may come to his knowledge. The rules of the holy fathers, the Apostolic decrees, ordinances, or disposals, reservations, provisions, and mandates, 1 ^vill observe ^vith all my might, and cause to be observed by others. Heretics, schismatics, ..and rebels to our said lord, or his aforesaid successors, I will to my utmost power persecute and OPPOSE." This oatli will not be denied. Or, if it should, I have the proof that it has been admitted by at least one re- spectable prelate in this country, in a public debate. I do not give this oath as any proof of treasonable inten- tion on the part of those who have taken it. My object is simply to show the nature of the tie which binds the Bishops to the Pope. They are his officers, regularly sworn in. Kis mandates they are to observe loitJi all their miglit. They are to keep his secrets. Anything which may be to his prejudice personally or officially they are to report to him. And, under oatli^ they are to persecute and oppose heretics to their utmost power. Now, put the most favorable con- struction upon this document that it can possibly bear, and it makes the Bishops a police force of the Pope, scattered over the world, to guard the interests of the Roman See, to oppose its opposers, and to persecute heretics as they may have it in their power to do so. You have tlie document: you can judge of its meaning as well as 1. With such an organization as this, complicated with political interests and actuated by a worldly spirit as it is» the Papacy is a power in the world, toward which man kind, to say the least, must be on their guard. That tluuH^ are in tliis gigantic organization many well-meaning individuals, there is no doubt, and far be it fronl me to harm a linir of tlnur heads. '^\\^ 'personal cliaracicr either of tlu^ l'c^i)e, or of those constituting his universal })olict\ is not I hi* question. 1 make no personal assault. L(4 every man 72 LATE BISHOP E. M. MARTIN. enjoy tlie full amount of credit due to his personal worth. But the system is a bad one, nnscriptural and dangerous. It looks to the subjugation of the world, and the world is interested in the result. And, in view of the precedents of its history, and the acknowledged teaching of its great doctors, who can doubt that it wdll use its power to coerce submission to itself whenever and wherever it can safely do so? And who can doubt that the Church will ever, on occasion, use its spiritual interest to advance its civil power, as former Popes have often done, and as Pius is now^ trying to do ? And who can doubt that the sworn officers of "his holiness" will almost to a man be found ready to do his bidding ? Suppose they are conscientious men. They will be all the more certain to keep their oath. What a game may a skillful and ambitious Pope play ! The unity whose bond is in official oaths is not the unity of Christ. Is it possible that the spirit of union in the Papal Church is so feeble that its various parts require to be held together by such a ligament ! It is even so. Do not understand me to express any fear as to the ulti- mate ascendency of the Papacy. That the consequences would, in such an event, be disastrous to the interests of humanity, and to individual happiness, there can be no doubt. But the day of Papal triumph has passed by. There are in the world now just a sufficient number of sympathisers with an effete system, in the paroxysms of its dissolution, to call the world' s attention to the fact, and to attest the hopelessness of the downfall. The spirit of the world is too far advanced to admit the renewal of the " dark ages." At least, I hope and believe so. But still, with such a police, by the aid of secret instructions, which they are sworn not to divulge to his prejudice, the Pope may operate with great vigor. By the ''unity of the oath, " he may make himself felt in the world even j^U to the world' s detriment and sorrow. And that without supposing him such a very CHURCH UNITY— ROMANIST THEORY. 73 Ibad man. In secnring his own ends, he may not exactly understand the result of his policy upon other interests. IV. The Romish idea of Church unity is unscriptural. Peter was never constituted head of the Church, nor are the Popes so ; for they are not his successors ; and if they were, still they would not be the head of the Church, for he was not. Nor is the Church of Rome the ''mother and mistress" of Churches. The Church at Jerusalem was the mother of the Churches, and as for any ''mistress," thank God, there is none. It follows that connection with the See of Rome is by no means the Scriptural condition of Church unity. Whatever it does or does not consist in, it is certainly not in that fact. In my lecture on Peter and the Papacy, I examined "more at large these fundamental propositions of the Papal system. They are against Scripture and history at once, and any idea of the unity of the Church, predicated of them, is Utterly without foundation. The utmost that can he claimed for the Church of Rome is, that she has maintained an existence from Apostolic times. But how changed is that existence ! How changed is her clergy ! From pastors, beloved for their work's sake, they liave come to be princes and lords, dreaded for their power. The clerical constitu- tion has grown into enormous dimensions, embracing ever so many orders, from the supreme Pontiff and lordly Car- dinals, down to the dirty and worthless mendicant friars. The simple spirit of primitive affection is lost, and rival or- ders are contending for place and precedence. The lH\-niti- ful faith of Jesus has been hid under an enormous ])il(^ of unsightly dogmas. Sacramental salvation has disj)la(HHl the efIi('acious ministry of the word, and the candidatt^ Tor heaven is compelled to run tlie gauntU^t of priestly iniiT- vention from the cradh^ to the gravt\ If llie iirst l^isliop of Rome w(u*e permitted to look down u])on the city, that he 74 ' LATE BISHOP E. M. MARVIN. miglit see his successors, do you imagine that he would take the man of the Vatican, with the triple crown upon his head, for that person ? Inspecting the constitution, the cler- ical orders, the teacher ^ and teaching, and the worship of that city, would he say : ' " This is indeed the very same Church over which I presided eighteen hundred years ago f The fact of a coiiUnuous organization amounts to noth- Lig. Is it the SAME organization ? Alas, no ! The structure is changed, the doctrine is changed, the worship is changed, the spirit is changed — all changed. The Christian idea of unity is totally wanting. The Church of Rome is at once excessively tolerant and excessively^ intolerant. In her moral requirements she is ruinously lax, but in enforcing her creed she is cruelly rig- orous. We know, from our own observation, that a man may be habitually wicked, so he will but tell the priest all about it once in a while, and so live and die in the Roman communion, and go into eternity with the full benefit of the last anointing. But if he shall venture to call in question any of the puerile traditions of the ''Church," he incurs the anathema and is cut off. The area of membership is unscripturally broad in one direction, and unscripturally narrow in another. A man may be a profane swearer, and remain in the Church. But his neighbor, who believes in Christ, and worships him, who rei^.eives all the doctrines of Holy Scripture, and leads a devout and holy life, walking in communion with God, is excommunicated because he can not receive the unscriptural dogma of purgatory. The unity of Christ embraces the latter, and cuts off the former. Tlie unity of Rome reverses the order. It cuts oflF the latter, and receives the former. From all these facts and arguments you plainly see how utterly at fault the Roman idea of Christian Church unity is. Any claim to bo the true Church, prodicati^d of Iter unity, is false and preposterous. It must be a Christian, CHURCH UNITY — ROMANIST THEORY. 75 Scriptural unity on which such a claim is based, or the claim is not valid. The unity of the Church of Rome is as distinct from the unity of Christ as that of Odd-Fellowship is. Mere unity amounts to nothing. It must be a unity on Christian principles. That the Roman Church has not. Her claim is not valid. She fails in the very essence of the argument. In her dogmas she fails of historical unity, and in her spirit she fails of actual unity. In her spirit the failure is seen in her factions and wrangling ; and even in those mat- ters in which she is one with herself, the spirit is not Chris- tian, but political, overbearing and wordly. This appears in the very structure of her ecclesiasticism, in the coercion by which she maintains her unity, in her tenacious hold upon political dominion, and in her very terms of commu- nion. She claims to be a unit, and therefore the true Church. But her claim of unity fails in essential facts, and where she presents unity it is not only wanting in Christian ele- ments, but it is essentially unchristian. Her plea of unity, therefore, avails her nothing, but, on the contrary, turns against her, and destroys her. For she is organized upon an unscriptural and unchristian basis ; the very pillars of her support are anti-christian ; and she must be taken to pieces and reconstructed upon another idea^ before she can be properly Christian. LEOTTJI^ES OF ENOCH MATHER MARYIN, LATE BISHOP OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH. UNITY OF THE CHURCH— THE TRUE IDEA. " For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body : so, also, is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one - body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free ; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit,"— [ 1 Cor. xii. 12, 13. We are now ready to consider the true idea of Chris- tian Church unity. The Church of Christ is indeed one, "I believe in the holy Catholic Church ;"#not the lloman Catholic, but the holy Catholic Church. The allegation that Protestants disallow the indivisible unity of the Church is false. We maintain it most strenuously and devoutly. It is interwoven with our profoundest convictions, and we read it in the fundamental teachings of Scripture. It is "part and parcel" of the very system of salvation, and stands or falls with the Christian religion. Tlie question is, in what does that unity consist? I have examined tlu^ claims of the lloman Church in this particular, and found lu^r wanting. Let us see now if we can ascertain tlie true idea. Every unity, except it be mere atomic unity, which is a 78 LATE BISHOP E. M. MARVIN. mere point, must have a center. In other words, a anity which takes in several individuals, supposes some given fact toward which the various individuals stand in a common relation. States are formed upon the idea of government. Every association is organized upon some idea, either of mutual support, moral improvement, pecuniary advantage, or whatever it may be ; or it clusters about some person^ whose character or projects attract others to him. The same is true in mechanics, and indeed in physics. generally. Every unity embracing individuals has, so to speak, a ral- lying point. This rallying point, or point of common attrac- tion in the Roman Church, as I showed you a week ago, is the Papacy, The Pope is the head of the Church, and whatever of homogeneity there is in that Church proceeds from that .and its correlate ideas. As the opposite of this, we have the indubitable and ever glorious affirmation of Holy Scripture that Christ is the only head of the Church, in heaven and on earth. • He has appointed no deputy on earth. Let those who assert it give the proof. I challenge it. There is not a word, not an intimation, to that effect in the Word of God. Not one. Where is the law constituting Peter, or the Pope, or any other individual, head of the Church? Not in all the Bible. Can the the hy$)othesis be for a moment entertained that this chief element in the structure of the Church would have been passed by in utter silence by our Lord and all the sacred writers? And yet even the advocates of this theory, with all their learning and skill, can find no single place where such a thing is stated. By a most astounding perversion, they interpret one passage as teaching that Peter is the rock on which the Church is founded; but they do not so much as pretend one which shows him to be the Jiead of the -Church. Christ is the sole '' Head of the Church," (Eph. v. 23; also i. 22, iv. 15; 1 Cor. xii. 12, 13; and many other places.) Around him, in his offices, in Four I'rotestaiit Women led lo Kxctulioii. l*:i;;o 47S. UNITY OF THE CHURCH— THE TRUE IDEA. 79 liis redeeming work, and in liis saving grace is the Church associated. (.Connection with him is the essential fact of unity. Separation from him is schism; to deny his saving truth is heresy. Let us investigate this matter somewhat thoroifghly. We shall find the following several facts involved in connec- tion with Christ. 1. Faith. By this I do not mean objective faith, or the truth believed; but faith subjectively considered. Nor do 1 mean a mere conviction. Personal faith, in the Christian meaning of the word, embraces much more than the mere recognition and admission of religious truth. Another ele- ment enters into it which is expressed by- the word trust, Christ is the object of this trust. He proposes himself as the only Savior. The incalculable interests of the soul are at stake. He proposes to secure them. He solemnly assures us that he is able and altogether disposed to take our souls, guilty and corrupt as they are, and become responsible for their safety. He will remove their guilt and purge away their defilement. There is none other in earth or heaven that can do it. If we withhold ourselves from him, destruc- tion is inevitable. The soul turns away from every other hope, and entrusts itself, with all its interests and perils, to him. The process is this: In deep repentance we admit the Christian doctrine, believe that Christ is the Savior of men, consent that he shall be our Savior, and confide in him. This personal faith in Christ (which presupposes tlie belief of Christian doctrine and repentance) secures to the subject of it all the results of the atonement. '^I'ur as many as received him, to them gave he power to lnHH)ine tlie sons of God, even to them that believe on his U(n/n/' (Johni. 12.) Receimng Christy and helieving on his name, are, in this passage, synonymous phrasers. And, indeed, at this point, as at a thousand others, religious truth shows itself 80 LATE BISHOP E. M. MAKYIN. at one with all other truth. FaitJi is the mind'' s reception of an object. Just so believing on Christ is receiving him. Not the general admission that he is the Savior of the world, but faith in him as he is proposed to each one — as a personal Savior. Thus received, Christ always comes into the soul, and when he comes, he brings salvation with him. ''To them gave he power to become the sons of God." ''He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life." "He that believeth on him is not condemned;" (John iii. 18, 36.) There is no delay for priestly manipulation. Faith joins- the soul to Christ, and in him it has justification and life. Now here is the basis of that classification in which the Church stands apart from the world, and at this point we come naturally to examine — 2. The second fact involved in this union with Christ, which is the new birth. To understand this great fact of the Christian religion in its bearing upon the topic now in discussion, it will be necessary to recur to our Savior's presentation of it in the tliird chapter of John's Gospel. Nicodemus. stands before the Son of God and recognizes him as the ' ' Teacher. ' ' And such he is — the world's instructor. At once he enters upon his ofiice. He communicates his Doctrine. It is the truth which the world has been laboring toward for thou- sands of years, but never found. Philosophy is outdone. The devotees of truth had looked for this divine verity ; they had strained their eyes to see it, but it was beyond their vision. Prophets alone had seen it, and its shiping from afar had illuminated their pages. Holy men had re- joiced in it from the beginning. But the world had not been fully taught it. He who was the Word — the Wisdom — the Light — was to announce it and define it now. With what pomp of words would any teacher, not divine, have announced such a sublime proposition ! But God always does his work without parade. It is littleness that UNITY OF THE CHURCH— THE TRUE IDEA. 81 makes a great ado. Its preparations are more conspicuous than its achievements. What scaffolding wonld a finite archit(^ct prepare if he had a world to build ! But God only said BE, and the Divine monosyllable built the universe. And he describes his work to his creatures with the same simplicity. ''In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." So Christ describes the new creation, the heavenly birth. ''Ye must be born again." But wliy must we be born again \ Because Christ came to establisli a Mngdom upon earthy the citizens of which must have a higher style of life than the natural. "JThat which is born of the flesh is flesh. ' ' By the natural birth men enjoy a life adapted to the natural world— to its civil and social and physical condition. But Christ's "kingdom is not of this world." It is spiritual. "That which is born of the Spirit is spirit." "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born again, he can not see the kingdom of God." "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Here is Christ's kingdom, or, if you please, his Church ; and man must undergo a spiritual birth, producing a spiritual life, in order to enter into it. . And this is not an arbitrary arrangement, but an obvious necessity ; for (mly thus can he be assimilated to tlu^ nature of that kingdom. Only thus can he become adapted to its conditions. Here we have then a second element in the unity of the .Church — a common life in all its members, proceeding from Christ, by the Holy Spirit, through whose efticient agency they are "born again," and thus become " children of God by faith in Jesus Christ." It is this great work oF grace that " purges their consciences from dead works to sorvt^ the living God " Christ "manifests himself to them as lie does not to the world." He dwells with thiMu. And liis I)rayer to the Father is realized in them : '^ That thi^y all G 82 LATE BISHPP E. M. MARTI^^ may be one ; as tliou. Father, art in me, and I in tliee, that they also may be one in ns : that the world may belieye that thou has sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me, I haye given them; that they may he one ^ even as we are one : I in them and thou in me, tJiat they may be made perfect in one ; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loyed them, as thou hast loyed me.'" (John xvii. 21-23.) 3. A third fact involved in connection with Christ is the reception of his doctrine. He says, referring to his dis- ciple«, ''I have given them thy word." (John xvii. 14.) And in verse 8, '^ I have given them the words which thou gavest me ; and they have received them. " It is alleged that Protestants have no dogmas. Then the Bible has none. For ''the Bible, and the Bible alone, is the religion of Protestants." Who enunciates the great doctrines of the gospel with more distinctness and emphasis than Protestant ministers ? The time wasted by Romish priests upon the worse than silly legends of the saints, and other such unscriptural declamation, is de- voted by preachers of the gospel to dogmatic theology and •hortatory discourse. That the Christian doctrine may be kept pure is their special care and solicitude. For this purpose they have r-epudiated all human standards, and keep to the Word of C4od alone. They allow it to dog- matize. And the wonder is, that, with all the diversity of mental endowment, there should be such perfect consent. Erratic sects there are, no doubt ; but Rome, even with the help of the Inquisition, could not wholly prevent that, in her palmiest days. Some ''will give heed to seducing spir- its and doctrines of devils," in spite of the Bible. And they will pervert the Bible as sadly as Rome does. Their ac- count is with God. It is not mine to judge them. But ''the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, the Lord knoweth them that are his." "If any man will do my TJNITY OF THE CHURCH— THE TRUE IDEA. 83 Father's will," said our Lord, ''he shall know of the doc- trine.' In the '^Kingdom of God," the Word of God is received, and his people are at one in reference to the sav- ing truth. ISTor is this unity of doctrine incompatible with specula- tive differences. My Presbyterian brother, behind me in the pulpit, for instance, agrees with me in the Christian doctrine. At some points there is a speculative divergence, but not a dogmatic. For instance, he theorizes in reference to the relation of the Divine foreknowledge and human volition in one way, and I in another. He supposes that foreknowledge and foreordination are necessarily correla- tive ; I suppose they are not necessarily so". In my theory, events with the production of which the human will is concerned are not foreordained ; in his, they are. And so, perhaps, we may theorize differently in many cases. But, after all, we come back to the same saving doctrine ; the triunity of the Godhead, the depravity of man, the atone- ment, salvation by grace through faith, the necessity of repentance, and a godly life, the final judgment, and the eternity of future rewards and punishments. In short, when we begin to speculate, we are liable to take divergent paths at every step, but when we dogmatize from the Bible •in reference to saving truth, we are at one. 4. The Church is one in its submission to the law of Christ. In that fact, God's people are separate from the world, and one with Christ, and with each other. ''Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, and toucli not the unclean thing; and I Avill receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." (2 Cor. vi. 17, IS.) They are ''a peculiar peoj)le, zealous of good works." (Titus ii. 14.) If any profess to be the Lord's people who liave not this characteristic, sliame on them. "If any man love me, he will Jkeep my toords; and my Father will love him, and we 84 LATE BISHOP E. M. MARTIN. will come unto him, and make onr abode with him." (John xiv. 23.) ''For this is the love of God, that we 'keep his commandments ; and his commandments are not grievous." (1 John V. 3 ) Obedience to the law of Christ is the outgrowth of the inward, spiritual life. It is thus that it declares itself. Just as every other species of life has its appropriate ex- pression, so has this, also. Life produces activity. This life of the soul has its activity in holy living, in godly works. This is a most palpable basis of classification. The subjects of Christ's kingdom are one in obedience to its laws, and in this they are distinguished from all other men. 6. Christians are '^ partakers of the Divine nature." (2 Peter i. 4.) What is that nature \ " God is love." (John iv. 8, 16.) Love is not merely a Divine attribute; it is rather the essence of God's moral nature. His moral attributes are so many expressions of love in certain aspects, or movements of it toward certain objects. Truth is love speaking the things which are good ; justice is love protecting the interests of the universe ; and so of the rest. Love is at the bottom of it all. " God is love.''^ The more I think of this, the more I see its truth and beauty. It is the divine philosophy which harmonizes all things. The attributes are not at war with each other, but have a. common center, and work to the same results. iS'ow, look at this. We are ^'made partakers of the Divine nature." ''God is love." Here you have the true religion defined. It is expressed again by the apostle, who says ''the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us." (Rom. v. 5.) This is in keeping with the declaration of our Savior. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it : Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." {Mat. xxii. '37-39.) UNITY OF THE CHURCH— THE TRUE IDEA. 85 And further : ''On tliese two commanclments hang all the law and the prophets. ' ' (v. 40. ) The law is the expression of God's nature, which is love. We are made partakers of the Divine nature, and then the law of the Lord is our deliglit. ''How love I thy law," is the heart-felt exclama- tion of cYeiy one that is born of God. "God is love ; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.*' (i Johniv. 16.) Now, your own consciousness will tell you that love is that principle w^hich attracts and produces unity. It is sj^iritnal gramtation, God is the infinite source of it, and by it binds all holy natures to himself, and to each other. Jesus, "God manifest in the flesh," sends the spirit of his love into the heart of every true believer, and, touched by this magnet, they gravitater toward himself. They love God ; they love each other ; they are one ix him. This is the supreme principle of Christian unity. Hatred repels ; love attracts and unites. The unity of the Church is not an organism — a corporation. It is not in forms and transmissions by human hands ; not in ecclesiastical I'egula- tions and outward connection Avith a given See. It is "the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace." It is by this that the Church is made known among men. ''By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye liav^e love one to another." (Jolin xiii. 35.) Tell me not tliat it is by an immense organization that the true people of God are known. It is not by such means that God demonstrates his work to mankind. It is by no such test that his Cliurch is known, One distinct declaration of Christ is worth a thousand times more than all the disquisitions in the Avorld. "i??/ THIS shall all men know that ye are my disci})les: if ye have love oxe to axotheu." Blessinl Jesus, av*» thank thee. And "/>>// this we know that W(^ love tlu^ children of God when we love God ami Ixcep liis conunand- mentsy (1 John v. 2.) No man, by any ecclesiastical 86 LATE BISHOP E. M. MARYIN. authority on earth, shall defraud me of my right and my duty to recognize and honor the "disciples of Christ,'' wherever I see those who love his children, and prove it Iby loving him and keeping his commandments. From the Vatican, or from the midst of councils, men may speak and ^ anathematize against the declaration of my Savior till the ^ orld goes to pieces. I will believe him, and I will dis- credit any authority that contradicts his words. I have set forth the Q\A^i. facts in which the unity of the Church consists. First, a common personal faith in Christ ; secondly, a common life, produced by spiritual regenera- tion ; thirdly, a common reception of the saving truth, or "sound doctrine ;" fourthly, common obedience to Christ's law ; and finally, as comprising all the rest, the love of God, dwelling in each believer, and joining the whole in a divine bond. To these must the Church appeal in vindica- tion of her truth. These are her scriptural marks. To these, and especially the last, men are directed as the cer- tain test. In these facts we are directed to find the Church, and never ^ never in the fact of a corporate existence. I am willing to leave it to the good sense and intelligence of my audience, and of mankind. I fear no investigation. Truth shines all the brighter for the friction of such a test. Take my statements to the Bible ; try them at the tribunal from which there is no appeal ; subject them to the most rigid cross- questioning ; and if they speak not as "the oracles of God," repudiate them. Having presented, sufficiently for the argument up to this point, tlie more direct Scripture doctrine on this sub- ject, let us now turn to the illustrations of the unity of the Church, which the Bible gives : First. Our Savior, as I have shown in former lectures, affirms of himself that he is the rock on which tlie Church is built. (Mat. xvi. 18.) In 1 Cor. iii. .10, 17, the apostle uses the same figure. Alluding to his own work as the UNITY OF THE CHURCH— THE TRUE IDEA. 87 pioneer of Christianity among the G-entiles, he says: -'I have laid the foundation^ and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For oilier foundation can no man lay than that is laid, icliiclf is Jesus Clirist?^ Men, he goes on to say, build on this foundation, using materials which he represents by ''gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble.'' , But the work is to be tried by fire. Those who build on the foundation shall he saved ; though if the material which they have used in building be such as will not stand the fire, it shall be burned up, and they shall suff*er that loss. But if the material be such as fire will not consume, they shall not only be saved, but ''shall receive a reward," also, in the preservation of .their work. Surely no illustration could more plainly present the fact that building on Christ is the essential point. Established on him, men are secure. The gates of hell can not prevail against an}^ man that builds on that immovable foundation. There is, also, a solemn warning againt the use of bad or unsuitable material. The consequences are sad. What this poor material is, con- cerns not the present argument. The fact that Christ is the only foundation, and thus the center of unity to the Church, lies on the surface of the text. Every brick, and beam, and shingle in a house has a direct relation to the founda- tion, and it is that relation which preserves their unity as a whole. The foundation gone, and all the parts are scat- tered. They lose their relation to each other ; their unity is gone. How beautifully and forcibly this illustrates all that I liave said in the preceding portion of this lecture. Christ is the center, the rallying point of Christian unity, and all that are united to him are by that very fact united to each other. "Upon this rock T will build my Church/' Secondly. Our Lord conipan^shiniself toa vine, of which his people ai(^ the branclu^s. (John xv. 1, 8.) In Ixomans xi. 15, 24, the apostle compares the Church to an olive tree, 88 LATE BISHOP E. M. MAEYIX. of wliicli he says the Jews were the natural brandies, and they being broken off, the Gentile converts were grafted in. The idea in these two places is that* of unit;/ in Cliri^t. And more, the Jews were broken off iv unbel'cf. and the Gentiles were grafted in hy faitlt. Faith is the immediate, act by which the union of the branch with the stock is eflfected. This is the engrafting act. And this agrees exactly with what I have said before. True unity is the union with Christ by faith : that uiiion with him effected, the Xew Birth is realized, and life flows from him to the engrafted member. He is the center of union, and the source of vitality. And the unity is not merely between Christ and the individual' members, but is predicable of all the members aggregately. They are united with each other in virtue of their union with him. just as all the branches of a tree are united to each other by means of their con- nection with the stock. The remotest twig is of a j^^i'cel with the whole tree. The same life is infused into every part. The same nature pervades the whole. The trunk is olive, and the youngest branch — the minutest twig — is olive. It is one, not only in the aggregation, but in life and nature. So of the Church. Tv^e are '*made partakers of the Divine nature.'' '^Clirist is our life:^ The Church is one aggre- gately: one in life, one in nature, one in Christ. This beautiful illustration agrees precisely with the view which I ' have presented of the unity of the Church. Thirdly. An illustration of the unity of the Church, often given in the Epistles, is found in the living human body. The Church is called, in so many words, "the body of Christ,'' i^Eph. iv. 12. j In verses 15 and 16, he speaks of Christians as growing '*up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, fitly joined together, and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edify- UNITY OF THE CHURCH — THE TRUE IDEA. 89 ing of itself in love." (See also Ro. xii. 4, 5 ; 1 Cor. xii. 12, 28 ; Eph. i. 23, and v. 23, 30 ; and Col. i. 24.) In tlie last of these places the apostle speaks of Christ's body, ''which is the Church." From these passages it will be readliy seen that the unity of the Church consists of the very facts which I have before indicated. Christ, ''as the head," is the center and source of the union, from which vitality, and consciousness, and indentity proceed through the entire body. Indeed, the apostle, in the text cited above, uses the precise lan- guage which best expresses my meaning. From the head, Christ, "the whole body, fitly joined together and compac- ted hy that which every joint supplieth^ according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body, unto the ed^ifying of itself in lovey The remarks which I made in reference to the illustration of the vine and the olive tree, are, many of them, applicable here ; but this illustration involves some further facts, chiefly growing out of the conscious life of the body. It expresses with great force the principal fact of Christian unity, to which I have already called your attention. I mean love. "Whether one member suffer, all the mem- bers suffer with it or one member be honored, all the members rejoice with it." (1 Cor. xii. 20.) Let but the most insignificant member of the body receive the slighej-t injury, and an instant participation of the pain is realized throughout. And every part of the whole sj'stem demands its portion of the ejoyment which comes to au}^ member. The distribution of the fortunes, prosperous or adverse, of each sei)arate part amongst the whole, illustrates, nu>st truthfully and beautifully, the divine lovt^ that aniiuatt^s and unites the Church, "lli^joice with tliose that do vv]o\(\\ and weej) with those that weep." Every iiuMiibiM* o( the body serves the rest. The feet walk not for llu'iust^lvi^s alone, but for the whole body, the hands labor lor the whoK^ ; 90 LATE BISHOP E. M. MARTIN. tlie eyes see and the ears hear for the whole. And so of all. What serves one serves all. So in the body of Christ, each lives for all — each has his individual duties, and devotes himself to them ; but the good therefrom resulting is not for his separate behoof. And in further confirmation of this view of the spiritual against the organic idea of the unity of the Church, see the loth verse of this same chapter. ^' For hy one spirit are we all baptized into one hody^ whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free ; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." The act of union on our part is faith, and on the part of Grod it is the baptism of his Spirit. By faith we join ourselves to him, and he, suffusing us with his Spirit, consummates the union. "By one Spirit," the \\o\j Spirit of God, "we are baptized into one body." Indeed, the Bible leaves us no room to doubt. ''The unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace," is that which the Holy Scriptures insist on. The plain statements of the doc- trine are all to this effect. And the illustrations of the house, the vine, the olive tree, the body, all consent in ex- hibiting a direct union with Clirist by the Spirit. A unity based on Papal or prelatical succession is out of the ques- tion. The Bible ignores it. The genius of Christianity disowns it. It fosters vain pretensions, and unchristian exclusiveness. It invents tests of communion unknown to the Word of God, and adverse to its spirit and its plainest teaching. It is, therefore, not only 'Z/^Tiscriptural, but antl- scriptural. It is hurtful, as it repels and cuts off many most worthy bodies of believers, and as it places so much stress upon what is outward as often to turn the mind away from the inward and spiritual These exclusionists are scliismaticaL They separate themselves from the one universal Church. By claiming exclusive catholicity, tliey make themselves essentially un- catholic. The Catholic Church, truly so called, is made up UNITY OF THE CHURCH — THE TRUE IDEA. 91 of all congregations of believers who worship and serve God according to the Scriptures. From vast multitudes of these the exclusionists separate themselves. The sin of schism is upon them. " The Temple of the Lord, the Tem- ple of the Lord are we," say they, when, behold, it is a temple of their own building. And every body must fit the bedstead which Procrustes has adjusted to his own length. What a crime against truth and charity, to depart so far from the divine standard, and then anathematize all who will not be guilty of the same departure ! The true unity is not outward and formal, but inward and spiritual. It is not shadow, but substance. It is the linking of intelligent being into the chain of purity, and truth, and love. Deity infuses himself into human souls, and makes them one. Now let us consider the advantages connected with the true, scriptural vie^w of Christian Church unity. 1 . It allows legitimate liberty of thought. Activity and freedom of thought are necessary to the world. To be healthy, mind must have play. Confine it, and it must develop out of symmetry. Truth appears in an infinite variety of relations and combinations. And there are ex- haustless varieties of mental endowment adapted to investi- gation in the varied fields of thought. Let them work. There is enough for all to do. Speculative theolog}^ alone is exhaustless. Starting from the fundamental and palpa- ble truths of revelation, interminable fields of thought o\)cn in every direction. But, you say, liberty in exploring iIumu opens the door for error. " It must needs be that oltc^iises come, but wo'to that man by whom they come.'' For tht^ use or the abuse of thought men are accountable, as for that ot* any other faculty. It* they refuse to ab'uK* bv the distinct averments of revelation, tlu^y do so at their jitMil. Christian unity only requires that they abide by th(^s(\ So long as the anchor grapples therCs they are sale IVoni fatal 92 LATE BISHOP E. M. MARVIN. error. Obeying the check of evident truth in science, and the plain teaching of the Bible in religion, the mind requires ]iberty in speculation. In Wie use of that liberty the world will make its way to nobler views, and a healthier mental state, as the ages advance. In the unity of love, and pure doctrine, and godly living, men may cordially agree to differ in things indifferent or conjectural. They can ''love as brethren," although they take opposite routes in specula- tive exploration. By extending the dogmatic area, Rome has put thought into a straight jacket. Men must think just as certain theologians have heretofore determined, and as the prelates now permit. The theological surveyors, with chain and compass, have marked the "metes and bounds" within which mind may exercise itself. And there is no unity where the line is overstepped. Within the circle unity may be sinned against, the spirit of it may be trampled. That is to be borne with. But beyond the arbitrary circle none must dare to go. Where has mind wrought its great achievements within the last few centuries ? In Austria ? In Spain ? In Italy ? In Mexico ? In the South American Republics ? It has been in Protestant Germany, and Q-reat Britain, and the United States of America. France has taken the lead of Papal countries, but it is in that country that the ecclesias- tical trammel is less regarded than in the others. And besides, the commonwealth of thought in France owes a large debt to Protestants. Her achievements are chiefly in some of the sciences, in philosophy, and in polite literature. In Biblical criticism Germany and England have outstripped all competitors. In the science of government and the use- ful arts, our own country stands unrivaled. Protestant mind leads the world to-day, as it has done for some ages past. ''Live and let live." Think and let think, and help UNITY OF THE CHUECH— THE TRUE IDEA. 93 think. Only be humble, and love Grod jirst^ and love the truth for God' s sake. Thus acting, you will never endanger the '^ unity of the Spirit." 2. On the Scripture theory the Church is relieved of the hopeless task of tracing an organic history, unbroken in every particular. All that is required of her is to vindi- cate \l^y present claim by scriptural tests. If, indeed, a continued organization from the apostles down, with a regular succession of ordinations, unbroken at any point, be an absolute requisite of the true Church, then, in order to establish the fact, there must be explicit history at every point. If history leaves a gap at any given point, then the world can never know but her identit}^ be- came forfeit at that time. Faith is thus transferred from the Bible to history. And if that witness is silent anywhere along the periods of the past, then faith fails right there. In the pretended Roman line of succession, the history is wanting at the very outset. It is not Tn proof that Peter ever was at Rome. The circumstances are against it. Luke, the historian of those times, fails to state it. And his silence amounts to proof against it on the Roman theory. There are circumstances which give silence a world of meaning, and I know of no case more fully in point than this. By the Roman theory the fact of Peter' s residence at Rome, as the supreme head of the Church, was the most important fact of the times. A single sentence from Luke in the Acts of the Apostles would have settled it beyond cavil for all coming time. But he is silent. No explanation of his silence can be given on earth, except that Peter was never at Rome, or at least not in that high cliaraeter. There is no cotemporaneous history attesting it. For man}', many years history is silent. After ages profess to have found a tradition to the effect that Peter and Paul founded the Church at Rome. And from this dubious tradition (which, indeed, is disproved by Scripture, for wo know that 94 LATE BISHOP E. M. MARVIN. the Clinrcli at Rome was founded before Paul was ever there) the whole Papal theory and history have been man- ufactured. And then the tradition confuses the sucrcession for some ages. IS^oi less than eight different lines have been given at the first end, as follows: 1. Linus, Anacletus, Clement, Euarestes, Alexander. 2. Peter, Linus, Cletus, Clement, Anacletus. 3. Linus, Anacletus, Clement, Sixtus, Alexander. 4. Peter, Anacletus, Clement, Alexander, Evaristus. 5. Linus, Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander. 6. Peter, Clement, Linus, Cletus, Alexander. 7. Peter, Linus, Cletus, Evaristus, Alexander. 8. Peter, Linus, Cletus or Anacletus, Clement, Evaristus. Such is the confusion through which the ecclesiastical genealogy of the Popes is traced back to the place where Peter ought to he. They can not even tell with any cer- tainty whether Cletus be another name for Anacletus, or whether the two names belong to as many individuals. The history which proves (!) the succession is only tradition, and a tradition which crosses its own path eigJit times! Peter is supposed to have been at Rome, and some one of these lines of succession probably came after him. Alas for the Church whose very existence depends on such proof as this ! Besides this, there are many grave irregularities in the Papal succession. Some of their writers enumerate twenty- two schisms in the Papacy, some twenty-six, and Protest- ants reckon twenty-nine. By a schism you will understand two or more persons claiming to be Pope at the same time. Sometimes there have been three rival Popes, all contend- ing for Peter's chair at once. These are facts which no intelligent Papist will deny. At one time there was no Pope in Rome for seventy years. For that period the Papal residence was at Avignon. Besides this, if the Pope UNITY OF THE CHURCH — THE TRUE IDEA. 95 be the head of the Church, then the Church is always head- less for some days after the death of an incumbent. Rome makes faith in the Church dependent upon the assurance that a continuous organization has been main- tained by a regular succession of Popes, and then is thrown upon covjecture to establish the succession, at least in the first five links. Faith in the Church resting on covjecture! What an incongruity ! What a contradiction ! Conjectural faith! Let them produce contemporaneous records from the first, showing that Peter was Pope, and then continuing to record the succession at every stage. When that is done, they may, with some degree of confidence, ask the credence of mankind. But bare probability is a foundation alto- gether too frail to support such a structure as they assert the Church to be. But in this case the probability is on the other side. On the contrary the scriptural proof is clear and accessi- ble. Any given association has but to assure itself of holding the true saving doctrine, with the scriptural ordi- nances; of maintaining the true worship and the Christian life; of holding to Christ by faith, and enjoying the Spirit of his presence. This establishes their claim to a place in the great Christian family. They are of the body of Christ. They are one with his people in all places and ages. One, not by the arbitrary identity of a formal external organism, but in the actual identity of fact and spirit They are grafted into the good olive tree by faith. ''By one Spirit they are baptized into one body." They are under no necessity of giving "heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions rather than godly edifying.'' (1 Tim. i. 4.) Questions of ecclesiastical genealogy give them no perplexity. They are careful only to secure tluMr present connection with "the Head, which is Christ/' W(»ll knowing that that will secure their identity with the wlu^li^ body. They seek only to be such a people as the Bible 96 LATE BISHOP E. M. MARYIN. describes, divinely assured that in this is the true nnity. They are at one with all the congregations of God' s people. And if any man comes bustling along, and scolds them, saying, ''I forbid you, because you follow not m^J/^ us^^^ they remember that Christ rebuked such officious exclusive- ness when he saw the buddings of it among his disciples. •'Forbid them not." 3. This ''unity of the Spirit" dates from a far more remote antiquity than the frigid unity of organism does, even allowing all that it claims for itself. At the outside it is not two thousand years old. It is, also, much more extended. It takes in the children of God in all lands. This is the "Catholic Church." It goes back to the family of Adam, embraces the patriarchs, illustrious and obscure, and on down in every age, in every land, it opens its arms to the true worshippers of God. It encompasses Abel, the bleeding victim of whose altar attested his faith in the woman' s seed, and sweeps its ample circle around the last man whose faith shall present before the Father the dying victim of our sins. Greek and Roman, Armenian and American, Ethiopian and Hindoo, wherever the word of Christ has come hy any means ^ and men have believed on his name, and associated themselves to observe his ordinances and his will — all, all are embraced. A rigid organism necessarily exclusive, and, therefore, uncatholic and schis- matical. On the contrary, the "unity of the Spirit" is, in its very nature, catholic and all-embracing. It knows no limits but those of the Spirit. By it we are joined to "the whole family in earth and in heaven." (Eph. iii. 15.) We belong to "the general assembly and Church of the first-born, which are written in heaven." (Heb. xii. 23.) "One army of the living God, One Church above, beneath, Though now divided by the stream, The mivrow stream of death." Arrest of Robert Qt^iiier. Piit^e 484. UNITY OF THE CHURCH — THE TRUE IDEA. 97 What a sublime unity is here ! It shall form a company, which, in the end, ''no man can number, of every kindled, nation and tongue," The consciousness of a part in iliis grand unity must elevate the soul to humble exultation. And when they shall 'all stand together upon ''the sap- phire pavements of the skies," and shout in unison, " Salvation unto our Gfod that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the L-imb, forever," the exultant melody shall form an anthem worthy of the ear of God. 4. I told you last Sunday evening that the unity of the Roman Church is maintained by force. This I proved from the canons of the Council of Trent, and the writings of Bellarmin. It is exemplified by a thousand facts of history. But the "Unity of the Spirit," is maintained by attraction^ not by compulsion. It is the unity of love, as contradistinguished from that of force. It is unity " in the bond of peace." (Eph. iv. 3.) It asks no "sword of the temporal prince" to drive in refractory members. It draws, but does not drive. "And I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto me," said Christ. "My people shall be loilling in the day of my power." (Psa., ex. 3.) Coercion is reserved to the Judge, and then it will drive men aiDay, not to himself. It is the last and terrible resort of insulted Sovereignty. The mission of the Church is one of peace. Everywhere she holds the olive-branch. She echoes, Christ's "Come to me." She utters the words of his love. "The Spirit and the Bride say, come. And let him tliat heareth say, come. And let him that is athirst come. And wliosoexer will^ let him take of the water of life freely.^'' (Rev. xxii. 17.) Reluctant spirits, driviMi into an organization against their will, have no part in \\w unity of Christ. Christ, as the great center of the Christian system, draws to himself the elements of which his Cliurch is ('c»i\i- posed. The members come to their places freely, and are 7 98 LATE BISHOP E. M. MARVIN. retained as they are drawn, by love. This ''sweet compul- sion" is the only force employed. Do you ask me, then, the use of any outward Church organism ? I answer, its use is obvious. First, it is necessary to the administration of the ordi- nances of religion. By it the teachers of Christianity are provided and maintained. All the means of j)ublic religious instruction are dependent upon it. Organized effort to spread the Gospel is thus secured. The ministerial office is duly guarded and maintained. Men are thus enabled to ''go forth everywhere, preaching the word." God works by means. He has made men "workers together with him," in extending the knowledge of salvation. Believers, themselves, require to be "built up on their most holy faith." Religious teaching and teachers are requisite, as well as established methods of instruction. How necessary an organization is to all this, every one can see. Then there are the sacraments to be administered, and the public wor- ship of God observed. And the Churcli must be aggressive. She must carry the Gospel to ' ' the regions beyond." The preacher and the Bible must go to the heathen. From the rising to the setting sun, Jesus' name must be made known. In these great enterprises, organized effort is requisite to extended success. Secondly, God' s people must avow themselves. Christ must be confessed before men. His followers must come out from the world and be separate. "Ye are my wit- nesses," said God, of his ancient people. It is true of his people to-day. Their light must be "on a candlestick," not "under a bushel." Their formal association with the body of believers is such an avowal ; not sufficient of itself, indeed, unless it is supported by a godly life. But it is a public confession of Christ, and that public confession is renewed whenever they "show the Lord's death" at the sacred Supper. UNITY OF THE CHURCH — THE TRUE IDEA 99 Thirdly, it is necessary to Christian fellowship. Com- mnnion of saints takes shape. Christians know each other by means of their organic association. They are brought together, and brotherly love is cultivated. They support each other against the encroachments of the world, and encourage each other' s faith and zeal. The social demands of our nature, in the religious aspect, are met ; Christian joy receives from this source a large revenue. United praise and prayer go up to God from the ''assemblies of the saints." The weak are supported, the feeble mmded are comforted, the erring are called back. The whole body, in a word, ''maketh increase — unto the edifying of itself in love." (Eph. iv. 16.) Fourthly, it is the outward expression of the sjDiritual fact of unity. The Christian life produces a common spirit in ^11 those who enjoy it. They are one in spirit, and this con- trolling fact brings them together. No more naturally will magnetized steel dust cluster together than will Christians. They toill associate. Christianity is eminently gregarious. Christian people go in JlocJcs. (Acts, xx. 28.) A common life and a common center of attraction draw them together. The outward Church is a necessary outgrowth of the inward life. But the unity of the Church does not, therefore, consist of a universal organism. Independent organizations are essen- tially one^ when they have in common the characteristics which I have given in the beginning of this lecture. They unite mfaWi in the saving truth, in the new birth, in a common piety, in scriptural worship. They are united in Christ. They gather around the Bible and tlie Cross. So long .as their differences affect nothing that bek^igs to tlie essence of religion, they are one in the eye of Christ. The liberty of independent organization is evidently allowed, for in the New Testament no specific form of organization is enjoined. The elements of which the Church is to con- 100 LATE BISHOP E. M. MAR YIN. sist are clearly given, but the specific form is not. Adapta- tion to circumstances in things indifferent is thus provided for. The wisdom and goodness of Grod appear in this as in all things. But, you ask again, who is to be the judge to determine which particular organizations are embraced in the great Catholic unity \ I ask, in return, who is to be the judge be- tween me and my Romanist brother % He is hut a man, and I am a man. But he speaks the voice of his Church. So do I speak the voice of mine. But his Church claims to be infallible. I deny the claim, and there we are at issue again. Who is to decide between us % God, in the final issue ; and, for practical purposes now, each man for himself; and the Bible is the r'2^Z(^ of judgment. But men are not infallible, and may err, therefore. In speculative questions, doubt- • less, they will be unable to see alike. But the saving trutli has been plainly given. ' ' The wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein. ' ' (Isa. xxx v. 8. ) But, you say men do err in vital matters. Many, to whom the Bible is accessible, go astray from the plainest truth. Yes. And, pray, does every one to whom the Roman Church is accessible, see her to be the only true Church, and so get the truth at her hand? IS'o ! What does that prove % If that were the best proof against her claims, I should yield the argument. And if the fact that men differ in essential matters, in interpreting the Scriptures, is proof against them as a reliable standard of truth for man, then the fact that men differ in reference to the claims of Rome as an infallible teacher, is proof against the claim. One is just as good as the other. If this be a good argument, the world is without any reliable revelation ; and the vessel of life is afloat chartless andhelmless upon the sea of destiny, drifting on to a fearful shipwreck, or at best to an unknown port. No, the earnest, conscientious inquirer for truth, in the Bible, need not fear. He is obliged to judge for himself for UNITY OF THE CHURCH— THE TRUE IDEA. 101 practical purposes, and is accountable to God for the use of his faculties and opportunities. And ''the foundation of Grod standeth sure, having this seal : the Lord knoweth them that are his." Each one must inquire, and judge, and a-ot for himself upon the whole question of religion, as upon every other, and God will know his own. And they shall know him, the only true God, if they seek with the icTiole Jieart, ''In the day that thou seekest me with thy whole heart, I will be found of thee. " Our union in Christ is the ground of immortal hope. "Our life is hid with Christ in God. Wlien Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall we also appear with him in glory." (Col. iii. 3, 4.) The immortality of Christ is the pledge of ours. Living and dying, his people are one in him. In all places of the earth they are scattered, and separated by ages and generations. A thousand distinctions of rao3, aai s3ot, and color, and condition, and language and education', and opinion divide them. But, in every case, their "life is hid with Christ in God." Amid all circumstantial variations, here is the substantive unity. Their life is one. And it is divine. It can never fail. Through all changes, and death, and decay, it is hid with Christ in God. I stand here in the midst of the Western Hemisphere, humbly joined to Christ by faith in his name, and he hides my life in God. Henceforth, to me, the spirit' ual is the real. God is all in all. This world is a world of shadows. Around me, on every hand, in every continent, on every island, in every sea, are scattered unknown mil- lions, living and dead, separated from me by lines of shadoic. Our life meets in Christ. There we are one. The shadows fade. Death, and time, and diistance are nothing. What a worldof life is hid with mine in God! And ''when Christ, who is our life, shall appear^ then shall we also appear with him in glory." Hail! all hail ! We wait the dawn of the coming day. In that li^ht we 102 LATE BISHOP E. M. IVIARYIN. '* shall see as we are seen- ' by God. Brothers of my soul! we shall come together then in apparent, as we are now joined in real, nnion. ''The day of redemption draweth nigh." What a family shall then meet in ''the house not made with hands," nnder the Fatherhood of God! Our childish differences and misunderstandings shall pass away. Our hidden life shall appear. We "shall know as we are known." Even now we realize the bond of the "mystic brother- hood. ' ' Even now we despise the shadow- walls of partition. We await the consummation 1 The day when Christ shall appear^ we shall appear together, with him. Then shall "the general assembly and Church of the first-born" stand upon Mount Zion. Beothers, known and unknown, all hail ! I shall know you tJien. iliEottj:e2>es OF ENOCH MATHER MARVIN, ' . LATE BISHOP 0¥ THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH. THE MINISTRY OF CHRIST S CHURCH CONTRASTED WITH THE PRIESTHOOD OF THE POPE's CHURCH. ''Then opened He their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures, and said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things." —[Luke xxiv. 45-18. " And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; to wit: that God was in Christ reconciling the wcfi^ld unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now, then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you, in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God."— [i2 Cor. v. IS-'Ji). Before proceeding to the discussion of the subject announced for the evening, I must discharge an obligation j^Oi friendsliip. I have received a letter, wliich I slioiild have ai^lvuowledged in a more i)rivate wtiy, but for the circumstance that it is anonynuuis, and I couki not guess to wlioin I was indebted for the favor. I^ut, as it is my desire not to owe a debt of kindness wlien it is in my ])ow(u- to reciprocate the act, I take this, tlie only nu^thoil open to .me, of making my respects to my unkno\vii friend. And 104 LATE BISHOP E. M. MARVIN. that you may know tlie nature and extent of tlie obligations under which I have been brought, I Avill read you the letter. It has already been the source of entertainment to some of my friends privately, and, as you are all my friends. I will give you all the benefit of it: St. Louis, February 27, 1860. Rev. Mr. Marvin— S'lr; In the concluding paragraph of your lecture, No. 13, you must do injustice to your own conscience in impugning the known truth in your false statement of the unity, holiness, apostolicity and catholicity of the Roman Catholic Church. As there is but one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of 'all, there can not be but one true Church and fhat true Church, to be conformable to eternal justice must necessarily have those four distinctive marks of unity, holiness, apostolicity, and catholicity. As you can not point out any other Church having those necessary distinctive marks, unless the Roman Catholic Church, it proves her, to all intents and purposes, to be the only true Church of God. Hence all ranting and raving against her, on such false premises, is a certain contradiction in terms, which, m logic, is considered an absurdity. ■ If you would liave these few lines published, it would answer all the l^tures of your kind that could be published until doomsday. Hence, if you wish to save your soul, you should become a Catholic at once, as you should recollect that no person is convinced by mere subterfuge and abuse. People require logical argument, on sound principles, to convince them, and how can you give what you have not? Don't believe the reporter, when he tries to humbug you, when he says, " The evident sincerit\' and ingenuousness of the lecturer, together with his eloquence, and the thorough, masterly manner in which he handles his subjects, enchain attention, convince, edify and delight the multitutes that hang upon his words!" Now, the fellow knows very "vvcll that almost the whole community are laughing and amused at your labor in vain struggles against God's holy and infallible Church, against which the Gates of hell shall never prevail. She is known by her fruits. Look round with admiration (?}, and be convinced; and, at least, be convinced that in me you have found one friend, who, in a few lines only, teils you all you can or need know, to know the truth (!). I am no clergpnan, but a friend to truth, and despise a foolish persistence in error, as you have much more trouble in hunting up erroneous statements, than you would have in finding the truth. I enter not into con- troversy with you, nor do I seek notoriety ; but if you were to publish this friendly advice in the Republican, or any other of the city papers, even without a signature, the public would know the writer. I am, very respectfully, A Friend to Truth. The grave charges made against me in this missile, might secure the author credit for boldness, only that it is always esteemed an equivocal sort of courage that fires under cover. My own courage, on the contrary, must pass, I suppose, for rashness, when I publish '* these few lines," which are to upset all I have said, or can say. At all events, it is gratifying to know that I am a public benefactor, if it be only in furnishing ''almost the whole community" with amusement. And it is yet more gratifying to know that I THE MINISTRY OF CHRIST'S CHURCH. 105 have at last ''found one friend y A friend is a priceless treasure. There is a drawback in this case, however, and that is, that I don't know where to find the friend whom 1 have found. Upon the whole, judging the man by -the writing, I am inclined to set him down for a clever fellow ; and as he is so anxious to get into print, "faith I'll print him." I ''guess" him to be a generous, impulsive, ardent sort of body, that I should like upon acquaintance ; and as the public is sure to know him in print, I am in hopes the public (who is my particular friend) will tell me who he is. But, dismissing my sub rosa friend, I must proceed to the topic of the evening: The ministry of Christ's Church contrasted with the Priesthood of the Pope's Church. I use the expression, "the Pope's Church," with no invidious intention. You who have either heard or read my two last lectures, will see the propriety of the language. The Pope is the head of the Roman Church, and center of its unity. Just as Great Britain and her dependencies are called "the Queen's dominions," the Roman may be called the Pope's Church. Every association has its officers, and every religion its ministers. The Church and the Christian religion are not different from others in this respect. What is the Christian ministry, and what its functions ? In reading the Scriptures of the New Testament, you will, perhaps, be struck with the fact that certain men, de- nominated apostles^ occupy the most prominent plac(\ and are most active in the work of the Church. Before the cruci- fixion they were constant attendants upon tlu^ person of the Lord, and, after that event, they took tlu^ huid in establi^li- ing Churches and managing their alfairs. Tlie Roman Church claims the perpetuation of the apostolical ollicc in herself, and her exclusive assumptions rest, in a lai'ue de- gree, upon that claim. 106 LATE BISHOP E. M. MARVIN. Now, I affirm that, in what was peculiar to the office of an apostle, they had no successors. The office was special, and 'belonged^ not to the continuous ministry of the Church, but only to the opening of the Christian dispensation and the first establishment of the Church. It is true that the apostleship included the ordinary functions of the ministry, but, in addition to these, it embraced other and special powers. In the ordinary functions of the ministerial office, every true minister succeeds them ; but in those which were special, they have never been succeeded by any, and, in the nature of the case, never can be. I desire no man to take my mere statement for this. You all have the opportunity to test my statement. I appeal to the Scriptures. Con- sider, then, the following places, and tell me if, in view of their teaching, there are any apostles now in the world, or any men with apostolical prerogatives. 1. The tenth chapter of Matthew entire is devoted to an account of the establishment of the apostolical office, to- gether with the address delivered to the incumbents, by our Lord, upon the occasion of their installation. This address defines the office, and contains, also, the official instructions under which they were to act. It is, therefore,' a document worthy of the most careful attention, as bearing upon this investigation. You will observe, then, (1.) Tliat there was a specific number of men desig- nated to this office, whose names are given: ''Now, the names of tJie twelve apostles are these : the first Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew, his brother; James, the son of Zebedee, and John', his brother; Philip and Bar- tholomew; Thomas and Matthew the publican; James, the son of Alpheus, and Lebbeaus, whose surname was Thad- deus; Shnon, the Canaanite; and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him," (Mat. x. 2-4.) (2.) These twelve were not all the disciples whom Jesus had, nor did they monopolize the ministerial office during THE MINISTRY OF CHRIST'S CHURCH. 107 our Savior's lifetime. He employed seventy others to proclaim the coming of God's kingdom. (Luke x. 1-20.) But while these were so employed, the apostles retained their peculiar honor, and were ever nearest the person of the Lord, and were called the twelve. (3.) These were most carefully instructed in his doc- trine, and to them was committed the Spirit of inspiration : ''For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you." (Matt. x. 20.) To them he made the promise, when he instituted the holy Supper, that the Holy Ghost should teach them all things, and bring to their remembrance all that he had said to them. (John xiv. 26.) Thus endowed, they were prepared to give the world the New Testament canon. The seventy enjoyed the power to work miracles in common with them. (4.) They were the special witnesses of his resurrection. (Acts i. 2, 3, 8, 22, and iv. 33.) It is to the apostles that he says, "Ye shall receive power after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you ; and ye shall be witnesses unto me^ both in Jerusalem and in Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the. uttermost parts of the earth." "When the apostles spoke of filling the vacancy occasioned by the fall of Judas, ''one must be ordained," say they, "to be a wit- ness witlius of the resurrection." "And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus." See also John xv. 27: "And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the bt\irin- ning." Fjom this you will see why Paul, in the authen- tication of his apostolic character, laj^s such stress on the fact tliat he had "see.m Christ." (1 Cor. ix. 1.) 2. Tliat the apostles themselves understood their otlice to be special and peculiar, and coniined to the oiiuinal number appointed by our Lord, and that tlie chit^f busi- ness of an apostle was to be a witness of Christ, is cU^ar, from the fact that when Judas fell, they thouglit it neees- 108 LATE BISHOP E. M. MARVIN. saiy to supply liis place; and tliat in doing this, tliey thought it equally necessary to make the selection from among those men who, as they say, *'haye companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesns went in and out among us, beginning fi^om the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us;'' and the design was, as I have already shown, to complete tlie num- ber of special witnesses ^*of his resurrection." Two were appointed, between whom the lot was cast, and one, named Matthias, selected. We hear of no other apostle in the x^ew Testament except Paul, whom I shall introduce to your attention soon. Why this rigid adherence to the original number \ And why was not this number afterward kept full upon the death of the apostles \ But one answer can be given. The office was confined to themselves; the necessity for it passed away with them. They, indeed, accomplished and consummated the apostolic work, as I shall soon show; and after they were gone there was no more use for apostles. 3. This ^^^11 all appear with great clearness in the exam- ination of the case of the Apostle Paul. Let us turn first to Gal. i. 1, 19 : ^*Paul, an apostle (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and Gx)d the Father, who raised him from the dead.'') This reference to his direct appointment to the apostolic office by Christ himself, is peculiarly sig- nificant. Grave errors, of most hurtful tendency, had crept into the Churches of Galatia, and he determined to eradicate them. In order to do this he must establish his credit with those Churches, as an apostle. This point gained, they have no alternative but to receive his declara- tions as ultimate authority in any question of Christian doctrine. His apostolic vocation is therefore vindicated in the outset. His apostleship, he affirms, is not of men, neither ly rnan^ but by Jesus Chuist. In Acts, ix. and xxii. chB^pters, we have the account of his strange conver- THE MINISTRY OF CHRIST'S CHURCH. 109 sion. Suddenly, and Iby a great miracle, arrested in his headstrong and bloody persecution of the feeble followers of Christ, he gives himself up, wholly, and with the irre- pressible ardor of his great soul, to the cause of the Lord that he had so deeply wronged and injured. Christ appeared to him personally, and invested him with the commission of an apostle. "And he said, I am Jesus whom thou per- secutest. But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee/br this purpose^ to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thoil hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee." (Acts, xxvi. 15, 16. See the whole chapter.) Thus was the man of Tarsus constituted by the Lord himself one of "the Witnesses." Different opinions are entertained as to the validity of Matthias' election to the apostolate. There is, to say the least, a strong argument against it. First, if our Lord had intended the place of Judas to be filled, from the number of those who were already his disciples, is it not likely that he would himself hav^e made the selection during the forty days he was with them after his resurrection I In every other instance the apostles were called by him per- sonally. Secondly, the promise to guide the apostles "into all truth" was to be fulfilled in the gift of tlie Holy Ghost, "the Spirit of truth." (John, xvi. 13.) For this they were to wait; nor were they authorized to proceed in their work until it should come upon them. But the selec- tion of Matthias was made before they had received their infallible Guide, "the Spirit of truth." Thirdly, the sug- gestion was made by Peter, with whom it was no new tliiiii; to speak hastily. From all these facts may we not infer that this election was premature, and that Cliiist himself afterwards filled the place with his own "chosen vessel," Paul ? I strongly incline to this oi)ini()n. ]>iit sonu^ suppose that Paul is not to be reckoniHl among the t\v(^lv(% liis vo(*a- tion being separate, and designed especially for the Gentiles. 110 LATE BISHOP E. M. MARTIN. It is not a question at all affecting dogmas, and I am not, therefore, pertinacious. It does not in au}^ degree detract from the credit of the apostles as inspired men, to suppose they made a mistake before 'they received the Spirit of in- spiration. And, on the other hand, it detracts nothing from the authority of Paul to suppose his vocation peculiar to himself. In either case the fact is clear that the apostleship was a special office, limited as I have shown before. This limitation stands out prominently in the case of Paul, as I have shown in part, and as will more fully appear in the further examination of his case. He still further assures the G-alatians, in the same con- nection referred to already, that the gospel he preached was not of man, for, says he, ''I neither received it of man, nor loas I taugJit it^ hut hy the revelation of Jesus Christ.''^ (Gal. i. 11, 12.) When he received his designation to the office; he did not even go up to Jerusalem to them who were apostles before him. (v. 17.) He requu-ed no human instructor. Christ had become his master in theology, and he needed no other. ''The Spirit of truth," which he had received in equal measure with the other apostles, consti- tuted his plenary endowment as a witness of the truths and his interview with Christ made him a loitness of the resur- rection. 4 The apostles authenticated their claim by signs, ''They went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs folloioingy (Mark xvi. 20.) Others^ in those times, did indeed work miracles. The power was not confined to the twelve. But to prove himself an apostle, a man must at least perform miraculous works. And there were these pe- culiarities about the apostles : first, they performed more numerous and greater works than others. " By the hands of the a.postles were many signs and wonders T\Tought among the people, -^ ^ -^ ^ insomuch that they brought THE MINISTRY OF CHRIST'S CHURCH. m forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on Ibeds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter ^ passing hv, might overshadow some of them." (Acts v. 12-15.) '*And. God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul ; so that from his body were brought unto the sick, handker- chiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them." (Acts xix. 11, 12.) ''I speak with tongues more than ye all.^'^ (1 Cor. xiv. 18.) Secondly, the miracle-working power was conferred by the apostles on others. ''And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them, and they spake with tongues and prophesied." (Acts, xix. 6 ) Paul, in that noble vindication of his official character to the Corinthians, appeals directly to his miraculous vouchers. ''In nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing. Truly, the signs of ax APOSTLE loere wrought among you in all patience, and signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds." (2 Cor. xii. 11, 12.) 5. That the apostleship is limited, as I have shown, is further settled by 'John in the Apocalypse. In the re- splendent visions of Patmos he saw ' ' that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, having tlie glory of God. "^ '^' '^ And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of tJie tioel^e apostles of the Lamb." (Rev. xxi. 10-14.) There are only twelve apostles of the Lamb, and there will never be any increase of the number. In the consummation, that will be the number. 6. Finally, the apostolic vocation Avas peculiar t(^ llit^ first age of Christianity, and was fully consummattHl by \\w twelve, including Paul. As I have shown in sevtM-al Sci-ii^ tufes, the apostolic office involved these two things: liist, that they were 'io/YTZ^^^^.? o/' J(^^w.9, and siH'ondly, that, re- ceiving the gospel, not by instruction, but dinn'tly tVoiu him, they became its author itatii^e exponents to ilic icorhl. 112 LATE BISHOP E. M. MARVIN. As none have seen Christ since that time, none can be his Avitnesses in the apostolic sense ; and as he no long^v reveals the gospel to any, but all who receive it do so by instruc- tion^ there can be none who are infallible exponents of it now. By these plain Scriptural tests are we to ''try them which say they are apostles and are not." (Rev. ii. 2.) The apostolicity which my anonymous friend rejoices in so much, makes a sorry appearance when placed alongsid3 the genuine apostolic office. Suppose we put a few plain questions to one of these pretenders to the apostle- ship. Did you receive the gospel of man or of Christ ? Were you taught it ''by revelation of Jesus Christ," or from the curriculum of a theological college ? Have you seen the Lord ? Were you notified of your apostolic vocation from his own lips ? Are you a personal witness of his resurrec- tion ? Can you show "the signs of an apostle ?" And it will not do to refer us to prodigies wrought by some one else in some remote place. In his epistle to the Corinthians, Paul vindicates his office by an appeal to signs wrought among them. Produce your "signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds, here^ where we can see them. So far as I know, Nauvoo is the nearest to us of any other scene of miracles. The papers tell us of one of recent date in New Bedford, Massachusetts, performed by one Dr. Bellows, of New York, a second advent preacher ! Where are the suc- cessors of the apostles ? Are they asleep ? The word^ apostle, is, indeed, sometimes used with some latitude, as almost every word is. Luther is called "the apostle of Germany," and Wesley, "the apostle of Meth- odism." And so of men among us who are distinguished for holiness and for uncommon devotedness to the cause of God. Even in the New Testament the word is used with this latitude, in a few instances. But, from what I have THE MINISTRY OF CHRIST'S CHURCH. 113 said, it is clear that, in its proper, official significance, it is confined to those few men, selected by our Lord himself, to inaugurate the new dispensation. But, in spite of the plain Scripture teaching that the apos- tolic office was temporary, and confined to the men whom Christ himself selected, and, notwithstanding the total ab- sence of apostolic qualifications, we have men claiming to be successors of the apostles, and they make most exorbi- tant demands upon our credulity, in virtue of their claim. Hear one of them, Dr. Cahill, in a sermon lately preached in Brooklyn, and published in the Romish journals. I quote from the '^ Boston Pilot," of Feb. 25th : ""^ Dearest Brethren: I am now going to deliver a dis- course for you upon what we call the Infallibility of the Catholic Church. The word infallible does not mean that no man in the Church can fail; but it means that the doc- trines taught by Christ and his apostles are the same doctrines which are still taught in the Church, and will be to the end of the world. The infallibility of the Churcli means this: that I, an approved Priest, approved by my Bishop, having passed my examination in college, taken out my degree, recognized as a Priest and approved by the Bishop, that you va^ijrely uponwJiat I tell you with the same certainty as if you lieard Christ himself speak. What a consoling proposition that is! As if a man :5aid, 'Dr. Cahill, I send my wife to your knee, and I wouUl not let the Avife of my bosom go on her knees to any man on. earth hut the Priest ; I take my spotless child, my daugli- ter — and I can scarcely bear the breezes of the skiers to touch her cheek— my spotless child that I \o\i\ and 1 place her 071 Z^^r knees before you, to tell you the secrets of hrr hearty tliough I would not let any man on earlli lay tlu^ tij) of his finger on her shoulder; I go to yow mys(^lf, and I am a proud man, and could scarcely take oil* my lint Id \\w monarch of the world,' " etc. These are certainly not wvy 8 114 LATE BISHOP E. M. MARVIN. modest pretensions for a man wlio can produce no ' ' signs of an apostle." That yon may have something like a just view of the egregious nature of the assumptions involved in the Romish theory of the Christian ministry, let me call your attention to the following facts, all of which grow out of their claim of succession to apostolic functions. 1. They claim to be infallible exponents of Scriptnr^ doctrine. Their pretensions in this respect are not limited to the exposition of Scripture, but extend to all things whatsoever, insomuch that vv hat the Church teaches in any matter of doctrine or morality is to be devoutly received. Any approved priest is to be believed in all that he teaches, just as implicitly as if it were Christ him^self speak- ing. (See the extract from Dr. Cahill.) By the way, this is quite consolatory to us Protestants ; for when Luther first taught the main doctrines of the Reformation he was an ''approved priest." He had taken his degree, and been approved by the Bishop, and, according to Dr. Cahill, those who heard him were bound to receive what he said just as though it had been Christ speaking. How illy the priests sustain the character of infallible teachers, is patent to every observer. They seem not to understand the history of their own traditions. They can- not even understand how the idea of transubstantiation should originate in Eutychianism. It was the most natural thing in the world that the man who taught that the human nature in Christ was absorbed into the divine, should strive to make the Eucharist consistent with his theory, by in- •\'enting a change in the elements, so that the dimne Christ should not be represented by a physical substance in the sacrament. This is just what Eutyches did according to Theodoret, who put this language in the mouth of a Euty- chian : ' ' As the symbols of the Lord' s body and blood are one thing before their consecration by the priest, but, after Jeroiu** of rragiii'. l*ag<' li>H. THE MINISTBY OF CHRIST^S CHURCH. 115 their consecration, are physically changed and become quite another thing ; so the material body of the Lord, after its assumption, was physically changed into the divine sub- stance." (Theod. Dial. ii. Oper. vol. iv. p. 84, Lut. Paris, 1642.) * I cannot imagine anything that would more certain- ly suggest the idea of transubstantiation than this notion of Eutyches in reference to the change of the physical nature of Christ by absorption into the divine. And it is clear that it did not originate there. Never, before the time of the Byzantine Abbot, do we hear of a physical change in the elements of the Eucharist. Tlien we do hear of it as a part, or at least an incident, of his heresy of Monophy- sitism. 2. In virtue of their pretended apostolical authority, they assume functions which the apostles never did. 1. They assume the functions of priesthood. Indeed, this is the leading characteristic of their ministry, as Arch- bishop Hughes admits. They are called priests. This is their most common and pertinent designation. I charge that in this fact the ministry of the Roman Church is essentially ververted^ so that it is not a Christian ministry. This is a most important point. If there were no other corruption in the Church of Rome, this single one would be fatal to her. I have given some attention, in previous lectures, to this subject ; but some further investi- gation of it is necessary here. A priesthood supposes an altar, a sacrifice, and a priest to offer it Of course, the word sacrifice is used in this discussion in the sense of an offering for sins. Xow nod' the following facts : First, the New Testament Scriptures Inioic nothing of any sacrifice hut Christy nor of any other sacrificial offer- ing of him except that made hy himself on the cross. On the contrary, they assert tliatlicMlid ihcn olfer himself 07ur for all. It is, therefore, not only Avithout Scriptuit^ au- 116 LATE BISHOP E. M. MARTIN. thority, but directly against the plain affirmation of the Word of God, that the priests of Rome pretend to sacrifice Christ in the Mass. Secondly, the ministers of Christ are not, in any single place^ directed to make any offering for sin. The commission gives no such function to their office, nor do any subsequent instructions intimate such a thing. If this be the characterizing feature of the Christian minis- try, why are the Christian Scriptures, which establish and define the office, silent as the grave in reference to it ? The truth is palpable : the ministry has no such function. Thirdly, the ministers of Christ are never called priests^ in the Scriptures. Among the titles given to ministers, ordinary and extraordinary, in the New Testament, this one never occurs. Why ? Simply because none of them were priests. They were preachers and pastors, to warn and invite sinners, and to ' ' feed the flock of God ;' ' but they were not priests to offer sacrifice '^for the living and dead." If you desire to witness an instance of real swallowing of a camel, of life-size^ just get a man to read the New Testa- ment, and then try to believe that ministers of the Gospel are priests ! 2. The priests of Rome assume higher powers than ever the apostles did in their theory of forgiving sin, and in their whole system of sacramental salvation. I have already treated of the authority to remit sin, which our Savior gave to the apostles. In a previous lecture, I showed that they never pretended anything more than to remit ecclesiastical censures^ excepting only that they preached remission of sins in the name of Christ. But, according to the Council of Trent, not only does the priest absolve the penitent in the confessional, judicially^ but in all the seven sacraments, grace comes through sacerdotal manipulation. The efficacy of the act is so whollj^ de- pendent on the priest, that any want of intention on his part defeats the effect. He stands between the penitent and THE MINISTRY OF CHRIST'S CHURCH. 117 God, to convey or withhold God's grace, as he may choose. 3. The confessional is without a parallel in apostolic prerogative. What a striking contrast there is between the directions which the apostles give to believers, and tliose which the jpr/^e^z^^ give ! Confession of sin to a minister is never enumerated among the duties of the Christian life by the former, while there is scarcely anj^thing so much insisted on by the latter. You will scarcely find the most compen- dious manual of Christian duty put forth by a Romanist, but the absolute necessity of confessing all sin to the priest is strenuously insisted on. All descriptions of sin, such as have ripened into the overt act, and such as lie concealed in the unspoken thought, all^ all are to be carefully told to the priest. Proud men and modest women must tell every impure thought to the priest. I speak by the book, and challenge contradiction. And if any, even ladies, hesitate, through timidity, and conscious female delicacy, they are to be led on by questions until every hidden thing is made known to the ^'father confessor." Such authority to in- spect the secret soul the apostles did kot claim. They never required shrinking, modest women to detail to them their most secret thoughts. Such God-iike prerogatives they never usurped. 4. The priests claim a certain jurisdiction over tlie departed. Souls in purgatory are helped by tlie suffrages of the faithful, but especially by the ''acceptable sacrilice of the altar." It must be remembered, as I luive pi'oved heretofore, that purgatory is the exclusive property of the priest. They invented it; and, in the commercial accepta- tion of the phrase, they "make a good thing of it." ^^It pays." Having contrived this receptacle for certain classes of the dead, of course they must liavo exclusive control of it. If they really have authority to put souls into such uncomfortable quarters, they ought to have the privil(\ue of helping them out. But all this places them in most 118 LATE BISHOP E. M. MARTIN. striking contrast witli the apostles, of whom they claim to be successors. They maintained no authority over the souls of the* dead. They established no colony on the banks of the Styx, which they might skillfully administer with an eye to the revenue. That experiment was left to priests, and to a later day. From all that I have said, you will see how completely any effort to establish apostolical character and authority, on the part of the priests at Rome, fails. The apostles were selected by Christ in person; they were witnesses of him, first, as to the fact of his resurrection, and, secondly, as to his doctrine. For this purpose, they were men who had both seen him and received the Gospel from himself direct; and they showed the signs which demonstrated their apostleship wherever they went. In all these facts they and Rome are separated as wide as the poles. And then the infallible pretensions of the priests are infallible contradictions in history, and the ofiicial prerogatives they assume are extremely unapostolic. . It is indeed true that the apostles had all the functions of the ordinary ministry, and they were the first who were invested with that ^ ministry. And it is further true that every true minister succeeds them in that respect. In other words, every true minister succeeds to their ordinary functions. He succeeds them as they were mere ministers of Christ ; but he does not succeed them as they were apostles. In that office they stand apart, as I have shown, from all other men. Now let us come to speak of the ministry of Christ's Church, and in doing so you will discover the contrast between it and the priesthood of the Pope's Church. 1. The ministers of Christ's Church are preachers of the gospel. "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." (Mark xvi. 15.) ''Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise THE MINISTRY OF CHRIST'S CHURCH. 119 from the dead the third day; and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in liis name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." (Luke xxiv. 46, 47.) ''They that were scattered abroad went every wliere, preach- ing the Word.^^ (Acts viii. 4.) God has ''given to us the ministry of reconciliation, to wit: that God was in Christ, reconciling the v/orld unto himself, not imputing their tres- passes unto them ; and hath committed unto us the loord of reconciliation, Now, then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us; we pray you, in Christ' s stead, be ye reconciled to God. ' ' (2 Cor. v. 18, 19, 20. ) Jesus Christ came into the world to provide salvation for man. He offers himself to each individual of our race as a savior from sin and its deplorable consequences. This offer he makes by means of his word, written and spoken. The offer is not only made, but pressed with tlie urgency of Divine solicitation. The heart of the Infinite yearns towards his fallen creatures. The love of God culminates in the incarnation and passion of tlie Son. Tlie echoes of Calvary — utterances of supreme pity — must be made audible to every object of Divine beneficence. Men are called, persuaded, besought to accept the prottered grace. Yet is the Divine supremacy duly guarded. Salvation must be conferred in a way that will secure the integrity of the Divine government. In the reception of it, the beneficiary must submit to God's law. For all these reasons the provisions of the gospel must be made known, and its offers and terms published. Man is an intelligent creature, and, in becoming a Christian, he must act int(^lli- gently. Hence religion is a thing in which nuMi are to W instructed. It has its text book, and its ti^acUers. Pri^acli- ing includes not only the proclamation of grai^^ to the ungodly, but also instruction in all the demands, ])rivilt\U(^s, provisions and responsibilities of religion. The minister i^ a teacher. 120 LATE BISHOP E. 31. MAKVIN But, you tell me, a man can not be a competent teacher of religion unless he is infallible. I reply, I know of no class of men, professing to be teachers of the Christian religion, who claim personal •infallibility. ■ The Roman priests make no such claim. If they claim to represent an infallible Church, / claim to represent an infallible Bible. If I may mistake the meaning of the Bible, they may mis- understand the Church. So long as they are not infallible individually, they have no advantage of others in this respi^ct. To bear them out in their high claims, infallibility must be an endowment of each individual teacher. An in- fallibility distributed at large can be of no avail, according to their argument, unless there are infallible men to find it out, and apply it. For their argument against the Bible as a sufficient rule of faith is, that though it be infallible, yet men, being fallible, may fail to understand it. So that the judgment of fallible men, in interpreting an infallible standard, may reach a false result. Xow, suppose the Church infallible, with teachers who are fallible, which is the Roman theory. What is the result \ Even by this theory, the teaching comes to the people through a fallible channel. There is no help for it, unless every teacher claim infallibility for himself, which the priests do not, and dare not, do, Xow, collect these fallible teachers into a general council. What have you gained \ Can a few hundred fallihles make an infallible ? Preposterous 1 And if it did, yet its decrees must be conveyed to the people by men liable to error. From this there is no escape. What advantage, then, has the priest over the preacher? None, absolutely none. Indeed, the argument is against him; for, in addition to the Bible, he has the decrees and canons of some eighteen gen- eral councils to interpret to the people, and it v^-ill be a wonder, indeed, if he inakes no blunder in going over the whole. The Protestant has only the Bible to interpret. THE MINISTRY OF CHRIST'S CHURCH. 121 The plain, nnvarnished truth is this : Christianity is revealed in the Bible, and no where else. That is the text- book of religion— Christian ministers are the teachers. There you have an inspired text-book with an uninspired teacher. What now ? Obviously, he is to teach the in- spired text. He does not require inspiration himself, because he has an inspired book which contains the whole matter. That he may know its teaching, and be able to instruct others, he is to ''give himself to reading." (1 Tim. iv. 13.) By the Scriptures ''the man of God" (that is, the minister,) is 'Hhoroughly furnished unto all good works.'' (2 Tim. iii. 16, 16, 17.) ''Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (2 Tim. ii. 15.) Thus did Paul direct a minister, whom he regarded as his "son in the gospel," to the Bible as the source of his complete furnishing for the work to which he had been called, and exhort him to study ^ that he might be able to divide the word of truth aright, and thus show himself appi'oved unto God. God's ministers are to study the Bible, and teach its truths to others. But, you ask, if the Bible is the standard, why not simply give it to the people \ Why have teachers? Answer, why do you have both teachers and text-books in your schools? Why not simply put the text-book into the hands of the student, and leavi^ him with it? For two reasons: first, many students would be indol- ent; and, secondly, the assistance of a teacher mn^aily facilitates their understanding of the text. Tlie same ai>pli(^s to the case of the religious teacdun'. The busim^ss o( \\w t(^acher is to devote himself to the science whicdi \w tcacdus, and make himself master of it. Thus he can riMnovt^ \\w difficulties and aid the efforts of tln^ shuhMit. l>ut yon do not direct the student, after his nnnd lias Ixm-oiuo inaiiii.', and h(^ hfis enj()y(Hl large advantagi^s of study and invts- tigation, to enshive his mind to his tc^acdicr, and iccoive 122 LATE BISHOP E. M. MARVIN. everything lie may say. He is not so completely in leading strings that lie must not think on liis own account at all. So in religion, precisely. The minister ''gives himself to reading," in the science of salvation. He enjoj^s oppor- tunities and facilities which others do not. It is his business to know the scriptures. He is to prepare himself to aid the understanding of his hearers. But they have their appeal to the text-book, just as the student has. Then it lies open, to clieck the teacher and protect the taught. A terrible retribution awaits the man who, assuming to be a teacher of religion, embraces fatal error, and leads others astray. The blind leaders of the blind have more than themselves to answer for. Augmented condemnation, in the ratio of the mischief they have done, must be ''the portion of their cup." But what is to become of those ignorant sincere persons, who are misled by false guides ? God will know how to judge them. The Roman theory, however, does not relieve the case, for if there are false teachers in spite of the Bible, so there are, also, in spite of the Church. It makes matters no better for the dupes that there is a Church in existence which claims to be infallible. One of the most striking characteristics of the Bible is, that the substance of saving doctrine is contained in a few plain dogmas clearly put in the Scriptures. These few dogmas are, however, a fruitful source of truth, all of which is full of interest and profit. You will see from this how a man may be a Christian and know but little, and yet how important it is for every one to know as much as possible. And while the Bible is the safeguard of the faith, the standard by whicli even the unlearned may assure themselves of the truth, it is, also, the inexhaustible foun- tain of knowledge in a wider range than is necessary merely for salvation. Almost any one who can read, can learn enough in that book for his salvation. And yet, even THE MINISTRY OF CHRIST'S CHURCH. 123 when that is done, it is an inestimable privilege to the private Christian to enjoy the benefit of instruction from one whose business it is to know and teach the Word of God. As for those who can not read at all, they must get their knowledge of Christianity from the preacher, or from the general Christian belief around them, or from intelligent Christian friends. In most cases, all these modes of infor- mation perform the work of instruction. It is further the business of the pastor to assist the people of his charge in detecting such errors as they may be exposed to, from any source ; to expose the sophistries of skillful heresy, and to keep prominently before their flock the elementary doctrines of the Christian faitli. You see how essential a part of the agencies of the gospel preachers are. First, as ambassadors of God, to treat with his enemies on the subject of their salvation. The preacher's instructions are in writing. They are full and explicit. He knows preciselj^ the terms on which, in the name of his Sovereign, he may propose to them a treat}" of peace. At the same time he has every motive to be active and urgent in securing their submission. He has an interest in them. They are his fellows. The sj^mpatliy of common nature whets his solicitude. The danger of a brother on ''the borders of the pit," spurs him to haste. Stronger than the interest of a common nature is the love of Christ, kindled within him by the Holy Spirit. lie is in sympathy with the suff*erings of the Son of God. la addition to all that, he has the personal inceiitivi^ o[ a largi^ reward. They that turn many to righteousnc^ss, shall shine as the stars in the firmament, fonner and c\cr. (u)d knew the eftect of the living human \owc on \\w \w:\v[. There is not another such interpn^ttu' of (Mnolions in ilie world. Each emotion has its peculiar tone. NiWhiim- els(i embodies it so. Our RediHmuM", in liis living mini-tiM's, uses this wondrous instrument to win his foes. In ilie 124 LATE BISHOP E. M. MARVIN. heart of his faithful servants he reproduces the solicitude of redeeming pity, and their voices con^y what no written solicitation could. Such is the diplomacy of heaven amongst us rebels of a revolted province in the empire of God. Secondly, preachers are teachers of the ignorant. They contribute to the confirmation of faith and the enlargement of knowledge. Thirdly, they watch against the introduction of error. And, if Paul was an inspired writer, they are thorougJily furnished to all this by the Scriptures, 2. Ministers of the gospel are not only preachers, but the government of the Church devolves largely upon them. It is evident, from the Scriptures, that, in some cases, the voice of the whole Church is to be regarded ; but it is clear that Church interests are, to a very large extent, under the control of ministers. '' Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God." ''Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves : for they watch for your soals, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief." (Heb. xiii. 7, 17.) ''Let the elders that rul^ well, be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the word and doctrine." (1 Tim. v. 17.) "And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labor among you, and are over you in the Lord and admonish you ; and to esteem them very highly in love, for their work's sake." (1 Thes. v. 12, 13.) From these pas- sages it is clear that those who labor in word and doctrine, who speak to the people the word of God, are rulers. It is, also, clear that they are not above the people so far as to be independent lords over God's heritage. The people are to distinguish those who rule well with double honor. If a certain degree of respect is due them on account of their office, much more is to be awarded to those who fill the office well. The ecclesiastical system of the New Testament is THE MINISTRY OF CHRIST'S CHURCH. 125 extremely simple. There is no hierarchyj no system of prin- cipalities and overgrown dignities. No man can make out from the New Testament more than two orders in the min- istry — bishops and deacons. That bishoi)S and elders are presbyters, are one in office, qr that these terms w^ere used for the same order, is clear from Acts xx. 17, 28. Those who are called elders in the former of these places, are denominated overseers in the latter; and the word here translated overseer is the same that is elsewhere translated hishop, (See also Titus i. 6-7.) In this place the apostle enumerates the qualifications of an elder. He ^'must be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful chil- dren, not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless as the steward of God." An elder must be so and so, because these qualifications are requisite for a hisliop. One office only is expressed by these two words. Nothing can be clearer. Paul deputized Timoth}^ to settle and arrange the affairs of the Church at Ephesus, and gave him special instructions that he might know how he ought to behave himself in the house of God. The design evidently was that the administration of the Church there might be established on a firm basis, for coming time. To this end it was a matter of first consequence that the ministry should be constituted on the true model. lu doing this, he provides for bishops and deacons, and none other. (See 1 Tim. iii., throughout.) WhiMi \\w same apostle wrote to the Church at Philippi, it had Ixhmi in existence for several years, and was in a very fiouiishing condition. Indeed, he commends no other Church so liiglily as he does this one. Its polity had doubtU^ss Iuhmi established, and its ministry provided, upon the U'xw Ninv Testament model. In his salutation of tlie Cluircli he addresses its ministers particularly, and tliat by tluir proper official designation — bishops and deacons. Now, take into consideration the fact shown in tlie i)as- 126 LATE BISHOP E. M. MARVIN. sages that I have given, that the terms "bishop and elder are two words for the same order, and the fact that bishops and deacons are, at least in two places, formally named as comprising the whole ministry, and the conclu- sion is irresistible that these two are the only orders known to the Chnrch under the new dispensation. What becomes of the seven orders of Romanism % Like the seven sacra- ments of the same Church, just jive of them have been invented and patented at Rome. In fact, the Romanists are equal to the Yankees for invention — only in a different line. In the ecclesiastical schedule alone we have priests, archdeacons, archbishops, cardinals, and I know not what all, in an ascending series of power and dignity* culminat- ing in the Pope. In what contrast does it appear wnth the simple, paternal administration of the primitive Church f And these illegitimate dignities have opened the door to untold abuses. Once on the highway of ambitious ascent, a man knows not where to stop. I^o sentiment is more commanding or unscrupulous than the lust of power, and that lust is always bred in the temptation of dignities and lordly prerogatives. Accordingly, history groans with the record of facts illustrating the grasping propensities of aspiring ecclesiastics. The area of authority has, in in- numerable cases, been extended over the secular field. Wherever she could, Rome has had a finger in civil legis- lation. The temporal monarchy of the Pope is a standing witness against her in this respect. 3. The ministers of Christ are divinely designated for the work. ''How shall they preach except they be sent?" Necessity is laid upon a man to preach the gospel. A divine impulsion presses him until he exclaims, "Woe is me if I preach not the gospel!" A conviction of duty, divinely produced, does not involve inspiration. This con- viction may fasten upon a man so pertinaciously as to allow him no rest until he yield to the divine demand upon THE MINISTHY OF CHRIST'S CHURCH. 127 him. Any fanatical mistake as to the source of the convic- tion which a man of ardent temperament may claim, is duly guarded against by the judgment of the Church as to his character and qualifications. The qualifications by which the Church is to judge those who look to the minis- terial work, are largely given in 1 Tim. iii. 2, 9 ; 2 Tim. ii. 23, 26 ; and Titus i. 5, 9. Piety, devotion to God, propriety of deportment, chastity, good government of his own children, with capacity and disposition to teach, comprise the chief requisites of a minister of Christ. Thus divinely chosen, and received by the Church, he is to give himself wholly to that one thing. He is the Lord's by special vocation, and, although not cut off from social ties^ he is to be relieved of secular cares. ^' They that preach the gospel shall live of the gospel." He cares for the souls of his flock ; they provide for his bodj^. He cares for them in spiritual things, and they for him in temporal things. The chief points of contrast between the ministers of the Pope's Church and those of Christ's, as they occur to me, are these : 1. The former are priests; the latter are preacliers of the gospel, 2. The former assume to forgive sins by a personal judicial act ; the latter preach remission of sins in the name of Christ. C. Ministers of Christ are required to be '4)lameh^ss/' while priests of Rome, as express!}^ provided by tlu^ Coun- cil of Trent, are allowed to oflliciate in mortal sin. 4. Christian ministers are, or may be, husbands, li\ ini: chastely with one wife ; but priests are invariably ivquiivd to be celibates. Concubinage is, in some phices, lol'MattHl, as in Mexico. But the}^ are nowhere allowed to IxMuanird men. In all this the two systems ari^ at aulipodt^s. 5. The Romish priesthood is a stupiMuhuis liiiMaivhy, 128 LATE BISHOP E. M. MARYIN. while the Christian ministry is, in respect to government, a pastoral institution. 6. The Romish claim of apostolic powers is in striking contrast with the unpretending modesty of New Testament pastors and teachers. The one is characterized by preten- tious assumptions, the other by unpretending labors. 7. The one invests a great mass of silly traditions with the character of revelation ; the other confines itself in its teaching to the word of God. 8. The one assumes the God-like prerogative of prying into the secrets of all hearts in the confessional ; the other sends the penitent with the secret burden of his sins to God. These contrasts might be multiplied, but let this suffice. These astounding contrasts convey a most solemn warn- ing to the Church. Her only safety is in the Scriptures of God. If her uninspired teachers are allowed to break loose from them, and make their own dogmas, security is gone. The wild creations of unfettered fancy, and the proud ambitions of aspiring zealots, will be wrought into the Christian creed, and wholly corrupt it. The Church will fall from its original righteousness. Superstition will supplant faith. And the very prerogatives of the Almighty will be as- sumed with unhesitating temerity by poor, frail, sinful man. But the gates of hell shall not prevail. The great waters may come in like a flood for a time, but, in the midst of - their roaring, God will still be saying to his people, ''Fear not, little flock, it is your Father' s good pleasure to give you the kingdom." The whole earth shall ultimately rally to the Bible, and then righteousness shall cover it as the waves of the sea. REV. JOHN A. WILSON ON CATHOLICISM. 'purgatory, penance and persecution/' " For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ " —[1 Cor. iii. 11. A foundation is everything to a building. You and I would not accept a free house if it was defective in this important particular. A solid foundation is no less neces- sary for a true faith and a true life. When only buildino- a bridge across our river, we dug down a hundred feet, through soil and sand and surface rock, till we came to a solid base. How much more should men immortal, building for eternity, dig down until they come to the granite of truth, the Rock of Ages, and then, upon the corntu'-stone wliicli God has laid, build up a structure which will outlast the ages, and stand unmoved after ''the Avreck of matter and the crash of worlds." Now the charge whi(»h I brouglit against the Romish Church \a my last lecture was tliat she laid a false foundation for the faith of lu^r })(H)])1(\ Tradition is her foundation; and, then by a marvelous inconsistency, she makes herself the foundation of trail it ion. Tlie Council of Trent, which met in If) IT), addiul the Apocrypha to the canon of scripture, and mach^ tiadiliou of 9 129 130 KEY. JOHN A. TVILSOX. eqnal authority with the word of God. Yon. will wonder what induced that Council, to take such a step, in the face of all testimony. Let us hear the exj)lanation given by ^^ the Church/' In a lecture by the Bishop of Alton, reported in a morning paper, this expression occurs: *'Xo heresy can stand before tradition.'' The secret is out ; the mystery is solved ! The Council of Trent was fighting heresy ; it was a desperate battle — a struggle for life. She was unarmed : for the scriptures of truth, this arsenal of Grod, furnished no weapon for ''the old Church" in that hour of her direst need ; so she was forced to seek her safety from a human source. History repeats itself. The once kingly Saul fled for help to the witch of Endor. ' ' iSo heresy can stand before tradition. ' ' How could it ? Let me make the laws, and I can acquit myself of all the crimes in the criminal calendar. jSTow Rome makes her traditions, as she makes her relics ; just as they are needed. That she makes her relics in this way, let me give you one out of innumerable authorities. I choose a converted Jesuit, Dr. DeSanctis. In his work, ''Rome, Christian and Papal" (page 134j, Il-ead as follows: "He (the keeper of these holy relics) told us that. as it regarded ordinary relics, they possessed a great quantity of them, for new saints were discovered every day in the catacombs ; but as regards the more remarkable relics, there were but a few. "I inquired how the Pope managed to decide upon a skeleton found in the catacombs as being that of a saint. " ' The Pope,' he replied; 'cares little about such things ; he has confided this business to the Yicar-Cardinal, who, in turn, leaves it to Father Marchi, a Jesuit, who visits the bodies that are disinterred, and sends them here when he thinks they belong to saints. Here we baptize them, and distribute them to the faithful.' PUROATORY, PENANCE AND PERSECUTION. 131 ^''You baptize them!' said I, interrupting him in my astonishment ; 'you baptize dead bodies !' ''The Canon explained that to baptize meant to give them a name. 'We do not know what these corpses are. Well, the custodian needs relics of Saint Patrick, for instance, so this body is named Saint Patrick.' " This is the testimony of an unimpeachable witness, as to the mode of making relics. Now, I submit that it is not unfair to infer that tradi- tions are made and "baptized" in the same way ; especially since the fundamental maxim of the Jesuits is, "All means are good if they conduct to the end in view." But I will not rest my argument on a mere inference, however conclu- sive. I have shown you, from her own teachings, that Rome's foundation is tradition, together with the unanimous con- sent of the fathers ; and she boldly affirms that these authorities unite in supporting her various dogmas. Now, by a few quotations from the fathers, I will knock away that foundation : "Do you seek the faith, O Emperor? Hear it, then, not from new writings, but from the books of God." — (Hilary to Constantius Augustus, p. 244.) "It is a falling from the faith, and a crime of the greatest pride, to desire to take away from the scriptures, or to in- troduce anything that is not written. For Christ says that his sheep hear his voice, and not the voice of anothcM*.'' — (Basil in Discourse on Faith.) "Not even the least of the divine and holy iny stories of the faith ought to be handed down without the divine scrip- tures." — (Cyril, of Jerusalem, on Canon of Scripture.) That is all good Protestant doctrine. But lu^ar fuiHuM* : "There is in the New Testament a letter which kilhMh liiiu who does not understand spiritually tlie things which are said. For if you take this according to the letter, ^Except 132 REV. JOHN A. WILSON. you eat my flesh and drink of my blood,' this letter killeth." — Origen, on the lOtli chapter of Leviticus. "He appointed them to use bread as a symbol of his own body." Eusebius' Evangelcal Demonstrations. ''It seemed a hard saying to them when he said, 'Except any man eat my flesh, he shall not have eternal life.' They received it foolishly, and they meditated upon it carnally, and thought that the Lord was about to cut ofi" certain little pieces from his body, and to give them to them ; and they said, This is a hard saying. They were hard, and not the saying. For if they had not been hard, but meek, they would have said within themselves, He does not say this for nothing, there is some hidden sacrament in it." — Augustine upon the 98 Psalm. I might detain you much of the night, while I read you similar quotations of standard Protestant doctrine from the "Holy Fathers." Still I only refer to these fathers to show you the fallacy of Rome' s pretensions, and how likely she is to get a ' ' unani- mous" indorsement from the fathers for her lying dogmas. 1 do not hold these fathers up as a rule of faith. After showing, as I have done, that they flatly contradict the teachings of Popery, I am willing to make a -present of these fathers to my Catholic friends, and found my faith, and build my hope, upon the word of God. The Bible, and the Bible alone, is the religion of Protestants. I propose- to oppose Popery, and heresy, and every other sin, only in the name, and with the sword of the Lord God of Hosts ; and with Him upon my side I am sure of a majority. But now I must come to the particular topics announced for this evening. I propose to show you to-night that the Church of Rome believes in Purgatory ; that she believes in Penance ; and that she believes in Persecution. I will follow the rule I have observed in my previous PURGATORY. PENANCE AND PERSECUTION. 133 lecture, and give you her own infallible utterances. First, then, she believes in purgatory. Hear the Council of Trent, Session xxv., A. D. 1568: ''As the .Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Spirit, from the sacred writings and the ancient traditions of the fathers, hath taught in its sacred councils, and lastly, in this ecumenical synod, that there is a purgatory, and that tlie souls there confined are relieved by the suffrages of the faithful, but more especially by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar ; the holy synod instructs the Bishops that they should pay attention that the sound doctrine concerning purgatory, ^s delivered by the holy fathers and the sacred councils, be, by the faithful in Christ, believed, held, taught, and everywhere diligently preached. But that among uninformed people, the more difficult and subiile questions, which tend not to edification, and from which there is in general no increase of piety, be excluded from all popular addresses ; also, that they do not allow doubtful matters, or such as labor under the appearance of falsity, to be talked of and discussed. But that the}^ prohibit those things which have reference only to a certain curiosity or superstition, or which savor of filthy lucre, as scandals and causes of some offense to the faithful. But let the Bishops take care that the suffrages of the faithful who are alive, namely, the sacrifices of the mass, orations, acts of charity, and other pious deeds, which it has been custonuiry for the faithful to perform on behalf of the other faithful who are dead, should be piously and devoutly performed accord- ing to the institutions of the Church ; and that thosi^ (religious services) which may be owing on tlie bi^half of such, to the legacies of testators, or on any otlu^r account, be, by the priests, ministers of the Church, and othtMs whose duty it is to perform those matters, not sliuhil\ , but diligently and accurately dischargrd/' Next hear the "Grounds of the Catholic Dortriiie: '' 134 BEY. JOHN A. WILSON. ^'What do you mean hy purgatory ?" ^^ A middle state of souls wlio depart this life in God's grace, yet not with- out some lesser stains of guilt or punishment which retard them from entering heaven. But as to the particular place where these souls suffer, or the quality of the torments which they suffer, the Church has decided nothing." "What sort of Christians, then, go to purgatory?" * First, such as die guilty of lesser sins, which we com- monly call venial ; as many Christians do, Avho, either by sudden death or otherwise, are taken out of this life "before they have repented of their ordinary failings. Secondly, such as have been formerly guilty of greater sins, and have not made full satisfaction for them to divine justice." ''Why do you say that those who die guilty of lesser sins go to purgatory ?" "Because such as depart this life before they have repented of these venial frailties and im- perfections can not be supposed to be condemned to the eternal torments of hell, since the sins of which they are guilty are but small." Now, I have allowed "the holy Catholic Church" to speak for herself. If she had not forbidden it, I would so like to ask just a few questions here. This would be my first : How do you know the soul departing which has just enough of sin left to send it to purgatory? Again: How do you know when "the faith- ful" have paid enough of "suffrages" to get the poor soul out? But these are " doubtful matters ; " they have "the appearance of falsity," and they "savor of filthy lucre," so the Council of Trent wisely forbids talking of or discus- sing them. But it will not be a mortal sin, I trust, if I tell you just a little about this doctrine which has "the appearance of. falsity." The miracle here, you will perhaps notice, is just the reverse of that in transubstantiation. There the PURGATORY, PENANCE AND PERSECUTION. 135 appearance is wanting, but the fact is present ; here the appearance is present, bnt the fact is wanting. Still, these OT)posites are nothing to ''the faithful,'' when they get nsed to them. The Chnrch of Rome teaches that there are five places of abode on the other side of ''the great river." First, there is heaven, to which a few of '•the .faithful" go at once after death. It must be vejy few, indeed, who have a through ticket, for I see that it is not certain that his divinity, Pope Pius IX., made the connec- tion, since the prayers of the faithful are solicited in his behalf! The^ second place is hell, that is where heretics go ! Then there is limbus patrum, where the antediluvians went till Christ preached to them and got them out. Next we have limbus infantum, to which nnbaptized infants are consigned. The two latter are only dungeons, but no punishment. Finally, we have pnrgatory, to wliich the principal part of the Catholic Chnrch goes. On the author- ity of Rev. Mr. Gavin, formerly a Catholic priest in Spain, I may add that this last compartment has eight divisions to which "the faithful" are assigned, according to the amount of money they possess. So you will perci^ive the iKi])ist, as well as the Protestant, can say, "In my Father's house there are many mansions." The Church has not yet, nnfortunatelj^, decided wlu^re purgatory is located. It may not be uninteresting, liow- ever, to give you some of tlitir speculations, for the subject has received no little attention. Some think it is in lu'll; others, that it is one of the suburbs of hell. Sonu^ tsuj)- l)0se it is located in the air, between earth and sl1>'\ say that tln^ })lace in which a man sinntnl istlu^ ylnro in which he is compelled to work out thi^sc^ }){)st-niort(Mn ia\<\^. If this theory be true, then the better class of our (ut'iiiiiM "city fathers" are "paddling their own cancx^s" ui> and down the mire of our streets.'^' *St. Louis hiiviiig the vilest streets of juiy considerable city in the world. 136 REV. JOHN A. WILSON. Another 0])mion, maintained by that very infallible Pope, Gregory the Great, was that purgatory mnst be located in the heart of the earth, and that the volcanoes are its chimnej^s. I could refer to many other speculations, but this is enough. Now, let me call to my aid that valuable hand-book, ''The Grounds of the Catholic Doc- trine." It says, we must have the unanimous consent of the fathers in order to form an opinion. But the fathers are not agreed as to the location of purgatory ; therefore, we cg.n not believe that purgatory is anywhere ! I must tell you now of the nature of the sufferings which "the faithful'' endure in this place, which is no place. On this point, also, the Church " has decided nothing." She has spoken a great deal, however. Her general teach- ing is that it is a place of punishment by fire. I fail to understand why the Church of Rome '' has de- cided nothing" coucerning the quality of purgatorial pun- ishment, since some of ''the faithful" have seen and described it. I willjust refer to one account given by Matthew Paris, the distinguished Benedictine. The witness, fresh from the flames, to whom he refers is one Enus, who had been a warrior under Stephen, King of England. " Resolving to make reparation in St. Pat- rick's purgatory for the enormity of his life, Enus visited Ireland. The Son of God, if old chronicles may be credited, appeared to the saint when he preached the gospel to the bestial Irish, and instructed the missionary to construct a purgatory at Lough Berg, and promised the plenary re- mission of sin to all who should remain a day and a night in this laboratory of atonement. Fortified by the holy communion, and sprinkled with holy water, the fearless soldier entered the gloomy cave. The groans of the suffer- ers soon began to stun his ears. Numberless men and women lying naked on the earth, and transfixed Avith red- hot nails, bit the dust with pain. Devils lashed some with PURaATORY, PENANCE AND PERSECUTION. 137 dreadful whips. Fiery dragons gnawed some with ignited teeth. Some were roasted on spits, fried in pans, or broiled in furnaces. A sulpliurous well, emitting flame and stench, threw np men, like sparkling scintillations, into the air, and again received them falling into its burning mouth. A bridge, studded with sharp nails and thorns with their points turned upwards had to be crossed. The souls walked bare-footed on this rough road, and endeavoring to ease their feet, leaned on their hands, and afterwards rolled, with the whole body, on the perforating spikes, till, pierced and bloody, they worked their painful, tedious way over the thorny path. Passing this defile was often the work of many years. But this last difficulty being surmounted, the spirits, forgetful of their pain, escaped to heaven, called the mount of joy." I have thought it meet to give you this much from the purgatorial literature ; but l(^t us now come to the proof. The evidence is drawn from every quarter. But, as a Protestant, I only recognize Scripture proof in such matters ; I will, therefore, confine myself to the texts they quote from the Bible. First, we have Matt. xii. 32: ''Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." That is the last passage of Scripture you would have expected in proof of purgator3\ But hear Rome reason : After quoting this verse, '' The Grounds of the Catholic* Doctrine" says, ''Which last words plainl}^ imply that some sins, which are not forgiven in this world, may be forgiven in the world to come; otherwise, why sliould our Savior make any mention of forgiveness in tli(^ world to (;ome?" I repl}^ : He makes no mention of foi'giv(Mu\^s in the future life, but says, most forcibly, there shall be uo\u\ Had Christ said that certain jx^rsoiis had no foruiv^Mu ss in this lif(', liome would have said wiih sonu' shadow o\' plaus- ibility that there might be forgiveness in the no.M world. 138 REY. JOHN A. WILSON. But from this clear, strong statement, wliat mind could have drawn the damnable doctrine of purgatory, unless moved by a spirit infernal to corrupt and subvert the truth of God 'I But the sword of God has two edges ; so let me, with tliis very passage of tlieir own selection, annihilate the doctrine of purgatory. Certain men, for certain oflFenses, live never forgiveness, neither in this life, nor in the life to com(^; ''which words," says the Doiiay catechism, ''would not be true, if some sins were not forgiven in the next world, and this implies a purgatory, for there only is re- mission of sin, and not in hell or heaven.'' Is ow, out of thine own mouth I will condemn thee, thou teacher of lies. Purgatory, by your own showing, is not a place of forgiveness, but a place where payment is made by most intolerable torments — a place where the souls of those who have sinned "just a little" are thrown out of a boiling river into an icy stream ; a place where souls are shot np out of a boiling vv^ell, only to drop down into it again ; a place where a soul will roll for years to get over a bridge thickly set with pointed spikes. O Rome ! Rome ! if that is your conception of forgiveness, no wonder your concep- tion and execution of torture have made the blood of the ages run cold! O Rome ! Rome! if that is your sort of forgiveness, pardon me, but I will have none of it. Here is another scripture proof — Matt. xii. 36 : " Every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment." "Now, no one will think," says Bishop Challoner, in '•The Catholic Christian Instructed," "that God will coiKlemn a soul to hell for every idle word ; therefore, there must be another place of punislnnent for those who are guilty of these little transgressions." I have read in scripture ot those "who changed the truth of God into a lie," but I defy anyone to produce a more bare-faced, specimen of such perversion than this of *'Cut the throats of four-score men, women and children/' Piitjo 503. PUUaATORY, PENANCE AND PERSECUTION. 139 Dr. Challoner in '^The Catholic Christian Instructed." His little work should be called, ^'The Catholic Christian Deceived, Deluded and Destroyed.' One other quotation from this last-named authority: '^God forbid that every little spot or stain should condemn the soul to the everlasting torments of hell. Therefore there must be a middle place for such souls as die under these lesser stains." Now, when "the holy Catholic Church " admits to me that her God is a little God, I will admit the possibility of a little sin against Him ; but my God is a great and holy Being, any violation of whose law is a great sin. He says (Rom. vi. 23), ''the wages of sin is death." He does not say, ''the wages of a great sin is death." Venial sins, like purgatory, are never named in the Bible. God says (Gal. iii. 10) : " Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them." He says again (Jas. ii. 10): "Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." These, and many other texts of scripture, effectually dispose of "little sins." I will notice just one other passage by which Popery seeks to prove purgatory from the Bible. (1 Cor. iii. 33.) "Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire, and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is." Now, I might rule this witness out of Court by the au- thority of "The Grounds of t!ie Catholic Doctrine," Avhich demands a unanimous consent of the Fathers before a text of scripture can mean anything. I waive this right, however, but will claim the privilege of cross-examining the witness. Now, witness, what did you say the iiro does i "Tries every man's work." Ah, yes. But Home says lier fire of purgatory puriiies, which is quite a dilferent thing. Will tiie jury please make a note of that i 140 REY. JOHN A. WILSON. Again, witness, what did you say tlie fire tries? '^ Every man's work." But the Church of Rome says it tries the man himself. Still further, witness, are all men's works tried? ''Yes, the fire shall try every man's work." But Popery says that all men will not be tried, since some go straight to heaven. Witness, jjist one other question : Are the works of any of these men destroyed entirely? ''They are. If j^ou read verse 15, you will learn that if any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss." Now, I charge you, gentlemen of the j ury, to remember that the holy Catholic Church positively denies that any souls will be destroyed in purgatory ; but after being pierced, and roasted, and fried, and frozen, and jerked up out of a boiling well, and rolled for years over a spiked bridge, they shall, "in the sweet by and by," reach "the green fields of Eden," otherwise known as "the mount of joy!" What a fatality seems to have attended the selection of Scripture proofs of purgatory. One of two things is quite evident; either the authorities of ^the Catholic Church are profoundly ignorant of the Scriptures, or else the Scriptures are profoundly ignorant of purgatory. But the Bible is not Rome's strongest hold, so let us hear her qu tradition. You know she boasts of antiquity. It is the bulwark behind which she seeks to defend even her most recent inventions. Old age is, indeed, a glory, if found in the way of righteousness ; which is quite another thing from the ways of Rome. But any honor which attaches to mere antiquity, I freely award to this fable of purgatory. It is older by far than the N'ew Testament, although there are no traces of it in the Old Testament. It is found, however, in the works of heathen poets and philosophers. These are the "holy fathers" to whom she must refer for proof of this "apostolical tradition." Indeed the great PURGATORY, PENANCE AND PERSECUTION. 141 Cardinal Bellarmine, in his treatise on purgatory, draws an argument from this very fact. "What absurdity I What inconsistency ! At one time throwing away reason altogether, at another time adopting the reason of a hea,then. If this is the way Christianity is to be expounded, how^ could it help but lose its simplicity? Plato taught that there ^vere three places of future existence. The heatliens believed that those in the half-way house might be helped by the prayers and sacrifices of the living, as appears from the complaints of the ghosts of Elpenor in Homer, and Palinurus in Virgil, and the methods resorted to for their deliverance are not unlike those adopted by the Church of Rome. In view of this, if a humble heretic might make a suggestion, I w^ould propose to the new^ Pontiff* thc^t he distinguish his accession to tlie Godhead by adding the ^nead and Odyssey to the canon of Scripture. But while heathens had a purgatory in the olden tim(\ it was not till the seventh century that it was grafted upon the Church. It came about in this way : When Emperors became Christians, Christianity became fashionable, and heathens, professing to be Christians, brought into the Church their heathenish notions, and purgatory among the rest. But the Book of Maccabees is cited in support of this graft from heathenism. Let me tell you alittk^ about^the Book of the Maccabees. The apociyplial books were nevt^r rec^M vtnl by the Jews, nor written in their language, as the rest ol' I ht^ Old Testament was. Christ and his Apostles ntMor quottnl from them. Josephus does not name them in his eatalouiie. In A. D. 200 Origen leaves them out of the list of inspinnl books. Two hundred years later Jerome does the sanu^; and last, but not least, the infallibh^ Ciivixovy th(^ die at rejects the Maccabees at the end of the sixth eiMiUiry. r>ut wliy reason on this question any furtlu^r i Ih^ar Archbishop Fisher declare "he could not readily iind any one Siiipiure that Avould force one to confess a i)urgatoiy, and if there 142 REY. JOHN A. WILSON. be any such, it has hitherto escaped the most diligent in- quiries." But in spite of all this. Cardinal Bellarmine tells us we must believe in purgatory, or we will go to a worse place. What an outrage on the sense and civilization of our century to see a swarm of long-robed, licentious, bloated priests teaching as the truth of God, and as things essential to our salvation, dogmas which Balaam's ass would have seen to be absurd. But now I must conclude my remarks on this topic ; and I will do so by reminding you all, both Protestants and Catholics that though the purgatory of Rome is a fable of heathenism and a snare of the devil, yet there is a glorious purgatory to which you are all invited to-night. You will recognize at once that I speak of the '^ fountain opem^d to the house of David, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for uncleanness." (Zech. xiii. 1.) ''Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." John i. 29. " The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth ns from all sin." 1 John i. 7. Rome is guilty of the blasphemy of making Christ' s blood incapa- ble of cleansing from small or venial sins ; but God says it cleanses from all sin. Believe God, though every man be a liar. Put your trust in Christ, for there is salvation in none other. -Be washed by His blood and led by His spirit, and presently, as one by one we pass over the river and enter in triumph the heavenly home, we will join the happy friends who greet us, in singing, " These are they who have washed their robes and made them white," not in the fires of purga- tory, but ''in the blood of the Lamb." "Be then faithful ■unto death and I will give thee a crown of life." These are the words of God, "We know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens." "We are willing, therefore, to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord." PURGATORY, PENANCE AND PERSECUTION. 143 But now let me come to penance. Here are the decrees of the Council of Trent : 1. "Whoever shall say that penance in the Catholic Church is not truly and properly a sacrament for the reconciliation of the faithful to God as often as they fall into sins after baptism, instituted by Christ, our Lord ; let him be accursed ! 2. Whoever, confounding the sacraments, shall say that baptism itself is the sacrament of penance, as if these two sacraments were not distinct, and that, there- fore, penance is not rightly termed, a second plank after shipwreck ; let him be accursed ! 3. Whoever shall say that those words of our Lord and Savior : Receive the Holy Ghost ; wlif^e sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins ye shall retain, they are retained ; are not to be understood of the power of remitting and retaining sins in the sacrament of penance, as the Catholic Church has always understood, from ,the beginning, but shall falsely apply them against the institution of this sacrament, to the authority of preaching the gospel ; let him be accursed ! 9. Whoever shall say that the sacramental absolution of the priest is not a judicial act, but a mere ministry to pronounce and declare that sins are remitted to the person making confession, provided that he only believes that Ik^ is absolved, even though the priest should not absolvi^ seriously, but in joke ; or shall saj^ that the confession o[' t\ penitent is not requisite, in order tluit the priest may absolve him ; let him be accursed ! 10. Whoever shall say that priests wlio iwc livini: in, mortal sin do not possess the powor of binding and loosing; or tliat the priests are not th(^ only niinisttMs of absolution, but that it was said to all and (^mmv one o\' Christ's faithful: whatso(^V(^r you shall bind ni>on (\'irlh shall be bound also in h(^aven ; and whalsoc^vcM- \ on shall 144 KEY. JOHN A. WILSON. loose upon earth sliall be loosed also in heaven ; and whose sins yon shall forgive, they are forgiven, and whose sins you shall retain they are retained ; by virtue of which words any one may forgive sin ; public, sins by reproof only, if the offender shall acquiesce ; and private sins, by volun- tary confession ; let him be accursed ! 11. Whoever shall say that bishops have not the right of reserving cases to themselves, except such as relate to the external polity of the Church, and, therefore, that the reservation of cases does not hinder the priest from truly absolving from reserved cases ; let him be accursed I 12. AYhoever shall say that the whole penalty, together with the guilt, is always remitted by God, and that the sat- isfaction of penitents is nothing else than the faith by which they apprehend that Christ has satisfied for them ; let him be accursed ! 14. Whoever shall say that the satisfactions by which penitents redeem themselves from sin through Jesus Christ, are no part of the service of God, but traditions of men, obscuring the doctrine concerning grace, and the true wor- ship of God, and the actual benefit of Christ's death; let him be accursed ! We will now listen to Dr. Challoner in **Tlie Catholic Christian Instructed." " AYhat do you mean by the sacra- ment of penance?" ''An institution of Christ, by which our sins are forgiven "which we fall into after baptism." '•In what does this institution consist ?" "On the part of the penitent, it consists in these three things, viz : contrition, confession, and satisfaction." Turning over a leaf, I find this statement: "By satis- faction we mean a faithful performance of the penance enjoined by the priests." Can it be that I have got out of the gospel of Christ into the gospel of the Koran ? N"o, it is neither ; it is the gospel of Rome. I have been looking in my Bible for this sacrament of penance, and the nearest PURaATORY, PENANCE AND PERSECUTION. 145 approach I can find to it is the worshippers of Baal on Mount Carmel ; and the demoniac in the tombs, crying and cutting himself with stones. A little further on, Dr. Challoner asks ''the Catholic Christians" this question: ''But by what rule shall a person be able to form a judg- ment whether his sins are mortal or venial V "All those sins are to be esteemed mortal which the word of God rep- resents to us as hateful to God, against w^hich He pro- nounces a woe, or of which it declares that such as do those things shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." What blasphemy ! to speak of God as only hating great or mortal sins ; when he tells us that "He is of purer eyes than to behold evil, and can not look on iniquity." Yet Rome tells us "little, venial sins" are not hateful to that holy being, in whose presence the angels veil their faces. I am interested and amazed by this Bishop Challoner ; let us follow him a little further. "What if the penitent should, through forget fulness, pass over some mortal sin in confession ? " That is an important question ; so mark closelj^ the in- fallible answer of the only true Church, out of which there is no salvation. Here is the answer: "That omission, provided there was no considerable negligence wliich gave occasion to it, does not make the confession invalid.'' Xow I beg you to remember that the Council of Trent declaii^s confession to a priest to be absolutely essential to salvation ; but here out of their own Catechism I prove to you that confession is not necessary to salvation, but that forgt^tful- ness is equally good. I submit that this addition shouUl bo made to the gospel of Rome: Bh^ssed is the man who has a poor memory. This Beatitude is my own, but if tlie Pope will adopt it, I will present liim with the copyriulit, accompanit^d by an "apostolical tradition" that it was de- livered on the Mount. 10 146 REV. JOHN A. WILSON. Let US hear ''The Catholic Christian Instructed" still fnrther. '' In what case is a confessor to defer or deny ab- solution? " ''The rule of the Church is to defer absolution, excepting in a case of necessity, to those of whose disposi- .tionthe confessor has just cause to doubt/*' So then it appears that repentance is not necessarj^ in order to obtain absolution ; for "in a case of necessity " the priest may ab- solve those "whose disposition he has just cause to doubt." Has it come to this, that the priests of Rome have more power than God, and can absolve sinners regardless of their disposition? Yes, so it appears ; and I defy you Rome, from Pope to priest, to evade the conclusion ; and I call upon you in the name of the honest, intelligent people of St. Louis to confess that you have been teaching lies in our public prints for the past months, when jou. affirmed that the priests did not claim to have the power to forgive sins. Here are the words of the confessor, taken from your own books : "I absolve thee from all thy sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. " Now it is not egotism for us to claim as good a knowledge of our mother tongue as the average Catholic possesses ; and if that lan- guage does not, in the strongest form-, state that the priests forgive sins, then I am ignorant of the meaning of language. I must not, however, detain you longer on this topic, though it is so opposed to the gospel of Christ, and so des- tructive of all morality that it merits a most searching investigation and a most scathing exposure. I will just state my three chief objections to this doc- trine. First, it denies the full atonement of Christ. The Council of Trent calls it " a second plank after shipwreck." But the gospel of God knows no plank for the shipwrecked sinner, save the Lord Jesus Christ. That I do not misre- present the Papal Church will appear from this decree of the Council of Trent: "Whosoever shall affirm that men are justified either solely by the imputation of the righteous- PURaATORY, PENANCE AND PERSECUTION. 147 ness of Christ ; or, also, that the grace by which we are justified is only the favor of God, let him be accursed. " The grand old sage, Thomas Carlyle, has styled Dar- winism the Gospel of Dirt ; but this teaching of the Council of Trent can only be fitly characterized by calling it the Gospel of the Devil. The Bible says (Eph. ii. 8), "By grace are ye saved, through faith, and that not of your- selves ; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast." Again (Titus, iii. 5), ''Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us." My second objection to this pretented sacrament is that it makes slaves of the people. It is in the confes- sional that the priesthood get the consciences of the people into their hands. No man or woman comes out of the confessional as free as they went into it. The toils of Rome are wrapped around them, until they are completely beneath the -feet of the priests. And right well do these men know how to use their power; hence you will |ind that in every thoroughly Catholic country the people are impoverished, and the Church aggrandized ; hence, our daily papers inform us, the late Pope was worth more millions than any of our merchant princes, and he the representative of that meek and lowly one who had no place to lay His head ! Verily, in the expressive languaue of the Council of Trent, these things ''savor of filthy lucre/' M}^ third objection to this doctrine is, that it loads to - the grossest immorality. I do not propose to enlarge upon this statement ; it does not bear explanation before a polite and promiscuous audience. I will say this much.: I have before me Dens' Moral Theology, a standard worlv in the Catholic Church. It contains forms of question and answer for the confessional, many of wliich I could not be iiiductHl to read to you ; you would be insulted if 1 did. Vet that is what the Catholic meets in the confessional of '' lioly 148 REV. JOHN A. WILSON. mother Church." Both by way of conclusion and contrast let me ask 3^ou all to take to your heart these sweet, pure words of Jesus (Matt. xi. 28), ''Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." ''Take my yoke upon you and learn of me ; for I am meek and lowly in heart ; and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." I come now to the last topic of the evening, viz : perse- cution. But some one may say, Mr. Wilson, you do not mean to tell us that the Church of Rome believes in per- secution. My friend, that is just exactly what I wish to state with all plainness. This is a grave charge, I confess, and I am truly sorry that I have to make it. But it is not my assertion simply. It is the indictment of the centuries ; it is the rec- ord of history ; it is the voice from the graves of countless martyrs ; it is the cry from the soil of sunny France, steeped with the blood of the victims of Rome ; aye, the Bible tells us it is the solemn charge brought before God by the souls of the saints who were slain. I will only touch at this vast subject to-night. It would require years instead of moments to tell it all. For a full account of the outrages perpetrated by this apostate Church in the name of religion, you must read the history of Europe for the last ten centuries. But let me give you their written law. I could wish it were only tradition. There would then be some probability of it being false. The Council of Toledo decreed : "We, the Holy Coun- cil, promulge this sentence, or decree, pleasing to God, that whosoever hereafter shall succeed to the kingdom shall not mount the throne till he has sworn, among other oaths, to ])ermit no man to live in his kingdom who is not a Catholic. And if, after he has taken the reins of government, he shall violate this promise, let him be anathema maranatha in the sight of the Eternal God, and become food for the PURGATORY, PENANCE AND PERSECUTION. 149 eternal fire. ' Still further, the Council of Lateran, under Innocent III., decreed as follows: ''We excommunicate and anathematize all heresy, condemning all heretics by what name soever they are called. These, being condemned, must be left to the secular power to be punished. And those who are only suspected of heresy, ii they purge not themselves in the appointed way, are to be excommunicated : and il within a year, satisfaction is not given they are to b(^ condemned as heretics." In order that those who were delivered to the secular power might be well cared for, the said secular power was required to take an oath ''that they will endeavor with all their might to exterminate from every pait ot their dominions, all heretical subjects universally, that are marked out to them by the Church." But I need not take your time by multiplying decrees and authorities of every kind. Have these decrees ever been repealed ? or can an infallible decree ot an infallible council be repealed? They have not been repealed. The same sentiment is taught in their works n theology to day. Pope Pius IX., in the syllabus of 1864, condemned as one oi the principal errors of our time, this sentiment: "1 has oeeii wisely provided by law in some countries called Catnolic, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the uubiic exercise ot their own worship." That was one of the principal errors of the times. Pope Pius only believed in religious toleration m I'lo- testant countries. What sort of liberty, think you, was there in Rome when the Pope controlled it ^ Just this much ; No Protestants could meet together in the citv lor worship. 1 repeat it; up to the day tliat archlu^ii^tir, Victor Emanuel, kindly relieved the ag(Ht i\)\)o .>i (Ih^ harassing duties of state, no Protestants could assiMnbh^ to worship God according to the dictati^s of \\\c\v o\\\\ cou- science. I am speaking now of what I saw in 187(\ the 150 REV. JOHN A. WILSON. memorable year in which Popes became infallible ! Such was Rome' s conception of liberty. Yet this was under the benignant rule of that enlightened and liberal-minded Pope, Pius IX., to whom some ''good-goody" Protestants are now singing te deums, and giving the worship of dulia. Such is Rome's very kindliest treatment of Protestants wnere she has the power. But when you or I tell what Rome was, and is, she cries out, persecution, persecution! No, we do not persecute. Worship your idols ; make and eat your god, as you do, on the corners of our chiefest streets; if need be, I will be one of a posse to defend you ; but permit me you must, to stand up in my place and say it is idolatry and blasphemy. I say— Protestan!s say — let the Bible be circulated and freely discussed and freely taught ; and then if it can not prevail against error, let the Bible be burned. Let the sun shine, and if he can not scatter the clouds and dispel the darkness, let us have an eternal night. I do not want your manufactured lights, glimmering from Roman candles ; I want the clear and constant light of the sun of Righteousness — or nothing. But 1 am toid the Protestants burned Servetus. I grant it. Coming tresh from the bloody school of Rome, would it not have been marvelous if they had not brought with them some of her lessons? and 1 submit to any honest Judge it tills is not a good plea in abatement. Bat not- withstanding this mitigating circumstance, every Protestant denounces that act as an outrage. But do Roman Catholics denounce ^-he burning of John Huss, and Jerome ot Prague, and John Rogers, and the thousands and tens of thou- sands whom she has sent to the stake ? No, they do not. In this respect her boasted unchangeableness is true. The spirit of the Inquisition still animates her old and decaying frame. Why, we have had glowing eulogies of that glorious institution delivered in our country by Romish priests If they had the power tliey once possessed, and to PURGATORY, PENANCE AND PERSECUTION. 151 regain which the Jesuits are moving earth and hell, they would have me at the stake before day-dawn ; a genuine auto-de-fe would be witnessed in our hay market, and you, in your kindness of heart, would have to go and gather up my ashes, a service which congregations have often had to render to their pastors during tlie palm}^^ days of Rome. You will perhaps expect me to speak of the St. Bar- tholomew massacre. But I will not attempt to portray the sickening scenes in that fiendish atrocity. I will just mention that liistory records that the bleeding head of Coligne, the most prominent Protestant of the time, was sent to Rome to feast the eyes of the Pope and Cardinals. ^'Tne Holy Father," says Mezerai, "and all his Court displayed a great rejoicing, and went in procession to the Church of St. Louis to render thanks to God for so happy a success." The Pope sent Cardinal Ursini to France for the special purpose of thanking the French King, and had a medal struck to commemorate the great and glorious event. Yet that man, forsooth, was the Vicar of Jesus Christ, who wept over Jerusalem when He thought of her coming sorrow. The mere mention of St. Bartholomew, plotted by priests and gloried in by ''the faithful" everywhere, is enough to make even the ''scarlet woman'' blush and hang her head in silence. Go to what country of Europe you will, and you will find in the museums such a variety of instruments o{ torture as to suggest that the genius of those agt^s of Catholic rifle had been exhausted in devising tlio most hellish methods of banishing heretics from the face o'i the earth. Think of Christ commanding his apostles: Go y*^ into all tlie world and kill all who ditter IVom you, and ^\ ho will not receive your doctrines! Such a coniiuaud would have stamp(Hl him as tlui veriest impostor. Hut that i- Just the teaching of the Church of Home, and her i)raciici\ loo, 152 REV. JOHN A. WILSON. wherever she has the power. I submit to any candid mind if that fact does not, bej^ond all question, prove the papal Church to be the great apostacy — the very antichrist. But I would not only be just toward Rome — I would be generous. I shall mention, then, that she boasts of the edict of JS'antes, which gave partial freedom to Protestants ; and also points with pride to the settlement of the Mary- land colony by Lord Baltimore. I admit the edict of jS'antes showed considerable toleration. But by whom was that edict issued? By Henry lY., who had been educated by a Protestant mother, and whose better instincts were all Protestant, and who was assassinated, history says, by a tool of the Jesuits. But by w^hom was that edict repealed ? By Louis XIV., a bigoted Catholic, under the control of a mistress, w^ho in turn was the artful instrument of the Jesuits. If Papists can extract any glory out of the edict of Nantes I do not grudge it to them. It w ill be di awing honej^ from a fouler carcass than that of Samson's lion. Of the Maryland settlement I have not time to speak ; but I will refer you to an able work, entitled the ''Papacy and the Civil Power," by the present Secretary of the Navy, Hon R. W. Thompson, in which he shows that this piece of boasted toleration was only the usual Romish selfishness. It is a little uncommon to find a statesman lifting up his voice against this destroyer of Governments ; but, thank God, w^e have a few men in our age who will not worship the image of "the Beast." No one will call Gladstone an enthusiast, ot* Bismarck a fool, or Thompson a knave. ^ Yet these, and a host of others, are telling the world the danger there is from this subtile, selfish, centralized power, which claims to be head of both Church and State. But I must close. I might detain jon all the night, and then only hint at the horrible outrages of the Papal Church, in which the life-blood of 70,000,000 of human beings was PURGATORY, PENANCE AND PERSECUTION. 153 poured out. Is it any wonder her robes are scarlet? Is it any wonder she is drunken with the blood of so many saints ? Come out of her, O men and women of America, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her x)lagaes. For her sins have reached unto hc^aven, and God hath remembered her iniquities. Extract from Oath -which eacli Bishop is required to take at his consecration : " Heret;c>-, soliismatics, and rebels to our said lord, or his aforesaid successors, I will, to the utincst of ii.y I-ower, oppose and persecute.'^ THE EOMISH MASS, ^> lEWED IN THE LIGHT OF SCPJPTURE, REASON AND HISTORY. By REV. GEO. A. LOFTON, D.D. Bishop Ryan, in his lecture, asserted the motto : ' ' Rome and Reason." The question of ''Rome or Reason," he declared, no longer existed. Rome appeals to Scripture, Reason and History. To this dread tribunal shall she go, on the subject of the Mass ; and if this arch-sacrament of tlie Catholic Church be proved a scriptural perversion, a rational absurdity, a historical novelty, then we have knocked the keystone out of Rome's grand arch of -sacra- mentalism, at least. Built upon the triangular founda- tion of cliurchism, priestism and sacramentalism, Rome claims to be the Savior of the world. The Church, so to speak, is the manufacture, the priest the manufec- turer, and the sacraments are the mill or machiiKMy by and through which — sinners are turned into Christians, kept sanctiiied, and iinally prepared, as so many int(^lhv- tual machines, for heaven. Christians are not dirtn'tly the 'Svoikmanship" of God, ''created in Christ Jesus unto good works;" but the entire system of human nnlemption, wrought out in Christ Jc^sus, lias be(Mi vi^stcnl in a hi(M'- archy, a priesthood, and in sev(Mi sacranuMits ; and \\w\\' can b(^ no personal redemption through Christ, outside of the organism of Rome. Grace exists and consists only 156 REV. GEO. A. LOFTON, D. D. in tlie Catholic Churcli ; and the gospel doctrine that we are saved by grace alone, or that we are justified by faith only, was anathematized at the Council of Trent. ''Who- soever shall affirm that grace is not conferred by these sacraments of the new law, by their own power (ex opere operato) ; but that faith in the divine promise is all that is necessary to obtain grace: let him be accursed.^' What is affirmed of all these sacraments, is affirmed of each, respectively, according to the peculiar grace which each confers; although it is granted that all these .sacraments are not necessary to every individual — such as orders and matrimony. The other five, namely, baptism, confirma- tion, the eucharist, penance and extreme unction are essential to the salvation of all. These are conductors of grace, from baptismal regeneration to the absolution and indulgence of the soul in Purgatory, by extreme unction. The salvation or damnation of the world is in the hands of the Pope of Rome, who holds the keys of the kingdom of God ! To reason correctly, is to deduce just inferences from true premises. Faith is above reason, but not contrary to it ; and faith, to be true faith at all, must have, to begin with, the aid of correct reason upon testimony. That testi- mony must be credible to reason, else credulity, and not faith, must follow. No rational being can believe anything without reasonable testimony. The existence of Gfod is based upon rational evidence. Man is a rational, moral, and therefore, accountable creature. He is a depraved and sinful being. He needs a revelation and a Redeemer. Upon these universally admitted premises we accept the Bible, bearing its own evidences of divine inspiration within itself, as a rational, infallible and all-sufficient revelation to man. It develops Jesus Christ, its one idea, from G-enesis to Revela- tion ; the infinite sacrifice for sin ; the principle, life and inspiration of redemption. Faith is made the simple term THE ROMISH MASS. 157 of justification — repentance of pardon — in the application of this grace to the human heart. The Bible philosophi- cally commends itself to our belief. Its rationale^ its unity, its fulfilled prophesies, its doctrines, its well attested miracles, its analogies, its exemplifications, its corroborating witnesses, its purity, its history, its eff'ect upon the humait race, its applicability to all classes, climes, conditions and races — all go to prove its origin from God. It is a perfect book ; and can neither be ''added to," nor ''taken from," without the curse of God. "But though we or an angel from heaven," says Paul, "preach any other gospel than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." The Bible is the most rational testimony, as a whole, and in all its parts, ever offered to the faith of man. Such, however, is not true of a single dogma or institu- tion of Rome. Not one gospel truth but she has perverted ; and her entire system is "Christianity reversed." Her every assumption is founded upon an unwarranted infer- ence from misinterpreted scriptures, which inference she has exalted into a law of her own. Not a single precept of the New Testament mentions, by word, or reveals by implication, a pope, a priest, a hierarchy, a sacrament, an inquisition, a persecution, a form or ceremony, as held by the Catholic Church. It is Antichrist! Yet Ronu^ ap- peals to scripture, reason and history for her positions! The scriptures, however, are not a sufficient rule of faith and practice to her; and she has beclouded tluMu with false translations, traditions and legislations. The Old Testament was added to, or taken from, ])y the traditions oF tin* (^Ulers ; and Christ and his Aj)Ostl(^s stripped the Pharise(\^ of this garb of deception, perversion and hypocrisy. Lilvmvist^ lias Rome rendered the last will and testamiMit of our Lord oF none effect by tradition; and the scholar anJ lh(^ his- torian must strip mod(^rn pharisaism ot' its lals*^ ,i:arl>. The Old Testament was a comi)lete revelation to the Jew ; the New 158 REV. GEO. A. LOFTON, D. D. Testament is a complete revelation to the Christian. Then to the law and to the testimony of Christ — the only rational basis or standard to which we can ever appeal in contro- versy. Rome appeals to Reason ! The gospel of Christ is the consummation of reason — a complete and infallible testimony — the last will and testament of the Testator. By the Word of God, by reason, by history, we shall test the chief sacrament of Romanism ; and having tested this, we have tested the claims of all. 1. The Romish Mass is a scriptural perversion. ''This is my body" — ''This is my blood," said Jesus, in the institution of the Lord's Supper. These expressions, according to Rome, are the foundation of the Mass. On page 9, of the Roman Missal^ compiled by Bishop England, I find this definition : "In the Mass, Christ is the victim ; he is produced by the consecration, which by the power of God, and the institution of the Redeemer, and the act of the priest, places the body and blood of Christ, under the appearance of bread and wine upon the altar; then the priest makes an oblation of this victina to the Eternal Father on behalf of the people, and the victim undergoes a destructive change, showing forth the death of the Redeemer, and making commemoration thereof, by the exhibition of the apparent separation of the body from the blood ; the former being under the appearance of bread, and the latter under the appearance of wine, and by the consumi^tion of both by the priest." The bishop says that the Mass is a "sacrifice," and that "it is not a different sacrifice from that of the cross ; for the victim in each is the same." The Roman Catechism says, "Not only is it the true body of Jesus Christ, to wit : all that is proper to the human body — the bones, the nerves, contained in the sacrament — but farther, Jesus Christ, whole and entire." The Council of Trent decreed that " whoever shall affirm that a true and THE ROMISH MASS. 159 proper sacrifice is not offered to God in the Mass," or that it was ''not a propitiatory offering," or that it ''ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punish- ments, satisfactions and other necessities : let him ee ACCURSED. By these definitions and decrees we are to understand. (1.) That Jesus Christ — body and blood, flesh and bones, soul and divinity, whole and entire, without mutation or extension of his physical being, identical in heaven and at the same time identical on earth, is produced in a wafer of bread and a drop of wine, under the consecrating act of a human priest. (2.) That this priest makes an "oblation" of the victim produced, by a "destructive change in the production of the body and blood, the former under the appearance of bread, the latter separated from, the former, under the appearance of wine. (3.) That the priest completes the sacrifice by th^ "consumption" of the body and blood of Christ. (4.) That this is not simply a commemoration of the sacrifice on Calvary, but a "pro- pitiatory offering" of the Son of God afresh, for the sins of the people. And, (5.) That in this act of consecration, the bread and wine only retain their "appearance," their substance being converted into the body and blood of Christ. This is transubstantiation I The priest creates his God, immolates him, eats him, ofters him for the sins of the people ! This is either awful blasphemy, or else it is the con- summation of all divine power, the exorcise of suiu-eme authority, at the hands of a mortal being ! Jesus hiuiself could do no more than this ! Can it be ain'ording to (lod'^ word, by the utmost torture of inference ? Reason -aIouc c:\n guide us in the interpretation of language. A law, to W a law, must be declared in the ]>riiuaiy us(^ o\' laugiiag^^ "Do this," says Jesus, "in remembrance of ni(\" J.a.ws are never declared in the figurative, secondary or remote 160 REV. OEO. A. LOFTON, D. D. use of language ; but a law which involves a symbol, can be described only in figurative language. Bap- tism is enacted in literal language : "Go ye into all nations," &c. ; but it is described as a burial, a resur- rection, a washing away of sin, in the appropriate figures which express its emblematic significance. The Lord's Supper, likewise, is described only in figurative language, because it is a symbolic institution. If the descriptive language of the Savior is literal, and the doc- trine of the Mass be true, then . he ate his own body and drank his own blood, and his disciples did the same while He himself stood, whole and entire, unbroken and without mutation, before them. He said to his disciples, as he instituted the Supper: ''This is my body" — this bread; ''This is my blood" — this wine. What does the word "this,^^ in each case, refer to? First, to the entire loaf, broken, symbolically, into twelve parts, afterwards ; second, to the entire cup of wine, afterwards divided, likewise, and drunk by the disciples. There can be no escape from the argument, that a figure must be used in calling the loaf a "broken" body, before it was broken. Immediately after the Savior' s words of institution, he says (Matt. xxvi. 29), "I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until the day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom." So said he of the bread. Is it not clear that Christ and his disciples, in their own con- ception, were eating literal bread, the "fruit" of the field? drinking literal wine, the "fruit" of the vineyard? His body had not yet been broken, nor his blood shed. They were eating bread, drinking wine, the symbols of that body which was to be broken, of that blood which was to be shed, on the morrow. Jesus was speaking, descriptively, as only he could speak, in the institution of a symbolic and ceremonial ordinance, in figurative language — the most potent of all expression. He so spake, often, in less Jixecution of Jerome of Prague. l*age 500. THE ROMISH MASS. 161 figurative matters. Even of himself lie said, ^*I am the door," '^ I am the way," ''I am the true vine." So spake Paul, when referring to the ancient types of baptism and the Lord's Supper, he says, ''And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and did eat the same spiritual meat; and did drink the same spiritual drink ; for they drank of that Spiritual Rock that followed them ; and that Rock was Christ.^'^ The manna from heaven, and the water that followed Israel from the smitten rock, Avere figures of the body and blood of Jesus, pointing forward to the coming ''Crucified One," just as the Lord's Supper points back to him ; but neither did the Hebrews, nor do Christians now, eat the literal body, nor drink the literal blood of Christ. That manna and that rock in the desert was Christ in a figure ; and so Jesus said of the bread and wine: "This is my body" — " Tliis is my blood." Is it possible that when Christ, as he declares he will, eats the fruit of the field, and drinks the fruit of the vine, anew, in the Kingdom of his Father, be eating and drink- ing, again, with his chosen, his own bod}^ and his own blood ? Why should there then be any more sacrilice, or why, in any event, should Jesus have ever eaten his own body, or drunk his own blood ? In all the language used, in describing the Supper, Jesus employed a figure, to sig- nify its deepest import. "This cup," said he, '^ is the New Testament in my blood, shed for the remission of {\w sins of many." Did he mean that '''this cup" was a literal t(^sta- ment, or only the symbol of the new covenant, establislunl bv his shed blood? Will any Romanist answer? Ixonie ai'rays, John vi., as proof of the literality of Jesus' (^xpii^s sions in the institution of the Eucharist: "Th(^ bit ad that I shall give j^m, is my fiesh,".etc. ; but in thi^ vtMv sniiu chapter Jesus interprets liis own language as ligurativ(\ and all the more potent and signifi(»ant, wIkmi Ih^ says, '''V\u\ ilesh pi'ofiteth nothing ; thi^ words that I speak unto you, 11 162 REV. GEO. A. LOFTON, D. D. they are spirit and tliey are life." The literal fiesh and "blood of Clirist can be no food of the soul. He was born of a vroman, just a.s we are, and however immaculate, his flesh and blood €Ould convey no spiritual or divine life. His 'Svords,'' however, which are figuratively represented by his crucified flesh and his shed blood, ''they are spirit and they are life." The tridli of Christ is his power unto salvation. Christ is adduced and produced in the potent figures of God's Word, which strikingly represent the broken body and shed blood of the Redeemer ; and who- ever takes in these truths, under the literal or symbolic forms of the glorious doctrine, spiritually and faithfully eats tlie flesh and drinks the blood of Christ. Thus, alone, is Jesus food to the soul, whether so received in the Supper, or in the reading or hearing of the gospel. Any blind, idolatrous and superstitious effort at discerning, worship- ping, sacrificing, or feasting on the literal body and blood of Christ, is not only awful blasphemy, but an utter obscuration of the truth, so beautifully, powerfully and spiritually involved in the symbolic representation, or commemoration of that truth in the Lord's Supper. Jesus and his apostles never drea^med of the doctrine of the Mass. The scriptures are as silent upon such an idea as the grave. It is nowhere hinted at in the Acts of the Apostles, or smacked of in their epistles. The Communion is mentioned, in the simplest terms, as ''breaking bread," or as "eating the Lord's Supper." Paul rebuked the Corinthian Church for its abuses of the ordinance, reiterat- ing the institution in the same figurative language of tlie evangelists, concluding : "For as often as ye eat this hreaci. and drink this ciip^ ye do show the Lord's death till he come." Paul did not dream that we should eat the literal body or drink tlie literal blood of Christ. " This bread" — this cup," he says, we eat and drink. Distinguishing the Supper from a common feast, into which the Corinthians THE ROMISH MASS. 163 had perverted it, he pronounces, in a Ibeautiful figure, the Supper as the Communion of the body and blood of Christ. In other words, it was a participation, under the symbol of a feast, of the soul in the glorious life of Christ, through the truth and spirit of his shed blood and broken body, set forth in the Supper. He warned the Church, therefore, to eat '^worthily" — warned each ''man" in that Church to "examine himself," lest he should eat "unworthily," or with an improper design, and thus eat " damnation" to his own soul. He enforced the great design of the Master, in the institution of the ordinance, that under these symbols of a broken body and shed blood, the Church and each individual member of it should '"'discern tlie Lord^ s hody:^ Did he mean that they should discern a literal body and literal blood, under the mere "appearance" of bread and wine % Why did he not say so % Tliis would be impossible, physically, mentally, spiritually. What would be the use of a man examining himself upon this point \ with all the scriptural acumen, logical clearness and experimental knowledge of things, human or divine, no man has ever yet discerned the literal body and blood of our Lord, under the "appearances" of bread and wine. A man may imagine, or be credulous, that such a thing takes place ; but such discernment can never be predicated of an}^ true faith based upon rational testimony. The language of Paul is still keeping up the symbolic idea of Christ in the institution of the Supper. It is a memorial, or monument, of the crucifixion and the symbol of tlie Christ iau's spiritual fellowship with the sufterings of Christ, undor Ww "form of doctrine" set forth in tlie ordinance. To the extent that true experimental faith exists in tlie Christian,- it can "examine" itself and "discern," tlirou-li the symbols of the ordinance, the Lord's broken body and shed blood, upon testimony ; and to this extent tlie soul can feast upon the truth and commune with the spiritual 164 REV. GEO. A. LOFTOX, D. D. life of Jesus, represented byflesli and blood, and figuratively set forth by bread and wine. Any other but a spiritual and faithful discernment of the truth symbolized, would be no discernment at all. Faith and obedience, here, would not be a '^reasonable service," under a ''real presence ' idea, but only blind credulity, superstition, idolatry and cannibalism, having no permanent efitct upon the life and character of the communicant. Let each man in the Church, where the ordinance is celebrated, ^'^ examine himself/' and so let him eat and drink — discerniug, by faith, the Lord's body, under the symbols of bread and wine, lest he should eat "unworthily." A "real presence" discernment, is not only useless, but absolutely impossible, to faith — much less to sense or reason. Finally, under the head of scripture, the Mass, as an "obla- tion — sacrifice — for the sins of the people," at the hands of a human priest, is a subversion of the entire theory of human redemption, by the "one ofi'ering" — "once for all," and "forever" made by Jesus Christ. It is a subversion of the scriptural doctrine of the one and only priesthood of Jesus Christ. It is a subversion of the gospel truth that salvation by grace, through faith, is a one act — wrought out by a single sacrifice and accomplished at but one time, "once for all," and "forever."' I afiirm here that the New Testament declares but one priest, one oflfering, one salva- tion ; and that, in a saving sense, there never was but one priest, one offering, one salvation, or one plan of human redemption. The Priests, ofi'erings, and salvation of the Mosaic ritual were solely typical — shadows of good things to come ; and every Jew before Christ, in order to be saved, .had to rise above legal righteousness and ceremonial observances, and, through the figures, prophecies and precepts of his dispensation, see Jesus the Messiah, and believe on him that was to come. So were Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and thousands of THE ROMISH MASS. 165 others, saved. They saw Christ and liis day, afar off, '^helleved^^^ and were ''glad." The law w^as too ''weak,'' with all its grand formula of commands and ordinances, either to atone for moral guilt, or inspire regeneration, or produce resurrection. Jesus Christ vras an absolute necessity to the atonem^ent, regeneration, sanctiiication and resurrection of the sinner — and the only necessity Paul is clear on this point in Hebrews. Jesus is a Pi iest, forever after the order of Melchizedek, and Aaron and liis successors were only types or shadows — their sacrifices and atonements only the types or shadows of God's only and eternal sacrifice and atonement, at the hands of his Son. "For Christ is not entered into tlie holy places made with liands, which are the figures of the tru(^ ; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us. Nor yet that lie should offtr himself often^ as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with the blood of others ; for then lie must have suf- f a-ed since the foundation of the world ; but now once in the end of the Avorld hath lie appeaTed to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment ; so Ciirist was once offered to bear the sins of many." (Heb. ix. 24-28.) Again says Paul, "And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but this man, aflrr he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever^ sat down on the right hand of God. '^ '^ For by one ofieving he hath perfected forever them that an^ sancliruHl/' i^lh^). x. 18, 14.) All these (expressions go to i^rove that Xhove never was, is not now and never can be but oiu^ Priest — Jesus Christ ; that lie ma(h^ one saciifKHs o:ice i'ov all and for^wer in theend of the old ag(% and tliat lu^ n(Milh'r i('prats this sacn-ifice hinis(elf, nor appoints others to (h> the same; that ever}^ man once sanclilied, saved, under this saciilice, 166 REV. GEO. A. LOFTOX, D. D. is ^'forever perfected/' ^*By tlie wliicli will/' says the Apostle, **we are sanctified through the offering of the hody of Jesus Christ, once for all/' [Keh x. 10.) *' Worshippers, once purged," says he. ''can have no more conscience of sins." (Heb. x. 1.) ""^Yliere remission of these is, iJiere is no more offering for sin'' — *' their sins and iniquities I will remember no more.'' ''After those days (in the days of Christ) saith the Lord. I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them " Ip other words, when a man is ''saved by grace," ''through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ," he is justified, "once for all," and ''forever;" and, as Peter says, "kept through faith, by the power of God, unto salvation, ready to be repealed at the last time." A man is neither saved by sacraments, nor kept by them. He is justified the moment he believes, and virtually saved to all eternity — the progressive work of sanctification, resurrection and glorification, continuing on by the same grace, through faith, which first regenerates and justifies. Our Great High Priest, Jesus Christ, becomes our Surety. Advocate and Intercessor — whose blood clean- seth us from all sin. By penitence and faith, every child of God can go at every moment, personally into the Holy of Holies on hi2:h — bearins: his own priestly and kina^lv off'erines of a broken and a contrite heart — and receivii]^ the blessings of God, by virtue of the blood shed on Cal- vary, Hence, Paul says, again, i^Heb. x. 19-22), "Having, therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say. his flesh ; and having an high priest over the house of God ; let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water " It does seem as if Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews in contemplation of the Romish sacrifice of the Mass — and to head off* this THE HOMISH MASS. 167 inonstrous perversion of the one priestliood, the one sacrifice, and the one salvation, wrought out by Jesus Christ for all his people. The Mass, in any conceivable sense, especially as a propitiatory oflering — repeated over and over again — at the hands of a fallible priest, for the sins of God's people, is a novelty of the grossest superstition. It is worse than Paganism, which never pretended to sacrifice or eat its gods. It is absolutely undreamed of in the gospel ; and is without the shadow of analogy in the law Paul declares that the blood of legal sacrifices never cleansed from sin. There was no salvation by the law or its ceremonies. The gospel knows only one priest, one sacrifice, one redemption Every Christian, so far as earthly authority or sacrifice is concerned, is his own king and priest He knows no law but the gospel ; no prophet, priest or king, but Christ. He wears the royal badge of gospel liberty, and off'ers his own broken heart and devotion as the seal of his personal freedom. The Church of Christ, therefore, is a ''holy nation," a ''peculiar people," a "royal priesthood," offering up "spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God (only) by Jesus Christ," our great High Priest. 2. Tlte Mass is a rational absurdity We shall now try the Mass from a purely rational stand point. We have no shadow of scriptural testimony for it — but all sci-ij^ture against it. I do not hesitate to say that the Mass is the most unreasonable, the most unphilosophical, of all the absurdities ever foisted upon the world. There is noth- ing in Greek or Roman Mytholog}^ in Orienial or barbai'ons i q:)'4'sliti{)n, which can compare with this reliniHl ;nal sul)lle assunii)tion of i)OW(U- and miracl(\ Without scrip- tural premises or testimony, upon which to supi^ort \\>A{\ it has not even a rational analogy by which to illnsiiatt^ or explain itsc^lf. it is contrar}^ to all tlu^ axioms or deductions of truth. Vou cannot I'cason ni^on h, a priori, 168 KEY. GEO. A. LOFTO:S, "D. D. nor a poster iorL Every effort to reason upon it, produces a reductio ad absurdam. It is not only contrary to rea- son, but it is contrary to every man's five senses — contrary to every iniagfnable conception of intellect, and to every perception of experimental knowledge of ideas or tliings. Noth'ng could liave been invented, so contrary to every philosophical or scriptural method of thought, sensation or faith. (1.) I am called upon to believe that Gfod has consti- tuted a human priest (contrary to his word), the agent by wdiich, under the act of consecration, the Son of God is produced, created, in a drop of wane and a, wafer of bread. To be sure, the Son of God was born, in the flesh, of the Virgin Mary ; and w^e can conceive, by observation and analogy, how% by the power of God who gave all our bodies birth, the body of Christ, w^ith its human nature, was thus created. God teaches us, that, in this human form, "dvv^elt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." This we rationally conceive God able to do ; and we dis- cover that from that body did emanate all the manifestations of God's attributes. It w^as clear to ail who were in his presence, that God did dwell in the person of Christ. He was ''God wdtli us" — ''God manifest in the flesh." The Mass, how^ever, gives us no such manifestations, either in the act of production, immolation, or in the life and cliaracter of those who produce and eat this created God. There is no law for such a creation in God's word ; there is no analogy for it at the hands of a priest ; and there is not the slightest evidence or manifestation of the assumed fact. Men say so ; and men say, "Or^^o"— but this is simply all we know of the matter. I call for the law- and the tes- timony ; and I call for the manifestations of such an assump- tiou of power, before I can submit my reason to the blind dictum of ' ' Credos At least, I want some analogy for the fact. THE ROMISH MASS. 169 (2.) Leaving out the irrational assumption that Clirist is offered as a sacrifice for the sins of the people, which is met by the scriptures, I am called upon to believe that Jesus Christ; body, blood, flesh, nerves and bones; soul and divinity ; whole and entire ; is produced in a drop of wine and a wafer of bread ! He is identical, w^liole and entire in heaven, and at the same time whole, identical and entire — without phj^sical mutation or change of his heavenly exis- tence — on earth. If need be, he is, physically, in a million of places at the same time, not by the extension of his physical being ;. but identicallj^ the same, and unchanged being, whole and entire, in every place. The Council of Trent anathematizes a man w^ho does not believe this ! Well, this is to believe, contrary to every philosophical conception of physical law, that one body can occui:)y two places at the same time, or a million of places, and be the same body ; or that two bodies can occupy the same i)h^ce at the same time ! Spiritually, God can be everywhere ; and God can create a million of beings, at the same time, similar in character, nature and constitution — indeed, exactly alike. That, however, is not the assumption of the Mass. In every instance, by every priest, Christ in heaven is the same Christ in every place, where the wafer is consecrated, without any change of physical identity or being ! Tliis requires me to believe that God has establislied two new laAvs, contradictory of every other natui-al law of existiMiee, (1), that one body can occupy two places at tlu^ sanu^ time, and be the same body; and, (2), that this snnu^ ])liy-ieal body, whole and entire, can occuipy an invisible and in- finitesimal space in a wafer of bn^ad and. a dio]) of wine without changes — of which occupancy 1 can havt^ no pei-- ception. This is the same as to nninin^ nuMo lu^lie\e that God can make a round squares or a. square eirele ; i!i«» cir- cumf(M*ence of a circle, exvvy }m)\u\ o\' which is not (^jnidis- tantfj'om the center ; two hills without a (h^pression beiwcrn 170 KEY. GEO. A. LOFTOX, D. D. them. This is to ask me to helieve that a mountain can be a mole-hill without change, or a mole-hill a moun- tahi. This is to ask me to believe that God contradicts himself ; or that he has constructed laws of nature, at vari- ance with all other laws, and of which he has given m^ no s ^nsible or rational demonstration. This is a reauctio ad {'hsnrdam '^ Rome and Reason ! " (3.) But this is not the worst of it. lam required to believe that, in the act of priestly consecration, the sub- stance of the bread is changed into the body of Christ, and that the substance of the wine is changed into the blood of Christ ; and yet the form, color and taste of the bread and wine remain. The substance of the elements is gone, con- verted, but the bread and wine only remain in their acci- dents or species. This is Transubstantiation ! Now how am I to know or believe that this is true I T am met vvith the reply that it is a '' miracle." The creation of the incarnate God in the bread and wine is a miracle ; and the bread and wine retaining their form, color and taste, after transubstan tiation, is another miracle, concealing the first ! This is the reason why you can neither see, touch, nor taste, the body and blood of Christ. This is a double miracle ! another contradiction of all natural law ! another violation of all com- mon sense ! The elements look like bread and wine ; taste like them; feel like them; smell like them; sound like them: have the same eifect that bread and wine do ; would intoxicate or gloat 3^ou like bread and wine ; would poison you if adul- terated ; and yet they are, substantially, the body and blood of Christ ! Here is a law of creation which makes a thing to be one thing and another at the same time ! As well ask me to believe that flesh can be fish, or stone, at the same time be flesh. Where are my reason, my intellections, my five senses, my philosoph}^, my faith founded on testimony ? Oh, but it is a miracle — a double miracle ! a miracle inge- niously concealing a miracle, and concealing itself ! Bat THE E03IISH INIASS. 171 how am I to believe it is a miracle, unless I am sensible of it? It is a fact, that a miracle must be proved to be a miracle, before one can believe it. All the miracles of the Bible were visible, manifest, to somebody. The writers of God' s v/ord declare that they either performed them, or saw them ; and that others were sensible of them, by physical or ocular demonstration. Not one of those miracles were performed contrary to reason, or what we can philosophi- cally conceive God able to perform. He who made the sun, could make it stand still ; he who made the waters, could walk on them; he who created man, could destroy him, and raise him up again. God who made the laws of nature, can suspend them, interfere with their operation, or intensify their action, so as to produce supernatural results* Not a Bible miracle, however, necessitates the contradiction of, or creation of nev^ law, at variance with, all other laws ; and not a Bible miracle was performed, or believed, that did not interpose physical or ocular demonstration to those who .w(?re affected by them. The Mass, as Ave have seen, presu})poses a new set of organic laws, beyond all concep- tion of what reason, or credible faith, is capable of suppos- ing God able to perform — contrary to every existing law, by which God controls tlie action of physical existences — without a particle of testimony on the subject — an.d j^et Rome demands that we believe this unprovi^d mirach^ ! a miracle concealiijg a miracle, and then concealing itself! All Bible miracles are above reason, but ]U)t contiadicU^ry of all reason and sense; nor witlu)ut ci'cHlible testimony. All true miracles have been consisttuitl}^ perfornuHl in accordance with God's immutable laws of ciwuion, ^-o far as we ar(i infornuHl. 'Until sucli a mirach\ as that (^f \ho Mass, is d(Mn()nstrated to b(^ such, we cannot bt^lit^N o it. I cannot submit my n^ason to ''Credo,'' without criHlibltv testimony. Rcmie and lii^ason! The Mass givt^s ui> all reason. 172 REV. GEO. A. LOFTON, D. D. Catholics have always seen their difficulty here; and in vain they have tried to meet it. The important distinction between what is above reason and what is contrary to reason, on this point , is admitted by Bossuet. However, he says, ^^ Every time that a man shall object that a point of faith is not only above reason, but directly contrary to reason, mnst we enter with him into the inquiry?'' He who refuses, abandons the discussion ; and whether Roman Catholics will refuse to prove the miracle of the Mass to be such or not, it is certain that Protestants will inquire into its claims. Anything proved to be contrary to reason, cannot be made an article of faith, and a law, to a rational and moral being. If Rome were going to controvert with an iniidel upon the proof of Bible miracles, she would reason upon testimony, just as Protestants do ; but when the Mass is in question, she cries, '^ Credo." This is the end of all controversy. ''Anything contrary to reason cannot be proved ;" and as long as the miracle of the Mass stands unproved— though performed around us every day — we shall conclude that it is contrary to all reason ; stands without a shadow of testimony or analogy, and we shall not submit our reason to it. Alas ! that a man like Cardinal Bellarmin should say, forty years after the Council of Trent, '•For me, I believe, like the Council, that transubstantiation may be proved by scripture, but it may nevertheless be doubted whether it be so, since very learned and very ingenious men have been of a contrary opinion." — On the Eucharist^ hoolc iiL^ ch. ^5 Rome and Reason ! What tyranny of the Church over the mind ! To believe the Mass, is a degradation of physical, mental and moral philosophy. It is a surrender of the manliood and the conscience of the human race to blind credulity. It is an irrational and superstitious bending of the soul to idolatry. It is declared to be a propitiation, an offering, for the sins of the living and the dead. The priest THE ROMISH MASS. 173 not only judicially absolves from sin, but lie makes a sacrifice for sin. He stands at the altar in the place of God, by appointment ; and thousands are trusting their im.mortal souls to priestly absolution, and to the efficacy of priestly propitiation in the Mass. It is not a mere formality, a mere sentimentality, and mere convenient observance, but it is claimed as an absolute reality, that the Mass is a sacrifice for sin and a conductor of grace to the soul. Rome has no ''non-essentials to salvation" in religion. She is, through her priests, a savior of the soul by sacraments, in toto tt partihus These sacraments are not '^generally e^^^wiml to salvation," as Pedobaptists sometimes say ; but tliey are absolutely essential. If Rome be true, we are altogether wrong in our doctrine of salvation by grace, alone, through faith ; if we are right, Rome is altogether false in her system of ecclesiastical, priestly, and sacramental salvation. She thrusts a Church, a priest and a sacrament between tlie soul and Clirist ; and with the iron hand of an absolute despotism over the conscience, she anathematizes all who deny lier dogmas. I and you are ''accursed," if we cannot believe this dqctrine of the Mass — the sum of all Romish sacramen- talism, this masterpiece of all assumption, this contradiction of all scripture, reason, sense, analogy and history I 3. The Mass is a historical novelty. The Mass has given great trouble, historically, in the Roman Catholic lanks. Stej) by step has Rome developed into her colossal ])r(n)ortions andJnto all her stupendous assumi)ti()ns. She was in (Mubryo for five centuries, when Boniface ILL, put on the tiaia of *' uni- versal bishop," contrary to the protestations of Grtgory, his predecessor, against the similar claim of John of CcMistan- tinople, which he denoujiced as an(iclirislian and diabol- ical. Antichrist which bi^u'an to woi'k in thi^ aposn.lic churches luid now b(HU)m(M'nthro]i(Ml as tht^ 'Mniu of >in/' sitting in the place of God and (exalting himself a boV(^ (»o(l. Errors which crept, like '^litth* foxes" into th(^ first clunches, s 174 KEY. GEO. A. gradually developed into stupendous dogmas. Among the elders of tlie Churclies there rose in each congregation the hishoip^ pri7nus inte?^ pares ; from this sprang the distinc- tion between ^r ^^5?/ 2!(?r 05 and ^2? /^^cojpo^/ from this distinc- tion grew the diocesan episcopate ; from this usurpation originated the provincial bishop; from this enlarged the patriarchate ; from this resulted ultimately the papacy of Rome — the mistress of the world— in A. D. 606. This claim had been conceived before ; but in this year papal suprem- acy reached its birth. Hierarchy had established its domin- ion under the sanction and authority of the State ; and the various orders of ministerial government were supremely fixed over the congregations of God' s heritage. The pres- byter took the name of priest^ and the deacon aspired to an office never bestowed in the gospel. In the course of time, bishops became the successors of the apostles ; and arch- bishops and cardinals graced the extended dominions of the pope. Priests, deacons, subdeacons, acolytes, exorcists, readers and porters comprised the seven orders of the min- istry. By inference and tradition sprang corresponding errors in dogmas and ceremonies. Baptismal regeneration ; the con- ferring of perfect grace under the priestly hand of confirma- tion ; eucharistic sacrifice and the impartation by it of divine life , penance (including contrition, confession and satisfac- tion), with the power of priestly absolution ; extreme unc- tion, absolving the sins of life and indulging the soul in Purgatory ; a host of other sacraments — all of which, except seven, were excluded, as such, at the Council of Trent ; the confessional, indulgencies, the inquisition, persecution, in- fallibility, temporal sovereignty — all these and a hundred more unwarrantable assumptions gradually sprang into the legislation of the papal hierarchy over the Christian world. Endless ceremonies — fasts, feasts and days ; with altars, can- dles, robes, images, crosses, banners, rosaries, relics and charms; mingled with the worship of Mary, saints, angels, n)>"^ '*Many perished in the Mountains/' Page 500. THE ROMISH MASS. 17,") pictures and even of the pope liimself— all these grew, nntil the bondage of a system worse than Pharisaism was bound upon the backs of the idolatrous and superstitious devotees of Romanism. Jesus and his apostles never dreamed of , these additions to the gospel ; and yet Rome claims inspi- ration from God for these things — nay, goes back to the original scriptures to find most of them. We demand in vain for her 'Hhus saith the Lord." The declarations of a pope, ex catliedra^ are all that can be replied ; but even his infallibility is an assumption unproved. Thus popery has grown — an entire historical novelty in itself —and with it all, the sacrament of the Mass. Christ and his apostles knew nothing of it. The apostolic fathers are silent upon the subject. The Epistles attributed to Clement, Barnabas, Ignatius, Polycarp, Herenas and others, give no clue to such a doctrine as is set forth in the Council of Trent. These were the companions and co-laborers, some of them, of the aposth^s. Gross usurpations and errors had already sprung up in their day ; and some of these very writers had imbibed some of them ; but this doctrine of trans iibstantiation was unknowm to them. Tlie Ciiurcli fathers are quoted by the Catholics as teaching this awi'ul heres}^ ; but whatever they may have written, figuratively, v/hich seemed to favor such a theory of the Eucharist, has been contradicted by other writings which exjilaiu their meaning. Even if the early Church fathers had 1 -n ored Iransubstantiation it is of no authority, if it cannot W found in the written law of Jesus Christ. We shall quoh^ a f(nv passages, however, to show that these fathers could not liav.' known the doctrine^, of transubstantiation. Justin says, in his famous apology: ^* Oii ilio day cf the sun we meet. The Scriptures are read, and lluai an elder exhorts the people to follow such bi^autiful (^xani|)li'S. We rise, we pray anew; watiM*, bri^ad and w'ww wxc set down. The presbyter gives thanks, and (liosi^ i)restMil say. 176 KEY. aEO. A. LOFTON, D. D. Amen. A part of the consecrated things are distributed, and the deacons take the rest to the absent." There was no separation there of the cup from the laity. Tertullian (against Marcion, Book iii.) says: ''Jesus Christ having taken bread, and having distributed it among his disciples, made it his body, saying, ' Tiiis is my body,' that is to say, the figure of his body." Origen (against the Marcionites), saj^s: ''If Christ, as the Marcionites claim, had neither flesh nor blood, of what body and of what blood were that bread and wine the signs and images ?" In his Commentary on Matthew, Origen calls the bread of the Eucharist "a figurative body." Of course Origen was a heretic accord- ing to Cardinal Duperron. Ephrem, speaking against the curious inquirers into the body of Christ, says :. "Taking bread into his hands, he gives thanks and breaks it in figure of his immaculate body." Macarius (Homily xxvii) says : ' ' Bread and wine are offered, being the figure of the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. They who participate in this visible bread eat, spiritually, the flesh of the Lord." Theodoret (in his first Dialogue Against the Eutychians) says: "The Lord has honored these reliable signs with the name of his body and blood, not changing their nature, but adding grace to nature." Yigilius (against Eutychius) says : ' ' When Christ' s flesh was on earth, it Vv^as not in heaven; and now that it is in heaven, it is not on earth." Chrysostom (against Adimant, ch. xii.) says: "Before the bread is consecrated, it is called bread ; but when divine grace has sanctified it through the intervention of the priest (presbyter) then it no longer bears the name of bread ; it becomes worthy of being called the Lord's body, aWioicgJi the nature of the bread remains in it^ St. Augustine, whose figurative expressions seem to have fur- nished so many weapons to the partisans of the real presence theory, says to Boniface : "Had the sacraments no resem- blance to the things whereof tliey are the sacraments, they THE ROMISH MASS. 177 would not be sacraments. But in consequence of that resemblance, they take most frequently the name of the things themselves " He said (against Adimant ch. xii.) : ''The Lord had no difficulty in saying, 'This is my body,' when he gave the sign of his body." In an Epistle to Dea- con Peter on the Faith, he says again : "This sacrifice (of the Eucharist) is a thanksgiving and a commemoration of the blood of Christ which he offered for us." In his Chris- tian Doctrine he saj^s : "If a commandment forbids any- thing that is shameful or criminal, or recommends what is useful and good, that command is not figurative ; but if he commands a bad thing or forbids a good thing, it must not be taken literally." He then gives the Eucharist as an in- stance : " ' If ye eat not,' saith the Savior, 'the flesh of the Son of Man and drink not his blood, ye have no life in you.' It looks as if in these words he commanded a crime. It is a figure, then, by which we are recommended to com- municate in our Savior's passion, by engraving in our memory, in a manner at once affecting and useful, tlie kill- ing and crucifying of his body for us." So much for these fathers. Whatever they may have written which seems, in their tropical style to favor the dogma of transubstantiation, is opposed by other writings, which clears them from such a charge, or else renders them useless witnesses. The doctrine of transubstantiation has created since the days of the fathers, great conflict of opinion. Whatever date may be assigned to transubstantiation, it was an opinion, not an 'article of faith, until the tenth century. The Council of Constantinople, 754, in opposing the worship of images, pronounced the substance of the bread tlu^ onl}^ "ma^c" of Christ. Tlie second Council of Nice, 784, however, in supporting the worsliip of imagers declaied on the contrary that the sacrament, after consecration, was not the '^ image^'^ of Christ's body and bk)od, but ^^])r()perly his body and bk)od." So says Archbishoj) TiUotson. 12 178 RET. GEO. A. LOFTON, D. D. Bellarmln says (Bellarmin de Eacliarista, lib. i.), '^Xone of the ancients who wrote of heresies hath put this ' error * (of the corporeal presence) in his catalogue, nor did any of them dispute about this ' error ^ for the first six hundred years." Archbishop Tillotson. replying to this expression of Bellarmin, says: '*True, for this doctrine of transub- stantiation was not in being during the first six hundred years and more, as I have shown there could be no dispuie against it.'' — Tillotson on Transubstantiation, Ser. xxvi., p. 182. It was in the early part of the* ninth century that Paschasius, a Benedictine monk, began to advocate the doctrine of transubstantiation. '' Charles the Bald ordered the famous Bertram and Johannes Scotus, of Ireland, to draw up a clear and rational explication of that doctrine which Paschasius had so egregiously corrupted.'* — Bowl- ing's Hist. Pome, p. 194. Bertram and Scotus both decided that the bread and wine were the signs and symbols of the '.'absent body and blood of Christ." Rabanus Maurus, archbishop of Mentz, replied, in 847. to Paschasius, in which he opposed the ''error" of transubstantiation with all his ''might." The discussion originated among the learned divines of that day — the question of '' Siercorlanis??i/^^ Long after this,* in 1045, Berenger, of Tours, in France, firmly maintained the doctrine of Johannes Scotus against the monstrous doctrines of Paschasius. Berenger however was persecuted and opposed by Leo IX., Hildebrand and ]S"icholas II. ; and in several private Councils his theory was silenced. He died in 1088 ; but it was not until 121 5, in the Council of Lateran, that transubstantiation was decreed to be a doctrine of the Church of Rome. The word transub- stantiation was applied to the Eucharist about the year 1100 ; and it was inserted in the decree of the Council by Pope Innocent III. The decree read as follows, for the first time : "The hoAy and blood of Christ are contained really in the sacrament of the altar, under the species of bread THE ROMISH MASS. 179 and wine : the bread being transubstantiated into tlie body of Jesus Christ, and the wine into his blood by the power of God.' All opposition to the doctrine was by no means silenced. Between the Council of Lateran and that of Trent there were doctors who, while declaring their belief in it, wei'e yet admitting that they could not see it in the Scriptures. Duns Scotus, (CommentarYon, Bookiv. of Sentences) says : '^ I know not any Scripture declaration which, by itself, can oblige me to admit it." Cardinal D' Ailly {ibid Commentar) says: ''This opinion, that the substance of the bread always remains, is not repugnant either to reason or scripture. It is even easier of comprehension, and more rational, if it could accord with the determination of the Church. ' ' Gabriel Biel, (in his Lessons on the Mass), says: "We do not find in the Bible in what manner Christ' s body is there. That is proved by the authority of the Church and the saints, for by reasons it cannot be proved!" Bishop Fischer (against The Captivity of Babylon), just before the Council of Trent, said: ''Here (in the narrative of the institution of the Supper) there is not a word by which one might prove the true presence of the body and blood of Jesus Christ. One cannot prove that, then, by Scripture." Hundreds of learned and pious Catholics have never believed this horrid doctrine, having neither scriptural authority, rational testimony, nor the historical axiom, "what has always and everywhere been taught, must be true," to support it. The Council of Trent went squarely over to transub- stantiation, which was unknown for more than six oi^nt urit\^ ; which was hinted at in the Council of Nice, 787 ; wliicli was first taught by Paschasius in the ninth ctMitury; which received its name about the year 1100 ; wliich was hotly contested by learned and able Catholics until the Council of Lateran in 1215 ; which Avas not admitttid by many erudite and pious Catholics between the Councils of J^ateran 180 REV. OEO. A. LOFTON, D. D. and Trent. There was scarcely any debate upon the doc- trine at Trent — save between the Dominicans and Francis- cans, as to whether Christ was adduced or produced in the Eucharist ! The adversaries of the dogma were anathema- tized in the gross ; and it is but just to say that transubstan- tiation was the great ^''burning article-^ in the language of Archl)ishop Tillotson, during the days of Eoman Catholic persecution. Since the days of Innocent, multitudes of holy men and women have expired at the stake for not assenting to this contradiction of reason and scripture, first established by law in 1215. During the reign of bloody Queen Mary of England this dogma was generally made the ''test question" by the persecutors of the Romish hier- .archy. Rome has anathematized even her own historians who have been candid enough to relate the origin and progress of this doctrine. Bellarmin himself declares that it was Paschasius who first positively taught the ' ' real pres- ence," in the ninth century. Paschasius himself admits that many of his brethren accused him, as we have already seen, of exaggerating the meaning of Christ's words. It is not possible that so many eminent personages — abbots, bishops, archbishops, could have controverted, against Paschasius, what they knew or thought to have been *an article of faith in the Church. Nobody, at the beginning of this controversy, was anathematized, persecuted, or burnt at the stake, for taking part against the doctrine. It is unquestionably a historical novelty — gradually develop- ing into an absolute dogma at the Council of Trent. Canon I , of that Council, reads, as follows : ''If any one shall deny that in this most holy sacrament of ttie Eucharist, there are contained, truly, really, and sub- stantially, the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ ; or say that it is only a sign, or figuj*e, or by his influence (virtute) ; let him bb accursed!" THE ROMISH MASS. 181 There are numbers of canons upon every phase of the subject, cursing, indiscriminately cursing, all who do not accept it as a whole and in all its parts. A wafer-god, the Host is now an object of idolatrous worship ; and, in the language of Urban, the priest at the altar can boast of ''the eminence granted to none of the angels, of creating God, the Creator of all things !" This is the great ''burn- nig article," so revolting to reason and sense, and for which millions of honest and intelligent Christians have been anathe- matized and consigned to an ignominious death. ' ' O blessed Savior !" exclaims Archbishop Tillotson, "thou best friend and greatest lover of mankind, who can imagine that thou didst ever intend that men should kill one another, for not being able to believe contrary to their senses'? for being unwilling to think that thou shouldst make one of the most horrid and barbarous things that can be imagined, a main duty and principal mystery of thy religion ? for not flatter- ing the pride and presumption of the priest who saj^s he can make God, and for not complying with the folly and stupid- ity of the people who are made to believe that they mm eat him?" Think of a mortal man, and often a corrupt one, creating his God in a wafer ! making an oblation of him for the sins of God's people! eating^ the Son of God, whole and entire, for the impartation of divine life and grace ! rational men and women bowing before the wafer-idol in worship and adoration ! and you have before you the awful assumption of the Mass ! Behold the Feast of Corpus Christl, established by Pope Urban IV., in which the wafer- idol is carried through the streets of Romish cities, in pro- cession, signalized by scenes of merrinuMit, rejoicing and illumination, and upon its approach all fall down ui)()n tlu^ii knees to worship it, till it has passed— and you \k\\o somt^ idea of the spirit of idolatry and superstitious ch^votiou which this monstrous inv(^ntion has creatinl in \\\o In^arts of a stui)etied and benighted world ! On an}' occasion, 182 REV. aEO. A. LOFTON, D. D. whether public or private, the Host receives special adora- tion and honor ; and it has a talismanic power over the great Roman Catholic heart, which no obligation, no rea- son, no scripture, no cause, no sense, no other power, can resist. It is the mystery of all other mysteries ; and in proportion to the mystery of mystery, is mystery a blind, conscienceless, irrational power. A sacrament which atones for sin in the present world — which can indulge in, and raise the soul from, Purgatory — is something which the naturally depraved heart of mankind would rather believe, than to fall upon the simple heart faith, heart purity, and personal responsibility, of salvation by gkace. Natural religion all tends to machinery — to churchism, priestism, sacramentalism. It wants an indulging religion — even if it has to pay for it, wor'k for it, die for it ! Catholicism pretendedly holds salvation by grace in its own hands. The authority, power and work of Christ has been usurped and vested in the Church, the priest, the sacrament ; and, according to her, whosoever is saved must go through the ecclesiastical mill of Rome ! In itself, Romanism is a sys- tem of redemption by works ; and without her Church, priest- hood, and sacraments — of which the Mass is chief — the grace of God is of none eJTect ! Rome, tried in the balances of Reason, Revelation and History, is found wanting ! In conclusion, I assume that whatever can be proved of the Mass, can be proved of every other dogmatic assumption of Rome. They are, all of them, scriptural perversions, rational absurdities, historical novelties. The germ of all religious error lies, first, in taking inference for law ; and, second, in canonizing tradition as the word of God. This leaves the Church a legislator ; and legislation implies either an infallible Church, or an infallible human head. That the Church is "the pillar and ground of the truih " — its interpreter and supporter — I have no doubt ; but its Head and Lawgiver is Christ only ; its law is the revealed THE ROMISH MASS. 183 scriptures which have been handed down to ns ; and the Holy Spirit its guide and inspiration. The last will and testament of our Lord Jesus Christ is our only law ; and the sentiment of Chillingworth is true, '-'-The Bible only is the religion of Protestants!'^ True Protestantism has always been a unit upon the great fundamental doctrine of salvation by grace — justification by faith; and whatever errors Protestantism, of any character, has imbibed, has arisen more from symbolization with Rome, than from any other variation from the scriptures. Upon vital questions, Protestantism has been substantially a unit, however unfortunately divided upon less essential points of an ecclesiastical and ceremonial character. Rome, herself, has not always been a unit. A novelty of gradual development, she has had a multitude of variations upon almost every dogma she holds. Popes have contradicted popes, and some of them have been deposed for corruption and heresy. Councils have contradicted councils ; and scarcely a doctrine she holds now, but was once unknown as such, and has been hotly controverted in its origin and development. There is the Greek Catholic, Roman Catholic and Anglican Catholic, Churches — each (condemning the other for heresies, and each claiming tliaf the other is a schism. I had rather have the moral and substantial unity of Protestantism, with the Bible as its only law, Christ as its only Head, the Spirit as its only Guide — stripped of a thousand vague inferences and traditions — than to have the so-called unity of several Catholic despotisms, each elaiining to be the only Church of Christ, each claiming apostolic succession and authority, each claiming infallibiliiy and sanctity, wlien scripture and history contradict each and all th(vse claims. What is unity and succession, if tht^y Ix^ a unity Jind succession of error, corrupt ii.fi, crinu^ aiul blasphemy? I do not doubt the unity and iU'(>\-^sic)n oT Antichrist, right diiectly from the apostolic Churches— 184 REV. GEO. A. LOFTON, D. D. althougli the unity, like the succession, has been gradual and conflicting in its origin, growth and development, Lucifer and his angels could, by usurpation and assump- tion become the successors of Jesus Christ and of his first disciples and apostles, and establish a universal church. Rome, with her celibacy, mariolatry, monkerj^, worship of saints and relics^ with her striking resemblance between pagan and papal ceremonies, with her inquisitions and persecutions, with her swords and her keys, with her arrogation of infallibility and supremacy, with her corrup- tions and bloodshed, is welcome to her claim of succession and unity ! So of all other churches which 'have had a similar history of superstition, tyranny, cruelty, error, and crime. It is only the fulfillment of that prophesy which points out, characterizes and symbolizes the Apocalyptic w^oman, ''drunken with the blood of the saints," and the mother of a progeny which has, to some extent, resembled herself. "The gates of hell" have never prevailed against the people of God — the true Church of Jesus Christ— holding to the simple and venerable doctrines, ordinances and prac- tices of the New Testament. Like Israel of old, in the wilderness, the^Church of Christ has been a w^anderer and a pilgrim, or, like Jerusalem, a besieged city ; sometimes in the fair open plain of prosperity ; again amid the rugged crags of mountain fastnesses ; again in caves and dens, and hid from the sight of history, as the ''woman in the wilder- ness ;" and always and every where persecuted and ' ' spoken against." There is and can be no Catholic church, in the sense of a "universal church," until the Millennium. The church may be sometimes '' general^' ^ but never "univer- sal," until Jesus comes and binds Satan, and reigns him- self, personafly, on the earth. We are to preach the gos- pel to all nations ; but there is no promise that all nations shall be convei-ted, until Jesus comes and when a nation THE ROMISH MASS. 185 shall be converted in a day. There are 1, 300, 000, 000 of peo- ple on earth, to-day — not one fourth of them true Christians — and for any Church to be claiming ' ' catholicity, "is puerile and anti-scriptural. There is no church universal, even in any one country; and it is certain that the Church of Christ never has yet dreamed of being universal in this gospel age. The word ''catholic," itself, is a historical novelty; much more the title, " Homan Catholic!" ''The Church" or "Churches" of God and of his Christ, are all the assumptions of title which are made in that modest, pure, holy and unpretentious gospel of Jesus Christ. There is nothing in that book which resembles the pompous charac- teristics, claims, ceremonies, forms, dogmas and assump- tions of Catholicity. The republican simplicity, indepen- dence, purity, individuality and humility of Christ, of his apostles and early churches, have not the slightest corres- pondence with the Catholic pride, imperialism, absolutism, royalty, and gorgeous paraphernalia, of the Anglican, Roman and Greek Catholic Churches. These, and every- thing else, to the extent of favoring these, are novelties, unknown to Christ and his early Churches ; and sprung up and developed out of false inferences from God's word, and from unreliable traditions of the first anti-cliristian errorists. What is true of the Mass, as a scriptural per- version, a rational absurdity and a historical novelty, is true of the entire system of Roman, and of all otlier Cath- olicism. ♦We want more evangelism and less catholiv'i>m. A catholicity which is not gospel," is anti-christian, Avhetlier it be the claim of liberalism or absolutism, of rationalism or ritualism. The only catholicity I recognize, is .that which accei)ts Christ and him crucified, as tlu^ oni^ and only Priest of our profession ; his sacrifice on Calvary, as tlu^ ouo and only offering for sin ; his salvation by grace, alon(\ tliri^imh faith, as tlu^ one and only redem])ti()n ; his word, \\\c one and only law of our faith and practice ; his S])irit, the one 186 KEY. GEO. A. LOFTON, D. D. and only guide of the Christian ; a New Testament jCJhurch or ordinance, as the one and only organism or institution of our government — each and all stripped of unwarrantable INFERENCE and TRADITION. .^^/H-<^' EEV. JOHN A. WILSON ON IMAGES, INDULGENCES AND INFALLIBILITY. "For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth ; for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts. But ye are departed out of the way ; ye have caused many to stumble at the law ; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saitli the Lord of hosts."— [Malachi, ii. 7, 8. » V Such were the priests of God's ancient people. They corrupted God's ordinances ; they made void God's law by their traditions, and the people whom they should have guided and upheld, they caused to stumble. The blind led the blind, till finally both fell into the ditch. History is constantly repeating itself; as the wise man tells us, ''The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be, and that which is done, is that which shall be done ; and there is no new thing under the sun.'' In the priests of apostate Rome I lind an exact counter- part of the priests of apostate Isi*ael. Tluy have ])()! luted and profaned all religious rites; they have made tlu» commandment of God of none eifect by their tradition, and they are rapidly leading on a deludtnl ]hh)J)1(* to a dreadful ditch which you can see d(^scribed in tlu^ closini;' cliapttMs of the book of Revelation. They tt^ach men (hat \hr mo.^t infamous crimes can be confessed to them and pardoned 190 REV. JOHN A. WILSON. for a sum of money. Tliey teach men that if all their sin is not washed away at the hour of death, they have still '^another plank after shipwreck," and can confidently count on the remaining dregs being boiled and fried and beaten out of them in that laboratory of punishment and purification termed purgatory. Let me repeat one of the principal arguments with which they seek to establish this fable and false hope. In Matt, xii. 32, Christ says that whosoever shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. ''"Wherefore/' says Bishop Challoner, ''our Lord, who could not speak anything absurd or out of the way, would never have mentioned forgiveness in the world to come, if sins not forgiven in this world could never be forgiven in the world to come." I will analyze that argument ; and the best way to do so, will be to put it in the form of a syllogisim. Some sins are not forgiven in this world ; some sins are not forgiven in the world to come ; therefore, some sins are forgiven in the world to come. Is that Reason, or is it Rome ? Is that logic, or is it lunacy? I see Professors and logicians before me. I will submit to any of them if it would not be as true a conclusion from the above premises, to say, therefore the moon is made of green cheese ! Yerily, Aristotle and the makers of Romish Catechisms must have fallen out. Surely the whole family of authors on logic must be honored with a place in the Index Expurgatorius. From that specimen of a Bishop ' s reasoning, what, think j^ou, must be the logic of the laity? If that be a fair sample of their reason, I am the less surprised at the readiness with which they sacrifice it upon the altar of "Mother Church." It is a violation, however, of the old Levitical law, which forbade offering to the Lord the lame, and the halt, and the blind ! I must not linger here, however, but pass on to the IMAGES, INDULGENCES AND INFALLIBILITY. 191 broad and inviting field which opens up before ns this evening ; so broad, indeed, that I can but briefly touch the several topics. I have promised to show you this evening til at the Roman Catholic Church believes in images and saints ; in indulgences and in infallibility. The worship of images and saints is ver}^ closely connected, so I will give you a hasty sketch of the Papal belief on both these doctrines. On the subject of image-worship, the delightful unity of the happy family of Rome is fairly illustrated. Her Councils flatly contradict one aaother, and her commenta- tors are at war. I might just say here, that you have read history, to little purpose if you have not discovered a natural bent in fallen humanity toward idolatry. Hence, as the Church began to apostatize, we would look for tlie introduction of images. They were introduced ; and, in a Council held in Constantinople in the year 764, they were solemnly condemned. But in the year 787 the Empress Irene, an infamous woman, who had murdered her husband, called a Council for the express purpose of authorizing image-worship. Let me ask you to notice as we pass along, that for many centuries it was the civil rulers, and not the Popes, who called the Councils of the Church But to come back to Irene and her Council. It met, as directed, in Constantinople; but the hatred of images was so intense in that city, that the Council did not dare to issue the decree which was demanded. It either adjourned, or was dis- solved, and called to meet the next yi^ar at Nice. There, under tlie name of the Second Council of Nice, and und( r the influence of such a woman as I have describiub this Council denounced the previous anti-image Council as heretical, and ordained the w^i'ship of images. But this is not all. In the year 704 the Emperor Charle- magne called a Council, to meet at Erankfort-on-tlu^-Main. This Council emphatically condemned the decrees of the 192 REV. JOHN A. WILSON. previous Council, and forbade the worship of pictures and images. Other Councils, and synods were held, which condemned image worship in no unmistakable terms. But apostacy was steadily gaining ground. In 842 the Empress Theodora called a Council at Constantinople. She had lately deposed the Patriarch John, with 200 lashes, for his opposition to images; so you can readily imagine that her Council, with great unanimity, gave its sanction to the worship of idols. But let this suffice to show the struggle through which the Church passed in contending against this monster error, which struck at the very seat and center of her life, her spirituality. It was a struggle like that of a noble animal battling against the ever tightening folds of a huge serpent. The resistance grew gradually less, till at length spiritual worship lay prostrate, and idolatry, bold and bald, held up its hydra head in triumph. But now let me show you a sample of the evidence with which this Church, which possesses a monopoly of salva- tion, seeks to establish the worship of images. I will quote first from Dens' Theology: ''Prove that the images of Christ and the saints are to be worshipped." ''It is proved in the first place from the Council of Trent, where it will say against sectarians, that the images of Christ, and of the Virgin Mother of God, and of the other saints, are to be kept and retained especially in temples, and that due honor and veneration are to be paid to them." Now mark, the first great authority for the worship of images is drawn, not from Scripture, but from the Council of Trent. I can tell you, further, that the Council of Trent presented no Scripture proef, but in its last session hastily passed over this subject of imitge- worship, evidently feeling that it was not able to grapple with it, and that the less said the better. But now as to the quality of the worship given to IMAaES, INDULaENCES AND INFALLIBILITY. 193 the images, what does the Church of Rome teach? for this is the loophole through which she seeks to escape from the charge of idolatry. I quote again from Dens' Theology. ''With what wor- ship are the images of Christ and the saints to be wor- shipped ?" ''Saint Thomas replies to the question, that images may be honored with the same worship with which their pro- totype is honored, but only with a relative or respective worship; therefore, the images of the saints are worshipped with the respective veneration of dulia; of the Divine Vir- gin with the relative worship of hyperdulia; of Christ and of God with the respective worship of latria,^^ 'Many, however, maintain that this respective worship paid to images ought to be less than the worship shown to the prototype itself; and hence they infer that the worship of latria is due to no image. They rely upon the Seventh Synod," (which synod or Council I have shown you was denounced and cursed by the Second Council of Nice) "which says that latria is not to be shown to images, be- cause it belongs only to the divine nature. But others explain the seventh synod concerning absolute latria, which is not due to the images of Christ, although the respective worship of latria is due to them; and, therefore, they may be adored with less honor than the prototype, which are not n^pug- nant to one another. However this maybe, it is sufficient for us against sectarians, that all Catholics teach and prove that the images of the saints are to be worslnj)piHl I" I find then, from authority whicli no one will dare call in question, that the great Saint Thomas Aquinas, one ot* the very first authorities in the Churcli of Home, t(\iclu^s tliat an image may rec(4ve the same worshij) as that wliicli is represented by it; Clirist\s inwige may roceivi^ tlie sann^ worsliip as Christ himself. I find, m(>r(H)V(^r, (hat otluMs, among whom is the celebrated Cardinal Bellarmin, another 13 194 EET. JOHN A. VTILSOX. Papal light of the first magnitude, teach that the same g?^«Z/^?/ of worship is to S3e given to the image as to that which it represents, only it should be less in degree. Now, I ask, has that Chuicli of endless inventions ever j^t devised a metiu- to indicate to her people the length to which it is safe to go in this worship of images i AYho is going to tell the poor, ignorant, bigoted worshipper before that picture, when he has gone as far as the law allows ? Can any such line of distinction be drawn ? You answer, I am sure, from the depths of your souls, it is impossible, it is impossible ! You are aware, ])erliaps, that the Church of Rome divides worship into three grades, latria being the name of the highest sort; that which is something less is styled Tiyperchdla, while the lowest order of all is called dulia. Xow, I confess my inability to comprehend fully such a division of worship. It reminds me of an Irishman vrho used to work for us von the farm at home. He had different rates which he charged for a day's labor; his very highest price was for what he termed his ''best licks." Can it be that ^'latria'^ is only another name for the Papist's ''best licks" in devotion ! Now, with one blow I will demolish "dulia," and pass on. The Church of Rome makes a distinction between the Greek words douleia and laireia^ and tells us that the former means an inferior worship, which may be given to images, vdiile the latter expresses the homage which is due to God. Now I assure you that distinction springs from the fertile imaginations of Papal theologians, and has no support from the word of God. Here are two examples ; Matthew vi. 2-1, ''Ye cannot serve God and Mammon." But here turning to my Greek Testament I find that the word trans- lated serve, or worship, is the very same from which Rom- anists draw their "dulia/' their inferior worship. Christ says in these words, then, ye cannot give the worship of IMAGES, INDULGENCES AND INFALLIBILITY. 195 ^'dulia" to God and Mammon; or, in otlier words, ye must not give '' dulia" to any object but God. One other text, I Thessalonians, 1-9: '^Ye turned to God from idols, to serve the living and trae God." Here again I find in the Greek that the service which the Thessalonians gave to the living and true God, is but the translation of that word in which my Roman Catholic friends find their inferior worship "dulia." Taking, then, their own divisions of wor- ship, I slibmit to you if I have not proved, beyond all controversy, that those who give the worship of ''dulia" to pictures and images are guilty of idolatry. Indeed the Romish theologians were so well satisfied that their practice was unscriptural, that they struck the second commandment out of the decalogue. "I defy any man," says Dr. Berg, ''to show me the second command- ment in any one of the manuals of the Romisli Church, before the Reformation." If any of 3^ou happen to have Batler's Catechism, much used in Ireland, just look for the second commandment in it. It is said that in a spelling- book commonly found in Italian schools, the fourth com- mandment is also omitted, and in its stead is inserted this command of Rome : "Remember to keep holy the days of festivals." In Dens' Theology I read as follows: '-Prove that it was not forbidden to make these imagn^s." "It is plainly proved ; for we read, that likenesses and images of cher- ubim were made by Moses at the command of God ; also, by the command of God, Moses erected a brazen serpent." Dr. Dens does not add, howev(^r, as he should liav(* done in all honesty, that these cherubim covennl the nuMvy seat in the holy of holies, and were never seen sav(^ l)v tlh^ High Priest once a year. 11 (^ does not add, that wlien tht^ ]nH^- ple fell to worship]:)ing tlu^ brazen serpi^nt, tlie good Hezekiah broke it in piecc^s ; he brok(^ also, tlu^ iinagi^s. The great uneasiness of the Romisli Church on this sub- 196 REV. JOHN A. WILSON. ject is indicated in all their catechisms which I take up. They seem to consider Protestants a very good and safe authority, so the question is always asked, ''Hav^ you any instances of this kind of relative honor allowed by Prot- estants?" "Yes; in the honor they give to the name of Jesus, to their churches, to the altar, to the Bible," etc. Now, do you ever see a Protestant kneeling to any of these things, and prajdng to them, or througli them ? If you do,^ then exercise your privilege as a Protestant, and ^tell him to go home to Rome ! None deny that the highest worship is given to the bread and wine in the sacrament of the Supper. The Council of Trent says, "The faithful must give to the holy sacrament of the altar that divine adoration that is due to God only; and it must be no reason to prevent this, that Christ our Lord gave it to be eaten." Now, from a Protestant stand-point, this is confessed idolatry. But with the fifty causes and more, which they say prevent the sacrament from being formed, it amounts to a moral certainty, even from a papal point of view, that at times transubstantiation does not take place, and the poor, deluded people are giving the divine worship of latria to a bit of bread. I will just say now, in conclusion on this topic, that the Papists' plea for images is just the plea of all idolaters. We do not worship the image, say some Romanists, but G-od through the image. So say the heathen. No heathen, so far as I am informed, teaches that the worship terminates on the idol. The worshippers of Jove and of Minerva certainly did not ; the Egyptians certainly did not ; the worshippers of Baal certainly did not. Israel made a calf at Sinai, but only as " a help to devotion," for Aaron said, "to-morrow is a feast of Jehovah." But God was angry with them, and punished them for their idolatry. Again and again, Israel resorted to these heathenish "helps to IMAGES, I^^DULGENCES Ayj) INFALLIBILITY. 197 devotion," and were as often punished severely for it. At length Jeroboam led off the ten tribes, and set up two calves to be worshipped ''relatively ;" but for this act, he received that title of infamy, ''Jeroboam, the son of Xebat, who made Israel to sin," and he brought upon his nation such utter destruction that no man knoweth their dwelling place until this day. Now, concerning this false worship of Jeroboam, let m^^ say, the people sacrificed nominally to the Lord, just as in Jerusalem ; but they bowed before the calves and kissed them. If, however, you want to see bowing and kissing, to an extent which Jeroboam's calves never enjoj^ed, just go to some favorite image of the Church of Rome, that of St. Peter, for instance. Though the statue is of brass, the great toe is very considerably worn away by this oscuhitory process. The worshipper first bows till the forehead touches the toe, then kisses it, then bows again. Yet this, forsootli, is only lifting his heart aloft to God ! Is any one so simple as to believe this ? Surely not. The distinguishing mark of the faithful in the days of Elijah was that they did not bow the knee to Baal, nor kiss liis image. (1 Kings, xix. 18.) Let me now give you the prayer used in the consecra- tion of images, as it is found in the Kituale Romanum, authorized by Pope Urban YIII. "Grant, O God, that wliosocn^er before this iniauc shall diligently and liumbly, upon his knet^s, worship and honor thy only begotten Son, or the blessed virgin ^^according as tlie image is that is consecrating), or this glorions ai)osth\ or martyr, or confessor, or virgin, that h(^ may i^^tain by his or her nun-its, and intei-cession, graci^ in this j^resciu lift*. and eternal glory luMH^after.'- Against all tliis ti^aching and ])]-actic(' o\' tht^ Cliui-rh oi Rome, I might bring you the uniform tt'stimony o\' history, that image-worsliip i-vvariably loads to tlu\ui-ossost r(>rms 198 RET. JOHN A. WILSON. of idolatry, even when introduced under pretense of aiding true devotion. I will only detain you, however, while I cite the command of God: ''Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above or that is in the eartli beneath, or that is in the water under the earth ; thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them." (Ex. xx. 4.) That is surely sufficiently plain and precise. But lest there should be any mistake on this vital matter, God says again, in the fourth chapter of Deuteronomy : "Take ye, therefore, good heed unto yourselves, lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of an}^ figure, the likeness of male or female, for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spoke unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire." "God is a spirit ;• and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth." (John, iv. 24 ) On the subject of saint- worship, I will add but a word, for it is all of a piece with that of which I have been speaking. In the first place, let me say, we do not know that the departed dead hear us when we pray to them. The Bible nowhere implies such a knowledge on their part, but always the reverse. Elijah told his devoted servant to ask what he would hefore he loas talien aioay from Mm, Another matter would have to be settled before I could be induced to pray to saints. Is it perfectly certain that all the Roman Catholic saints are in heaven ? You can readily see the necessity of having this point definitely settled ; because if the dead do hear us and come at our call, and if by mistake I should call upon one who is not in heaven, but somewhere else, I would then be in the embar- rassing position of having, not a white elephant^ but a Mack sail 1 1 on my hands. Yet if history does not do vast inj ustice to the canonized, the real saintship of some of them is, to say the very least, apocryphal. But I have another difficulty. niAGES, INDULGETsXES AND INFALLIBILITY. 199 If tlie saints can hear the prayers of those on earth, can they hear the ciy of all from every quarter of the globe { If they can, then are they omnipresent and eqnal withOocl. But we are told in the "Catholic Christian Instructed'' that "the saints may know them by the angels, whose conversation they enjoy." Now, that does not help me out of my difficulty in the least, for I deny that angels hear our prayers. But suppose tliej^ did ; then picture to your- self such a scene as this would imply. Imagine an angel before the throne crying out. Ho, St. Patrick, some one in Cork is praying to you. But his voice has not ceased to echo when another, and another, and ten tlnmsand times ten thousand others cry out to the saint that his immediate help is invoked in every quarter of the globe. Fancy the confusion of poor Patrick. Would he not wish he had never been canonized % There is another objection to this doctrine which appeals very strongly to my Protestant mind, that is, the Bible for- bids this practice. In the "Grounds of the Catholic Doc- trine" I read : "We desire no more of the saints than what we desire of our brethren here below." Take, then, the example of the great Apostle Peter : when the Centurion fell down at his feet, "Peter took him up, sa3'ing, stand up, I myself also am a man." Another example conclusively condemning this custom, is found in Rev. xix. 10, where we are told that John fell down at the feet of the angel to worship him; but the angel answered, "see thou do it not." Dr. Dens exj)lains this by saying, 'Mtwas on account of the great holiness of John." But in the "Abridgnirin of Christian Doctrine," Dr. James Doyle, with h^ss candor, cites this text in support of saint-worshij), and aiirully omits the angeFs answer. Is tliat a sani])h^, 1 would aslv, of the honesty of "Holy Motiuu' Church/' out of which there is no salvation? Is it any wondtu- that iht^ Church, which can so utterly pervert and mutilate and misrepresent 200 KEY. JOHN A. WILSON. and dismeinl:)er the Word of God, should he anxious to keep it from the people, in order to cover up her decep^^'^n ? Let me give you now a sample of the prayers offered to the saints, from the "Christian's Guide to Heaven," page 198: "O5 blessed Virgin, Mother of God! and by this august quality worthy of all respect from men and angels, I come to offer thee my most humble homage, and to im- plore the aid of thy prayers and protection. Thou art all- powerful with the Almighty, and thy goodness for mankind is equal to thy influence in heaven ; ^ ^ ^ and what- ever graces I have received from God, I confess, with hum- ble gratitude that it is through thee I received them," etc., etc., ad nauseam. In contrast with this blasphemy, let me quote a few passages from the word of God : ''If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous ; and He is the propitiation for our sin-s." (1 John, ii. 1.) ''There is one God, and on^ Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." (1 Tim. ii. 5.) "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life ; no man Cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John, xiv. 6 ) ''Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." (Matt. xi. 28.) This is the priv- ilege and the duty of all. Why, then, will men leave the fountain of living waters, and make them cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water ? O brother man ! let us accept the Lord Jesus as our intercessor and our friend ; let us hide ourselves, like Moses, in the Rock, and there the Lord will show us His glory, and make His goodness pass before us. I G^ome now to the Papal doctrine of indulgences. And here I must be very brief, though the subject is very broad. It involves one of the principal differences between Papists and Protestants. No doctrine of the Rom- ish Church is more destructive, as none is more opposed to IMAGES, INDULGENCES AND INFALLIBILITY. 201 the teaching of the Scriptures. If yon asked me Avhat in- dulgences were, I could not answer you more briefly, or more plainly, than by saying, the Romish doctrine of in- dulgences, stripped of all its trimmings, is simply justiji' cation by loorlis. It was against this teaching, and in de- fense of the Bible doctrine of justification by faith alone that Luther made the issue which led to the Reformation. Happening upon a Bible in the library of the monasterj^ Luther read in it, ''The just shall live by faith." That little text, brought to the great man' s soul by the Spirit of God, was the seed of the glorious Reformation. The infam- ous John Tetzel was sent out axmed with full power by Pope Leo X., to sell indulgences. Luther refused to acknowledge their legality, and complained to his bishop. But the Bishop, meek man, advised him to be quiet or he would get into trouble. The agent from Rome even went so far as to have piles of wood set on fire, to suggest to the heretic the propriety of not interfering with his trade. But Luther was cast in the wrong mould to be frightened by lire. He nailed his ninety-five propositions to the door of the Church in Wittemberg, and offered to defend them by argument. Thus, the sale of indulgences were made of God the means of bringing about the Reforniatiou, to which we are indebted to-day for civil and religious libc^ity — a3'e for civilization itself, in all its truer and higher foi ms. But let us come to the exact teaching of the Cliuich on this doctrine. The Council of Trent says that ''Whoever shall affirm that when the grace of justification is receivtnl, the offense of the penitent sinner is so forgiven, ajid the siMitence of eternal punishment so reversed that then^ remains no temporal punishment to be enduriMl before the entranei^ into the kingdom of lu^aven, either in this world or in the future statt^. in puigatory, h^t him b(^ nceursiul.'' In Dr. Dens' Theology this quc^stion is nskinb '^ What is an indulgence f "It is the remission of tiMnjioial j)un- 202 RET. JOHN A. WILSON. ishment due to sins remitted as to tlieir guilt, made by tlie power of the keys, apart from the sacrament, by the appli- cation of satisfactions which are contained in the treasury of the Church/' ' ' ^Yhat is meant by the treasury of the Church r ' ^ ' It is an accumulation of spiritual blessings remaining in divine ac- ceptance, and vrhose disposition is intrusted to tlie Church.'' The Doctor goes on to explain that tlie resources of this treasury are infinite by reason of the satisfaction of Christ, and the superabundant satisfactions which are daily added by pious men. Now I will illustrate this doctrine as clearly and candidly as I can. During our late war, men were sometimes drafted to serve in the army. If they furnished substitutes who passed muster, the Government was satisfied ; but if they could not do this, the Government vrould itself, for a sum of money, provide a substitute. IS' ow the Cliurch of Rome teaches that part of the punishment due to sin, and part of the redemption price of the sinner, is not borne and paid by Christ, but the sinner must bear it, or pay it himself. He may, however, provide a substitute to take it in part, or in toto. But here comes in the charity of ''Mother Church," and her great care for her children. Lest some poor fellow should be unable to find a substitute Avho had more righteousness than he needed, or knew what to do with, the Church erected a great reservoir, or elevator, or treasury, and all the goodness of the faithful, over and above what they barely needed for themselves, reverts to the Church, and is stored away, to be disposed of to other faithful who are a trifle ' ' short. ' ' To a grain or oil merchant this would look a little like getting up a ''corner" in the ''heavenly treasures of tlLe Church :" but v/here there is a ''savor of filthy lucre," or ''an appearance of falsity,". the Council of Trent recommends that no questions be asked I I must, howevfer, present a few objections to this IMAGES, INDULGENCES AND INFALLIBIEITY. 203 toll gate on the way of life, and if I sin in so doing, I pro- mise to never draw on the ''heavenly treasures" of Rome to pay my commutatioji. In the first place, I deny the very point which the Chnrch of Rome takes for granted, viz : that a part of the sinner's ransom price is paid by himself. The Bible, from beginning to end, cries out against such teaching. I deny that the sufferings which God's children may be called upon to endure are any part of the price of redemption, and I deny also that priests or Pope have any treasury in Heaven, or earth, or under the earth, from w^hich they can draw to pay the least part of the price. In all the Roman Catholic Catechisms which I have seen, the case of David is referred to as an example. It is said ''that although upon his repentance the Prophet Nathan assured him that the Lord had put away his sin, yet he denounced unto him many temporal punishments which should be inflicted by reason of this sin, which accordingly afterwards ensued." This punishment, however, could have been remitted by an indulgence. How absurd ! how profane ! to tell us that if Ahithophel, the perjured traitor to his friend, and the would-be murderer of his King, had only been in "holy orders," he could have, for a little backshish, saved the King from all the agony and misfortunes of his afterlife, and done that which the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering and abundant in goodness and truth, was unwilling or unable to do ! What a privilege we enjoy who live in these last days, in which the Lord has n^signed His throne and the reins of government to man ! No, no, David could never have been saved in this way, nor would he have been if he could. Like the great Paul, lie gloried in (ribiila- tion as a Patherly discii)line I'or d(^veloping his s})iriuial nature, and not as a part of the ])rice ot reiUMnplion which he was conipi^lled to l)ay, for he was alreadx' redeemed — 204 RET. JOHN A. WILSON. aot after the manner of Rome, with corruptible things, such as silver and. gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, which cleanses from all sin, and pays the whole price. I object to this doctrine again, because it teaches that tlie atonement of Christ is not sufficient for our salvation; therefore, when He said, upon the cross, '*it is finished," 'he uttered a falsehood. I have showed j'ou in my last lecture that the Council of Trent pronounces him accursed who shall say that the favor of God and the righteousness of Christ are the only ground of our justification and salvation. No; after our way has been paid, we must either work our passage, or fee the pirates who have seized upon the ship. iSTow what say the Scriptures ? ''And by him all that believe are justified from all things.^ ' (Acts, xiii. 39. ) ' ' Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight." (Romans, ili. 20.) ''Terily, verily, I say unto you, he that hearethmy word, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation ; (neither in pur- gatory nor any other place), but is passed from death unto life." (John, v. 24.) I object still further to this doctrine because it teaches that we may do more^ and he better^ than God^s holy laio requires. This surplus goodness goes into "the heavenly treasures of the Church," and is, for a consideration, applied to the account of some one else. This is the way the Church of Rome seeks to frustrate the grace of God. But turn to the law and the testimony : ''Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind and with all thy strength." (Mark, xii 30.) What room does that leave for a surplus of good works ? But again : ' * When ye shall have done all those things which are commanded 3^ou, say, we are unprofitable servants ; we have done that which was our duty to do." (Luke, xvii. 10.) INDULGENCES AND INFALLIBILITY. 205 If supererogation is a doctrine of our religion, one thing is certain, the Author of that religion knew it not. I object still again to this doctrine, because it teaches that pardon may 1)6 purchased with money; hence the extensive and lucrative traffic in indulgences. But in my Bible I read : ''They that trust in their w^ealth, and boast themselves in the multitude of their riches ; none of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him." (Ps. xlix. 6.) I read in the eighth chapter of Acts, of one who tried to buy the gift of God with money ; but his experience should surely warn others to not repeat the experiment. O, that every one in the Church of Rome could hear this joyful message of the gospel, "The gift of God is eternal life and this life is in His Son." My last objection is, that the Church which teaches this doctrine does not believe it. In proof of this assertion I need only remind you of the fact that they are now pray- ing, and saying masses for the deliverance of their dead Pope. Yet think of how many "planks" he had "after shipvfreck.' ' Here was the whole " heavenly treasure of the Church " under his own control. He had likewise the sacra- ments of penance, and of extreme unction, and I know not how many more. Yet, after all, there remains a doubt — a dreadful^ dreadful doubt — he may he in purgatory. How can a man with such a faith, or, I should rather say, with such an absence of faith, approach death w^ithout fear and trembling? O how much better the simple faith of the Protestant, who, leaning only on the rod and staff of the Great Slu^p- lierd, can smile at dc^ath, and say, I am going honu^ ; wIumi I am absent from the body I shall be present with tlu* Lord. But I must now speak of the greatest and lu^west dogma of the Roman Church, viz: Ill^a.llil)ilit3^ That is lu^rdounia of dogmas; the Ali)ha and the Omega, the beginning and tlie end, the iirst and the last of a good Catholic's faith. IMAGES, INDULGENCES AND INFALLIBILITY. 207 is a Protestant invention, and is no article of the Catholic faith." The Council of Constance, which deposed three Popes, and, likewise, the Council of Basil, decreed, "That a Synod has its power immediately from Christ, to which every one, of what State soever, or dignity he be, yea even the Pope himself ought to be obedient, which if he be not, bnt shall contnmaciously contemn the decrees, statutes and ordi- nances of the Council, except he repent he shall suffer con- dign punishment, though it be the Pope himself." I believe I am correct in stating that the generally accepted doctrine of that Church, prior to the meeting of the late council, was that the Church's infallibilit}^ lay in the council and Pope acting together. But behold ! in a moment a new planet is seen in the Ecclesiastical firmament. Nor is it any vagi*ant comet, but a genuine fixed star, which has been there from the begin- ning, but is only now discovered by the dim-eyed sons of men. The chief Scripture authority on which the Pope founds his pretensions is those well-known words of Christ: ''Thou art Peter," etc. But this old argument has been explained and exploded ten thousand times, so I will not go over it this evening. I will give you, very briefly, a few of my reasons for reject- ing the Pope, and with him, of course, his infallibility. First, then, there is no evidence that Peter was ovei* the other apostles, or even that he was first among cquah\ After the text to which I have just alluded, BishopChalioiier, in the Catholic Christian Instructed, proves Peter's su])reni- acyin tliis wise: ''Matthew, reckoning tluMiauu\-i (>f tlu^ apostles, says: The first, Simon, who is calUnl PetcM*. Kow it do(^s not appear that he could be said to b(^ llu^ iirst upon any other account, but b.y reason of liis su])r(Mnacy." The Bisliop settles the wliole ({ueslion, h()\vcn'(M', wIumi ]\o adds, "It is worth observing that our Lord was ph^asinl to 208 KEY. JOHN A. WILSON. teach tlie people out of Peter' s ship, and that he ordered the same tribute to be paid for himself and Peter." Now I am sure YOU liaYe neYer met with anything more thoroughly puerile, even in the nursery. Yet such is the evidence upon which we are asked to accept the doctrine of the Papacy, with all its endless train of absurdities, even to infallibility. In the Council of Jerusalem, it was James who gave the opinion which was adopted. Paul ''withstood Peter to the face because he was to be blamed;" and the Church sent Peter to Samaria to aid Philip. These things surely prove that Peter was not a Pope. But if a belief in this doctrine is essential to our salvation, as the Vatican Council declares, do you not sup- pose, are you not sure^ it would have been as clearly revealed as the saving doctrine of justification by faith, or that glorious fact, the resurrection of the dead? My next objection is, Peter never was in Rome, as far as we know. There is not the least evidence in Scripture, or in history, to show that Peter ever Yisited ''the Eternal City ;" yet despite this absence of evidence the Church of Rome coolly declares that he was there, and pronounces her anathema on all who ask for proof. My next objection is, if . Peter had been in Rome and established a Church, there is not an atom of evidence in Scripture, or anywhere else, to proYe that the Pope is his successor, and the head of the uniYersal Church. This, you will notice, is a very important link in the chain of evidence, but unfortunately for the Papist, it is a missing link. Where did Peter gay that Linus, or any other man, w^as to succi^ed him as Pope or apostle ? No- where ! Nowhere ! Indeed Mr. Darwin does not lack so many links in his chain of evidence that the Pope's ances- tors were apes, as the Church of Rome lacks in her chain of proof that the Pope's ancestors were apostles. My next objection to the Pope and his infallibility, is the IMAOES, INDULGENCES AND INFALLIBILITY. 209 utter absence of resemblance between liim and Peter. Here is a little picture of the Popes of Rome from the Ecclesias- tical Annals of Cardinal Baronius of that Church. ''What unworthy, vile, unsightly— yea, what execrable and hateful things the sacred and apostolic see has been compelled to suffer. To our shame and grief be it spoken, how many monsters, horrible to behold, were intruded by them into that seat which is reverenced by angels ! With what filth was it her fate to be besprinkled which was without spot or wrinkle ; with what stench to be infected ; with what impurities to be' defiled !" That is a sorry picture of the Papacy by a Papist. But, further. Dr. Dens says that some admit that Pope Marcel- linus burnt incense to an idol, but he claims it was done through fear of death, ''and, therefore, that he sinned against the faith, but did not lose the faith internally." I am aware, however, that this is not evidence in the case, since the Roman Catholic Church teaches that her clergy may be living in mortal sin, and yet perform the highest and most holy functions of the Church. Peter, however, was not only pure, he was unpretentious as well. He never dreamed of supremacy. He says, "The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder." He was only an equal among equals. He forbade being lords over God's heritage. But how difi'erent the Pope. One of his titles is ^'Dominus Bens noster Papa^^ — Our Lord God the Pope. The editor of the late Pope's Speeches, Rev. Don Pasquale, speaks of the inspired author in this way, "He is the portentous Father of the nations; he is the living- Christ ; he is the voice of God ; he is Nature, that protests ; he is God that condemns."^ I could give you many more such blasphemous titles *See "Speeches of I'ope l*ius IX.," by Right Iloiioiablc W. E. Gladstone, M. P. 14 210 I^EV. JOHN A. WILSON. from Romish authors, hut I spare 3^011. The Apostle Peter lifted up Cornelius, and refused to let him kneel before him. Does the Pope of Rome d j likewise 'i No, by no means. I have seen the late Pope, arrayed in gorgeous apparel, and seated upon a throne, borne into the Cathedral on the shoulders of men. ''The faithful" kneeled before him as to a god. You would expect the successor of Peter to object; but no, he snuffed up with complacency, like Herod of old, the impious incense, and smiling blandly, he waved his hand to and fro, scattering his blessings over the kneeling idolaters. Yet this modern Herod claimed to be the vicar of the meek and lowly Nazarene, who, when men would force him to be a king, withdrew from them into a mountain alone. I might also speak of the contrast between Peter and the Pope, inasmuch as the former taught submission to kings and governors, while the latter — the infallible Pope — teaches that he is supreme over all Mugs and governments^ and can free subjects from their allegiance. But my last objection to this doctrine, is, that it kills itself. If you erect a great building on the sand, it is sure to tumble about your ears ; just so does this pretentious and unfounded doctrine of the Church of Rome fall by its own weight. Let me prove this. Gregory the Great, who was Bishop of Rome from the year 590 to 604, used this language, "But I confidently sa}^, that whosoever calls himself universal Bishop, or desires to be called so, in his pride, is the forerunner of antichrist, because in his pride he prefers himself to the rest." Now was Pope Gregory infallible ? if so, then the present Pope is the forerunner of antichrist, and, my point is proved. But was Gregory not infallible? then is my position equally well established, and away go Rome's proud pre- tensions. Take which horn of the dilemma you please, it matters not to me, but down goes your ridiculous dogma IMAaES, INDULGENCES AND INFALLIBILITY. 211 of infallibility forever ! Dr. Dens explains this statement of Gregory in the following lucid language, ''St. Gregory means that it is blasphemous in this sense, as though one man were bishop of the whole Church, and the rest were not true bishops of their own Churches." But again, Pope Urban and his learned counsellors condemned the teaching of the immortal Galileo in these words, ''The proposition that the sun is the center of the world, and immovable from its place, is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical, because expressly contrary to the holy Scriptures. ' ' Is the sun still spinning round our earth ? or is this infallible decree of Urban, an infallible falsehood ? Again, "The Holy Council of Basil pronounces, de- crees, and declares Pope Eugenius IV. to be notoriously contumacious, a simoniac, a perjured man, an obstinate heretic." His Infallible Highness returned their compli- ments in the following elegant style : "The evil spirits of the whole world seem to have collected in that den of rob- bers at Basil : we declare and decree that each of the above were and are schismatics and heretics." Beautiful infalli- bility ! ! But again, I find John XXIII. deposed by the Council of Constance. Had John lost his infallibilit}^ ? or was the Council of Constance fallible ? And if councils can ever be fallible, may it not be that the Vatican Council had one of those fallible "spells" when it pronounced the Pope infal- lible ? How am I to reconcile these things ? How am I to get any firm footing for my faith ? Still further, I find that not once or twice, but manj^ times, there were rival Popes ; yet all Roman Catholics admit that but one could be a true Pope, the rest were impostors. But liere arises a very serious difficulty : these impostors — who, by the confession of Catholics, were no more successors of Peter than I am — created cardinals and bishops, some of whom afttMward became Popes. In view of this notorious fact, let n\o ask, 212 RET. JOHN A. WILSON. v/hat Ibecomes of tlie glorious succession from the Apostles^ of wliicli tlie clergy of the Catholic Church boast so loudly ? The answer must be, It vanishes like darkness before the day ; it fades away like ''the baseless fabric of a vision.'^ Another hindrance to my accepting the dogma of infal- libility is this : I find three Popes, Benedict XIII. , Greg- ory XII., and Alexander V., all infallible at one and the same time ; but alas ! my poor lieart sinks within me as I read on, and find that each eternally damned and demol- ished the other, so far as papal bulls, and paper bullets, can damn and demolish. TJiey spoke ex cathedra^ too ! Now, must I go to hell if I cannot reason away my reason, and believe that these men were all infallibly right and infalli- bly wrong at one and the same time ? Council contradicts Council, and Pope curses Pope, yet everything is serene, and all are not only ''honorable men," as Brutus was, but they are ivfallihle as well ! Is this reason, or is it Rome ? Is it heresy to come out fi'om a Church which makes such drafts upon our credulity ? Is it heresy to protest in the strongest terms against such nonsense — against such absurdity — against such impiety? If it is, then let me die the death of a heretic, let my last end be like his I I must, with Archbishop Kenrick, live and die in the belief that '' God only is infallible,'^ But you will ask very properly, what are the efi*ects of these doctrines upon the people 1 If they are deceitful, must they not be des- tructive 1 One word on that point, and I will close. The Pope's mouth-piece in St. Louis, says, "Behold an age sweeping onward toward destruction. Behold that united body, the Catholic Church. Behold the real power to reform the world I" Let me illustrate her capacity as a reformer. So nearly as I can gather, statistics show that in proportion to our Roman Catholic population, there are IMAaES, INDULGENCES AND INFALLIBILITY. 213 four times as many criminals from that Church as from all classes and creeds put together.* How long would it take such a Church to '' reform an age sweeping on to destruction?" About as long, it seems to me, as it would take the current of our river to float a vessel from St Louis to St. Paul ! There is certainly but little inducement for you and nie to cease our heresy, and go back to the bosom of '' Mother Church," when the glaring fact stares us in the face, that the chances would be increased by fourfold, that we would come to the alms house, the work-house, the penitentiary or the scaffbld. But for the full and fearful effects of Romanism, 3^ou must leave our Protestant country, and go to lands con- trolled by that Church. In Protestant England there are annually, it is said, four murders for every million of population. But cross the channel into Catholic France, and you find thirty ; in Naples one hundred ; and in Spain it is said the rate is still higher. Visit Mexico, and South America, and you will see what Popery is, and what it does, where it has the power. But I must conclude. I am well aware I have not gone to the depths of this "mystery of iniquit}' ;" I have but touched at its ''deceivableness of unrighteous- ness," but I have presented enough of proof to convince any candid, thinking man, that the claims of the Church of Rome are unfounded, and that her teaching is false. I urge you all, Protestants and Catholics, to examine tliis, and every subject for yourselves. Be not afraid to read. Be not afraid to bring your belief on eveiy subject to tlie test of history, but above all, to the touch-stone ot* (lod's word. Having done so for m37self, T am more than evtM* oi^ tliis conviction ; The Reformation was neither a misuiulnsland- ing nor a mistake ; but a grand moral revolution iu the in- 214 KEY. JOHN A. WILSON. terest of God and humanity — in the interest of truth and purity and justice — in the interest of the present and eternal well-being of the race. It was a sublime declaration of independence from the most abject bondage that has ever laid its polluting and unmanning grip upon poor humanity. XiEOTXJI^E BY EE V. J. G. WILSON, D. D. ST. JOHN'S CHURCH (M. E. C. SOUTH), ST. IL.OTJIS. PETER NOT THE CHURCH. Matt. xvi. 18—'* Thou art Peter, and upon this rock T will build my Church." Luke xxii. 32—" But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not." THE ISSUE DEFINED. There are two conflicting theories as to the unity of the Church of Christ. The Roman Catholic Church holds to an ecclesiastical unity with Peter, as the Vicar of Christ, at its head, and his alleged successors, the Popes, inheriting his authority. Protestantism holds the Catholic or Universal Church to be a spiritual body with Christ for its head, present with it by the Holy Spirit, and its present head needing no Vicar. It holds all true believers to be members of this spiritual body, and discerns a religious or spiritual unity amidst llie diversities of ecclesiastical forms and tenets as to theological or religio-philosophical dogmas. The action oF the Vatican Council, especially in formulating the dogma of the infallibility of the Pope, 218 REY. J. G. WILSON, D. D. has more sliarply defined the issue and intensified the Controversy. Nor is this to be regretted. Professor Taylcr Lewis, in one of his Vedder Lectures, well says, ''In a feature of the times, which is much dreaded, may be discovered one of the chief sources of hope for the cause of truth. We may reverently tliank God that it is a day of sharp and inevitable issues. The most sacred truth, the foulest forms of error stand face to face." He says again, and truly, "error must develop itself. It is especially true of religious error. It has no tenacity, no holding-place. It cannot stand still." Such has manifestly been the case with the errors of the papal theory of the church, which have gone on developing until we see their culmination in the decrees of the Vatican Council. SCRIPTURAL ARGUMEJ^T. True to Protestantism, which always appeals to the sacred Scriptures as the prime authority, we begin with the argument from Scripture, especially from the New Testa- ment. We have in the New Testament four histories of the life and teachings of Christ, containing special instructions to His apostles as to things tcf be done after His death, and conversations with them after His resurrection. We have, in the Acts of the Apostles, a history .of the infant Church, including, amongst other things, sayings and doings of Peter himself. We have apostolic epistles written to churches and individual believers, instructing them as to Christian faith and practice. We have, in the book of Revelation, letters — sent by Christ through John to seven important churches — containing commingled praise and censure in regard to their doctrines and discipline. Now, we lay this down as a rational and almost self- evident proposition, that if the unity of Christ's Church was to be maintained by universal submission to Peter as the Yicar of Christ, and its purity of doctrine preserved by PETER NOT THE CHURCH. 219 accepting with unquestioning faith the teachings of Peter and his successors, the Popes of Rome, as inspired and in- fallible teachers, there must be found in these sacred Scriptures plain and unmistakable proofs' and declarations to this effect. These inspired and apostolic writers, in- structing the churches in matters pertaining to faith and morals, doctrines and discipline, would not have left them to doubtful inferences or unrecorded tradition as to a mat- ter of such fundamental importance to the ecclesiastical and doctrinal unity of the Church. How stands the case upon this appeal to Scripture ? It can be safely asserted that as regards Scripture warrant, the whole structure of Peter's primacy rests upon two say- ings of our Lord, addressed to Peter, already given as our text. Now, as to the first of these, if this language be a com- mission given by Christ to Peter, constituting him his Yicar, the fountain of all authority in the church and ultimate arbiter of its faith, it is passing strange that this transac- tion, so stupendous in importance, should have been recorded by but one of the four Evangelists ; the om^, too (Matthew) who wrote in Hebrew, from an eminently Jewish stand-point, and for the Jews. Passing strange especially is it that John, writing his gospel at a later period, for the Gentiles, and for the evident purpose of opposing heresies that were creeping into the faith, should make no all^ision to Peter or to his successor at Home, as divinely commissioned to decide infallibly all matters per- taining to faith and morals. But what says the text? As a support for tlie Papacy, Clirist must be understood to have made Pinter himself the rock upon which His Churcli should be built, not Pi^ttM-'s faith in Him, not Hinis(^lf tlu^ objective of Pc^tiM-'s subjiH'- tive faith, but Peter hims(4f as the CommissioniHl Primate of the Churcli. Does Chiist say so ? He sa3's, '^Thou art 220 REV. J. a. WILSON, D.D. Peter (Petros), and upon this rock (petra — a different word and of different signification) I will build my Church." Now, upon the authority of Councils and Popes, we must interpret Scripture according to the unanimous con- sent of the fathers, although, as the Roman Catholic Arch- bishop Kenrick of St. Louis pertinently says, ''It is doubt- ful whether any instance of that unanimous consent can be found." He adds, ''But this failing, the rule seems to lay down for us the laws of following, in their interpretation of Scripture, the major number of the fathers that might seem to aj^proach unanimity." Following, then, this modified law of interpretation laid down for us by such eminent Roman Catholic authority, AVhat must we accept as our Savior's meaning? Archbishop Kenrick, in his famous speech, which he was, by the gag law, so rigor- ously enforced in the Vatican Council, prevented from delivering, or even from printing in Rome for distribution g^mongst the members of the Council, gives five different interpretations by the fathers, of this passage. Of the third of these, which "asserts that the words ' on this Rock,' etc., are to be understood of the faith which Peter had professed — that this faith — this profession of faith — by which we be- lieve Christ to be the Son of the living God, is the eternal and immovable foundation of the church," He says "This interpretation is the weightiest of all, since it is followed by forty-four fathers and doctors." It may be added that the preponderance is in weight, as well ' upon thtMi- word, but searched the S('ri])tures to S(^e wliethcM- thi^ doc- trine preached had tlu^ir sanction. How forcibly does this contemptuous opinion of the Catholic cl(M'g\ , as to tlu^ ability of the people to n^ad and und(M"stand the Bible, 226 EEY. J. G. WILSON, D. D. remind us of the lianglity and sneering expression of the Scribes and Pharisees concerning the common people who heard Christ gladly — -'Have any of the riilfrs or the Pharisees believed on him i But this people, icJio Jcnoweth nottJielaiCy are cursed/' These infallible Popes, who are to decide for the univer- sal church in all matters pertaining to faith and- morals, are themselves the creatures of fallible men, elected as they are by General Councils or Colleges of Cardinals, in whom, according to the Vatican Council, infallibility does not reside. They may, in iheir fallibility, elect a man who is an infidel at heart, as at least one Pope was strongly sus- pected to be, or a man of notoriously immoral and scandalous character, as several Popes have, manifestly, and according to high Roman Catholic authority, been ; or heretical in doctrine, as some of them have been pro- nounced by other Popes and by councils to have been. Political interests and intrigues are known to have had much to do with the election of Popes, and Catholic States have held an acknowledged right of veto ujDon an election. At one period we have seen three rival Popes, each claim- ing to be the duly constituted head of the church, and anathematizing the others with their adherents, and declar- ing their orders null and void, with no infallible tribunal to decide which of the three was the true Yicar of Christ. The Apostles knew themselves to speak by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and God attested their authority by signs and miracles. But here we have a different case altogether. We are crilled upon to accept the monstrous theory that Christ holds himself ready always to ratify elections, often carried by unscrupulous means and improper and profane influences, and resulting it may be, in the elevation to the Papal chair of not only ignorant and incompetent men, but of men destitute not merely of religion, but of morality and common decency. It was PETER NOT THE CHURCH. 227 a strong argumeni; against the theory of creationism which taught that the physical nature was transmitted from parent to child, but that, in every instance of concep- tion, the soul was created by act of God, that this put God at the bidding of unholy lust and adulterous intercourse to create souls for its fruit. A more monstrous theory is this which puts Christ at the bidding of General Councils, often tumultuous and riotous, or of corrupt and intriguing car- dinals, and bids Him put upon the man of their choice, however unfit in body, mind or spirit, such a measure of His Holy Spirit as to invest him with plenary authority over the Universal Church, give him the Keys of Heaven, and make him the infallible teacher of faith and morals. Believe it who can ! The alleged necessity for an infallible Pope at the head of the church to pronounce authoritatively as to what is truth, is based, by Roman Catholics, upon the liability to error in interpreting the Scripture. But the difficulty is increased, not lessened by this expedient. This but adds to the list of inspired writings all bulls, decretals, encyclical letters, or other utterances of the Pope, speaking ex- cathedra. These, in addition to the Scriptures, are to be interpreted by the Bishops and priests, and their meaning tanght by them to the people. But these documents are to be translated into various languages, and the transhitors are fallible and may err, and these bishops and priests are fallible and may err, in their interpretation, and the people are fallible and may mistake the utterances of their Bishoj^s. There will even be difficulty in deciding what utterances of the Pope are fallible, and what infallible. The fallible Vatican Council assumed to limit the infallibility of their infallible Pope. He is infallible only when speaking ex- cathedra and on matters pertaining to faith and morals. What wide room for variety of opinion as to wIumi lu^ is speaking ex-cathedra and bjMnspiration of tlu^ Holy (Jhost, 15 223 KEY. J. G. WILSON, D. D. and when as a fallible man giving liis private opinion. Againj Who shall define the scope of the terms faifJi and moralSj so that we shall absolutely know within what limits he is infallible and christian consciences bound by his utterances ? Do politics and the functions of civil government come under this broad term morals^ or not ? Is the Pope competent to decide infallibly between political parties, and to ratify or annul the legislation of States, and bind or loose at his will the loyalty of subjects to their governments, because these are matters of morals ? We see how wide the field of discussion and consequent uncertainty is still left open, and how momentous the questions involved in limiting with precision the sj)here of the Pope's alleged infallibility. In arguing thtit God must be expected to provide man with such means that he cannot miss the knowledge of what is true in religion, Roman Catholics demand that God must do what He has done in no other department of human knowledge and interests. Civil institutions and governments have a powerful influence on human happi- ness and progress. God has simply ordained society by constituting man a social being, and endowing him with reason and the capacity of profiting by experience. He has not unmistakablj^ pointed out to liim the best form of government, but has left the nations to work out the problem for themselves, and develop themselves by so doing. Nature abounds in substances and powers adapted to promote, by the right knowledge and use of them, the well-being of men. God has provided no infallible teach- ers of science and art. He has simply placed man, endowed with the necessary powers, in the midst of this wealth of nature, to subdue it under his dominion, and He has so done as a Latin poet says, acuere mortoZia cor da — to sharpen human wits. Thus from analogy we may expect Him to deal with man in regard to moral and religious truth. ii:x<.seutlon of Sir iohh ouloi\«tli\ l\\^> 017 PETER NOT THE CHURCH. 229 He. will furnish the mine and the requisite powers, and then, whosoever will seek for wisdom, as for hid treasure, shall find it. If any man is willing to do His will, he shall know of His doctrine. Love of truth is better than know- ledge of it, and search after truth may tend more to moral and spiritual culture and progress than even the possession of it. Just here lies one fundamental distinc- tion between the Roman Catholic and the Protestant. The former generally, as in the interpretation of the Savior's prayer for Peter, understands the term faith to mean the faitTi^ ^. ^., correctness of doctrine, orthodoxy of creed. The latter understands it to signify the subjective faith of the soul that, loving and trusting, professes with Peter, ''Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." To quote again from high Roman Catholic authority, Archbishop Kenrick commenting on Luke, xxii. 32, says, ' ' The words of Christ, then, are to be understood, not of faith as a bod}^ of doctrine, in which sense it is never nsed hy the Lord; nor yet of faith, the theological virtue by which we believe in God, in which sense it occurs in His discourse no more than once or twice ; but of that trust by which, thus far, he had clung to him as his Master." Dr. Hodge, of Princeton, speaking of the theory of pa- pal infallibility, says: ''There is something simple and grand in this theory. It is wonderfully adapted to the tastes and wants of men. It relieves them of personal responsi- bility. Everything is decided for them. ' ' Many liave souglit a royal road to learning and been deluded by plausible schemes of learning made easy, but have found by painful experience, nil dens dedit mortalihus sine magna lahore — that excellence results from diligent toil. The blind sub- mission to authority and shifting olf of personal responsi- bility on the one hand, and personal probing into the cause on the other, are haj^pily brought out by Shakespeare in Henry v.. Act i., Sc. 1 : King Henry, disguised, pleads that 230 EEY. J. G. WILSON, D. D. tlie King's cause is just and honorable, and is answered by a soldier : Will. — That's more than we know. Bates. — Aye, or more than we should seek after, for we know enough, if we know we are the King's subjects; if his cause be wrong, our obedience to the King wipes the crime out of us. Will. — But if the cause be not good, the King himself hath a heavy reckoning to make. Read Pope for King, and this applies well to the contro- versy in hand. ''But if the cause be not good," etc.; tremendous if ! and be it remembered that in the Vatican Council scores of learned and distinguished Roman Catho- lic prelates and scholars pronounced the cause of papal infallibility not good. In harmony with many widely ac- cepted catechisms and other doctrinal writings of the Catholic Church, and with the oaths of Irish Catholic Bish- ops, taken before the British Q-overnment, they protested that the dogma of Papal infallibility was no article of the faith. Keenan's Controversial Catechism declared it to be ''a Protestant invention." "Would it not be well for Protestants to get out a writ of injunction on Popes and Cardinals for an infringement on their patent, and stop their promulgation of this Protestant invention I Most men like to shirk heavy responsibility, but thus to remit our faith to the keeping of Pope or priest, is like a King becoming weary of the responsibility of his royal station, and laying aside his robe and crown, descending to a beggar' s estate. It is a man resigning his manhood and ceasing to speak rationally the convictions of his own reason and conscience, becoming an automaton, moving only as he is wound up by a Pope, or a parrot glibly but unintelligently repeating words taught him by his priest. This primacy of Peter and his successors, as involving PETER NOT THE CHURCH. ;231 lordship over the faith and discipline of the nniversal Church, is comparatively a modern invention. A moderate primacy, which made the Bishop of Rome primus inter pares^ enjoying a right of presidency and a superiority of in- iiuence by virtue of the importance of the diocese over which he presided, was indeed claimed, though even this was far from being universally recognized. In the early centuries General Councils were not even called by the Popes, much less presided over by them or their legates. Learned Roman Catholic authority (in the Pope and the Council) tells us truly, "For the first thousand years, no Pope ever issued a doctrinal decision intended for and addressed to the whole church. ^ ^ ^ The Popes possessed none of the three powers which are the proper attributes of sovereignty, neither the legislative, the administrative, nor the judicial." Not until the twelfth century did a Pope (Calixtus II.) publish in his own name and as of his own authority the decrees of any Council. It is a significant fact that, prior to about this time the Popes wore the simple mitre of a Bishop, but henceforward, their brows are pressed by a crown, not of thorns like their Master's, but of gold. Yet there have been some Popes who, honestly desiring a reformation of the church, and finding themselves more powerless in face of accumulated abuses than Hercules in presence of the filth of the Augean Stables, have found the tiara to be a crown of thorns, and almost cursed the day of their election, as Job did that of his biitli. But religious error, as we have said, must develop itself; the possession of great power is corrupting and engeiult^rs a thirst after greater, and so we have passed Irom (JregDry the Great, who rejected the title of (EeunuMiieal Patriarch as '* wicked and blasplu^mous" to the monstrous si)awn of the Vatican Council, and see the universal Cliureli o( Christ, its discipline and faith, embodied in the trembling old man 232 BEv. J. a. WILSON, d. d. of the Vatican, Pio Nono. Now, with a pride more haughty, and a power more absolute than that of Louis, Peter in the person of his pretended successor says, 'Teglise c'est moi — I am the Church." Where slept the thunders of the Al- mighty when this decree was passed ? Nay, they slept not. While the decree of infallibility was being read, an ominous jstorm raged about the Vatican. Blinding flashes of light- ning and reverberating peals of thunder attended the read- ing of each clause, and so thick a cloud of darkness brooded ove];this scene of arrogant blasphemy, that the reading must be finished by the light of a candle, held by an attendant, strikingly symbolizing this attempt to substitute the rush- light of papal teaching for the sun of righteousness. While we may, and should in defense of the truth, speak thus strongly, and even bitterly, of Papal errors and usurpations, let us not forget that this whole system is an enormous excrescence upon the Catholic Church and not the body itself. In her fold are to be found many pious and devout souls ; as such, were found, as Dr. Schaff ob- serves, in the Jewish Church, though their corrupt and intolerant hierarchy crucified the Savior, and cast out of the synagogue all who believed on His name. In the Vatican, where the Roman Curia and the Society of the Jesuits achieved their triumph in foisting by unhallowed means upon the Cliurch the dogma of infallibility, stands a splendid specimen of the sculptor's art. It represents Laocoon and his two sons struggling in agony and vainly in the folds of two enormous serpents. Gaze upon it, and behold a type of the episcopate, the Presbytery and the laity imprisoned and crushed in the slimy folds of the Curia and the Society of Jesus, both of them modern monstrosities unknown to the Church in her purer days. With them the theory and policy of the Church have undergone a sad and fearful change. Read the testimony of Macaulay, confirmed, too, by numerous witnesses, both Catholic and PETER NOT THE CHUItCH. 233 Protestant: ''From the time when the barbarians overran the "Western Empire, to the time of the revival of letters, the influence of the Church of Rome had been generally favorable to science, to civilization and to good government. But during the last three centuries, to stunt the growth of the human mind has been her chief object. Throughout Christendom, whatever advance has been made in know- ledge, in freedom, in wealth and in the arts of life, has been made in spite of her, and has everywhere been in inverse proportion to her power." Evil, by its very enormity, often produces a revulsion and becomes its own cure. Apparent victory often proves a real defeat. Hell exulted over the crucifixion of the Redeemer, which was his triumph and Satan's downfall, and it may yet appear that Jesuitical ambition has o'erleaped itself, and at some not distant day, ''The destruction of the infallible and [consequently] irreformable Papacy may be the emancipation of Catholicism and lead it from its prison house to the light of a new Reformation." So mote it be. Meantime it behooves us, as Americans, to watch with a sleepless eye the working amongst us of a system so, not only un-American, but anti- American. Scarcely a single principle recognized as distinctively American has escaped its ban, and it is no improbable thing that the warfare, now manfuliy waged in defense of his country and her institutions against Papal encroach- ments, by the German Bismarck, si ill have to be maintained by some American statesman. Let us rejoice in our freedonv from Papal domination, I ize our civil and religions lilvl .y, guard X\\o froedoni of iiie press, and the right of p]*'.vate Judgment in niatttM's religious and political, (\xult in. Christ our living Head, and know assuredly tluit with Him as the cliii^f corucM- stoni\ elect and precious, the gates of hell shall neviu- invvail against Ilis Church ^2^^ CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY. KEY. THOS. 0. SUMMERS, S.T.D., LL.D. According to the discipline of the Church of Rome, the clergy are forced to remain in a state of celibacy. Siricius, Bishop of Rome (A. D. 385), held that the marriage rites, which he stigmatized as obscoeace cupidltates^ are incon- sistent with the clerical state. His successors adhered to his decision. At first the prohibition referred only to bishops, priests and deacons, but from the fifth century, sub- deacons were not allowed to marry after ordination. The clergy of the minor orders were allowed to marry once, but not with widows. As the clergy were restive under these unnatural restrictions, the Council of Trent settled the matter by its authoritative decision. It affirmed tliat those who had received merely the lower kinds of consecra- tion, might marry on resigning their office, but a papal dispensation was necessary for all above a sub-deacon. A priest wlio marries incurs excommunication, and is debarred from all spiritual functions ; and if a married man wants to become a priest he must leave his wife, who must of her own free will take the vow of chastity. lu Session xxiv.. Canon 9, the Council says, ''Whoever sliall affirm that persons in holy orders, or n^gulars, who have made a solemn profession of chastity, may contract mariiagc^, and that the contract is valid, notwithstanding any ecclesiastical law or vow; and that to maintain the 533 REV. TIIOS. O. SUMMERS, S. T. D., LL. D. contrary is notliing less than to condemn marriage ; and that all persons may marry who feel, that though they should make a vow of chastity, they have not the gift thereof; let' him be accursed — for God does not deny his gifts to those who ask aright ; neither does he suffer us to bL^ tempted above that we are able. Canon 10 : Whoever -liall aiBrm that the conjugal state is to be preferred to a ii.e of virginity or celibacy, and that it is not better and more conducive to happiness to remain in virginity or celibacy, than to be married ; let him be accursed." . In passing, we must denounce the Tridentine sophism, insinuated in the contrast between marriage and chastity. Everybody knows that the Scriptures never oppose the one to the other. Those who are true to their marriage vows are as chaste as those who live continually in a state of celibacy. It ill becomes those who make matrimony one of the seven Sacraments, to say otherwise. The superior sanctity supposed to reside in the clerical character and profession, does not therefore require that ministers should be celibates — indeed it rather requires that they should enter '^the holy estate of matrimony." Marriage '4s an honorable estate, instituted of God in the time of man's innocency, signifying unto us the mys- tical union that is between Christ and his Church ; which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence and first miracle that he wrought in Cana of Galilee, and is commended of St. Paul to be honorable among ?tll men." Christ and the apostles speak in the highest terms of matrimony, and exhort to chastity in this holy estate. Matt. XLX. 3-12 ; 1 Cor. vii. ; Eph. v. 22-33 ; 1 Thess. iv. 3-8 ; 1 Tim. ii. 15 ; iv. 3 ; v. 14 ; Titus, ii. 4, 5 ; Heb. xiii. 4 ; 1 Pet. iii. 1-7. How gloriously does our great poet descant on this inspiring theme I Speaking of our first pa^rents and their connubial love, he says : CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY. 237 Whatever hypocrites austerely talk Of purity, and place, and innocence, Defaming as impure what God declares Pure, and commands to some, leaves free to all. Our Maker bids increase— who bids abstain But our Destroyer, foe to God and man ? Hail, w^edded Love, mysterious law, true source Of human offspring, sole propriety, In Paradise, of all things common else ! By thee adult' rous Lust was driven from men Among the bestial herds to range ; by thee Founded in reason, loyal, just, and pure, Relations dear, and all the charities Of father, son, and brother, first were known. Far be it that I should write thee sin or blame, Or thinlv thee unbefitting holiest place, Perpetual fountain of domestic sweets, Whose bed is undefiled and chaste pronouncei, Present or past, as vaints and patriarchs used. Here love his golden shafts employs, here lights His constant lamp, and waves his purple wings, Peigns here and revels.— [Par. Lost, iv. 743-765.] One is amazed at tlie inconsistency of the Church of Rome, which places matrimony among the Sacraments, as it is so holy and divine an institution, and yet prohibits it to the clergy because of their great sanctity. • Were not the Jewish priests holy ? or, at least, was not superior holiness required of them ? And yet thej^ were not only allowed to marry, but commanded to do so ; and the high priest in particular was required to marry a virgin, or the widow of a priest, because it was important to keep the sacerdotal blood pure and unmixed, as the priestliood descended from father to son. Romanists are fond of applying Jewisli sacerdotal titles to their ministiMS, and claiming peculiar prerogatives for them, after the Lm^itical order ; and yet they will not allow them to marry ! They claim for their hierarchy, a direct, uninterrupted succession from the apostles, and especially from l\4t^r, whom they call ''the Prince of the Apostles/' and tlu^ iirst Pope! Yet this very same Pope was a marriinl man I Our Lord wrought a miracle to cure Pinter's wift^'s mother of a fever, and said not one word about his putting away 238 EEY. THOS. 0. SrM3IEES. S. T. D., LL. D. of liis wife in order to become a P^jp- ! On the contrary, Jesus enjoyed the hospitalities of hi- he v.se at Capernaum, which, in fact, appears to have been his princijDal st<:pr.:L^- place. John seems to have had a house in Jerusalem, and it might be inferred that he had a family there. John xix. Eusebius 'E'-. His. iii. o'j says. '* Clement gives a statement of those apostles, that continued in the marriage state, on account of those who set marriage aside. *And will they.' says he. 'reject even the apostles? Pfter and Philipj indeed had childr^i-n. Philip also gave his dau^-hrers in marriage to husbands, and Paul does not dTm^r in a certain Epis:!^. to mention his own wife, whom l_r d.lnot take about with him. in ord^e-r to exp^^dite his ministry the better.* Since, however, we have mentioned these, we shall not regret to subjoin another history worthy of record, from the same au^ !i'::\ continu-d in the seventh book of the same work. Sfry . :::r\/s. 'They r^lar-,' says he, 'that the blessed Peter, seeing his own wife led away to execution, was dflighted. on account of her calling and return to her country : and that he cried to her in a con- soharory and fncourag::...' voice, addressing her by name, O thou, remember the Lord !' Such was the marriage of thos- ll-ssed ones, and such was their perfect aft^ction toward their dearest friends." In the next chapter, Eusebius quotes Polycrates, Bishop) of Ephesus. as saying. "Philip, one of the twel"e ap jstl-s. sle-ps in Hit-rapolis : another of his dai;,h:Tr- r-sts at Eph-sus." But Eusebius senms to con- :.;/--"- i//::i with Philip the Evangelist, "one of the seven." who i^:/- ::'Ur virgin daughters that prophesied, as Luke say- i/i ^J-- Acts. But this is a matrer of little consequence. as Eo:i.:a:i-:s will not allow evangelists or deacons to marry any more than priests, bishops, or arostles. L: hi- f-vrr^ti-::: chapter of this third book. Eusebius sp^ak- Li' tn-r grandchildren of Juda the Apostle, called CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY. 239 the brother of our Lord. Epiphanius says, ''Peter, Andrew, Matthew, and Bartholomew, were all married men. Tertullian did not think Paul was married, others of the Fathers thought he was." Now, we attach no importance to the statements of the Fathers, whatever Rome may say of their authority ; but Romanists can consistently say nothing against them. One thing is certain, the Fathers never dreamed that the apostles or other ministers were debarred from matrimony. Paul himself says : " Have we not powder to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" (1 Cor. ix. 5.) The Rhemists, indeed, render, ''a woman, a sister." The Romanists say this refers to the custom of rich women following the apos- tles to minister to them, as some followed our Lord. But, as Whitby says, ''This interpretation seems to have had its rise from Tertullian when he was a Montanist. Theod- oret mentions it without seeming to approve it, Clement of Alexandria confutes the enemies of matrimony from these very words, and says, "They carried their wives about, not as wives, but as sisters, to minister to those who were mistresses of families, that so the doctrine of the Lord might, without any reprehension, or evil suspicion, enter into the apartments of the women." Tliis exposition seemeth, (1) most agreeable to the words, wliicli cannot be well rendered a sister-woman^ there being no sister which is not a woman. (2) It is most agreeable to the con- text, which plainly seems to speak not of such wealthy women which could nourish the a])ostles out of their abun- dance, but of such which were to be nourislud with tliom by others. And, (3) t?> the language of the Ji^ws who called their wives sisters. Thus Tobit saith to his \\\\\\ 'take no care, my sister.' (Tobit v. 20.) And CliMiuMit, in the words now (»/it('d, ' Thiy W(M-e carritHl with tlioni, not as wives, but as sisters.' And, lastly, this seiMus best to 240 KEY. THOS. O. SUMMERS, S. T. D., LL. D. consult tlie credit and esteem of the apostles, wlio could not without evil suspicion carry about with them single women, or the wives of other men. As for the women who are said to have followed Christ, they were none of his re- tinue — they attended not upon his person, but upon his doc- trine, and so they ministered no such ground of suspicion." It is clear that Paul here affirms that "other apostles," including those of note, ''the brethren of the Lord and Cephas," took their wives with them in their apostolic journeys, and that he had the right to do so, but declined it for special reasons. Whether or not he had a wife, he does not say. In his First Epistle to Timothy (o. iii. ) he says, ' 'A bishop, then, must be blameless, the husband of one wife — one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity." So of the deacons: ''Even so must their wives be grave. Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well." Literally, "Let deacons be men of one woman" — meaning here, as in 1 Cor. ix. 5, a married woman, a wife, and the Ehemists (the Romish translators) here so render it. Now, whether this was designed to exclude agamists, or bigamists, or digamists, from the ministry, one thing is very certain, it does not exclude monogamists. It has been variously construed to forbid celibacy — successive or simultaneous bigamy or polygamy — and second marriages. As the rule obtains in the case of "the widows" mentioned (1 Tim. V. 9), who must have been each "the wife of one man," ij: cannot mean that bishops and deacons must be married, though it is generally best for ministers of every grade, and indeed all other men, to marry ; nor does it refer to second marriages for there may be as good reason (as Origen says) for a minister to marry a second or third time, as there was for him to marry once. CEI.1BACY OF THE CLERGY. 241 The injunction seems to forbid polygamy of both kinds : they were not to have more than one wife at a time, and if, in their previous heathen or Jewish state they had unlawfully divorced their wives — as divorces were common among Jews ^nd heathens — and m.ore than one of tlieir wives were living, they were adjudged unfit for the pastoral or the diaconal office, though tliey might be allowed a place among the laity of the Church, if they afterward restricted themselves to one wife. So a ''widow" similarly circum- stanced might be a member of the Church, but she could not be taken into the number of the ''widows indeed/' specified 1 Tim. v. It was necessary to put the stamp of reprobation upon polygamy and polyandry which were so common among the Jews and heathens of that age. It is of no consequence whether tlie bishop in this place •is the same as the presbyter — which we affirm — or of the same order, though higher in office, as the Council of Trent seems to hold — he was what Romanists call "a priesf — one of the sacerdotal order — Paul says he may have one wife — Rome says he shall have none! Does not this mak^ the word of God of none effect by the traditions of men —"forbidding to marry," like the apostates denounced in the next chapter, 1 Tim. iv. 3? It was very audacious in the Jesuit annotators of tlie Rhcmish version to say in their note on Titus i. 6, '*If any be blameless, the husband of one wife'' — '*If the studious reader peruse all antiquity, he shall liiid all notable bishops and priests of God's Church to hav(^ be»Mi single or continent from their wives, if any wmu^ iiian iinl before they came to the clergy. So w:is Paul, and i xliori- eth all nu^n to tlie like. So were all the aposth^s al'tt^r tiioy followed Clirist." In their not(^ on 1 Tim. iii. 2, tlh\v say, "This exposition only is agreeable to tlu^ ])raclie(^ o{' \]\o wholcMdiurch, the definition of anci(Mit councils, llu^ doclrine of the Fathers without exc(^i)tion, and tlu^ aj)osth\s' tiadi- 242 REY. THos. o. sum:mees, s. t. d., ll. d. tion." They imblushingly add, ''You may see how shamefully the state of the new heretical clergy of our time is fallen from the apostolic and all the Fathers' doctrine herein ; who do not only take men once or twice married before, but which was never heaixl of before in any person or part of the Catholic Church, they marry after they be bishops or priests." These notes were obviously written for the ignorant and credulous laity of the Romish Communion ; but it is amazing that men of learning should perpetuate such arrant falsehoods. Bingham (Antiquities of the Christian Church, Bookiv., Chap. 5) says, '^Bellarmin and other Romanists very much abuse their readers, when they pretend that the ordination of digamists, meaning persons twice lawfully married, is both against the rule of the apostles and the universal consent and practice of the Church. They still more abuse their readers, in pretending that a vow of perpetual celi- bacy, was required of the clergy, as a condition of their ordination, even from the apostolical ages. For the con- trary is very evident from innumerable examples of bishops and presbyters, who lived in a state of matrimony without any prejudice to their ordination or function. It is generally agreed by ancient writers that most of the apostles were married. Some say, all of them excejDt St. Paul and St. John ; others say, St. Paul was married also, because he writes to his yoke fellow, whom they inter- pret his wife. (Phil. iv. 3.) This was the opinion of Clemens Alexandrinus, wherein he seems to be followed by Eusebius and Origen, and the author of the interpolated Epistle" to the Church of Philadelphia, under the name of Ignatius. But passing by this about St. Paul (which is a matter of dispute among learned men, the major part inclining to think that he alwajrs lived a single life), it cannot be denied that others of the apostles were married ; and in CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY. 243 the next age after tliem we have accounts of married bishops, presbyters, and deacons, without any reproof or mark of dishonor set upon them. As to instances in a few, Valens, presbyter of Philippi, mentioned by Polycarp ; Chaeremon, bishop of Nilns, an exceeding okl man, who fled with his wife to Mount Arabion in time of persecution, where they both perished together, as Eusebius informs us. Novatus Avas a married presbyter of Carthage, as we learn from Cyprian's Epistles. Cyprian himself was also a mar- ried man, as Mr. Pagi confesses ; and so was Coecilius, the presbyter that converted him. As also Numidicus, another presbyter of Carthage, of whom Cyprian tells us this remarkable stoiy : That in the Decian persecution, he saw his own v/ife with many other martyrs burned by his side ; whilst he himself lying half burnt, and covered with stones, and left for dead, was found expiring by his own daughter, who drew him out of the rubbish, and brought him to life again. Eusebius assures us, that Phileas, Bishop of Thmuis and Philoromus, had both wife and children ; for they were urged with that argument by the heathen magis- trate to deny their religion in the Diocletian persecution ; but they generously contemned his argument, and gave preference to the laws of Christ. Epiphanius says, Marcion the heretic was the son of a bishop, and that he was excommunicated by his own father for liis hMvdness. Domnus, also bishop of Antioch, is said to be son to Demetrian, wlio was bishop of the same place before him. It were easy to add abundance more such instances, but these are sufficient to show, that men of all states were admitted to be bishops and i)resl)yters in the ])rimitiv(* ages of the Church. ^'Tlie most learned advocati^s of tlie Roman Conuuunit^n have never found any other re])!}' to all this, savc^ only a groundh^ss ])i'(^tence of their own imagination, tliat all married persons when they came to be ordaim^d, promised 16 244 EEV. THOS. O. SUMMERS, S. T. D., LL. D. to live separate from their wives by consent, which answered the vow of celibacy in other persons. This is all that Pagi or Schelstrate have to say in the case, after all the winters that have gone before them ; which is said not only with- out proof, but against the clearest evidences of ancient history, w^hich manifestly prove the contrary. For Novatus presbyter of Carthage, whose case Pagi had under con- sideration, was ce7 tainly allowed to cohabit with kis w^ife after ordination, as appears from the charge that Cyprian brings against him, that he had struck and abused his wife, and thereby caused her to miscarry ; for w^hich crime he had cc^rtainly been thrust out not only from the presbytery, but the Church also, had not the persecution coming on so suddenly prevented his trial and condemnation. Cyprian does not accuse him for cohabiting with his wife or beget- ting children after ordination ; but for murdering his children which he had begotten ; which was indeed a crime that made him liable both to deposition and excommunication ; but the other was no crime at all by any law then in force in the African or in the universal Church. There seems, indeed, in some places to have been a little tendencj^ towards introducing such a law by one or two zealous spirits ; but the motion was no sooner made, but it was quashed immediately by the prudence and authority of wiser men. Thus Eusebius observes, that Pinytus, bishop of Gnossus, in Crete, was for laying the law of celibacy upon his brethren ; but Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, wrote to him that he should consider the weakness of men, and not impose that heavy burden upon them . And thus matters continued for three centuries, without any law that we read of, requiring celibacy of the clergy at the time of their ordination." Bingham shows that the Council of Nice (A. D. 325) and other councils of that age "decreed in favor of the married clergy," ''and no vow^ of abstinence was required **>5iich as you bear \\» liltli^ favoii'* Pago 5191 CELIBACY OF THE CLEItaY. 245 of them at tlieir ordination." He cites Socrates, the Church historian, in proof that in his days, many eminent "bishops in the Eastern Churches had children by their lawful wives, and such as abstained did it not by obliga- tion of any law, but by their own choice. In Africa, bishops cohabited with their wives at the time of the Council of Trullo. Bingham concludes his masterly his- torical argument, by the assertion that he has advanced sufficient to show that the married clergy were allowed to officiate in the primitive ages ; and that celibacy was no necessary condition of their ordination, as is falsely pre- tended by the polemical writers of the present Church of Rome. In addition to these testimonies, in proof that ministers of every grade married in the primitive ages of the Church, we refer to the monuments of the fact found in the Catacombs of Rome, which bring to light what obtained in the metropolis of Christendom, the holy mother Churcli herself, as the Church of Rome is fondly considered by Romanists. The Rev. W. H. Withrow, in his excellent work on "The Catacombs of Rome" (Book iii.. Chap. 4), says: . ''There is no trace of the ascetic spirit or celibate clergy of the Church of Rome in the inscriptions of the Catacombs. On the contrary, numerous epitaphs commemorate the honorable marriage of members of every ecclesiastical grade." He proceeds to furnish a number of specimens of such epitaphs, giving the Latin inscriptions themselves : ''Thus, in the highest rank, Gruter gives the followinir, which is thought to be that of Liberius, Bisho}) of Ronu^ who died A. D. 3G6, and who was sometimes known by the name of Leo : " 'My wife, Laurentia, made me this tomb ; she was ever suited to my disposition, venerable and faithful. At lergth 246 EET. THOS. O. SrXXEES, S. T. D., LL. D. disappointed envy is cruslied. The Bisliop Leo survived his eightieth year. ' **De Rossi gives the following, of a bishop's son, of date A. D. 404. The relationship is boldly acknowledged, and not yet disguised under the phrase nepos^ or nephew : '• 'Victor, in peace, son of Bishop Victor, of the city C'f the Ucrenses.' ''The following, of date A. D. 445, was found at Xarbonne : ^' 'Bishop Rusticus, son of Bishop Bonosus.' "There are also numerus inscriptions in which presby- ters and deacons lament the death of theii' wives, ' chaste, just, and holy.- ' Would to God,' exclaims a writer in the Remie Chretlenne^ 'that all their successors had such.' Tlie following are examples: 'Gaudentius the presbyter, for himself and his wife Severa, a chaste and most holy woman/ 'The place of Basil, the presbyter, and of Peli- citas, his wife/ Observe, also, the tender recognition of family ties in the following: 'Once the happy daughter of the presbyter Gabinus, here lies Susanna, joined to her father in peace.' ""We have already seen the epitaj)h of 'Petronia, the wife of a deacon, the type of modesty,' with whom were buried two of her children. The following, of similar character, is accompanied by the epitaph of a deacon on the same stone, probably the husband who so tenderly lamented the loss of his faithful consort : " 'Maria, the wife of a deacon, ever well-pleasing to me. That departure of thine prostrated the hearts of thy friends, leaving perpetual tears and grief to us. Chaste, grave, wise, simple, venerable, faithful. God fulfilled thy wishes ; for thee thy husband, thee thy children bewail ; nor did death bear any away from thee.' (A. D. 451.) '"Epitaphs are also found indicating the prevalence of marriage in the inferior ecclesiastical ranks, as in the CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY. 247 following examples: 'Claudius Atticanus, the reader, and Claudia Felicissima, liis wife,- 'Januarius, the exorcist, made this for himself and his wife.' Terentius, the fossor, for Primitiva, his wiie, and iiimself/ '' After a while, however, exaggerated notions of the superior sanctity of celibacy crept into the Church, derived largely from the Jewish Essenes, the Gnostics, Montanists, Encratites, and others, whose ascetic notions, indeed, began to inoculate the Church even in the days of the apostles. See Col. ii. 18-23 ; 1 Tim. iv. 1-5. Here and there a fanatic dealt out denunciations against the marriage of the clergy — a provincial Council — as that of Illiberis in Spain, A. D. 300 — prohibited it. In 692. the Council in Trullo decreed that bishops must observe celibacy, while presbyters and deacons might live with their wives, though the Roman Church made them promise at their ordination that they would not. The rule laid down by the Council in Trullo, has been always observed since that time in the Greek Church, which allows priests to live with their wives, but not to marry after their ordination. A long struggle was kept up between the rigid dis- ciplinarians and the more moderate party — the former denouncing all marriage of the clergy, and the latter allowing and practising it. But the imi^erious Ilildebrand, Pope Gregory VII., set himself to stop it effectually. He held a Council at Rome, A. D. 1074, in which the marriage of priests was considered as concubinagt^ ; and from that time to the present, the Romish Cluurh has not allowed its clergy to live in the holy estate of matrimony. Thousands of them have lived, and still live, in illicit relations with women, but marriage is not allowed among them. In 1076, a Synod was lield at Winchester, England, which decreed that caiums should have no wives— that no priest should many — no bishop should ordain any but 248 REY, THOS. o. sum:mees, s. t. d., ll. d. celibates — though it allowed priests in the country who were already married to live with their wives. Under Anselm (A. D. 1102) it was decreed that neither priest nor deacon, nor even sub-deacon, should be ordained, who did not profess chastity, i. 6., celibacy — which decree was confirmed by the Council of London. The Council of Trent followed it up with its canons and curses. This enforced celibacy of the clergy, in connection with the votive celibacy of monks and nuns, and the detestable Confessional, led to such scenes of debauchery among these ecclesiastical orders, as are too revolting for portrayal. Those who want to wade through the sloughs -of filth, which constitute so much of the history of celibacy in the Romish Church, are referred to Elliott's Delineation of Roman Catholicism (Book iv.. Chap. 2, and the works there cited); to the works cited in McClintock and Strong's Cyclopaedia, Article ''Celibacy, '' and the works there cited ; to the '*' Startling Facts" of the Rev. J. G. Vv^hite, and the authorities cited by him. The decrees and bulls against ""ornication, sodomy, bestiality, among the clergy, tell the dismal tale I Even Anselm himself, who enforced celibacy on the clergy, laments, as Burnet says, that unnatural lusts were become both common and public, of which Petrus Damiani made great complaints in Gregorj^ the Seventh's time. Bernard, in a sermon preached to the clergy of France, says it was common in his time, and that even hisliops with hlsliops lived in it. The progress of that horrible vice led the Abbot Panormitau to wish that the clergy were allowed to marrj'. Pius II. said there are far better reasons for freedom to marry than for enforced celibacy. To prevent sodomy, bestiality, and other unnat- ural crimes, resulting from enforced celibacy, dispensations for concubinage became common, so that '* instead of giving scandal by them, they were rather considered as the characters of modesty and temperance ; in such concu- CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY. 249 binary priests, the world judged themselves safe from practices on their own families " It is well known that this is the case in Mexico, South America, and other Bomish countries, at the present time. The Churches of the Reformation restored the liberty of marriage to the clergy. In their address to the Diet at Augsburg, the Reformers say : ''There has been general complaint among persons of every rank, on account of the scandalous licentiousness and lawless lives of the priests ; who were guilty of lewd- ness, and whose excesses had risen to the highest pitch. In order to put an end to such odious conduct, to adultery, and other lewd practices, several of our ministers have entered the matrimonial state. They themselves declare, that in taking this step they were influenced by the dictates of conscience, and a sacred regard for the holy volume, which expressly informs us, that mariiage was appointed of God to prevent licentiousness : as Paul says (1 Cor. vii. 2), 'To avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife.' Again, 'It is better to marry than to burn,' (1 Cor. vii. 9) ; and according to the declaration of Christ, that not all men can receive this word. (Matt. xix. 12.) In this passage, Christ himself, who well knew wiiat was in man, declares that few persons are qualiiied to live in celibacy; for 'God created us, mah^ and female.' (Gen. i. 27.) And experience has abundantly proved how vain is the attempt to alter the nature, or meliorate the character, of God's creatures by mere hunjan purposes or vows, without a peculiar gift or grace of God. It is notorious tliat the effort has been prejudicial to ])urity of morals ; and in how many cases it has occasioned distress of mind, and tlu» most terrilic apprehensions of conscience, is known by tlu^ confessions of numerous individnals. Since, tluMi, thi^ won] and law of God cannot be altenMl by luiman vows or iMiact- ments, the priests for this and other reasons have entered into 250 REV. THOS. O. SUMMERS, S. T. D., LL. D. tlie conjugal state. It is moreover evident from the testi- mony of history and the writings of the Fathers, that it wrs customary in former ages for priests and deacons ^o be married. Hence the injunction of Paul to Timothy (1 Tim. iii. 2); 'A bishop then must be blameless, the Jiushaiid of one wife.'' It is but four hundred years since the clergy in Germany were compelled by force to abandon the matri- monial life, and submit to a vow of celibacy ; and so generally and resolutely did they resist this tyranny, that the Arch- bishop of Mayence, who published this papal edict, was well nigh losing his life in a commotion excited by the measure. And in so precipitate and arbitrary a manner was that decree executed, that the pope not only prohibited a] 1 future marriage of the priests, but even cruelly rent asunder the social ties of those who had long been living in the bonds of lawful wedlock, thus violating alike not only the law^s of God, and the natural and civil rights of the citizen, but even the canons which the popes themselves made, and the decrees of the most celebrated Councils. — If, therefore, it is evident from the divine word and com- mand, that matrimony is lawful in ministers, and history teaches that their practice formerly was conformed to this precept ; if it is evident that the vow of celibacy has been productive of the most scandalous and unchristian con- duct, of adultery, unheard of licentiousness, and other abominable crimes, among the clergy, as some of the dignitaries at Rome, have themselves often confessed and lamented, it is a lamentable thing that the Christian estate of matrimony has not only been presumptuously forbidden, but in some places speedy punishment has been inflicted, as though it were a heinous crime ! Matrimony is moreover declared a lawful and honorable estate, by the laws of your imperial majesty, and by the code of every empire in which justice and law prevailed. Of late, however, innocent subjects, and especially ministers, are cruelly CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY. 251 tormented on giccount of their marriage. Nor is such conduct a violation of the divine laws alone, it is equally opposed to the canons of the Church. The apostle Paul denominates that a doctrine of devils which forbids mar- riage (1 Tim. iv. 1-3)/' The Emperor Charles V. favored a relaxation of the law, and so did some of the bishops ; but in vain — Rome prevailed — and the yoke remains on the necks of the ^lergy to this day. The Thirty- second Ai-ticle of the Church of England, and the Twenty-first of the Methodist Confession, being a revision of the former, teach that it is law'ul for ministers, as w^ell as other Christians, tomarry at their own discretion. Tht^y ''are ]iot commanded by God's law, either to vow^ the estate of single life, or to abstain from marriage." There is no such command in Scripture ; there is no example of sncli vow- -but abundance of testimony to the contrary. Yet papists have the hardihood to appeal to the Scripture for support. They refer to Matt. xix. 11 , 12 : ''But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to wdioni it is given. For there are some eunuchs which were so born from their mother's womb; auvl thc^re are some eunuclis wliich were made eunuchs of men ; and there be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of h(^aven's sake. He that is able to receive it, h^t Jiim lecc^ivc^ it.'' But what bearing has this on the subjects Is tliat any command for the cleigy, or any others, to takt^ the vow of celibac}^ ? The passage simply states that thert^ is ono class of so-called eunuchs constitutcnl of those wh(> hiwo no natural inclination to mai'riag(% or an^ imi)oi(Mir : another class constituted of those who arcMuuliiatcd, as by Oriental i)rinces, to take care of their wonuMi, or for {he ])uri)Ose of ])rocuring ])ry- the same rule, to mind and speak the same thing, to be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgement. 3. That in order to do this, nothing ought to be incul- cated upon Christians as articles of faith, nor required by them as terms of communion, but what is expressly taught and enjoined in the word of God. Xor ought anything to be admitted as of divine obligation in church constitution and management, but what is expressly SOME THINOS CATHOLICS DO BELIEVE. 261 enjoined by the authority of our Lord Jesns Christ and His apostles npon the New Testament Church, either in express terms or by ajxproved precedent. 4. That although the scriptures of the Old and New Testament are inseparably connected, making together but one entire and perfect revelation of the Divine will for the edification and salvation of the Church, and, there- fore, in that respect can not be separated, yet as to what directly and properly belongs to their immediate objects ; the New Testament is as perfect a constitution for the worship, discipline and Government of the New Testament Church, and as perfect a rule for the particular duties of its members, as the Old Testament was for the worship, discipline and Government of the Old Testament Church and the particular duties of its members. 5. That with respect to commands and ordinances of our Lord Jesus Christ where the scriptures are silent as to the express time or manner of performance, if any such there be, no human authority has power to interfere in order to supply the supposed deficiency by making laws for the Church of God. Nor can anything more be required of Christians in such cases than that they so observe these commands and ordinances as will evidently answer the declared and obvious ends of their institution. Much less has any human authority power to im])ose new commands or ordinances upon the Church which our Lord Jesus Christ has not enjoined. Nothing ought to be received into the faith or worship of the Cliurcli, o.r be made a term of communion among Christians, wlii( li is not as old as tlie New TestanuMit. 6. That although inft^n^ncc^s and deductions froin scrip- ture premises, when fairly inf(^rred, may be truly called the doctrine of God's holy word ; yet are tlu^y n(^t formally binding upon the consciences of Christians, furtluu' than they perceive the connection, and ividently see that they 262 ELDER THO^ P. HALEY. are so, for tlieir faith must not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. Therefore no such deductions can be made terms of communion, but do properly belong to the after and progressive edification of the Church. Hence it is evident that no such deductions or inferential truths ought to have any place in the Church's confession. 7. That although doctrinal exhibitions of the great system of Divine truths and defensive testimonies in oppo- sition to prevailing errors, be highly expedient, and the more full and explicit they be for those purposes the better, yet as these must be in a great measure the effect of human reasoning, and of course must contain many inferential truths, they ought not to be made terms of Christian Communion, unless we suppose what is contrary to fact, that none have a right to the communion of the Church, but such as possess a very clear and decided judgment, or come to a very high degree of doctrinal information, whereas the Church from the beginning did, and ever will consist of little children and young men as well as fathers. 8. That as it is not necessary that persons should have a particular knowledge or distinct apprehension of all Divinely revealed truths in order to entitle them to a place in the Church ; neither should they for this purpose be required to make a profession more extensive than their knowledge, but that on the contrary, their having a due mea- sure of scriptural self knowledge respecting their lost and perishing condition by nature and practice, and of the way of salvation through Jesus Christ, accompanied with a profession of their faith in, and obedience to Him in all tilings, according to His word, is all that is absolutely necessary to qualify them for admission into His Church. 9. That all that are enabled through grace to make such a profession and to manifest the reality of it in their temper and conduct, should love each other as brethren, SOME THINGS CATHOLICS DO BELIEVE. 263 cliildren of the same family and father, temples of the same spirit, members of the same body, subjects of the same grace, objects of the same Divine love, bought with the same price, and joint heirs of the same inheritance, whom God hath joined together, no man should dare to put asunder. 10. That divisions among Christians is a horrid evil, fraught with many evils. It is anti-christian, as it destroys the visible unity of the body of Christ, as if he were divided against himself, excluding and excommunicating a part of himself. It is anti-scriptural as being strictly prohibited by his sovereign authority, a direct violation of his express command. It is anti- scriptural, as it excites Christians to contemn and hate and oppose one another, who are bound by the highest and most endearing obliga- tions to love each other as brethren, even as Christ has loved them. In a word, it is productive of confusion and every evil work. 11. That, in some instances, a partial neglect of the expressly revealed will of God, and in others, an assumed authority for making the approbation of human opinions and human inventions a term of communion, by intri)- ducing them into the constitution, faith or worship of tlie Church, are and have been the immediate obvious and universally acknowledged causes of all tlie cori'uptious and divisions that ever have taken place in the Chuich of God. 12. That all that is necessary to the highest perfection and purity of the Church upon eartli is, iirst — That none be received as nuMubi^rs but such as liavim;' that due measure of scrii)tural self kn'owledg(\ chv^cribid above, do i)rofess tlu^ir faith iu Christ, and obedioiun^ to him in all thihgs according to the scriptur(\s; nor. Secondly, that any b(^ relain(Ml in hcv ronwuwuion longer than they continue to nianilrst \\\c n^alily of their profession by tlieir tenipi'i* and ( onduct. 264 ELDER THOS. P. HALEY. Thirdly, that her ministers, duly and scripturally quahfied, inculcate none other things than those very articles of faith and holiness expressly revealed and en- joined in the word of God, that in all their administrations they keep close by the observance of all Divine ordinances, after the example of the primitive church, exhibited in the Xew Testament, without any addition whatsoever of human opinions or inventions of men. 13. Lastly, that if any circumstantials indispensably necessary to the observance of Divine ordinances, be not found upon the page of Revelation, such, and such only, as are absolutely necessary for this purpose, should be adop- ted under the title of human expedients, without any pretense to a more sacred origin, so that any subsequent alteration or difference in the observance of these things, might produce no contention or division in the Church/' Xow, assuming that the holy scriptures are of supreme authority in matters of religion, and a comj)lete revelation of the faith and worship of the Church of Christ, and that the foregoing facts and principles are founded upon the same : it is not dilficult to see that the Roman Catholic Church bears little resemblance to Xew Testament Church. The scriptures of the Xew Testament say nothing of popes, cardinals, arch-bishops, priests, monks, friars, nuns, sisters of charity, reverends, right reverends, and doctors of divinity, these, one and all, are of human origin. The Lord Jesus commanded, '* Call no man your father upon the earth, for one is your Father which is in heaven ; neither be ye called masters, for one is your Master, even Christ ; but he that is greatest among you sliall be your servant.'' The New Testament Church consisted of such, and such only, as accepted Christ by faith ; rei3ented of their sins, and broke off their sins by righteousness, and were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. SOME THINGS CATHOLICS DO BELIEVE. 265 • The Church of Christ at Jerusalem was composed of saved, pardoned persons. Not a man of the New Testament Church Ciahned for himself infallibility. The apostles of Jesus Christ, except when speaking by inspiration, were like other disciples of Jesus, fallible, while the Church, therefore, is a "Divine Institution" in the sense, that it was established by Divine authority, and was to be divinely guided, or guided by the teaching of the Divine Spirit in the word of God. It is a bold, rash assumption, that the Church, composed of fallible and sinful men, is a ''Divine Institution," in the sense that it is infallible, and can not err. This assumption is the root, the foundation of all the errors and absurdities of the Roman Catholic Cliurch. Bishop Ryan, in his attempt to show that men do not dethrone their reason in accepting the unreasonable dogmas of the Church, saj^s : ''They have first convinced themselves that the Church to which they pay aHegiance, and by which they are taught the truths of Revelation, is a ' Divine Institution, an unerring messenger of God to them.' If, therefore, they submit to a decision of the Church, they submit to a decision of a tribunal which their reason has already accepted as unerring. If they were obliged to receive decisions on matters of faith, without having been already convinced that such decisions were given by a tribunal that could not err, tlioi Catholics would he slaves,^'' This, I repeat, is the error out of whicli grow all oWwv errors and absurdities of the Roman Catholic Chuii'li. In what passage of the holy scrii)tures is it said that the "Church" is an unerring messengi^r of (n)d to mt^i ^ Inspired a])()stles, when si)eaking by insj)irali()ii, wtM't* unerring messeiigers of (lod to \\\c\\ ; l)ut the (^hureh com- posed of uninspiriKJ nuMi (\\elnsiv('ly since th(^ (hath o^ the- last aposth^, is not, and can not, in the naluiv of the cas(^, be the "unerring mess(Miger of CJod to men." 266 ELDER THOS. P. HALEY. If it be said that Jesus said to his disciples, "If he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican ; " it is answered, the language has no reference to matters of faith or worship in the Church of Jesus Ciirist, but to the settlement of personal difficulties between brethren. When they have failed to adjust their difficulty between themselves, and by them- selves, the offended must tell it to the Church, and the Church through her scripturally qualified and appointed ministers, executes the revealed loill of God. They do not legislate in the case, but simply execute the revealed law of Christ as found in the holy scriptures. The Church can not make that an offense which the scriptures have not made an offense. The Church can not make that a duty which the scriptures have not made daty. The Church can not make nor enforce a penalty which the scriptures have not made and commanded to be enforced. If it be said that the scriptures assert that ''the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth," it is answered that we have the truth first, and the Church simply maintains and defends it. I now propose to show by the Bishop's admission, that Catholics are slaves. I affirm what every intelligent man knows, and what every Catholic will admit, that no Catholic, born of Catholic parents, ever did ''convince himself" that the Church is a "Divine Institution," and can not, therefore, err. He does not examine the question at all; he would not be permitted to examine it. Suppose the Bishop should find one of the children of his parish in the public Library of St. Louis, with a heap of Catholic and Protestant authoriti(3S before him (especially with a Bible open before him) examining this question: "Is the Church a Divine Institution and can she err?" What would the Bishop say to such? Would he not answer: "The Church says she is a 'Divine Institution,' and can - SOME THINGS CATHOLICS DO BELIEVE. 267 not err," and you must believe what the Church believes or be damned! Bishop Ryan knew when he made the assertion, that the Catholic child is taught from his infancy that the Church can not err, and he must accept her dogmas on pain of eternal damnation. He is required to say every time he repeats the Creed, ''I believe and profess all and every one of those things which are contained in that Creed which the Holy (Roman) Church makes use of." It is simply and palpably false that such as are born in the Church, or born of Catholic parents, exercise their reason in determining the question that the Church is a '^'Divine Institution' and can not err." No good Catholic is ever found in any such heretical work as investi- gating religious questions. He leaves that to the Church. He accepts this dogma as he does all other unreasonable and unscriptural dogmas of the Church on authority, and is, according to the Bishop's own admission, a slave. Catholics are therefore slaves, all slaves, Bisliop Ryan himself being Judge. But the Protestant who becomes a Catholic is allowed to use his reason once^ that is, he is allowed to '^convince himself" that the Church is a ''Divine Institution, ' ever after that when the most unreasonable dogma is presented he can only say, the 'Church declares it, therefore, I believe it. How does the Protestant convince himself? By an examination of the word of God. Where is the doctrine taught? Protestants are accustomcHl to say: 'No testi- mony, no faith; no (^vid(MU'(\ no conviction/' Now, while the Church of Christ was divinch' instituttHb I shall show that she Jias vvvod ; ai)ostli's, individual members, and wliole Churchi's liav(^ (UiihI. 1 shall also show that the Roman ('afholic Church has (Uird, and that lun^liistory is onc^ markiHl by smdi gross iMrors as liavt* shocked humanity in all tlu' ag(^s of her corrupt history. 238 ELDEH THOS. P. HALEY. Tlie Xew Testament teaches that the chosen apostles of Jesus erred. The apostle Peter, who it is claimed was the lirst Pope of Rome (an nnscriptural assumption), denied his Lord in the hall of the High Priest, and denied Him with cursing and bitter oaths. AYas this an error ? If it be said that he was then uninspired and then not p»ope ; it is answered that he erred long afrer his inspira- I'ou came. Paul says of him, ''but when Peter came to Antioch I withstood him to the face because he was to be blamed, for before that certain came from James he did eat with the Gentiles; but when they were come he withdrew and saparated himself, fearing them which w^ere of thor circumcision, and other Jews dissembled likewise with him, insomuch that Barnabas was also carried away with their dissimulation. '''Poj)e Peter' the First," dissembled, was guilty of dissimulation I ! and yet popes can not err, are infallible 1 1 Now, surely if Peter erred, so miglit all the apostles, and doubtless they did, always, excepting when they were guided by the Holy Spirit. It is not necessary to write a line to show that, as individuals, the Bible convicts all men of sin — ''there are none good (^that is perfect) no, not one." In the address to the seven Churches in Asia, the holy spirit arraigns nearly eveiy one of the seven for error in doctrine or in practice, so that w^hole Churches, though •'Divine Institutions," are convicted of error. "Unto the Angel of the Cliurch of Ephesus write: Nevertheless, I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love ; remember, therefore, from v\'hence thou art fallen, and repent and do the first works, or else I will come unto thee quickly and will remove thy candle- stick out of his place, oxcej^t thou repent." The Church in Ephesus Itft its first love and was fallen ; why not the Church of Rome \ "To the Angel of the Church of Pergamos vrrite : SOME THINGS CATHOLICS DO BELIEVE. 269 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam who taught Balac to cast a stumbling-block before the children of Israel ; to eat things sacrificed to idols ; and to commit fornication. ' So thou hast also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate. Repent, or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth." The Church in Pergamos erred in doctrine and practice, why not the Church of Rome ? ' ' Unto the Angel of the Church of Thyatira write : Notwithstanding, I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, Avhich calleth herself a prophetess to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed to idols." ''Unto the Angel of Sardis write: I know thy works, thou hast a name to live, and art dead ; and to the Angel of the Church of the Laodiceans write : I know thy works that thou art neither cold nor hot. I would thou wert cold or hot, so then because thou art neither cold nor hot I will spew thee out of my mouth, because thou sayest I am rich and increased with goods and have need of nothing and knowest not that thou art wretched ; and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked. I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich, and white raiment that thou mayest be clothed and tliat the shame of thy nakedness do not appear, and anoint thine eyes with e3a^-salve that thou mayest see. As man)- as I love I rc^buke and cha:sten. l>e zealous, therefore, and n^piMit." 1 luiuht add to tlu^se, quotations from all the epistles, showing that thi^ Church of Jesus Christ, though a 'VDivino Institution," cvrn in the time of the ai)()stle, did cvv in doc^trin^^ and in life. Can any man in tht^ exiMcise of liuht icason con\ince himself that the Churidi can not ov\\ \\\{\\ thost> Now Testament iacts starini;- him in thi* faco dniini;- his invc^ti- 270 ELDER THOS. P. HALEY. gations? But we must not forget that it is asserted by Romanists that '4t is only when the pope speaks as pope that he is infallible, and that it is only when the Church speaks in council that she is infallible." ''There is, or has been a variety of opinions among Romanists respect- ing where this infallibility resides." They all say it exists in the Church, but when they come to fix on its seat they divide into at least four sects. Some place it in the universal Church scattered over the world ; some place it in the pope ; others in a general council independent of the pope ; while others assert that a general council with a pope at its head is infallible. It has already been shown that the universal Church, or the Church in every place, is fallible; is convicted of error by the Holy Spirit. Infallibility, therefore, can not reside in the universal Church ; besides, it may be seriously doubted whether there ever was a council of the universal Church. An additional fact should be noted that councils of the universal Church (so called) have decided contrary to one another. The Council of Nice, in 325, and of Ephesus, in 431, decree with an anathema, ' ' that no new article forever shall be added to the Creed of Faith of Nice." But the Council of Trent in more than twelve hundred years added twelve new articles to this very creed, pronouncing an anathema on all who will not embrace them. If the former was right, the latter was wrong ; if the latter was right, the former was wrong ; therefore, neither the one nor the other can be regarded infallible. The Council of Laodicea, in 360 or 370, and the Council of Trent, in 1545, have decided in direct opposition to each other respecting the canon of scripture. The former decided on the canon which Protestants acknowledge, rejecting the Apocrypha, and the latter pronounced the Apocrypha to be canonical. The Council of Constantinople, in 754, unanimously SOME THINGS CATHOLICS DO BELIEVE. 271 decreed the removal of images and the abolition of image- worship; but the Second Council of Nice decreed that image- worship should be established. (See Faber's Diffi- culties of Romanism, p. 41.) Infallibility can not reside in the pope (the recent decision of the World's Council to the contrary, notwith- standing), else, when the pope is dead, the Church is fallible, and a fallible Church can not make an infallible pope. Respecting the supremacy of the pope, ''Councils with popes at their head have differed." ''The first Council of Nice, Canon 6, decreed that the bishop of Constantinople should possess equal privilege with the bishop of Rome. Everyone knows how this has been contradicted by both Councils and popes." But it is needless to pursue this subject. It is simply certain that we have an infallible book ; that this book no- where asserts the infallibility of the Church. It nowhere mentions a pope fallible nor infallible, and that the record of the Roman Church herself, in regard to her own infallibility, is inconsistent and contradictory. The Bishop says, "She does not hide the scriptures from the people. The Church interprets what needs inter- pretation. Does that lessen the dignity of the scriptures I Are the laws of Missouri degraded because there is a Supreme Court to interpret them?" Suppose we had infallible, inspired lawmakers in Missouri, and (^veiy word of every line of law was dictated by tli(3 Spirit of Alniiglity God, would it not then degrade the laws of Missouri to have an uninspired Court to int('r])n^t insi»ired laws i Suppose the Supreme Court w(M'(Mns])ir(Hl to int(M])i*('t xhc inspired laws of Missouri, would wo not ikmhI anotluM* Court to int(M*pret the intiM-pretatious of \\\o in!tM]>i('tt']s. The IVishop saj^s: "Thi» ai)()st()li(' body still r.Miiains until to-day uushoin of a siugh* apostolic ])owtM'." Tlu^ l^ishop must bi^lieve this (Mioruu)us falsehood hiu'auso tlu^ 272 ELDER THOS. P. HALEY. infallible Churcli asserts it, as there is not the shadow of proof of it in the word of God, and no living man can give the signs of an apostle by speaking languages he never learned and working miracles as did the twelve. It is a bold and mischievous assumption without the shadow of support. In proof of this assumption, however, he asserts that God provided the Jewish people a tribunal to settle disputes : ''They were directed to the High Priest. It was death to dispute the decision of the Priest." But the High Priest was inspired. The Pope, the Council' nor the Church claims to be. * Judaism had its ''Supreme Court," as the Bishop asserts, but it was an "inspired Court." We have seen already that the so-called Supreme Court of the Catholic Church is inconsistent with itself and contradictory in its decrees. The Bishop says that "God or some one whom Almighty God would preserve from error in teaching, must speak," and, therefore, there is constituted in the Catholic Church this supreme deciding power — Supreme Court in spiritual matters. Now, the truth is that God has spoken by his inspired apostles, and has decided whatever it is needful to decide, and the things which are not thus decided in and by the word of God, are the things about which men may differ and still serve God acceptably and attain to immortality and eternal life. The boast of the Bishop that this Supreme Court has secured the perfect unity of the belief of two hundred millions of people, is another way of asserting that this Supreme Court has succeeded in enslaving this great company whom God intended to be freemen. The Bishop attempts a defense of the "magnificent ceremonial" and the use of the arts in the Catholic worship. On this subject, the eloquent Bishop grows unusually eloquent. He is an ardent and enthusiastic believer in Public burning of the New Testament* Page 029. SOME THINGS CATHOLICS DO BELIEVE. ' 273 the value and power of the '^ceremonials''' and the arts in the worship. ''The object of the use of the ceremonial and the arts is "to aid man to worsliip in spirit and in truth." Now we simply ask, v/hy did not our heavenly Father, in giving the Law upon Mount Sinai, suggest to Moses and to Israel the value of the "ceremonials" and the arts? Why did the Majesty of heaven forbid the use of the arts in His worship? Why did He say: "Thou shalt not make unto ,thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them ; for I, the Lord, am a jealous God." (Ex. xx. 4, 5.) All the idolatrous nations have ever had their "cere- monials" and their "arts" in worship, and tlie purpo:?e of God to establish a spiritual worshij), demanded the overthrow of image-worship, and in the very constitution of the Church, he has forbidden the possibility of their introduction. In the primitive apostolic Church there was not even the thought of "ceremonials" and the "arts'' in the worship. It is barely possible that. many Catholics use the "images" "to aid them in the spiritual worsliip/' but it is simply certain that the ^^ masses'' worship the images themselves, God commands tliat men '^sliall not bow down to any image," and yet all Catliolics do bow down to images, and in the act defy God, if, indiMul, they do intend to use these images simpl}' as aids. Whenever God undertook the overtl^i'ow of idolatiy, h(^ always destroyed their images. The faet, JioweviM*, that (u>d forbade the making of imt\ii:es for any i)iiii)ost^s, aiul that such are not found in use in the Ncnv Ti^stannMit, is iMiouiih for any man who re verenc(»s God's word. It may h^ driiird in terms more eloquent and glowing than any nsrd ]>y t)ur eloquent Bishoj), l)ut while imap^s icniain in (\iiholic temples, this ])art of tln^ir worship i>Mnains idolatrous. 274 * ELDER THOS. P. HALEY. The Bishop says: ^^ They kneel before these images," ''of course they do not adore them/' They do, and every time they thus kneel, they defy God and commit an act of idolatry — whether they intend it or not. The Bishop denies that '* Catholics believe that the blessed virgin or any saint or all the saints together, can receive anything like the slightest act of adoration." I^ow I would ask an intelligent audience, if it is not generally supposed that prayer and praise are acts of adoration? I have before me a volume called '*The Pious Guide," a book which is found in the hands of all devout Catholics, and in this volume I find in the '*Confiteor," page 30, these words : ''I confess to Almighty God, to the Blessed Mary, ever a virgin, to blessed Michael the Archangel, to blessed John the Baptist, to the holy apostles Peter and Paul, and to all the saints, that I have sinned," etc. On page 36 we have this prayer: Blessed St. Michael, defend us in the day of battle. Oh, Angels of God, enlighten, govern and defend us this night from all sin and danger. On page 80, in a prayer addressed to the Virgin, we have these remarkable words : ''Thus aflTected, and upon this consideration, I throw myself at thy sacred feet, and though the greatest of sinners, most unworthy and least corresponding with the graces I have received, I here enter my protest against such unwarrantable proceeding, and beseech thee, Oh, Virgin, more than martyr, to accept the same as a reparation of honor. Pardon my past offenses and indignities; pardon those of mankind.'' The same prayer makes mention of the ''profanation of altars dedicated to thy name." AVe have here "the dedication of altars" to the name of the Virgin ; we have the worshipper prostrate at the feet of the Virgin, and we have a prayer offered to the Virgin in which she is invoked to pardon the worshipper, and, indeed, to pardon all mankind, and still the Bishop SOME THINGS CATHOLICS DO BELIEYE. 275 assures us that Catliolics do not believe that the Virgin ^'can receive the slightest act of adoration." It may he that Catholics have very peculiar notions as to what constitute acts of adoration, but these acts paid to Almighty God, would ccTtainly constitute worship. How singular that in the many prayers of the Old Testament, not one was ev(3r offered to any of the angels or the saints ; that in the New Testament prayers, not one was ever offered to the Virgin Mary, nor to any angel, martyr, or saint. Surely if the angels, the Virgin, and the saints might be worshipped, and had siicli power with God, those saints would have availed themselves of their intercession ; but neither in these prayers nor in any letter of instruction to the Churches is any reference made to the Virgin, much less is any Christian instructed to pray to the Virgin or to any of the saints. Prayers in the Old Testament are addressed to Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ; in the New Testament, to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Not one prayer is formally addressed to Jesus ; iK)t one to the Holy Spirit. To one wlio follows the ''infallible Book," and not the fallible Church, this is sufficient to condemn the practice of the '* Church'' in offering prayers to the saints as idolatrous. The Bishop insists that the ''Old Church" does not "demoralize the individual or the national conscience by her use of that power which God gave to his Aj)()s(l(\^ upon the very day of liis Resurrection, wIumi ho said: 'Whose sins 3^^ shall forgivt*, th(\^' ar(^ forgivtMi IIumu.''' This passage is ([uofvd to Justify {\\c daring iinpiiMy of the priests of the Church wh(^n thty forgivi^ sins. It is not denied that the ''c()nt(\ssi()nar' has b(MMi an (Miuine oF gn^at i)()wer in tlu^ hands of th(» ])riests and \\]c Churcii. It is not denied that thi' ('atholic is taught thai h(' must repent of his sins and i)urj)os(^ to r^Miounct^ thcMu: nor is 16 276 ELDER THOS. P. HALEY. it denied that the '"confessor" professes to Ibe only ^' God's agent;" but how strange it is that Jesus said nothing of this agent ; tliat, on the contrary, he taught each disciple to say: "Our Father who art in heaven" ^ "^ "forgive us our sins as we forgive those that sin against us," and how remarkable, that in all the New Testament Scriptures that not one word should be said in reference to the great value to the worshipper of confessing his sins to a priest. Surely the holy scriptures must be wofully deficient in instruction to the saint. But does not the Savior's w^ords, "Whose sins ye remit, they are remitted," justify the priest in absolving the sinner, when he has complied with the prescribed conditions? It is answered that the apostles themselves are the best interpreters of this commission, and nowhere in their preaching or writing do they make tlie most distant allusion to their power, even as "God^s agents," to forgive sins. These words of Jesus must therefore be understood in the light of apostolic practice, and since they never required men to come to them, "confessing their sins" in order "to be absolved" from them, the Romish inference is unfounded. The only sense in which they remitted and retained sins, was in proclaiming the terms of the remission of sins in the gospel of Christ. They taught the people to "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ," "to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins," that is, upon their "faith in Christ, repentance for sins and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ," God would forgive their sins. No apostle ever used the formulary, "I absolve thee," it was reserved for uninspired* and erring priests to do this. The Bishop draws a graphic picture of "that old man, over eighty-five years of age, moving towards that bare- footed monk in the confessional." This old man kneels down before the monk, and says: "Bless me, father, for SOME THINGS CATHOLICS DO BELIEVE. 277 I have sinned." Now this ^'barefooted Monk" and this ''old man" ought to learn a lesson from the Apostle Peter (and Peter ought to be good authority with both). When Peter was sent to the house of Cornelius, to tell him what he ''ought to do to be saved." This scene, described in these words, occured. "And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius imd him, and /ell down at his feet and worshipped him ; but Peter took him up, saying, Stand up, I myself also am a man." (Acts x. 25, 26.) Peter, an inspired apostle, allowed no man to kneel before him, even as "God's agent" or messenger. He remembered the words : ' ' Thou slialt worship the Lord God, and Him only shalt thou serve." He seemed to be shocked that any m^n should so degrade himself as to bow down before a man. A grosser violation of God's word, and a more dishonoring practice to God and man, than this of kneeling in the confessional, has not been invented, notwithstanding the fact, that this practice is wholly without warrant from the holy scriptures, and does violence to teaching of God's word, the 'Bishop affirms that '*the ordinary mode of forgiveness is through this ministry.'' The apostle John teaches that "If any man sin/' lie has "an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righte- ous," and "If we confess our sins, God is faithful and Just to forgive our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteous- ness." (1 Jno. i. 9; ii. 1.) We need no monk, no confessional, and no absolution iVoni man. The bishop very ingeniously introduct^s the anathemas of the Church on such as bt^ieve ctMtain falst* doctrines, such as the following: ''Cursed is Ik* who eonunits idolatry, who prays to imagers or relics, or worships tli.ni for God." Now W(i ask, whence tlu^ niH'essil}' for lliis curse 'i If there is no Catholic in aiiy dangtM* o[^ worshipping these relics, why this anatluMna ^ Thi* trnlh is, ili.ii the presence of these images in Catholic trnipK^s, j)laci'S of 278 ELDER THOS. P. HALEY. worship, makes it almost certain that the masses of worshippers do worship these, and thereby commit idolatry. "Cursed is every goddess worshipper who believes the Virgin Mary to be any more than a creature ; who worships her, or puts his trust in her more than in God." (He may put his trust in her, and he does, else he would not pray to her, only he must not put his trust in her more than in God.) ''Who believes her above His son, or that she can in any way command Him ? ' ' Why did the authority which issued this curse, feel called upon to do so? No Protestant body has ever seen any necessity for legislating against image-worship, goddess-worship, saint-worship, angel-worship, etc. The discovery that such worship really existed in the Catholic Church, would justify the issuance of such a document. This work must have grown out of such a discovery, for surely we should not have these fearful anathemas against practices which had no existence, and which were not likely to arise. The denial and anathema are evidence that the tendency of Catholic worship is ever towards idolatry. The remainder of this lecture shall be devoted to a consideration of the unscriptural doctrines of the Church of Rome. These shall be taken from authoritative sources. Let the hearer, with the IS'ew Testament in hand, see whether they are in harmony with the word of God, or not — 1. The doctrine of the Church in reference to the holy sciptures, may be stated as follows : ''All the doctrines of Christianity are derived from the word of God whicli includes scripture and traditions?^ (Trent Catechism, page 19.) Again, "If we would have the whole rule of Christian faith and practice, we must not be content with those scriptures which Timothy knew from his infancj^, SOME THINGS CATHOLICS DO BELIEVE. 279 that is, with the Old Testament alone, nor yet with the New Testament without taking along with it the traditions of the apostles, and the interpretation of the Church to which the apostles delivered both the book and the inter- pretation of it. (See note on Catholic version, on 2nd line, 3, 16.) The Catholic rule of faith is not merely the written word of God, but the whole word of God wi-itten and unwritten ; in other words, scripture and Uadition, and these explained by the Catholic Church. Thus it is seen that traditions and the interpretations of the Catholic Church constitute a part of the word of God, and are to be received. It is not at all difficult to see that the word of God has little to do with the faith and practice of the Church, since it is not the word of God which Catholics receive, but the Churcli' s interpretation of the word of God. The tradititons and the interpretations of the Church hold equal authority with the holy scriptures. In view of this fact, the ''Battle Cry" of the Protestant reformers has an immense significance, "The Bible, and the Bible alone, is the religion of Protestants." No man can become a Catholic till lie can believe that the fables of the fathers and the contradictor}^ decrees of the Church are of equal authority with God's lioly woi-d ; and this no man can do, until he has suirendeied his ri^ason to the authority of the Church The Church do(»s not b'^lit^ve the statement of Paul, that the scriptun^s, Old and X< w Te.stament, "make(Uiewist^ unto salvation'' and "thorouulily furnish liim unto evi^y good work/' P()pePiusVTT.,on J)iii(^2!), ISIC, ])u])lisli(Hl a r>iill a^aiiist Bible Societies, achln^sstMl to th(^ Prinialc of Poland, in which h(^ reefers to thi* Council of Tn^it, and ph*ads its authbi'ity for refusing tln^ ]).M)|)lt^ in g(MUMal tlit^ iViMi' in their own languag(\ ox'cpt under su(di limitations as \\ onld deprive^ thrin of tin* fr(M» nsi* K^'i Ww scriptnrt^s. '\\w i)(>p»^ represents the circulation of \\w scriptnrt^s h\ Hib!t» 280 ELDER THOS. P. HALEY. Societies as ''a crafty device by which the very founda- tions of religion are undermined ;" n pestilence which mvi^t be remedied and abolished ; a defile?7ie?it of the faith, eminently dangerous to souls ; impious machinations of innovators, wicl^edness of a nefarious scheme ; snares prepared for men' s everlasting ruin, a new species of tares which our adversary has abundantly sown. This Bull further declares that, ''agreeably to the 'Index,' the Bible, printed t)y Protestants, is to be numbered among other prohibited books, for it is evident from experience, that the holy scriptures when circulated in the vulgar tongue, have, through the temerity of men, produced more harm than good." Strange, indeed, that God's word for God's children should produce all this evil I Does not this zeal against the circulation of God's Avord among the people, excite the suspicion that Catholics know that men will find no resemblance between the Church of the holy scriptures and the Roman Catholic Church. If its organization, ministry, doctrine and worship are authorized by the word )f God, why this "mortal fear" of its circulation among he people. Is it not the experience of Protestants that the more they read the holy scriptures, even those published by Bible Societies, the more pious and godly they are ? that the people who possess and read the Bible are far more moral and more excellent people in all relations of life. "It is remarkable that the period of the world's history when tlie morals of mankind were in the worst state, the places where iniquity prevailed most, were the times and places when and where the greatest scarcity of the word of God prevailed." Roman Catholic countries, too, where the word of God is little read, and less known, furnish ample proofs of the corrupting efi'ects of prohibiting the general reading of the word of God, by the ignorance, errors and immorality which prevail. The doctrine of Catholics in reference to Tradition, SOME THINGS CATHOLICS DO BELIEYE. 281 has been incidentally stated in the foregoing paragraph. In determining any question, tradition has an equal authority with the ''word of God," and in case of conflict between the teachings of tlie holy scriptures and tradition, the latter is always to bo received. The doctrine of Infallibility, already considered at some length in the preceding part of this lecture, is stated authoritatively, as follows : "But as this one Church, because governed by the Holy Ghost, can not err in faith and morals, it necessarily follows that all other societies, arrogating to themselves the name of Church, because guided by the spirit of darkness, are sunk in the most pernicious errors, both doctrinal and moral." (See Catechism of the Council of Trent, p. 100. ) According to this statement, all Protestant Churches are ''societies arrogating to themselves the name of Church, guided by the SDirit of darkness," that is, by the Devil, and sunk in pernicious errors of doctrines and morals. The decision of the Council of Florence, on the 5th of July, 1439, will include something equivalent to this : ^'The Pope of Rome hath the supremacy over all the earth ; he is the successor of Peter, the prince of tlie apostles, and the head of the Church ; the father and teacher of all Christians;" that Jesus Christ hath given him in the person of St. Peter, the powc^r to fcHnl, to rule and govern the Catholic Church, as it is ex])hiined in the acts of QMuimenical councils and in the Holy Canons. (DuT)ins' Ecch^siastic History, vol. o, p. of).) This d(MMsi(>n has been reaflirnuHl by the recent World's Council, cxk^w in moi'e (^X})licit tei'ms. AV(^ lia\'t^ now ^\ithoul any equivocation w^hatev(M*, thi^ doctrint^ of ''})a])al infal- libility," as the doctrine of the Koman Catholic Church in the 19th century. These* infallibh* ])o]n^s, liowt \(M\ hav(^ often contradicted (\ach oMum-. (in^uory, surnanKnl th(i Great, about tlu^ conclusion of lh(^ sixth century, says: 282 ELDER THOS. P. HALEY. *' I confidently say, that whosoever calls himself the universal priest, or desires to be so called in his arrogance, i^ a forerunner of antichrist." (Greg. Max. Ep. bib. vi. ep. 30.) Gregory YII. declares ''that the Roman pontiff alone can be properly called universal. Innocent the I. and his followers till Pope Gelasius, asserted the communion of infants as necessary, which was condemned by subse- quent popes. Popes Leo and Gelasius condemned communion in one kind, while all modern j)opes enjoin it." ''Gregory the Great condemned the worship of images, the title of Universal Bishop, and the canonicity of the Books of Maccabees. Stephen YI. annulled all the acts of Formosus, one of his predecessors. Jno. IX., his successor, in a council held at Ravenna, annulled Stephen's acts with respect to Formosus." "Some popes acknowledged their ,own fallibility. Innocent IV. taught that a pope is not to be obeyed when his commands are heretical. Urban Y., Gre£>:orv XL and Clement YI. disavowed everything which they had a.dvanced contra,ry to "the faith," either in consistory or in council. (See Barrow on Supremacy, pp. 393-400; Ousley, p. 134, for several instances of striking disagree- ment.) Pope Yirgilius erred as pope when he first condemned and then approved the decision of the Fifth General Council held A, D. 533. (Dupins, vol. i., p. 709 ; Mosheim, cent 5, part ii., chap, iii., sec. 10.) Pope Liberius, in the fourth century, erred as pope in condemning Athanasius, and in consenting to the heretical faith of the Arians, and holding communion wutli them_. On this account he was anathematized by Hilary. (Dupins, vol. i., p. 190.) If it be said, that popes who erred were no popes, it does not relieve the case, for then there were no popes for centuries ; and since it is now defined that the infallibility of the Church resides in the popes, then for centuries was there no infallibility in the Church. SOME THINGS CATHOLICS DO BELIEVE. 283 Of the Ancient Fatheks in tlie Church the Catholics hold — that the scriptures are to be interpreted ''according to the unanimous consent of the fathers." To this it may be replied that the fatheis do not agree among themselves, and the thing proposed, is not possible. Many of the fathers taught false doctrines and heresies^ the Catholic Church lierself being judge. Clemens Alexandrius taught that ''Christ felt no hunger;" Hilary taught that ''Christ in His sufferings had no sorrow ;" Cyprian taught ''rebaptization ;" Origen taught that "the pains of hell would only be temporary ; " several of the fathers taught that ''Christ descended into hell, and there preached that they who would confess might be saved." The fathers contradict eacli other in nianv things: Augustine did not think that the fathers before liini were infallible, when in a qu( stion between himself and Jerome, about Peter and the second chapter of Galatians, "he was pressed with the authority of six or seven Greek fathers, he answered, that "he gave no such honor to any writer of books as to think them not to have erred, but to the scriptures only. He believed other authors when they taught according to scri])ture." Now, howev(U*, the sciip- tures are to be interpreted by the fathers ; when the j'aihers speak according to the scriptures, let tlu^ni Ix^ heard ; but if any man, be he popc^, or i)riest, or Ihihei-, ^' speak not accordingto the word of God, lu^speal^s without auihority." or th(^ Saokamexts, ilu^ Church of Kunu^ n achi^s in the languag(^ of l^ojx* Pius IV. : '* 1 also ])roress that there are truly and ])rop(M'ly sc^vcmi saerain(Mits o{ \\\c new law, instituted b}' Jesus (Jhrist our Lord, and nrci^ssaiy for the salvation of mankind, though nol all for vxcvy one, to wit : bai)tism, conlirmation, eucharist, penance, extreiiie unction, ordeis and matrimony, and thai they eontVr grace ; and that of t lies(» l)a])tism, conlii inatioii and ludrrs — can not he leiteraled without saci ileiie." 284 ELDER THOS. P. HALEY. The teaching of the Church of Rome in reference to what they call ''the sacrament of baptism," is unscrip- tural. and therefoie false. In the first place, the scriptures do not call baptism a sacrament. It is not a ''Church ordinance," ,but is without the Church, and was never ad- ministered by any inspired minister to anyone within the Church of Jesus Christ ; naj^, more, it was never adminis- tered to anyone who had already received the remission of sins. The New Testament teaches that Jesus commanded His disciples in these words: "Go teach all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" (Matthew) ; and again, " Go ye therefore into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature: he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark). The only au- thority to baptize anj^one is contained in the commission thus quoted, and only the persons included in the commission are commanded to be baptized. "Go teach the nations, 'baptizing the taught' " only those who have been taught are to be baptized ; and the command, preach the gospel to every creature, explains the teaching. Those taught by having the gospel preached to them only, are to be baj)tized. Those who are taught are to 'believe the gospel, and only those who believe are to be baptized; for "he that believeth not shall be damned" (Mark). According to the commission which authorizes baptism, only those who are taught and can believe that which is taught, are permitted to be baptized. The Romish practice, therefore, of baptizing infant children is unauthorized by the holy scriptures, and the reasons which they assign for such baptism are also without scripture foundation. The Roman cathechism teaches "that the law of baptism extends to all insomuch that unless they are regenerated through the grace of baptism, be their parents Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal misery and everlasting destruction." SOME THINGS CATHOLICS DO BELIEVE. 285 That tins law extends not onl}^ to adults, but also to infants, and that thi^ Church has received this, its inter- pretation from apostolic tradition (not from God's word) is confirmed by the autliority and strengthened b}^ the concurrent testimony of the fathers. If, then,- through the transgression of Adam's children they inherit the stain of primeval guilt, is there not still stiong reason to conclude that the efficacious merits of Christ the Lord must impart to them that justice and those graces which will give them a title and reign in eternal life. This happy consummation, baptism alone can accom- plish. Again, infants unless baptized can not enter Iteaven^ and hence we may well conceive how deep the enormity of their guilt who through negligence suffer them to remain without the grace of the satjrament longer than necessity may require. (Catechism, pp. 162, 163, 164.) Now, the scriptures are as silent as the ashes of the dead about infant damnation, and by the terms of the commission they are not and can not be subjects of baptism — only he that ''believeth may be baptized." Infants dying in infancy, receive in Christ, without their agency (and with- out ordinances) all they lost in Adam without their agency. They do not, therefore, need baptism. Whatever may be said of original sin and heieditary depiavity, it is clear that children are not accounted sinners until they have committed actual transgression. They do not, tlu^refore, ntunl ba}>!isni, nor the Church, in oider to Ix^ savinl. Ji^sus said, '* Suffer little childi'en to come unto \\\k\ and forbid them not, for of such is the Kingdom of Ib^aven." Thc^ baptism of infants unborn, of idiots and of insane, n^sts on no sei'i])tui'(\ but ow autliority of tradition o\\\y, J(^sus never authorized th(* l>a])lisni o\^ anyoih^ \\\\o did not beli(n'(» on lliin as the Son of (uxl aiul tlu* Savior of pinners; who did not rejxMit of all sin, and confess \\'\^ name before men. Catiiolics do baptize children which 286 ELDER THOS. P. HALEY. can not believe, and have no sins to repent of, and which can not profess faith in Christ. They do also authorize the baptism of unborn children, of dumb and mad persons, and the children of Jews and heretics, even without the consent of their parents. The thirteenth canon of the Council of Trent on baptism, says: '^hat children are to be reckoned among the faithful by baptism ; or in other words, they become members of the Church of Rome whenever they are baptized," no matter who administers, "whether heretic or schismatic, Jew, Turk or infidel — this is clear from the fourth canon. The eight and ninth canons affirm that all baptized persons are bound by all the precepts of the Church of Rome, whether written or traditional, and that they are obliged to observe them, whether willing or unwilling ; that when they grow to maturity they are not to be left to their own choice, but are to he compelled to lead a christian life hy otlier punishments besides exclusion from the eucharist and other sacraments. What passage of God' s word authorizes this doctrine? The New Testament teaches that baptism is a ''burial" ''in water," in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and nearly all the commentators affirm that the ancient mode of baptism was immersion, and it is a matter of history that the Greek Church has always practised immersion, and that, except in cases ot clinics, or sick persons, the Roman Catholic Church practised immersion until the year A. D. 1311, when it was declared in a council held at Ravenna, " that immer- sion or sprinkling was indifferent." The Roman Catholic Church does, therefore, not only disregard the teachings of the holy scriptures in regard to the subjects of baptism, but is responsible for the dej^arture from apostolic teaching and practice, in regard to the mode or action. The teaching of the Roman Catholic Church in regard SOME THINGS CATHOLICS DO BELIEVE. 237 to the ''design of baptism^'' is also unscriptural. Tlie scriptures teacli that baptism of a ''penitent believer" is *'for the remission of sins," (see Acts ii. 38,) but baptism is not only not for the remission of the sins of infants, unbelievers, or inpenitent persons, but baptism is not for such persons for any purpose. The doctrine of Confirmation, as taught by the Catholic Church, is without the shadow of sanction in the holy scriptures. The matter of Confirmation is thus presented: ''This is Chrism, a compound substance made of oil of olives and balsam, and consecrated by a bishop." The form of con- firmation is as follows: "I sign thee with the sign of the cross, and I confirm thee with the Chrism of salvation in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost." The ceremonies of Confirmation (see Catechism) are as follows: 1. "Those to be confirmed, before they come to the Sacrament are required to wash their foreheads. 2. "The males are placed in one part of the Church and the females in another." "The males are first confirmed and then the females." 3. "The bishop with his hand raised on the head of the person to be confirmed, advokes the Holy Spirit, and at the same time anoints the forehead with the blessed Chrism, saying, I sign thee with the sign of the Cross, etc."* 4. "The unction is made in the form of a cross, to teacli that no Christian should glory save in the Cross oT Cluist." 5. "The person confirmed receives a blow on the clun^k from the hand of the bishop." G. "Then he rec(uves the ki:ss of peace." The scriptures quoted in support of this ridicidoiis ceremony have not tln^ remotest r(»(\'ri- tiatory sacrifice for tlu^ living and the dead, as He was offered on tln^ cross of Calvary, tliat it is as nieriiorivuis as His jirst saciilice was/' The lirst and third canons of the Council ol' Trent thus 290 ELDEE THOS. P. HALEY. present the doctrine : 1. If anyone shall say that a true and proper sacrifice is nor ottered to God in the Mass, let him be accursed. 3. If anyone shall say that the Mass is only a service of praise and thanksgiving, or a bare commemoration of the sacrifice made on the cross, and nor a propitioiory ofi'ering, or that it only benefits him who receives ir, and ought not to be oflered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, let him be accursed. It is a scripture docrrine that "God has set forth" Jesus Christ to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are passed through the forbearance of God. That Jesus '•is the propitlctlon for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." ]^ow the apostle Paul makes it clear, that we do not need ** daily sacrifices:'' '"For such an liigh j)riest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens : who needeth nor daily, as those high priests, to ofler up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people, for this he did. once loheii he offered up himself. ^' (Heb. vii. 2Q. 27.) ** But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building? neither by blood of goats and calves, bur l\v His own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." The teaching of the Roman Catholic Church derogates from the fullness of the sacrifice, that Jhsus Christ hath made for the sins of the world ; and even if Chi^ist were literally present in the bread and wine. He would not need to be offered, since He hath '"put away sins by the sacrifice of Himself." The worshipper may offer Christ by faith, or in other words, may pit* ad the sacrifice of Christ for his sins, but he can in no true sense offer a sacrifice for his own sins. ''llu conuiK'iuiiil hiiiut'lf imtu Uud." Vn^rv f>34. SOME THINGS CATHOLICS DO BELIEVE. 291 The Roman Catholic doctrine of '' Half Communion" or Coriimnnion in one kind, is nnscriptaral. The words of Jesus when instituting the Supper, were : ''Take, eat, this is My body," or this represents My body. Of the Avine ho said : Drink ye all (everj^one) of it, for this is My blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Again, Paul teaches in 1 Cor. xi. 23-2G : For I have i^eceived of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night on which He was betraj^ed, took bread, and when He had given tlianks, He brake it, and said : Take, eat, this is My body which is broken for you ; this do In remeTRbrance of Me. After the same manner also He took the cup, when He had supped, saying : This cup is the New Testament in My blood, this do ye as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of Me, for as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye do show the Lord's death till He comes." These scriptures make it plain that the disciples partook of both the bread and wine, and "the Council of Constance, assembled in 1414, declares that Christ instituted the sacraments in both kinds ; tliat in the primitive Church both kinds were received by the lait}' as well as the clergy." After this declaration, however, this same council, in defiance of the holy scriptures and their own admission, dared to enact the following, and thereby demonstrate the fact, that where the script un^ and the opinions of the clergy are in conflict, the fornu^r must yield to the latter: "That althougli this sacrauK^nt was received by the faithful under both kinds in tlie primitive Church, it was afterwards received in botli kinds l\v tlie officiating priests and 'by the ])ch)])1(\ undtu* tlu^ sptvies of bread onl}'. Likewise tliis holy synod (h'unM^s and diu'lan^s as to this mattc^r, to the lievertMul Fathers in Clirist, Patriarchs, Lords, etc., that they must efl(H*tually jMinish all such as shall transgress this decree, or shall exhort to commuuicati^ to i)(K)ph* in both kinds." In utti^r drhanco 19 292 ELDER THOS. P. HALEY. of the command of Christ, the priest only takes the bread and wine, and gives to the people the bread only, and yet this is the ''Apostolic Church." The Romish practice of '' Wokshippiis^g the Host" is not only unscriptural, bnt it is idolatrous. Their doctrine on this subject is stated by the Council of Trent as follows : "There is, therefore, no room to doubt that the faithful of Christ should adore (worship) His most holy sacrament with that highest worship due to the true God, according to the constant usage in the Catholic Church. If anyone shall say that this holy sacrament should not be adored, nor solemnly carried about in procession, nor held up publicly to the people to adore it, or that its worshippers are idolaters, let him be accursed." I need not say to any intelligent persons that the wor- ship of the host (the round wafer) is idolatry — the worship of that 'Svhich a mouse may eat," ''or a priest himself may eat and vomit and eat again." The doctrines of "Peitai^ce ais^d Absolutiojst" are with- out the sanction of the word of God. It is true that the scrip- tures make repentance the duty of every sinner ; that Jesus said, "except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish ; " still we have no such "sacrament" as Penance even hinted at in the holy scriptures. The Council of Trent, in the 4th Canon, thus defines this sacrament: "If anyone denies that three acts are requisite in a penitent for the entire and perfect remission of sins, lohlcJi are as it loere the matter of the sacrament of Penance^ namely, contrition, confession and satisfaction." When such conditions are present, the priest says: "/ absolve thee from thy sins^ in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." No such sacrament and no such custom are mentioned in holy writ. This practice of "Absolution by a Priest" is one of the most daring impieties ever practised among men. SOME THINGS CATHOLICS DO BELIEVE. 293 No such language as ''I absolve tJiee^^^ ever escaped the lips of an inspired apostle, how much less should they be uttered by men who can lay no claim to inspiration. The apostles of Jesus Christ never attempted to exercise such power; they knew what had been so truly said, ''Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies ? Who can forgive sins but God only?" (Mark ii. 7.) In the matter of forgiveness of sins, He has no agents — God alone can forgive sins. The Romish doctrine of ''Coistfession" is also without the warrant of holy scripture. The form of Confession used in the ''Catholic Church," and which every Catholic is bound to use at least once a year, is as follows : "I confess to Almighty God, to blessed Mary, ever a virgin, to blessed Michael the Archangel, to blessed John the Baptist, to the holy apostles Peter and Paul, to all the Saints, and to thee^ father, that I have sinned exceedingly, in thought, word and deed, through my fault, through my most grievous fault, therefore, I beseech thee, blessed Mary, ever a virgin, the blessed Michael the Archangel, the blessed John the Baptist, the holy apostles Peter and Paul, all the Saints, and thee, father, to pray to God for me." Now, it ought to be sufficient to say, that neither Jesus Christ nor any one of the apostles ever taught the use of any such confession, that on the contrary, men were taught to confess tlieir sins to God, confess their faults one to another, but the erection of the "confessionar' was not an achievement of the apostolic age. The Council of Trent, in the year A. D. 1545, decreed it. It is, therefore, of purely human origin. The doctrini^s of C()^fTRIT^oN■ and Sattsfaotiox, as lield by the Catholic Church, are doctrines wholly unknown to the holy scriptures ; but our space forbids any examina- tion of them in this lecture. Let tlie scripturt^s be carefully examined, and no traco, especially of the Komisli doctrine 294 ELDER THOS. P. HALEY. of Satisfaction, can be found. The Romish doctrine of Justification is not only unscriptural, but most hurtful and fruitful of many corruptions, such as the ''merit of works, intercession of the saints, pilgrimages, penances, indulgences, masses for the dead, and purgatory." They repudiate the doctrine of ''Justification by faith without the deeds of law," and hence all the worlcs enumerated above, are essential to save the soul from purgatory. The doctrine of Purgatory is without the shadow of foundation in God's word. In the Creed of Pope Pius IV. we have : "I constantly hold that there is a purgatory, and that the souls therein detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful." Dens, in his Theology, defines it thus: "It is a place in which the souls of the pious dead, obnoxious to temporal punishment, make satis- faction." "The modes of deliverance are two: first, by suffering the punishment due ; second, by interference of the Church through indulgences, masses said for the dead, by the suffrages or votes of the faithful variously given by prayers, ' ' etc. How strange that so important a doctrine as that of purgatory should not be once named in the holy scriptures, and that the methods by which the pious dead should be extricated, should be left to the discovery of Romish priests. There can be no doubt that the creation of purgatory by the Catholic clergy has been one of their most successful tricks for draining the purses of their ever credulous subjects. Who would not give all that he has, if required, for the repose of the souls of his loved ones ? The doctrine of the Roman Catholics on the subject of " Ikdulgeis^ces " needs only to be stated to show that it has no place in the scriptures : "What is an indulgence ? " "It is the remission of the temporal punishment due to sins, remitted as to their guilt, by the power of the keys, SOME THINGS CATHOLICS DO BELIEVE. 295 without tlie sacrament, by the application of satisfactions which are contained in the treasury of the Church/' (See Dens de Indulgences, No. 241.) This granting indul- gences for money, was one of the scandals which aroused the indignation of Martin Luther. The cry of Tetzel, that ''the moment the money tinkles in the box, the soul escapes from purgatory," was "the straw which broke the camel's back." The doctrine of '' Extreme Uistction" is equally with- out the warrant of the word of God, and implies nothing less than the power to work miracles. It is an anointing of the sick with oil of olives, ''the eyes," the ears, the nose, the mouth, the hands, the feet and the veins. The words used are: "By this unction and His own great mercy, may God indulge thee whatever sins thou hast committed by sight," etc. No such ceremony is mentioned in the scriptures, and no fair interpretation of any scriptural language justifies it. The doctrines of the Church of Rome on the subjects of Orders and Matrimony, are also without foundation in the holy scriptures, but having detained j^ou long already, I hasten to bring this hastily written and very imperfect lecture to a close. Let us remember that if any man speak, he should speak as the oracles of God; and the doctrines and practices of any Church not founded upon the word of God, have no claims upon intelligent men ; and that the assertion that the Church, composed of Callible men, can legislate for the j)eopk^, is a bold, bad, a:>sump- tion. In conclusion, if the Bishop Avhos(^ lectun^ is tin* occasion of this ]>aper, had been as diligi^nt lo 1(^11 ilie people what Catliolics do belitn^e and tt^acli, as lio was successful in conci^alini;' tin* most oUriisivo docirincs o{ the Church, he would haveentilKHl hinisclt* lo more respect. 296 ELDEE THOS. P. HALEY. No amount of eloquence and elegant rhetoric can conceal from the people the facts that Roman Catholicism is not Xew Testament Christianity, and bears little resemblance to it. That God may bless this effort to His glory, is our devout wish. Amen. W mm OF ID^UIEODS WORSHIP MADE AGAINST THE ROxMAN CHURCH : IS IT TRUE? EEV. SAM'L J. NICCOLLS, D.D. In the controversy between Romanism and Protestant- ism, one of the most important questions at issue is, the charge of idolatry. Protestants, ever since the time of the Reformation, have asserted that the worship of the cliurch of Rome is idolatrous in its nature and tendencies. This charge constitutes one of the chief reasons erf their opposition to that church. They claim tliat the usages of worship which prevail in it, are not only contrary to the practice of the primitive church, but tliat they are in direct contradiction to the positive commands of the AVord of God. On the other hand, the adherents of tlie. clnnvh of Rome have most strenuously denied this chaige as slanderous in the extreme; they have complainiHl that they have been misrei)resented in this niattiM-, and tliat their true belief is the v(My rm^erse of what has biNii charged against them. It is not strange* that th(\\' shouUl r(*S(nit this ac/cusation, Foi* it is ind(MMl a most scions one, tiie most dishonoring tliat could W bronght against a profV^ssedly (yhristiaii church. Th(* Script nrt^s compart* idolatry in tin* church, to tin* sin of whoredom in the marriage reflation. II is a crinn* most foul and hah I'lil in tlui sight ot* Cu)d ; it is one which has drawn ih)\\ n iho •rt' 300 REV. SAM'L J. NICCOLLS, D. D. severest -judgments upon His people. Wide-spread and persistent idolatry is the infallible mark of an apostate churcli. No one can fail to see what grave issues are involved in this charge of idolatrous worship, so far as both Protestantism and Romanism are concerned. If it is not true, one party is a slanderer of the church of God, and a chief reason for its existence turns out to be a lie. If it is true, the other against whom the accusation is made, is branded with guilt and dishonor. It is proposed to set the facts of this controversy plainly and fairly before the intelligent reader, that he may judge for himself. First of all, in order to reach a right decision, it is necessary to know what constitutes idolatry. Both Pro- testants and Romanists are agreed that it is a most heinous sin ; that the word of God condemns it ; and that idolatrous worship is hateful in the sight of God. But what is idolatry ? What are the characteristics of an idolatrous worship ? These questions are to be answered by the Scriptures, and by them alone. Man is not competent to declare what worship will be acceptable to God. In this matter we are to be guided by the revealed will of God, who, as the Lord of angels and men, has the unquestioned right to decide how He shall be approached by His creatures. Idolatry is that which the word of God declares to be such. Idolatrous worship is that which the same authority points out and forbids. The Scriptures set forth the living, eternal God as the supreme and only object of worship. ''Thou shalt have no other gods before me." (Ex. xx. 3 ) ''Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and Him only shalt thou serve." (Matt. iv. 10 ) The internal act of worship consists in giving lo God the supreme reverence, love and confidence of our hearts. Whatever usurps His place in the soul of man, is an idol, a false god; and the giving of this supreme honor, love and trust of our hearts to any other being or object than IDOLATROUS AYORSHIP. 301 God, is idolatry. For this reason the Scriptures pronounce covetousness to be idolatry. The external act of idolatry consists in worshipping false gods, or in giving to other objects than God that homage and worship which are due to Hhn alone. Any form of worship which robs God of the supreme homage due Him, by ascribing divine attributes and offices to creatures ; or which sets before the worshipper as the ol)ject of his trust and adoration, a being who is not God, is plainly idolatrous. It is a violation of the first command- ment. But it is also taught in the Scriptures that God must not be worshipped by the use of images or pictures. The second commandment clearly forbids this, and stamps sucli worship as idolatrous. The precise thing forbidden by it, is the making of images or pictures as objects of wor- ship, and bowing down to them and serving them, that is, performing acts of religious worship before tliem. The Hebrew word translated ''serve" includes all kinds of external homage, such as burning incense, making ottVrings, and kissing in token of subjection. The use of images has through all ages been one of the characteristic marks of idol- atrous worship. It was so in the times of the Old Testament dispensation, and the j)eople of God were forbidden under threat of the severest judgnuMits, to use any images or symbols of Jehovah in their worship. God commanded them, saying: ''Tak»^3'(% theref()r(\ good IkhhI unto your- selves (for ye saw no manner of similitude^ on tlu^ day lliat the Lord spake unto you in lloreh out of tlu* midst of the fire): lest ye corrupt youist^lve^, and makt^ you a gravi*n iniag(^, the similitudes of any 1iLrur(\ thi^ likiMiess of u\:\\o or fem»le, thi^ lik(MU*ss of any beusl l hat is on thi^'arlh, lh«^ likeness of any winged fowl that tliel h in t h(* air to \\()i>hip them and S(M*V(* IhtMU. 'i'ake h(M'(l unto yonrsi^h (»^, h'sl ye forget the covenant of the Loi (I your Hod, whieh he made 302 KEY. SAM'L J. ^'ICGOLLS, D.D. with you, and make yon a graven image, or the likeness of any thing which the Lord thy God hath forbidden thee. For the Lord thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God. When thou shalt beget children, and children's chil- dren, and ye shall have remained long in the land, and shall corrupt yourselves, and make a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, and shall do evil in the sight of the Lord thy God — the Lord shall scatter you among the nations, and ye shall be left few in number among the heathen." (Deu. iv. 15-27.) Thus, one essential mark of the true worship of Jehovah, as contrasted with idolatrous worship, was that in it no images or visible objects representing the invisible object of worship were to be used. The Jews from the time of Moses until now, have always considered the worship of the true God by images as much an act of idolatry as the wor- ship of false gods. That this was a right view of the teachings of the "Word of God, is proven not only by its plain commands, but also by the terrible judgments that fell upon the people whenever they attempted to worship God by images. When in the wilderness the people demanded of Aaron that he should introduce image- worship among them, their purpose was not to renounce Jehovah as their God ; they only asked a symbol of Him, as the heathen had their symbols. '* Their sin lay not in their adopting another god, but in their pretending to worship a visible symbol of Him whom no symbol could represent." For this reason they were visited with a fearful piffiishment, the very same denounced against idolaters. Indeed, the scriptures make little or no difference between the worship- ping of God by images, and the Avorshipping of false gods. Both are idolatrous. If, then, we find any church which in its teachings or practice, gives to men, or saints, or angels, the homage and praise wliich are due to God alone, we are right in calling it idolatrous; or if we find a church IDOLATROUS WORSHIP. 303 which claims to worship the living God alone, and yet uses images or symbols to represent Him, and bows down to them, and serves them, we have a right to say, that such worship is idolatrous. Having thus seen in what idolatrous worship consists, the next question to decide is : What are the teachings and practices of the Roman Church as to its worship ? Are they in conformity with the teachings of scripture ? There are, in general, four things taught and practised by the church of Rome against which Protestants bring the charge of idolatry. These are : the invocation of saints and angels ; the worship of the Virgin Mary ; the use of images in the worship of God ; and the adoration of the Host. As to the first — the invocation of saints — the doctrine of the Roman church, as declared by the council of Trent, is as follows : ''That the saints who reign together with Christ, offer to God their prayers for men ; that it is good and use- ful suppliantly to invoke them, and to flee to their prayers, help, and assistance, on account of the benefits to be obtained from God, through His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who is our only Redeemer and Savior." Saints and angels are confessedly the objects of worship in the Roman church ; but a distinction is made between the worship offered to them, and to God. The worship of doideia is due to saints and angels, while that of latreia belongs to God alone. It is on this distinction that the Romanist relies to defend himself from the charge of idohitry. It has, however, been well remarked by a distinguishtnl theoU)gi:in, thi.t this distinction is of little use. '^The inii)c)itant ]uin- ciple is this: Any ]iomag(\ int(M"nal or t\\t(^rnal, whicli inv()lv(^s the ascription of divine atlributt^s to its objiu-t, if that ()l)j(K'.tb(i a creature, is i(h)hitr()us. Whi^thtM' ihi* homage paid by Romanists to saints and angt^ls Ix^ idoLatrous, is a question of fact ratlier than theory ; that is, it is to be 304 REV. SAM-L J. NIGCOLLS; D. D. determined by the homage actually rendered, and not by that which is prescribed. It is easy to say that the saints are not to be honored as God is honored, but this does not alter the case, if the homage rendered them assumes that they possess the attributes of God ; and if they are to the people the objects of religious affection and confidence." The facts are, as can readily be learned from the books of devotion in common and authorized use in the Roman church, that blessings are sought from the saints, which God alone can bestow, and that they are relied upon to obtain these blessings for their worshippers. All blessings, temporal and spiritual, are sought for at the hands of the saints. Such prayers as these are off^ered: ''Holy Peter, save me ; open to me the gates of heaven ; give me repen- tance, courage, etc." ''Holy St. Joseph, we fly to thy patronage : Deliver us from all danger, and secure for us the favor of God." Prayers are addressed to the saints for "recovery from sickness;" "for a prosperous jour- ney ; " "for protection against enemies ; " " for the pardon of sin;' "for growth in grace and holiness;" in short, for all manner of blessings, temporal and spiritual. This is not only the teaching and practice of the Roman church, but it furthermore declares "that we may plead for accep- tance, grace and mercy with God for their (the saints) merits and works." Thus the saints are asked to give that which God alone can bestow, and as they are addressed by their worshippers from every part of the earth, and by many thousands at the same hour, the mind of the worshipper must clothe them with the attributes of omniscience and omnipresence. Practically, they stand before them worshippers in the place of God. The confidence, love and trust which are to be given to Jesus Christ alone, who, as the Scriptures declare, is "the only Mediator between God and man," are given to these false mediators and intercessors. The IDOLATROUS WORSHIP. 305 tendency of the whole system of saint-worship is so manifestly idolatrous, as is plainly proven by its fruits, that no extended argument is needed on this point. The numerous shrines of the saints, visited by thousands of deluded worshippers, who come to pray before their images, and to leave offerings at their altars, and the con- stant looking to and trusting in tlie saints, so characteristic of Roman Catholic countries, furnish undoubted proofs of the nature of this worship. Not only is there no foundation for this system of saint- worship in the Scriptures, but it has often been observed that it is the counterpart of the polytheism of heathen Rome. According to Pagan theology, there were middle powers between the chief gods and men ; these were called daimonioi^ or demons, the same word which is translated ''devils" in the New Testament. These '^demons" were of two classes, evil and good. Plato, a competent authority in this matter, says : "God is n#t approached by man, but all the commerce and intercourse between the gods and men, is by the mediation of demons." Another heathen writer says: ''Demons are middle powers by whom both one's desires and deserts pass unto the gods ; they are car- riers between men on earth and the gods in heaven ; hence of prayers, thence of gifts." These good "dt^nons" wt^v of two classes: first, immoi'tal s]>iritunl biMiii^s ; and second, the souls of men deifKHl or caiioniziHl after death. Plato maintains that when nuMi of (^xtraordinarv valor or goodness die, they become "denions,^' and that we ouulit ever aft(»rwai-ds "to serve and adore tlnMr si^pulchn^s as the sepulchi'es of demons." All this was a. ])art of tliat iih^la- ti'ous Avorshi]) which ])r(^vaihHl in thi^ (jentih* world, wIumi the gospel was first ])r()claiine(l ; but in oppo^^ition to it, the ai)ostles ])reached "one (Jod and om* Mediator l^etwct^n God and man, the man (Mirist .lesns." It was pnulictiHl by the apostles that a gi'eat ai)ostaey wouhl iak(^ ]^laet^ in tlu^ 306 REV. SAM^L J. NICCOLLS, D. D. Christian clinrch ; many would '' depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils (literally, 'of demons')." (1 Tim. iv. 1.) St. John, in de- scribing what would be the condition of a large part of Christendom at the time of the rise of Mohammedanism, and after the invasion of the Saracens, writes : "Yet they repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils (demons), and idols of gold, and silver, and brass^ and stone, and of wood." (Rev. ix. 20.) Both these passages declare that this idolatrous ' 'demon" - worship, that is, worshipping the souls of the dead, was to be one of the characteristics of the apostacy. It is a well known fact that the worship of the saints was not introduced into the Christian church until in the third and fourth centuries ; but with the incoming of the large number of baptized heathen, who were incorporated into the church when Christianity became the established religion of the Roman Empire, the evil^grew with fearful rapidity until it became universal. The historian. Gibbon, writes: ''The Christians of the seventh century insensibly relapsed into a semblance of Paganism ; their public and private vows were addressed to the relics and images that disgraced the temples of the East. The throne of the Almighty was darkened by a crowd of martyrs, and saints, and angels, the objects of popular veneration." So manifest was the correspondence between this idolatrous saint-worship, and the old Pagan- worship of demons, that some of the fathers used it as an agreement with the heathen to commend the gospel. Theodoret says: "For our Lord hath brought his dead into the place of your gods whom he hath utterly abolished, and hath given their honor to the martyrs ; for, instead of the feasts of Jupiter and of Bacchus, are now celebrated the festivals of Peter and Paul, and Thomas, and the other martyrs. Wherefore, seeing the advantage of honoring the martyrs, liy, O friends, from the error of the IDOLATROUS WORSHIP. 307 demons, and using the martyrs as lights anri guides, pnr^ue the way that leadeth directly to God." This fact cannot be successfully set aside: that it is in the ancient heathen- worship, and not in the practice, of the primitive church, nor in the Scriptures, that we find the counterpart of saint- worship as it is still practised in the Roman church. The second ground for the charge of idolatrj^ is the wor- ship of the Virgin Mary. Tlie memory of the mother of our Lord is highly reverenced hy all Christians. The Scrip- tures declare her ''blessed" as ''the most highly favored .of women." The highest honor ever conferred upon any sinful child of Adam was given to her, in that she became the mother of the Redeemer of Men. Her exalted position among women, her pure character, and her many sorrows and sore trials, led the primitive church to revere in a special manner her memory, and to look u])on her as the ideal of womanly perfection and tenderness. Biif as tlie spirituality of the church declined, this feeling -degenerated into a superstitious regard, and at last culminated in her worship as an object of divine honors. It would be in- teresting, were this the place to trace the wlioTi^ process by which, step by step, the deification of tlie Virgin was accom- plished in the church of Rome. It is enough fo say that while the first step was the declaration of her "perpetual virginity," the last act in tlu^ series was to d(\*lare lier "im- maculate conception." She was, according to this dognia, born without the least stain of original sin, and is thus })la(UHh as to complete sinlessness, on an equality with hov adorable Son. According to the doctrines of the cliuri'h of Rome, the Virgin Mary is entith^d to a higluM- d(\u'riMM)f worsliip tlian an}^ other saint. Sonn^ of th(^ ]H>j)ish divines havt» designated the honor dm^ Ium* as '' tiprrdouhiay The catechism of the council of TiiMit, ai>prov(Hl by Pope Pins v., t<'ach('s: '^That W(* might i^iously and sn]>plinn!ly resort to her to conciliate tlu^ friendshij) of (Uxl to ns sinners 303 RET. SA^fL J. XICCOLLS; D. D. hy her intercession, and to procure the blessings that are necessary for this life and for eternity. Therefore, we exiled children of Eve, who inherit this vale of tears, ought as- siduously to invoke the mother of mercy and the advocate of the faithful, that she may pray for us sinners, and to implore help and assistance from her in this prayer (the Ave Maria), whose most exalted merits with Grod, and whose great willingness to afford help to our race, no one can doubt without impiety and wickedness.'' It is but fair to say that the Romanists claim, that the worship which they give to the Virgin is not the same as that which is due to God. Here, as in the former case, they rely upon the difference between uperdouleia and latreia to defend themselves from the charge of idolatry. But a technical and theoretical definition will not avail to avert the charge, if, in actual practice, divine honors and offices are ascribed to the Virgin. It is a fact which cannot be denied, that she is the most popular objeat of devotion in the Roman church ; more prayers are addressed to her than to any other mediator. Daily prayers are offered to her and are pre- scribed in Romish books of devotion. Seven annual fes- tivals are established in her honor ; more churches are dedicated to her than to any other among the saints ; and in all papal churches her image occupies the most prom- inent position. Further light is shed upon the kind of worship actually given to her by the names and titles by i^hich she is addressed. In the ''Litany of the Blessed Virgin" she is called in the prescribed prayers ''the Queen of Angels, of Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, Confessors, Virgins, and all Saints." Among her titles are "Most Powerful" and "Most Merciful." She is stj^led the Ark of the Covenant, Gate of Heaven, Refuge of Sinners, Help of Christians, Health of the Weak, and Comforter of the Afflicted. She is sought not only as a mediator, but as one having authority, as in the following prayer, which may IDOLATROUS ^YORSHIP. 309 be fonnd in tlie ''Garden of the Soul," a prayer-book officially approved by f John, Archbishoi^ of New York : ''We fly to thy patronage, O holy Mother of God ; despise not our petitions in our necessities, but deliver us from all danger, O ever glorious and blessed Virgin." Another prayer (by St. Bernard) is as follows: "Re- membe'r, O most holy Virgin Mary, that no one ever had recourse to thy protection, implored thy help, or sought thy mediation without obtaining relief. Confiding, there- fore, in thy goodness, behold me a penitent sinner, sighing out my sins before thee, beseeching thee to adoj)t me for thy son, and to take upon thee the care of my eternal salvation." A prayer of the same kind is in the "Secular's, office," approved by the Archbishop of Baltimore: "0 holy Mary ! my Sovereign Queen and most loving mother ! receive me under thy most blessed patronage and special protection, and into the bosom of thy mercy this day, and every day, and at the hour of my death. I recommend to thee my soul and body, I commit to thy care all my hopes and comforts, all my afflictions and miseries, my life and my death ; that by thy intercession and through thy merits, all my actions may be directed and disposed according to thy will, and that of thy blessed Son. Amen/' More caimot be asked of Christ in tlie way of salvation than is asked in such prayers as these, of the Virgin Mary. Praise is also given to her such as is due to God alont^ ; hymns are sung in her honor, and she is salut^^^d as "Mother of Divine Grace,"* "Miirorof Justice," and ''Seat of Wisdom." TIk^ whole Psalter has been so changed as to apply all its soleinu praises and sui)}>lieati(>ns to the Virgin. For (\\ani])l(', th(^ first Psalm is ma(h^ to n^ad : "lilessed is tht^ ninn that loveth thy name, C) \'irgin Mary: thy gract* sliall comfort his soul/' The ninth Psalm iTiuls: '' 1 will confrss to tlico, () Lady *l>omi!ia): I will declare among (he jieoplc thy praise a lu I glory ; to thee 20 310 KET. SAM'L J. XICCOLLS, D. D. belong glory, thanksgiving, and tlie voice of praise.'' In short, throughout the wliole Psalter thus changed, the Virgin is addressed as the inspir d Psalmist addresses God, and thus the Romanist is taught to give to a creature the honor that is due to God alone. It may be said that this Psalter, complied hv St. Bonaventura, was never officially sanctioned by the popes or councils ; but the incontrovertible fact is, that it was sanctioned by high authority and used in the Roman church ; nor was its use ever condemned by any pope or council. While it is admitted that the standards of the Roman church disavow the worshiping of Mary as a divine being, the universal •practice of that chnrch unquestionably convicts its ad- herents of giving to the Virgin the honor, praise, and confidence, due to God alone. She shares equally with Christ in the aflectionate trust of her worshipers, and to thousands upon thousands in the communion of that chui'ch she is more than her Divine Son. No one conversant with the state of affairs in Mexico, in South America, or in Spain, where Roman Catholicism is the prevalent faith, can for a moment deny that the Virgin Mary is the most popular object of worship among the people, and the one who is chief in their prayers and supplications. If the Scriptures are to be regarded as the supreme authority in this matter, it cannot be doubted that the wor- shipping of the Viro'ln Mary, even on the ground presented in the acknowledged standards of the Roman church, is idola- trous in its tendencies. It places before the mind of the worshiper another mediator than the only One whom God has appointed : it teaches him to confide in her as merciful and gracious to sinners, and as liaving peculiar power with God, and as being somehow endowed with the attributes of omniscience and omnipresence, so that she can know the hearts, and be present wirh the great multitude of her worshipers in all parts of the earth. All this is so utterly IDOLATROUS WORSHIP. 311 nnscriptural, and without foundation in fact, that we can- not suppose it has any tendency to honor God, unless we believe that lies have a tendency to truth, and that God is glorified by delusions. If the definitions already given of idolatry and idolatrous worship be correct, there can be no question that the worship of the Virgin Mary, as practised by thousands in the Roman church, and with the knowledge and consent of those in authority, is idolatrous. She is, to ail intents and purposes, a goddess, received and honored as such ; and all attempts to excuse or defend this corrupt and Christ-dishonoring practice, by saying that it is only honoring Christ by giving due honor to his mother, or that her intercession is invoked just as we ask saints on earth to pray for us, are far from meeting the facts in tlie case. They only show that some Romanists are at heart ashamed of what exists in their churches. The language of ])rayers and litanies, of Psalters and Te Deums, of altars and votive offerings, utters a different testimony which no convenient theoretical explanation can set aside. A third ground for the charge of idolatrous worsliip, is the use of images, as sanctioned and practiced in tlie Roman church. The teachings of tlu^ council of Trent, with relert^mu^ to the use of images in worship, are very warily worded. They declare ''that the images of ('hrist, of the God- bearing Virgin, and of the saints, are to be had and retained, especially in churclu^s ; and due honor and veneration renden^l to them; not that it is bt^lii^rd that tlu^re resid(^s in them any divinity or virtu(^ on account of which thty ar(' to 1)(^ w()rshi{>iHl, or that an\ tiling is to be sought from them, or that confKh'nct^ is to bi> })hiC(Hl in images as was formei'ly (h)n(^ by tho (it^ntilivs who put thiMr trust in idols ; but sinc(^ Ww honor which is shown to them is refernnl to tln^ originals whicli they represent, so that through th(* images which we kiss, and before whieh wo 312 REV. SAM'L J. NICCOLLS, D.D. "uncover tlie head, and fall down, we adore Christ and venerate the saints, whose likeness they bear." Thus, according to the plain teachings of Rome, to adore the image of Christ, is to adore Christ himself. ''Due honor and veneration" to his image, is the honor and veneration due him. That this attempt to worship the invisible Head of the chnrch through an image, is a plain and positive violation of the second commandment, needs no argument. Besides, the defense which the council of Trent makes for the use of images, is precisely the one urged by intelligent heathen to justify their image-w^orship. They did not think that their sacred images were real gods. JSTo intel- ligent G-reek supposed that Jupiter was a marble statue ; nor did the heathen, mentioned in the Bible, believe that the sun was Baal, or the moon Ashtoreth ; but they supposed just what the Romanist does, that some connection existed between the image and the divinity it represented, so that the honor and worship given to the one w^as ''referred to the original w^hich it represented." As a matter of fact, Romanists do believe that peculiar virtues or powders reside in certain images. They have "winking Madon- nas" who miraculously manifest their approval to their worshipers. . It is claimed for many of these images, that they have miraculous powers in healing diseases and in averting calamities, so that the sufferer, desiring help, comes to some particular image, or it is carried to him. The Bambino SantissimOj in Rome, wall serve as an illustration of this. It is a little wooden image of Christ ; but it is asserted that it can heal diseases and avert pestilence, and stay the progress of fire. It is taken in a carriage, in charge of a priest, to visit the sick who are unable to come to its shrine. It has been brought out into the streets to stay the progress of a disastrous fire. Once a year it is carried in a religious procession, to a hill overlooking Rome, and there held up by a high church official to bless the city. IDOLATROUS WORSHIP. 313 If there is ''no divinity or virtue, residing in tliis imag^," why is it sought after and lield in such special honor above other images in Rome? Scores of cases similar to this, in which an image of Christ, or of the Virgin, or of some saint, has become an object of special worship, because of some supposed sujjernatural power belonging to it, could readily be mentioned ; and until the church of Rome purges itself of this universal practice, so manifestly in violation of the second commandment, it must rest under the charge of sanctioning idolatrous worship, no matter what is the language of its professed teachings. But the obscure and carefully worded utterances of the council of Trent, are more fully explained b}^ the decisions of an older council, known in history as the second council of Nice. As the council of Trent approved and commended its decisions, and as they are to day an authoritative and infal- lible expression of the doctrines of the Roman church, they have the greatest possible importance in deciding the question at issue. This second council of Nice, which met A. D. 787, was the lirst oecumenical council which sanctioned image-worship. The controversy which it claimed to de- cide, had been carried 0:1 iu the church for three centuries. Such a thing as image-worship was not known iu the apostolic church, and for the lirst three centuries the spirituality and simplicity of Christian worship were pre- served. ]jut, in course^ of tiinc^, that baplizinl biil uncon- verted heathenism wliich liad been incoi-poralcd into the church, became so strong in its inllncnce as to overcome the old opposition to iniagf woi'ship. At lir.-i, pictures and statues were introduced under lh(^ ph'a. of instrnctinu; the people ; but even this step encountertMl sc^rions opposi- tion. Tlie council of Klvira, in Sj)ain, A. 0. IU)."), condemned the uS(M)f piciurt^s in ehniclies. '^An.un^line eoinphiined of th(^ superstitious us » of images; Knstd)ins protested against their being nnuh'ohjects of worship ; anddregoiy tin* 314 REV. SAM'L J. NICCOLLS, D. D. Great, bishop of Rome, allowed their use only as means of instruction." As late as the eighth century, we find many in the church heroically struggling against the increasing tendency to idolatry. In A. D. 726, the Emperor Leo III., a good Catholic, issued an ordinance forbidding the use of images in churches as heathenish and heretical. The coun- cil of Constantinople, which met in A. D. 754, vigorously upheld Ijis views and supported his decree with their ecclesiastical sanction. This was the law of the church for thirty-three years, until the Empress Irene, a fanati- cal devotee of image-worship, under instigations from Rome, called another council to consider this matter. It first met at Constantinople ; but as the opposition in that city to the use of images was so strong, the council was adjourned and met the following year in Nice. There, by bribery, and fraud, and intimidation, a decision was pro- cured reversing the decrees of the former council called by Leo III., and declaring it heretical; it also ordained the use of pictures and images in worship. The council went }o far as to make their use an indispensable necessity and anathematized and cast out of the church all who refused ' to receive and use them. Its language is, ''Anathema to them that are ambiguous or doubtful in their minds and do not confess with their hearts that sacred images are to be worshipped." This same council announced the prin- ciple by which image- worship was to be defended, namely, that the worship paid the image terminates on the object it represents. Its decisions were sanctioned by the pope, and thus, according to the new dogma of infallibility, they are as binding upon the consciences of men as the Word of God itself. But at that time they met decided opposition within the church. Then, there were noble and eloquent bishops, who instead of defending or excusing this miserable idolatry, boldly called it by its true name. A council Avas summoned to meet at Frankfort-on-the-Main, IDOLATROUS WORSHIP. 315 at whicli were present delegates from Germany, Britain, France and I aly ; [ind even two legates from the pope were tliere. Afrer careful deliberation, the decrees of the council of Nice, were '' rejected," ''despised" and ''condemned." All worshiping of pictures and images was forbidden ; but tlieir presence was allowed in the churches for ornament and instruclion. No less a person than the Emperor Charlemagne wrote a book to refute the decrees of the council of Nice, denouncing them as pernicious in their tendency, and as establishing idolatry in the church. Thus, upon the testimony of Catholics them- selves, the worshiping of images, as ordained by this coucil of Nice, and ap2')roved in later times by the council of Trent, was regarded as idolatrous ; but, in spite of these earnest protests within the church, the advocates of image- worship gained the ascendency so completely as to silence all opposition. Thomas Aquinas, the greatest theologian in the Romish church, in the thirteenth centuiy, taught that the reverence due to Christ, is du.^ to his image. He declares that "since Christ is to be adored with the worship of 'latreia^^ it follows that his image may be adored with the worship of 'latreia;^ " that is, that divine honors may be givm to a statue of wood or stoiu^ which is su}>pc)stHl to re])r('S(Mit the invisible Lord! This is undisguised idolatry, according to tlui Scriptures. Yet this view is the one most widely prevalent in the liomish clnircli ; it is iu accordance with th(^ ((cachings of at least two oF Ii>m" councils ; nor has it evei" been condcMvincHl by any whosi' authority th(» church recogni/cs. Tlu^ following I'cuiarks, madi' by th«^ vcmu'- able Dr. Ilodgi^, arc* not on!^,' ])'-M't huMit to this .'ir-unient, butth(yar(» nhundantly sustaininl by \\w facts in the case: ''1. I^'roni all t!iis, it apju^ars that the Koiuanisis worship images in the same way that the heat hcii of ohl did, and ])agans (»f our own (h'ly still do. 'IMiey 'how ih)wii to them and ser\e ihcni:' they pay them ail the external homage 316 REV. SAM'L J. NICCOLLS, D. D. which they render to the persons they are intended to represent. ''2. The explanations and defense of such worship are the same in both cases. The heathen recognized the fact that the images made of gold, silver, wood, or marble, were lifeless and insensible in themselves; they admitted that they could not see, or hear, or save. They attributed no inherent or supernatural power to them. They claimed that the homage paid to them, terminated on the gods whom they represented ; that they only worshiped before the images, or at most through them. ^'3. Both among the heathen andihe Romanists, for the uneducated people, the images themselves were the objects of worship. It would be hard to find in any heathen author such justification of image- worship as the Romish theologians put forth. What heathen ever said that the same homage was due to the image of Juj^iter as to Jupiter himself? This, Thomas Aquinas says of the images of Christ and of the saints. Or what heathen ever has said, as Bellarmin says, that although the homage to be paid to the image is not strictly and properly the same as that due to its prototype, it is nevertheless improperly and analogi- cally the same ; the same in kind, though not in degree ? What can the common people know of the difference between yroprie and improprle? They are told to worship the image, and they worship it just as the heathen wor- shiped the images of their gods. As the Bible pronounces and denounces as idolatry not only the worship of false gods, but also the worship of images, 'the bowing down to them and serving them,' it is clear that the Roman church is as wholly given to idolatry as was Athens, when visited by Paul." A fourth reason for the charge of idolatrous worship against the Romish church, is to be found in the doctrine of the Mass. IDOLATROUS WORSHIP. 317 Romanists regard tlie LorcVs Supper not only as a sacranient, but also as a true and real sacrifice ; and furthermore, it is as a sacrifice that the Mass becomes the central point in their worship. The doctrine of the council of Trent on this point is, that the bread and wine are changed by the power of Grod into Christ's body and blood. They do not represent, but they actually become the real Christ, and remain so. The consecrated wafer becomes the whole Christ — body, soul and divinity. In her formulary of faith prescribed by Pius IV., there is the following declaration : ''I profess, likewise, that in the Mass there is offered to God, a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead ; and that in the most holy sacrament of the Enchaiist there is really, and truly, and substantially, the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that there is made a change of the whole substance of the bn^ad into the bod}^, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood." This change, called ''transubstantiation/' the Romanists teach, is a permanent one, so that the con- secrated wafer containing the whole true Christ, ma}^ be preserved and carried to the sick, or boriu^ alxuit in ])r()ces- sions. They also teach that it is to be adored. The wor- ship given to it is not that which they i)rofess to give to saints and images, l)ut it is that of Uitreia — the solemn worship due to God alon(\ This worsliip is uivcn in the bidief that, as the bread has Ixhmi changed inio th(» true body of Ctirist, his soul and divinity are inseparably connected with it; and that as (Mirist was adored by liis discij)l(^s wluMi bodily ])resent on th(^ earili, so now he is to be adored in tln^ Host. If such a change has indeed tak»Mi plac(\ and tin* whole (lirisl is locally ])resenl in the wafer, then indeiul the worshij) would be proper. Ibi! if il has not taken place, if the birad is no more the irue, veritabK* body of Christ than an}- oilier bread, and if his soul and 318 REY. SAM-L J. NICCOLLS; D.D. divinity are no more present in it than in other bread, then even Romanists would admit that the worship of a piece of bread, over which some sacred words had been said, is flagrant and manifest idolatry. Unless, then, the doctrine of transnbstantiation can be proven from the Scripture,, this charge of idolatrous worship against the church of Rome, must stand. "As all Protestants believe the doctrine of transnbstantiation to be utterly unscriptural and false, they are unanimous in pronouncing the worship of the consecrated elements, to be idolatry." When men place before themselves a piece of bread — a wafer made of flour — and give to it the homage due to God alone, as the Romanist confessedly does, they should be able to give clear and strong reasons in justification of their conduct, in order to clear tliemselves of the charge of idol- atry. The arguments which are drawn from the Scriptures to defend the Romish doctrine of the Mass are contradictory, unsatisfactory, and in positive violation of well known and established laws of interpretation. The notion tliat the Lord's Supper is a true sacrifice ''off*ered up for the living and the dead," is in plain violation of the teachings of the New Testament, which declare that Christ's once off'ering up himself a sacrifice, has made a complete atone- ment, and "by one ofiering he hath perfected forever those that are sanctified." It is a remembrance, a memorial of a sacrifice already made once for all, and not a repetition of that sacrifice. The idea that the words of institution used by Christ — "this is my body broken for you" — meant that he was then and there really giving his disciples his own flesh to eat, is so preposterous, that the wonder is how sane men could ever have adopted it. To demand that these words shall be interpreted literally, is to introduce a principle of interpretation which makes nonsense out of the sacred Scriptures. Indeed, so manifestly weak is the argu- ment drawn from the Scriptures in favor of the Mass, that IDOLATROUS WORSHIP. 319 intelligent Romanists liave admitted its inefficiency and claimed that they found full justification for their belief in tradition. Cardinal Bellarmin says: "The Lord made not this oblation, nor did the apostles themselves at the beginning." Salmeron, the Jesuit, ascribes the origin of the Mass, not to the Scriptures, but to unwritten traditions. Cardinal Baronius, in his Commentaries on Paul's Epistles, makes the same acknowledgment. As a matter of fact, the doctrine of the Mass was one of the superstitions "developed" in the church. It was not a recognized dogma of the Romish church nntil the year A. D. 1215, and the decision of the council which made it an article of faith, was not reached without much controversy and dissent in the church. It is also an. insuperable objection to this doctrine, that it involves impossibilities and contradictions. It requires us to believe that a material object should be completely changed, and at the same time not changed. The bread remains bread, and the wine — wine ; and yet we are required to believe that they are something else. It requires us to disbelieve and set aside the well authen- ticated evidences of our senses. Much more might be said in the way of objection to this absurd notion of transub- stantiation, a child of fanatical superstition, but the limits of this paper forbid. This, howt^ver, is plain: he who defends the Roman church against the charge of idolatry, must be able to defend and prove the doctrine of the Mass ; he must show from the Scriptures, that upon tlu^ utterance of the words of consecration by a priest, a Hour wafer becomes a true God, a biding to Ix^ worshiped as revt^rently as he who died on the cross of Calvary ! Upon these four grounds, theret()r(\ Protostants base their chai'ge oMdolatrous worslii}) against tlu^ church of Rom(\ 'I'hey are not ignorant of wlial thai chiiich trarhes on tlu'se ])oints, nor do tht'v wish to nnsr(']>r('st'nt its doctrines; but they insist that worship, to be acc('i)labh' lo 320 REV. SAM'L J. NICCOLLS, D. D. God, must be in accordance with liis Word. It is plain from the teachings of history that there is a strong tendency in human nature towards idolatry — idolatrous worship has ever had a strange fascination for man. It was the besetting sin of the church under the Jewish dispensation, and at last, it so overspread and corrupted it, that the chosen people were given over to seventy years' captivity for their purification. A like apostacy was predicted to come to pass under the new dispensation. ' It is no strange thing in religion that men should be led by strong delusions, and earnestly believe lies, especially is this to be expected when human tradition is held to have equal authority with the Word of God. Our only safety is in holding fast to revealed truth as it is written in the Scriptures. The law of the Lord is '^perfect," nor do we need any other ''infallibility" than that which it furnishes, to guide us in the way of pleasing God. !2?^0'^'^'^.mish prelates. How are we to decide bet\Neen tlhMn ^ Touch inu' this 326 BISHOP THOMAS BOWMAN. general statement, that there is great difficulty in finding out just what Romish writers have said, we quote from "the learned Father Paul," whose loyalty to the Catholic Church none will deny. Among other things of a similar kind, he says: "There wants not in Italy pious and learned persons which hold the truth, but they are not suffered to write, nor to print. Something comes written from another place, but presently it is prohibited." Again he affirms that Clement VIII. \pope from 1592 to 1605) taught that the books of Catholic authors "might be corrected and amended, not only by taking away what is not conform- able to the doctrines of Rome, but also with adding to it." Then he says, "At this present, in reading of a book, a man can no more find what the authors meaning was, but what is the Court of Rome's who hath altered everything." "Father Paul" is not alone in these statements. We could multiply quotations from various Romish authors to the same effect. It is not wonderful, then, that both Catholics and Protestants should at times be in confusion as to what the "true Church" and her authors do really teach. In a discourse recently published, an eloquent Roman Catholic writer has given expression to another sentiment, to which we call attention, and which we most cordially reciprocate. He declares that "mutual good feeling ought to exist amongst members of all religious organizations, and indeed among all men ;" and that his intercourse with non-Catholics has taught him ''a great respect for what are called bigoted people." These are noble utterances. They recognize the fact that there maybe "religious organiza- tions" outside of the Roman Catliolic Church, and that some of the members of these are worthy "the respect" of a Catholic prelate. Are we to attribute all this to the gener- ous overflow of a kind nature, or to advanced sentiment in the Church which the liberal writer represents ? In either ROMANISM ENSLAYES, DEGRADES, CORRUPTS. 327 case we accept the expressions thankfully; in the latter case, joyfully. But are these manly sentiments of the accomplished lecturer in harmony with the past teachings and conduct of his Church, or even with its general spirit to-day ? If we are correctly informed, the oath which a Catholic Bishop has to take, requires him to say : ''Heretics, schismatics, and rebels to our said lord, or his aforesaid successors, I will to my utmost persecute and oppose." It is well known to all readers of history, that in former years most fear- ful persecutions and wars were waged against Protestants, and that, too, by the sanction and authority of the Romish Church. The most sweeping denunciations against the right of private judgment and conscience in religion, and the most emphatic assumption of authority on the part of the Catholic Church to compel, by physical force, submis- sion to her commands, have been sent from the Vatican and from the Council, again and again. These, so far as we know, have never been repealed. On the contrary, in the Encyclical of the late Pope, issued in 1864, they are both "directly and indirectly reaffirmed. In an intensely interest- ing book, entitled ''Spiritual Struggles of a Roman Catho- lic," the author of which is still living, we find the following : '' I was taught to hate and shun Protestants ^ Peter Den, a Catholic author, in his Theology, published in 1864, says: " Notorious heretics are infamous, and are to be deprived of ecclesiastical burial; their temporal goods are, of course, confiscated ; they are deservedly visited with other penalties, even corporeal ; as exile, imprisonment, etc." Pope Innocent III. and the fourth Lateran Council, according to Du Pin, the celebrated Roman Catholic author, "in the third canon, excommunicated and anathematizt^d all the heretics who opposed the Catholic and Orthodox faith ; ordered that the lu^etics should be delivered up to the secular power to be punished; granted the same indulgence 21 328 BISHOP tho:mas bowman. to those Catholics who shall nndertako to extirpate heretics by force of arms as are granted to those who go to the Holy Land ; excommunicated those who entertained, protected, or supported heretics ; ordered that those who will not avoid the company of the excommunicated, shall themselves be excommunicated, and finally the bishops are threatened to be deposed if they neglect to purge their dioceses from heretics." To all this add the fact, patent to the world, that a spirit of intolerance prevails in all Catholic countries, and that the intensity of this intolerance is exactly proportional to the strength of the Catholic sentiment, and the power of the clergy to control the governments, and you have a sufiicient reason for our opposition to Romanism. It is not, as Catholics suppose, because of our ignorance that we dread and oppose their Church ; it is because we know the teachings and history of the past and the spirit of the present Catholic Church, that we fear and oppose her. Let her authorities repeal the infamous teachings of the past ; let them repudiate and condemn the wicked persecutions of former years and the horrid spirit of intolerance wherever it may exist ; let . them endorse such noble utterances as the one above ; let them cultivate Christian fraternity with ''the good men and true" who are in every community struggling against sin, and striving to lift up degraded humanity ; let them abandon all right to control personal liberty, or to interfere with the rights of private judgment and conscience, and we will hail them as fellow laborers in the cause of Christ, and bid them God speed in the work of saving souls. There is one other subject upon which we desire to give a few words in these introductoiy remarks, viz: the oft repeated assumption of the universality and unity of ''the Mother Church." In assuming and presenting these, we think Catholics presume a little too much on our supposed ignorance. The very title of their Church indicates that it ROMANISM ENSLAVES, DEGRADES, CORRUPTS. 329 is not ''universal." It is the Roman Catholic Church. It is Roman in its origin ; Roman in its history ; Roman in its very constitution. Because it has members scattered throughout the earth, is no reason why it should be called "the Catholic Church," any more than that the Methodist Church, for a similar reason, should be called "the Catholic Church." So far as either retains the great truths of the Gospel, so far and no farther, is it entitled to be called even a part of the great Catholic, or universal Church of God. But to call either "the Catholic Church," is a misnomer. As well might we speak of the "Greek" or "American Catholic Church." As to the boasted "unity" of the Romish Church, who that is posted in history, does not know that the history of the Roman Catholic Church is an almost unbroken narration of discord, contention and division from the beginning? Witness the cruel, bloody wars that have been waged between the Catholic powers of Europe on theological and ecclesiastical questions, and often between some of these powers and the pope himself! Listen to the fearful thunders issuing, from time to time, from the Vatican against its discordant and rebellious subjects. Hear the terrific anathemas hurled by pope against pope, or by council against council ;• or, by pope against council, or council against pope! See the schismatics, as they are contemptuously called, who, under various names, have, from time to time, been driven out of the Roman Catholic Church, or have voluntarily retired from it, be- cause they could not live peacefully in it and maintain their Christian manhood; and who have grown and multiplied until they have outstripped, in numbers, "Mother Church *' herself, and to-day control the commerce, the wealth, the literature and the political power of the world! But let us look a little more closely into tlu^ ])rt^sont condition of the Romish Church, and see as to its vaunted 330 BISHOP THOMAS BOWMAN. unity. What do ''clericar' and ''anti- clerical" mean in Catholic France ? Why did the Catholic powers of Europe watch with so much solicitude the recent election of the pope ? Who does not know the bitter jealousy existing among many of the so-called ''Orders," especially between the Jesuits and the anti- Jesuits? Have we forgotten that these same Jesuits, who are now in great favor at Rome, have been frequently cast off, and have even been expelled from several Catholic countries of Europe and America ? Are we not all familiar with the fact that Italy herself stands to-day in open opposition to the pope as to some of his claims, and is in rebellion against his authority ? In our own country, and in this city, there are members of the Catholic Church who declare that they do not believe in the infallibility of the pope. If we inquire what is meant by the pope's speaking ex-cathedra^ we shall receive four or five different answers. If we ask to what subjects, and how far the papal infallibility extends, we will get as many more. If we seek for clear and well-defined infor- mation on any of the questions proposed in this discussion — as the use of the Scriptures, the object of the gorgeous ceremonials of the Church, the worship of images, etc., the nature and uses of the confessional — we shall receive so many different replys as to be left utterly in the dark as to the real views of the Church. The same is true in matters of practice, as well as in questions of faith. A distinguished author has truly said : '^ Almost every celebrated schoolman in the Romish com- munion became the founder of a particular denomination, distinguished by a peculiarity of regulation and government. The Augustinians, Franciscans, Dominicans, Jansenists, Jesuits, Benedictines, have all been characterized by different rites, discipline and ceremonies." The boasted unity, therefore, is simply, in outward form, the unity of the chain-gang, or of the grave-yard ! ROMANISM ENSLxiVES, BEaUADES, CORRUPTS. 331 Having thus claimed your attention to these prelimin- ary thoughts, we will now consider the leading topics proposed for discussion. It is affirmed that the Catholic Church, \>y her doctrinal authority, by withholding the Scriptures from her people, and by her gorgeous ceremonials, enslaves the reason ; that by her devotion to the Blessed Virgin, and to saints and angels she degrades religion ; and that by the confessional, she demoralizes conscience. To all this the Catholic, of course, enters a denial. Does the dogma of the papal infallibility enslave the reason? The Catholic affirms it does not, because, ^'in submitting to a decision of the Church, they submit to the decision of a tribunal which their reason has already accepted as unerring." To this statement of the case we demur. For, in the first place, it is not true, of the great mass of Catholics, that their reason has accepted any thing in the case. They have neVer reasoned on the subject ; nor have the materials for a just conclusion ever been presented to their minds. Indeed they are forbidden to reason on the question. The Church has decided and they must submit. They are taken from infancy and the doctrines of the Church are gi'ound in(o them before they can reason. The intellectual chains are forged and bound upon them before they have strength to resist, and the great Avonder is that so many have succeeded in throw- ing off the shackles. Th(U'e are, doubtless, many honest Catliolics who believe in ])a])al infallibility, for they have not heard any tiling to the contrary. Books that might enlighten them, arc^ ( arnestl}'^ condemned and ]>!(>- hibited. They ain^ forbidden to go to those placets wlu^e tliey might receive insti-uction. All nutans aiv i^niploved to impress upon tluMu the necessit}^ of uncpu^stioiiing ac- ceptance. It is not, therefore, strictly true that the 33^ BISHOP THOMAS BOWMAN. Catholic reason is first convinced of the divine institution of the tribunal to whose decision it submits. But would not the argument do as well for a Hindu, a Mohammedan, or a Mormon, as for a Catholic ? Might not a devotee of any of these systems say : ''My reason is not enslaved, because it is first satisfied of the divine institu- tion of my system ; therefore, in submitting to any dogma of my Church, I am free " To this, doubtless, the Romanist would answer : '-Your systems are founded in error, and your reasoning is therefore false." So we say to the Romanist: "Your reason has accepted a falsehood, and therefore it is enslaved." The question of papal infallibility as a fact, involves so many points that it would be impossible to thoroughly discuss them in one lecture. It embraces such points as the supremacy of Peter among the apostles; the promise of inspiration to his successors alone ; the supremacy of the bishop of Rome over the other bishops of the Church; indeed, a long chain of facts wherein any one defective link Tould destroy the whole chain; but wherein, in fact, are not onlj^ many defective links, but many links are absolutely wanting, so that we believe the whole thing is as utterly deficient in foundation as "the baseless fabric of a dream." We shall have to content ourselves, then, by merely stating some general propositions. 1. There is no proof from Scripture or from contem- poraneous history, that Peter was ever regarded as superior in authority to his brother apostles. From the com- paratively little that is said about him in the Scriptures or elsewhere, and from the comparatively little that he has written, we Avould not infer his superiority. He never speaks to his colleagues as though he thought himself superior, and they never approach him as if they regarded him in that light. The early Christian writers did not so understand and apply the Scriptures, or the conduct "I pniy God to strengthen thee, my son.'' Page 547. ROMANISM ENSLAVES, DEaRADES, CORRUPTS. 333 of the apostles; nor do tliey intimate that the supremacy of Peter was ever thought of in those days 2. There is no proof from tlie Bible that Peter was in- * spired above any of his fellows, or that any special inspiration was promised to his successors. The pope, therefore, as the successor of Peter, has no more claim to infallibility than have the successors of the other apostles. 3. There is no evidence from history, sacred or profane, that Peter was ever bishop in Rome. The apostles did not act as bishops. They organized Churches, and ordained others to the bishopries. The first Christian writers name Linus, not Peter, as the first bishop of Rome. 4. There is no evidence from history, sacred or profane, that Peter waiB ever in Rome. Peter himself makes no allusion to it. The New Testament writers and the Apostolic Fathers, though they have given many items of interest relating to the Church of Rome, and have even named many who belonged to it, give no intimation that Peter had anything to do with it. The story of his visit to the city began first to gain credit at the close of the second century, and was then based on tradition of a very slender character. 5. There is no proof from history that the bishop of Rome, for several centuries, ever claimed supremacy over other metropolitan bishops, or that such supremacy was accorded to them by others. On the other hand, there is much historical evidence to the contrary. Several of the iirst CEcumenical Councils were not called, or presided over by the bishop of Rome; their decrees were not re(\^rred to liim lor approval, nor did he have any special iniluence in these bodies. All this is inconsistent with the idea of his superiority in authority. The claim to supremacy Avas not genei'ally acknow- ledged by the other bisliops until C(Mituri(^s af((M- it was llrst made, and then only b}' the smaUer i)ortion of the 334 BISHOP THOMAS BOVOIAX. Cliristian world. Even so late as the close of the sixth centiirv. Gregory the G-ivat. then bish'jp of Rome, said : "But I conlidently say. that, whosoev^-r calls himsen universal bishop, or desires to be called so, in his pride, is the forernnntrr of antichrist." The fact is. the Roman Catholic Church is a schism from the great Christian Chui'ch, because the majorit}' would not admit her claims to supremacy. 6. Personal infallibility was never claimed by the bishops of Rome, or accorded to them, for several hundreds of years after the death of the apostles. When first sugge>ted. infallibility was supposed to belong to the ^'General Councils:" afterwards it was claimed for the councils and popes acting conjointly; then, after many centuries, it was assigned to the pope alone. Xot. how- ever, until 1S70 was it accepted as a part of the faith of the Church Even up to the time of the meeting of the last General Council, in 1S69. the Romish Catechism, used in England, affirmr-d : "This is a Protestant inven- tioi], andi. is no article of the Catholic faith." In a pastoral address to the clergy and laity of the Roman Catholic Church in Irflan.l. dated January 25, 1S26, the bishops use this language: " They declare, on oath, their belief that it is not an article of tlie Catholic faith, neither are they thereby recpaired to be- lieve that the pope is infallible." Xo wonder that the Irish bishops, in 1ST'"', protested so earnestly against the passage of the dr^^cree of papal infallibility. But they were compelled to submit, not to Reason, 'vit to Rjme ! 7. The late Council, which issued th- d :'gma of infalli- bility, was not, in any just sens'^, an (Ecumenical Council: nor was its decree secur^i-d by the methods always recog- nized as essential in the acts of an (Ecumenical Council. In the first place, the larger part of the Christian woiid was not represented in it at all. It was strictly a council ROMANISM ENSLAVES, DEGRADES, CORRUPTS. 335 of Roman Catholics. Then, again, the large majority of the members were from Italy, and indeed from the old papal states. Hence the greai body of the Roman Catho- lics themselves was not fully and fairly represented. It was emphatically a council oi the Roman Church iu Italy. Those who were directly nnder the personal influence of the pope, and who, with him, were longing for the restoration of his temporal power, had it all their own way. Of the 1,037 who were entitled to seats in the Council, but 719 were present at its opening, and only 635 at the taking of the final vote. After all the debates had been heard, only 451 were found to vote in favor of the dogma — less than one-half of those entitled to seats in tlie body. Many had argued and protested agamst it. Some had gone home ; others absented tliemselves from the Council. It is true, the most of them, some for one reason and some for another, finally acquiesced. But these facts show that their reason was not satisfied, but that they yielded to the power and authority of Rome. The method of procedure in the Council was as much to be condemned as the composition of the conclave. Ques- tions were decided, contiary to the generally received prac- tice in such cases, by bare majoiitic^s. Liberty of speech was greatly restricted. Some of the ablest memb(^rs were not permitted to speak. Others Avei'o heard very imper- fectly; while one, at least, the eloquent Bishop Strossniayer, was compelled to cc^ase speaking and leav(^ ilie rostrum, amidst a scene of uproar and confusion i-arely witnessed in the most noisy and violent political assemblies. Dr. Schafi*, from whom some of these itcans are gathered, justly declares that the submission to this dogma 'Ms an instructivi^ K^sson of the f(\arful di'spotism of the i)aj)a('y wliicli overruK^s the stubborn facts of Jiistory and the saci-(\l claims of individ- ual conscience. For tlu^ facts, so cl(\'U'ly and forciblv brought out before and during thi^ Council by smh men as 336 BISHOP THOMAS BOWMAN. Kenrick, Hefele, Raucher, Maret, Scliwartzenberg and Du- panloup, have not changed, and can never be undone." We conclude, therefore, that, inasmuch as the Council was so improperly composed and so unfairly managed, its decrees, so eminently partizan, do not deserve even our respect. 8. The claim to papal supremacy and infallibility, as indeed the whole papal system, is built mainly upon tra- dition and historj^, much of which is pure fiction, and not a little of it, downright, wicked foi-gery. About the begin- ning of the ninth century there app; ared what is known as the ''Isidorian or False Decretals.'-' These professed to be the letters and decrees of various popes, which had been lost, and were then, for the first, gathered from various sources and brought to light. They were intended to fill up the great gap in historical records from the year 91 to 385, A. D. These ''Decretals" answered their purpose in those ignorant and superstitious ages. Although suspected at an early period, and after- ward proven to be spurious, they were, nevertheless, used again and again, by popes and councils, to establish the claims and build up the system of the Roman hierarchy. The end has been gained. The pope holds his place by the right of possession, notwithstanding the original title was defective and the means used to secure it were ''false Decretals." The spuriousness of these "Decretals" '.'has been fully admitted by the best of Catholic authorities, such as Bellarmin, Baronius, Petavius, Pagius, Thomassin, Giannone, Perron, Fleury, Marca, Du Pin, and Labbeus." The last mentioned writer calls them "a deformity which can be disguised by no art or coloring." . Another specimen of the art of manufacturing history, has been furnished in our own day. Within a few years, a Jesuit writer, Weninger, in a book for the faithful. ROMANISM ENSLAVES, DEGRADES, CORRUPTS. 337 has affirmed that "the Council of Nice, held A. D. 325, was called by Pope Silvester, was presided over by his three legates, and that its acts, were sent to him to be approved." All three of these statements are directly in the face of all the history preceding, attending and im- mediately following that celebrated Council. A more palpable falsification of history can hardly be conceived. But this wiiter is still more audacious, and, in order to accomplish his purpose interpolates an important sentence in the eighteenth canon, and fabricates several canons that were never adopted, or even proposed in the Council. He says the twenty-nintli canon reads as follows: ''The incumbent of the Roman See, acting as Christ's vicegerent in the government of the Church, is the head of the patriarchs as well as Peter himself was." Now the whole of this pretended twenty-ninth canon is a forgery. According to all the authorities of that day, there were but twenty canons passed by the Council, and in none of them is there any reference to the supremacy of the bishop of Rome. It will doubtless be observed as we pass along, how all these fabricated ''decretals" and canons tend to the one thing alone, viz: the building up of the papal power. Eusebius, who was a member of the Council of Nice, and wrote some of its history ; Sozomen, Socrates and Theodoret, who wrote successively a little over a hundred yeais later, altogether furnish not one sentence confirmatory of the statements of Weninger Just mentioned. On the contrary, they give abundant proof that the pre-eminence of the Roman bishop was neither claimed nor recognized in the slightest degree in tliat Council. Moreover, Theodoret states distinctly that ''{ho bishops drew up twenty (not twenty-nine) laws to regulate the discipline of the Church." Du Pin, one of tlie ablest Catholic writers of Franiu^ writing in the si'venteenth century, said: "These rules, which are called canons. 338 BISHOP THOMAS BOWMAN. are in number, twenty, and never were more genuine." Tillemont, another eminent Catholic author, of the same century, wrote: ''These are the twenty canons of the famous Council, which are come to our hands, and are the only ones which were made. At least, none of the ancients reckoned them more than twenty." Now, in the name of all that is true and good, we ask, why these inventions and falsifications of history? If the papal claims are believed to be just, why resort to these wicked devices to establish them ? Does not the fact that the Romish Church allows such means to be employed, and permits, without contradiction, such errors to be circulated among her people, give evidence that she is conscious that her cause rests on a sandy foundation ? 9. The dogma of infallibility, if true, involves the high- est interests of men, and is in itself the greatest miracle of all the ages. Would it not be an enslavement of reason to re- q[uire men to believe such a doctrine, without good evidence, upon the mere ''say so" of a pope, or of a council of falli- ble men? When Christ and the apostles claimed to speak in the place of God, and by the inspiration of his Spirit, they gave, in their character, in their lives, in their teachings, and especially in their miracles, the evidence demanded by rea- son. If these were required to furnish proof of their com- mission, how much more should the pope ; for he claims to supervise their work and to interpret their words which they failed to make plain ! Reason has always, and justly, too, demanded the evidence of miracle-working power on the part of those professing to be divinely -inspired messen- gers of God. God has always, even in his humblest mes- sengers, responded to this demand of reason. Has the Roman pontiff ever given any such proof of his transcen- dent claim to inspiration ? 10. The doctrine of papal infallibility, as defined by ROMANISM ENSLAVES, DEGRADES, CORRUPTS. 339 the late Council, requires us to believe, either that the pope is superior in divine illumination to the sacred writers, or that all the bishops and inferior clergy are inspired ; or both. If the clergy and bishops are not inspired, how do we know that they cqrrectly interpret the pope ; and if the pope be not inspired above the apostles, how can he make their thoughts any more plain ? If neither supposition be correct, then is the Catholic no better off with, than with- out, the doctrine of infallibility ? For he is just as certain, to say the least, to get the truth from the Bible as from the encyclicals or bulls of the pope. In accepting, therefore, the dogma of infallibility, the Catholic accepts an unneces- sary, useless, and therefore unreasonable thing. 11 . This dogma further involves the monstrous absurdity that God has committed the keeping of the j udgment and con- science of all men, so far as faith and morals are concerned, to one man, and he, generally, in no wise remarkable for either wisdom or goodness ! Is not the reason enslaved that can accept such a thought ? 12. This article of faith requires us to believe contra- dictions. Church history abounds in instances, in which popes have been condemned, not only by councils, but by other popes, for heresy, and that, too, of the worst kind. Some of the earlier popes taught that ''heretical popes'' ought not to be obeyed. This was an admission that popes might fall into error in doctrine. Pope Liberius professed Arianism; Zosimusendorsed Pelagianism ; Vigilius affirmed and denied certain doctrines several times, and, at length, frankly "confesst^d that lie was a tool of the devil !" Hon- orius I. was condemned for heresy hy three or four coun- cils and by several popes, and was iinally denounced by Lf^o 11. as ''one who (Mideavoi'ed by profane treason, to overthrow the immaculate faith of the Roman Church/' Almost (v^ery shade of heresy, and almost ever}^ pliase of iutidelity has been, at one time or another, entertained and 340 BISHOP THOMAS BOWMAN. advocated by some pope ! Is not liis reason enslaved who can believe in the infallibility of sncli men ? 13. This doctrine of papal infallibility demands that we should accept the blasphemous belief that God has, from time to time, selected as the recipients of his highest gift of the Holy Ghost, and as his only medin.m of commu- nication with his Church; men who have not only been want- ing in all the elements of Christian character, but who have been frequently monsters in iniquity. If we accept the statements of the best Catholic historians, we are bound to believe that many of the popes have been guilty of the most enormous crimes on record. jSTot a few secured their election to the papacy by bribery, deception and perjury. While in the papal chair, many were profligate and disso- lute, and some were guilty even of murder. Petrarch called Rome, ''Babylon the great whore, the school of error, and the temple of heresy." Mariana, another Romish writer, after giving a fearful description of the degeneracy of the fourteenth and fif- teenth centuries, says: "^The wickedness of the pontifi" descended to the people." A large body of bishops in France, addressed Pope Nicholas I., as fallows: ''Go to, thy cohorts of priests, soiled with adulteries, incests, rapes and assassinations, is well worthy to form thy infamous court ; for Rome is the residence of demons, and thou, Pope, thou art its Satan." Similar quotations,, from approved Catholic authors, many of which we could not read before this audience, might be multiplied almost without limit. Surely his reason must be enslaved who can believe that the Holy Ghost would dwell in characters like these. Nor are we alone in this view, Gerson, in the Council of Constance, represented "as ridiculous, the pretensions of a man to bind and to loose in heaven and in earth, who ROMANISM ENSLAVES, DEaRADES, CORRUPTS. 341 is guilty of simoii}^, falsehood, exaction, pride and fornica- tion." Cardinal Mendruccio, asserted, in the Council of Trent: ''The Holy Spirit will not dwell in men who are vessels of impurity; and from such, therefore, no right judgment can be expected on questions of faith." To all this every pure heart and sound mind will respond. Amen ! These extracts, from Catholic authors, show, however, not only that they did not believe that the Holy Ghost would dwell in wicked men, but, also, that they did not believe in papal infallibility as now held by the Roman Catholic Church. We have thus presented, as briefly as we well could, some of the reasons ^hy we can not accept the Romish doc- trine of infallibility. The discussion could be greatly extended. But we think enough has been said to show that the dogma has but a slender foundation in Scripture, in authentic history, in reliable tradition, or in reason ; and that, therefore, the Roman Catholic Church, by its doctri- nal authority, enforcing such an error, does enslave the reason We now come to the second question under this general head, viz: Does the Catholic Church enslave the reason • by withholding from the people the Scriptures — the neces- sary means of forming a judgment? Catholics tell us: "The Church does not hide the Scrip- tures from her people." "She does not, and never did, forbid the people to read the Word of God. On the con- trary, that she recommends her people to read them, is evident from what you will see in many of the Catholic Bibles which are for sale in our book-stores." These are cheering w^ords to every lover of God's Holy AVord ; i'or the very fact that such words have Ixhmi publicly uttered, and by one who stands so high in this community, is evidence that Catholicism is improving, or that we are 342 BISHOP THO:iAS BOVTMAy. getting liglit. P^rliaps Ij::,. :.: ,^ ::ii':'. In --irlier case we do rejoice. But liave we been mistaken on tliis question; or are tlie above sentences the utterances of one. wliose generous nature lias lifted Liin above and in advance of his Cliurcli? The facts that so manv Catholics are v:-; -.: p/':', r-. r.:::l that :n ^nnnv of their b::ks::r^s. th^y ::- :: : iit ^.r offri': ^ : :^ sal^. lead LarurL^Py to the i:.:Ti-:i.-:- iL:.: t - I 1 . - ~, at leasts encourage the general cir- cula::;:: : :'-; S :y::iir-s. In our chila:::: ■ ;.:::: as a cc'n:ia'_v. J : :: ^: ;-l'lic works. empL:y"rd a iai'^T ;/.;;:: of Catholics, a::], iii later years, cnv own bn:^i:.7:: broucrht us iuto clo-e relations vi: : anv Ca:i^ lies. T\'e liave never known one to have a Bible. When asked why they had none, they have answered: '*It is nor fur ns to read the Scriptures." In "The Si::::'^:::! S^ir^-^^^T- :: a Roman Ca-holic" we t'j.l "i:'- dTc'a:;a:i::: ; ^^T:.';v:^"i Sr"rr:.i y^avs a s:nd-nt in T/.r 0'^--T^r ;^ ~^^i^ ^j rS^i;^ m J± ; n'Tra^. i n^vrr saw a Bible c: a:;y k:;.l there. Tae scarcity of Bibles am:^ng the Ca:-_:i::s l' C:-:-:. 1:. .- : :\ "r:'::al," Grn:lemen who have S2:-n: y^ars a- ^^' :--r C:.::-:i:: ;: y""-a:::::s of Alexico, Sontli America, ";:ain a::! I:aiy. e^y::: :'.a*: :"_-y have ' seldom ::-:.::! a Bi":'- in any family. TLtIt ma^: 1 : - :ene • reas::' me "ii-- -:a:- ;: :l::_e :a (L.^mii: : : •ean-ii'S. I: :im Chur-:m de-s ne: a'mele::-y mrb.d lii^ ^ :a-eal iramiig m' the Scriprures, sLe Crr:a:i:iy mnst discmeea^r ::, B e: 1: us question her authoriti-s ea :ie:- se' ?: a:m s-e* if Ti^rre is not son:-: ^my:ia:m:ion of ti^is gc-nerai absence o: :'m S riptnr^s am^ng Caih^i^lics. An En'?yciical letter r: PevT^ Pi ;s VIL, among others o: siaeiiae character, contains this sentence: *'I: is t^-vil-rn: from ex]:Te:T:m'e, that the Holy Scriptures, when circnieme :a "m v y^:: - - - have, through lim tt-merity of n.m. mil amer ^meeL^ than benefit/ * Leo XIL, in 1824, dr :.:a rl :a:.: :1.- pabli- ROMANISM ENSLAVES, DEGRADES, CORRUPTS. 343 cation of translations of the Bible was '4n contempt of the tradition of the fathers, and in opposition to the celebrated decree of the Council of Trent, which prohibits the Holy Scriptures from being made common." Gregory XVL, in his bull of 1844, says: ''We confirm and renew the decrees recited above, delivered in former times by apostolic authority, against the publication, distribution, reading and possession of books of the Holy Scriptures, translated into the vulgar tongue." The documents from which these extracts are taken were aj)proved and confirmed by Pius IX., in his famous Encyclical of 1864. The sentiments, therefore, stand as the utterances of the highest, and, indeed, the only authorita- tive TEACHER OF THE CATHOLIC ChURCH. But we are frankly told that the Church must interpret for her people ; and then, one triumphantly asks, ''does that enslave the intellect?" ''Are the laws of Missouri degraded because there is a supreme court to interpret them V ' To this we answer, No. But what analogy is there between this and the case in hand? The supreme court has to do with imperfect human laws. It is composed of a number of men who are selected for their wisdom and learn- ing, and who are subject to the laws they interpret. They are placed, as nearly as possible, above the reach of per- sonal and selfish interests and prejudices. They are amen- able, for their character and behavior, to another tribunal ; and their decisions are subject to correction by subsequent legislation. The reverse of all this is true in the case we are discussing. The Christian's law is the Bible, the infal- libh^ "Word of God, which men can interpret as wc^ll ns they can interpret the words of the pope. Tlie pontiff' is one man whose decrees are absolute and irreversiblc\ He is above all human autlvority, and in a position wIumh^ all personal and official interests naturally tend to warj) liis judgment, and to lead him to seek his own aggrandizement '22 344 BISHOP THOMAS B0W]VIAN. or that of his office. The comparison should be between the pope and an absolute monarch ; for he possesses in himself the legislative, judicial and executive powers of government. As he has unlimited and irreversible power to interpret, he virtually makes the law. and then, by all the pains and penalties at command, he enforces the law. The pope speaks to the bishop, whom he has created ; the bishop speaks to the priest, whom he has made; the priest speaks to the people, and they must submit ; and that is the end of it. Hence we see vv hy there are so few Bibles : there is no need of them. They might become troublesome by suggesting doubt as to the papal claims, and thus, as one pope has said, ''through the temerity of men, produce more harm than benefit'' to the Church, but not to the cause of truth. As the Catholic has no occasion to reason on matters of religion, he has no use for the Word of God, and the Church, practically, and through its highest authorities, discourages its use. Another source of mental enslavement, though, perhaps, not so serious as the two considerd, is the gorgeous cere- monials of the Catholic Church. "We believe in neat and tasteful churches, and in such adjuncts and surroundings as are suggestive of the ''Upper Sanctuary." But rich and gaudy ornamen- tation and much pomp and ceremony may measurably enslave reason, and also, sadly degrade religion. Catho- lics, indeed, tell us: "We do not believe that religion consists in pomp and. external show of ceremony; these things may aid man in worshipping in spirit and in truth." But what are the natural and necessary tendency and effect of these things? Do not experience and observation teach that, where the imagination and tlie emotional nature are unduly excited, reason is, to some extent, held in abeyance? Do not gorgeous ceremonials with their necessary attendants address themselves wholly to these susceptibilities of man's Ridley Writing in l*rison. Va^^e 5.V2. ROMANISM ENSLAVES, BEGBADES, CORRUPTS. 345 nature, and thns, to a large degree, overawe and silence reason? The grand cathedral with its stained windows and frescoed walls; the statnary and the paintings; the "burning tapers; the solemn procession; the splendidly adorned priests, flitting around the altar and along the shadowy aisle ; the tremulous music floating out upon the air, all these fire the imagination, quicken the sensibilities, and stir the emotions. But do they touch the reason or the conscience? If this be repeated and continued, as it is in the Catholic worship, to the exclusion of almost every thing else, reason becomes a captive and religion degene- rates INTO MERE SENTIMENTALISM. Similar effects are produced by fiction and the drama. Men may be entranced by the story or the stage, and laugh and weep with the varying drift of the scenes, and then retire utterly unfit for the practical business of life, and with hearts steeled to the real wants of suffering humanity. So they may be moved to ecstacies by the pageantry of the '^ sacred tabernacles," and weep before- the ''stations of the cross ; " and yet go forth unenlightened and unstrengthened for the work of life, and with hearts closed to the approach of all human sorrow. The Penitentes of Mexico, will pass through all the dramatic performances of ''passion week," wrought up to the highest pitch of religious frenzy, and then out to the drunken revel, and even to murder. Priests and people of various Catholic countries, will rush from the gorgeous ceremonials of the Sabbath morning, to the cock- fighting, bull-baiting and gambling of the Sabbath afternoon. Is not this tlie natural result of a service in which sense and imagination are almost exclusively addressed? How different the simple and spiritual w^orship of tlie apostolic Church! Then the sweet music, the boautirul hymn, tlie precious lessons from God's Word, the instructive sermon, the fervent prayer, the hallowed Christian fellowship, and the blessed unction of the Holy Spirit, touched the whole 346 BISHOP THOMAS BOW3IAN. man and sent him forth happier and better for the duties of life. Still further, there are two indirect, and yet necessary and important results of the Romish ser^dce which tend to restrain the reason. First, these numerous and attractive ceremonials so absorb the mind, that it has neither time nor disposition to read and study God' s Word. Hence the mental discipline and quickening which come from the careful and thoughtful study of the great truths of revelation, and of such books as are helpful to the understanding of the same, are lost, and with the great mass of the people, the mind lies passive for the reception of all the errors and superstitions that may be presented. Again, the costliness of all this ceremonial, deprives the people of the means necessary for tlie acquisition of knowledge for themselves, or for the education of their childeren. Be- cause of the expensiveness of their system the people, as a whole, have been kept poor, while the Church has been rich in magnificent buildings and splendid sculpture and paintings. Oftentimes under the very shadow of grand and costly cathedrals, are to be found thousands of people who have not the Bible, and who could not read it if they had it. We come now to another question, closely related to the one just left, but proposed for separate discussion: '•Does the worship of the Virgin, saints, angels and images degrade religion ? Romanists tell us the Church ''does not place any creat- ure on the throne of God." "Catholics do not believe that the Blessed Virgin, or any saint, can receive the slightest act of adoration." It is no doubt true that the intelligent Catholic makes nice metaphysical distinctions between diflferent kinds of worship. We have never supposed that they intend to place any creature on the throne of God. But are ROMANISM ENSLAVES, DEaHADES, CORRUPTS. 347 not their praj^ers to the Yirgiii, and other creatures, put in such form, and made so frequently, as to prac- tically destroy the distinctions made, and to lead the peo- ple to take these creatures into their hearts and minds in the place of God ? Whatever worship tends to divide the heart between God and any object, or to give to another any por- tion of the devotion and honor which belong to God alone, is idolatrous, and, of course, degrading to religion. God, in the second commandment of the Decalogue, has abso- lutely forbidden the use ''of any graven image," or the '- likeness of anything" in religious worship. The Catholic Church, it is true, usually, if not always, omits this command- ment in her catechisms. But it stands in the Bible as a perpetual protest against the whole system of imac^e wor- ship. The Scriptures, moreover, everywhere represent God as the only object of worship, and Jesus Christ as the only •mediator, intercessor and advocate between God and man. Neither the Bible nor early Church history furnishes any foundation for saint or angel worship, or for the idea that they are ever employed in interceding for man in heaven. To suppose that they can hear the thousands of prayers addressed to them every moment from all parts of the earth, is to ascribe to them omnipresence, and make then] equal to God. Such thoughts are debasing to reason, as well as to religion. But an eloquent one has said : " Can 3^ou imagine an architect jealous of the stately building that he himself has designed? No. You would say this is mere folly, indeed. Neither can God be jealous of any honor given to these creatures — " as creahires.^'' We replj^ does the buiUling deserve honor? We admire the building, but we honor the builder. So, while we may intensel}' adniirt^ (lod's liandiwork, we can worship only th(^ Creator. Such a sen- timent, as just quoted, would justify Paganism with all its abominable idolatries. For Paganism does not hold all its 348 BISHOP THOMAS BOWMAN. ' thousands of deities as equal, or as deserving of equal honors. Paganism has its first, second and third degree of worship, and with as much propriety as Catholicism. But let us look at the facts in the case, whether the dis- tinctions as to different kinds of worship are practically kept in view by the Catholic Church. If we examine many of the eulogiums pronounced on the Yirgin hy prominent writers of the Church, we will find language used that ought to be applied to God alone. If we ask the common people if they ^' adore" the Virgin, many of them will frankly answer, Yes. A celebrated bishop of the Cath- olic Church, in a recent lecture, affirmed that Catholics do not adore the Virgin. One of his people declared, "the bishop is wrong. I'll tell the priest," and then got her prayer-book to show that the bishop was in error ! In examining ''the Mission Hand Book," used by Cath- olics in this city, we find the following expressions. They need no comment. ''When you are tempted to anger, say, O, my Jesus, give me patience: Bless me, Mary, my mother." "^ ^ "If wicked thoughts enter your mind, say, quickly, Jesus and Mary help me." ^ "^ "To the most Holy and undivided Trinity, to the ever faithful virginity of the Virgin Mary, to the assembly of all the saints in heaven, may everlasting praise, honor, power and glory be given by every creature." ^ ^ "Most holy and immaculate Vir- gin, my mother, to the^e the mother of my God, the queen of the world, and the refuge of sinners, I have recourse to-day. Do not leave me until thou seest me in heaven, occupied in blessing thee and singing thy mercies throughout eternity." ^' ^ "0, Mary, I am thine : save me, change me, Mary, my mother. Thou canst doit." "^ "^ "I haste to the Vir- gin of virgins. I fly to thee, O sweet mother, a wretched sinner. Despise not my prayer, O mother of the divine Word, but graciously hear and grant the same." In a book called ' ' The Way to Heaven, ' ' approved b}^ HOMANISM ENSLAVES, DEORADES, CORRUPTS. 349 the arclibisliop of New York, Mary is called ''Seat of Wisdom;" ''Refuge of Sinners ;" "Dispenser of Graces ;" "Model of all Perfection;" "Source of Divine Love." Acrain it said in the same book: "No intercession is so effectual as that of the Blessed Mother of God;" "let us therefore seek it." Again, under the head of "Divine Praises," she takes the place of the Holy Spirit ; for it is said : " Blessed be God ;" "Blessed be the name of Jesus ;" "Blessed be the Most Holy Mary.;" and the Holy Ghost is entirely omitted! May we not say, truly, 'Hhis is not only idolatrj^, it is blasphemy ! Prom these specimens, and many more like them could be furnished, we see that Mary is not merely asked to intercede for us, absurd as that would be, but as an intercessor she is placed above Christ. Slie is represented as bestowing the greatest gifts ; her name is coupled, without any mark of distinction, with that of Jesus and God,, and she is addressed as worthy of equal praise and honor with God himself. How could sucli worship fail to dishonor God and degrade religion? We have now reached the last question proposed in the beginning of this lecture, viz: Does the Confessional corrupt the conscience ? Auricular confession, like many other peculiar features of Romanism, is of comparatively modern date. It is an essential part of that great spiritual Absolutism whicli lias been the growth of many centuries. The Catholic Church lias been for a long tim^^, a politico-religious institution, claiming the control of the temporal as well as the spiritual affairs of men. The Confessional, as we belitn-e, was designed, and is well calculated to secure this control to the ])apal power; because it supervises nu^irs thoughts and feelings, and thus enables the Church io clun'lv and and subdue the lirst inclination to doubt on questions of 350 BISHOP THOMAS BOWMAN. doctrine, or to insubordination in mattei^s of practice. Confession to God for sin ; confession to our fellows for personal wrongs; confession to society for public offences, and occasional confession to one another for mutual advice and lielp, are all both reasonable and scrip- tural. But private confession to a priest, of all the thoughts and feelings of the soul, is neither reasonable nor scriptural. Those passages of Scriptures usually quoted to sustain auricular confession, like those used to establish the supremacy and infalliblity of the pope, the worship of the Virgin Mary, etc., admit of much more simple and natural interpretations, and were never understood by the first Christian writers, as they are explained by modern Catholics. Not only is the act of confession unreasonable and wrong, but the idea of priestly absoluti-on is equally erroneous and therefore corrupting to the conscience. The Apostles never absolved from sin ; they simply urged men to repent and believe for the remission of sin : so also did their successors and followers for many years after their death. But Catholics tell us, ''the confessor is simply God's agent ; the power given to him is a delegated power ; the priest can never forgive the sins of a man who is not truly contrite." All this sounds well. But does it correspond with the general teachings of the Church, and with the practical workings of the system? The fifth canon of the Council of Trent, says: "Though the priest's absolution is the dispensation of a benefit which belongs to another, yet it is to be considered as the nature of a judicial act, in which sentence is pronounced by him as a judge." The ninth canon declares : "Whosoever shall affirm that the priest's sacramental absolution is not a judicial act, let him be accursed." In the Catechism of the Council of Trent, we find the following : ^ ^ ' ' Our sins are forgiven by the abso- ROMANISM ENSLAVES, DEORADES, CORRUPTS. 351 lution of the priest. The voice of the priest is to he heard as that of Christ himself." ^ ^^ ''The absolution of thf priest, which is expressed in words, seals the i-emission oi sins, which it accomplishes in the soul." ^'' "^ '^ ''Unlike the authority given to the priest of the old law, the power with which the priests of the new law are invested, is not simply to declare that sins are forgiven, but as the minister of God, really to absolve from sin." If now, the priest is God's agent, as they tell ns, he must know God's will, and therefore, must be able to read men's hearts in order to determine whether or not they are truly contrite and entitled to pardon; or he must be clothed with full power to act for God and to bind him by his priestly acts. This latter view, as we understand, is what Catholics claim and teach. God has committed to the priest the power to "absolve from sin," and no matter what his character or life may be, or how he may blunder in the performance of his work, his act, in absolving the penitent, is absolute and irrevocable. To this effect is the teaching of the Council of Trent, when it says, "That even those priests who are living in mortal sin, exer- cise the function of forgiving sins, and those who contend that wicked priests have not this power, hold very erroneous sentiments." This absolute power to forgive sins, is clearly taught in a book used in some Catholic colleges, entitled "Contemplations on the Truths of Religion." It says: ''To remit sins, to bind and loose consciences, this is what the priests of the Lord can do." Abbe Jean Gaume, an approved Catholic authority, says: "Suppose the Redeemer should visibly di^scend in person in his Church, and station himsi^lf in a conftv^sional, to administer the sacrament of penance, while a piiet>t occupies another. The Son of God sa\^s, '1 absolve you ;' and the priest says, 'I absolve 3'ou;' and the penitent liuds himself absolved just as much by the one as by the 3c 2 BISHOP THOMAS BOWMAK. o:her. Thus tlie priest, mighty like God, can insuanily snatch the sinner from heU, render him worth v : : Para- dise, and, if a slave of the devil, make him a child of Al raham, and God himself is obliged to submit to the ; ; ^ ^ ment of the priest. The sentence of the priest precedes ; T ; /scribes to it" Another Catholic author says: 'The an^-rls and arch- angels are much below priests, tor we can. in the face of God, pardon sins, which they have never been able to do/' How can such teachings as these do otherwise than cor- rupt both priest and people ! To the priest will come, in the first place, pride and arrogance. Th-se are evident in the tone and spirit of the extracts given : a n d they are manifest in the arbitrary ni^.n ::: and haughty demeanor of the priests in theman: « i-T ^ vemment of the people, as "they lord i: c tI Lt: V - „ : : ..e.'- Then again, there will come, as OLr : s '5 - si/ :he influence upon Ms heart and n :/ ;; :: :/r :"!:;: is : /ninan depravity, which he is there : s / :: : : : : -ivtr/ K the priest be disposed to evil, / r ::—-::/ ^iih its inviolable secrecy, affords a favor:/ ir /I : • / - ^Tatify his depraved nature, and. to increase his : : : n. while at :/^ sanir time he may be corrupting others, ii he enter tl t r.f^sional a pure- minded man, he must have more tl::.:. :/uiary strength to prevent him from falling. P-:rr r>-n. the Catholic theo- logian, says: "That conf/ss : / : is every day occupied in the ministry of hearing ccn / — : 5 ///s very seldom in comparison with the times Lr /: - : : lall/' Still it is admiued that he does fall, anl Lis: : /_:^s that he falls frequently and grievously. The corruptions of the clergy, both social and moral, have frequen 1~ v:- i pain to her more pure and pious men, and th-^ i : of them has filled many pages of the Church's history, as written by her best authors. Several of the popes have been con- strained to issue bulls against the crime of solicitation to ROMANISM ENSLAYES, DEGRADES, CORRUPTS. 353 sin in the confessional. Gregory XY., in 1622, issued sucli a bull, and Benedict XIV., so late as 1745, issued another. The corruption must have been wide- spread and fearful to have required interposition from such a source and in such a v^ay. The demoralizijN^g ii^fluence of the confessional upon the people is as distinctly marked. ''It naturally," says one, "inspires a spirit of abject and servile submission to the priest." It, as naturally, we think, encourages and em- boldens men to commit sin. ' ' A boy, whom I was reproving for a certain si a," writes a gentleman who was trained in the Catholic Church, "remarked : ' O, it does not mat- ter how often I do this. I'll confess it to the priest and he'll make it all right; for he can forgive many sins as easily as a few.' " " As confession and penance are much easier than the extirpation of sin from the heart and the abandonment of vice in the life," says a celebrated writer, "manj^ cease to contend against the lusts of the flesh, and prefer gratifying them at the expense of a few mortifications." We all know that, both in the private and public relations of life, the readiness with which men may escape the penalties of transgression, and the ease with which pardon may be ob- tained, encourages them in sin, and often lead to great crimes against individuals and against society. Parents and teachers understand well how frequently the attempt to pry into the secrets of youth, and to keep them under constant watch begets artifice, deception and falsehood. Sometimes, too, conversation about sins of life, even with the purest intentions, will excite youthful (Miii- osity, and thus lead to tiie knowledge and coniniission of sins of which tlie off'ender had been ignorant, and against which we desired to guard him. Human natun^ is tsuch that fa.niiliarity with sin is ii\)t to b(\g(^t a love for it, and frequent meditation upon wickedness, even of thoughts is 354 BISHOP THOMAS BOWMAN. likely to cause the commission of wickedness in tlie life. Hence, many of the questions suggested for thought before entering the confessional, and others presented by the priest in the confessional, often corrupt the penitent, and always tend to corrupt him. Indeed, some of these ques- tions are simply indecent, and would bring the blush of shame to any pure-minded, modest person. Several years ago, in a town near which we were living, a lecturer before an audience where there were no ladies, had occasion to read some of these questions from Den's works. A young Catholic, who was present, became indig- nant, and had the gentleman arrested on a charge of public indecency. But before the trial came off the young man became wiser, and consequently no one appeared to prose- cute the case. In entire harmony with these general statements in re- gard to the tendencies of the confessional, is our observa- tion of its practical workings. Do we usually find our Catholic friends, either before or after confession, giving evidence of deep contrition or genuine reformation ? Is it an uncommon thing to see them, both before and after con- fession, indulging in deception, profanity and Sabbath- breaking ; sometimes in drunkenness and other crimes ? In communities where there is no outside sentiment to correct and restrain, these things are seen to a sad extent. While faithful to the confessional and other churchly duties, there is in Catholic countries a lamentable neglect of wha4; are generall}^ considered the common moralities of the gospel, such as the observance of the Sabbath, sobriety and purity. This individual and national demoralization, largely due to the confessional, has been the fruitful cause of schisms in the Church. It was this that called into activity Huss, Wick- liff and Luther. It was this that gave strength and power to the Reformation. We have now reached the end of this discussion and ROMANISM ENSLAVES, DEGRADES, CORRUPTS. 355 have shown we think, that Catholicism does enslave the reason, does degrade religion, does corrupt conscience. Doubtless all have felt with us the difficulty of keeping these points distinctly separate in thought; for they run into each other ; and the same facts and arguments which serve to illustrate and confirm the one, serve measurably to illustrate and confirm the others. In religious matters, whatever enslaves the reason, also, more or less, degrades religion and corrupts conscience ; and whatever degrades religion also corrupts the conscience and enslaves the reason ; and whatever corrupts conscience to some extent enslaves reason and degrades religion. These points are so closely connected that you can hardly touch one without touching all. Before concluding this brief and necessarily incomplete lecture, we desire to offer two or three general thoughts. First, We think the drift of this discussion suggests a very natural and satisfactory explanation of the extent, if not the existence of modern scepticism. Our Catholic friends are disposed to charge it to the freedom of thought which Protestantism approves and encourages. We, on the other hand, think it is the natural offspring of Rome — the natu- ral result of the great reactionary law of our being — the tendency of mind to fly from one extreme to the opposite. The unreasoning and passionate lover of to-day, is the unreasoning and passionate hater of to-morrow. The bondman emancipated is likely to biT.ome the lawh^ss rioter. When men accept of any system as tlie liigliest tj^pe of re- ligion, and tlien discover their error, they natural 1}% in their great disappointment, rush into doubt and irreligion, or into open infidelity. We find this law ot* our nature exemplified in Utah to-day. Tlie more int(^lliu(Mit men, who accepted, in ^'ood faitli, th(^ Mormon svst