Cc c c C c Cc cc C c< c «. c c c < cm cc 77 c Cc CI C. I cc . Cc c; *^ cc c CC cc cc c c cc < Ccc cc c__ r c ccc ^r c: < c C CC cccc< ccc c c - cc cc cc CC. C C C C «. «c< c •' cc "7^ A brief investigation of the Spirit and of sonqe of the Doctrines aqd Practices of the Ranqan Catholic Church, -*<>♦"- — *-*o* For the mystery of iniquity doth already work." — 2d Thes., i. 7, A. COFFEY, Late Pastor of \\\e First Baptist Churcr), JndEpendEncE, Kansas, — = Z/jrkh- 1 1885. INDEPENDENCE, KANSAS. SOUTH KANSAS TRIBUNE BOOK A JOB PRINT. 6 The iw . , 4 OF CONOkhSS WASHIWotO* PREFACE. The attack upon me, which led me to present this little book to the public, was made solely because I stand for the defence of the Bible and evangelical truth, and against corrupt traditions, deceitful errors, — and especially idolatry wearing the name of Christianity. I have written, therefore, not in self-defence, but in the name of the Christian religion. I am constitutionally op- posed to "theological polemics" but when modern liberalism de- mands that we make the mantle of a false charity so broad as to cover and endorse the vilest iniquities by a cringing silence, in the name of my Master, I most earnestly protest against such demand. I have made no attempt to write a history ; yet the histori- cal references will be found reliable. My aim has been to "lift a warning voice" and awake the spirit of inquiry and investiga- tion. If my efforts, in this direction, prove successful, I shall be satisfied. A. Coffey. Independence, Kas., Nov. ist, 1885. Copyright, 1885, by A. Coffey. All rights reserved. CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTORY. The Diocesan Bishop having announced a visit to the Church of Saint Andrew, situated in the City of Independence, Kansas, to be made on Saturday, May 9th, 1885, for the purpose of ad- ministering the "Sacrament of Confirmation," the Catholic por- tion of our population were filled with excitement ; and for sev- eral days previous to the anticipated event, which to them was filled with interests of vast importance, they were busily engaged in elaborate preparations for giving his reverence an honorable reception. As one witnessed the zest with which these evidences of respect and even abject reverence were planned and carried out, he might well inquire whether we .have been carried back- ward through five or six centuries of the world's progress, and are living again under the black pall of ignorance and supersti- tion which characterized the "dark ages" of the world's history. Awakened from such a reverie by the shrill whistle of the loco- motive engine, that wonderful invention which has given to mod- ern commerce such a mighty impetus, and has aided so mate- rially in disseminating general intelligence, and in providing the facilities for the acquisition of knowledge, and the accumulation of profound wisdom, we are soon reminded that we are living near the close of the nineteenth century, and that the terrible events of that sad period in the world's history are fast receding into the distant past. Living as we do under the benign influ- ence of the Government of the United States of America, whose basal doctrine is that "All men are created equal," and whose national standard, the beautiful "stars and stripes," is recognized throughout the civilized world as the symbol of civil and relig- ious liberty, and the emblem of human equality, we very natur- ally inquire whence this shadow of mediaeval superstition and abject adulation of a mere mortal man, so antagonistic in its nature to the spirit of our free institutions ? The only satisfac- tory answer to this inquiry is that the Spirit, the Doctrines and the Practices of the so-called Roman Catholic Church, are still stamped with the characteristics of that age in which the Roman See boasted of universal dominion and attained so nearly to its realization. Tyranny, usurpation, moral corruption, and base deception, were in that age, the characteristics of the popes and their minions, while their dupes were distinguished for igno- rance, superstition, vice and degradation. "Like people, like priest," the language of God's ancient prophet, is a strikingly accurate description of the clergy and laity in their relations to each other. It would be easy to cite a formidable array of au- thorities to show that this picture is not too dark ; but one or two extracts must suffice. Cardinal Baronius, the celebrated an- nalist of the Roman Catholic Church, and the great champion of popery, will certainly be taken as good authority. He says : "O ! what was then the face of the holy Roman church ! how 5 filth)', when the vilest and most powerful prostitutes ruled in Rome ! by whose arbitrary sway dioceses were made and un- made, bishops were consecrated, and — which is inexpressibly horrible to be mentioned — false popes, their paramours were thrust into the chair of St. Peter, who, in being numbered as popes, serve no purpose except to fill up the catalogue of the popes of Rome. For who can say that persons thrust into the popedom without any law by harlots of this sort, were legiti- mate popes of Rome ? In this way, lust, supported by secular power, excited to frenzy, in the rage of domination, ruled in all things." The same author says again, "It is evident that one can scarcely believe, without occular evidence, what unworthy, base, execrable and abominable things the holy, apostolical See, which is the pivot upon which the whole Catholic Church revolves, was forced to endure, when the princes of this age, although Chris- tian, yet arrogated to themselves the election of the Roman pon- tiffs. Alas, the shame! alas, the grief! what monsters horrible to behold were then, by them, intruded on the holy See, which angels revere ! what evils ensued ! what tragedies did they per- petrate ! with what polutions was this See, though itself without spot or wrinkle then stained ! with what corruptions infected ! with what filthiness defiled ! and by these blackened with per- petual infamy." Pope Innocent III, in a bull, hurled against Count Raimond of Thoulouse, in the south of France, enunciates the doctrine "we must not observe faith toward those who keep not faith towards God, or who are separated from the communion of the faithful." When this perfidious doctrine was promulgated by the author- ity of councils, popes and clergy, and universally accepted by the laity it is not strange that treachery, deception and "pious 6 frauds" were found on every hand ; and the public conscience having been prostituted by the workings of so corrupt a standard of morality, it was a very easy step in moral degredation, to al- low the same standard to guide them in their conduct and inter- course with each other. Accordingly we find perfidy, treachery and deception prevailing everywhere. Now since the acknowledged authorities of the "church" de- clare that the pope is infallible and the church unchangeable, her children have no right to complain if we conclude that the stand- ards of morality in the Roman Church are no higher to-day. Whatever improvement may be observed is to be attributed to outside pressure and the general dissemination of moral intelli- gence rather than to any internal process of purification. Perhaps this may account for the apparent effort of an anon- ymous Catholic writer, — in the capacity of a correspondent of the "Star and Kansan," a secular newspaper of our city, — to de- ceive the Bishop into the belief that the secular press — or at least that particular paper — was in sympathy with the doctrines peculiar to the Catholic church, by publishing the day previous to his arrival an article concerning one of these doctrines. At any rate as there had been no allusion, so far as I know, in that paper, to that doctrine there appears to have been no provoking cause ; and I know of no better way to account for its appear- ance at that particular juncture, than on the above supposition. With something of this feeling the author ventured to publish a reply to this communication in the next issue, designed to dis- pel the idea that any large proportion of the readers of that pa- per had any sympathy with the sentiments of the writer ; and I have learned since that I was not the only one who sought op- portunity to reply. To this reply the same writer published a "rejoinder," which called for another very brief answer from me. This ended the discussion, so far as the "Star and Kansan" was concerned ; and as I supposed the whole matter would rest there. But I soon found that I had inflicted a much severer wound than I was aware of; for "The Weekly Catholic" puplished at Leavenworth in this State, took the matter up and the editor in long-winded editorials in various issues of his paper continued the discussion, with much acrimony, and furious zeal. He seems to have thought these little squibs were likely, by their explo- sion, to shatter into fragments the old decaying superstructure for whose defence he considers himself responsible. In the very outset these editorials were marked by so much disposition to misrepresent and misstate the facts, and were so full of the spirit of malevolence and malediction, and so abound- ed with vile epithets and coarse ribaldry, that it was immediately evident that I could not trust myself in his hands by entering into a discussion of the matters at issue in his own paper. In the meantime the matter has assumed such proportions, that it would be impossible to find space in any other periodical for its investigation. Still the questions involved are so important in the maintenance of the truth that silence would seem like cow- ardice, and recreancy to the truth. But the only avenue open for such discussion, is in an independent private publication. Furthermore, the " Weekly Catholic" claims to be the only Cath- olic paper published in the State, and, in the same issues in which this controversy is carried on, has the endorsement of Bishop Mary, commanding all pastors in the State to give it their en- dorsement and see that its wide circulation be secured in their respective parishes. Thus the treatment accorded to me and my published statements, has the virtual endorsement of the Bishop and clergy of the entire State. I feel, therefore, compelled to give to the public this production in defense of the truth. 8 In order, therefore, that the reader may know fully the points at issue the next chapter will be made up of the entire newspa- per controversy as far as published up to the present writing : CHAPTER II. THE NEWSPAPER CONTROVERSY. [From the Star and Kansan, May 8th, 1885.] "Maryolatary," Kather Maryolatry. Is it thus that our enlightened brethren, having exhausted all their elo- quence and learning's lore on Catholic idolatry, must needs take up the inter- esting theme of Maryolatry ? Can we, poor self-adulators who would feign at- tract the attention of mankind to our imaginary gifts and graces, those whose self esteem and egotism would make their very defects appear as virtues, shall such zealots berate those who fulfill the dictates of the "Holy Bible" in repeat- ing the words of the angel whom God sent to the ever Virgin Mary with this message, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee; Blessed art thou among women." Luke, 1st chap. 28th verse. Why do not those Bible enthusiasts practice its teachings ? If they examine they will find that the spirit and letter of the Bible is taught and practised only in the Catholic church ; that sacred book so hackneyed, trifled with, made subservient to man's grossest passions ; why do not those learned anti-Mary olaters learn lessons of humility from the chosen people of God, of whom they read in the "Bible," Luke, 1:6. "Zachary and Elizabeth were both just before God, walking in all the commandments and justifications of the Lord without blame." Can we say as much for any in our day? Yet this woman, "blessed before God," says to Mary "Whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" Oh, Elizabeth, you were "blameless before God," but in our enlightened age you would be guilty of Maryolatry. Again, Mary, the virgin mother of the world's redeemer says of herself, "Henceforth all generations shall call me blessed." Oh, Im- maculate Mary, we are too enlightened in this nineteenth century. Let us en- quire if it is thus: In the "Bible" we read, "Throughout all time, from the ris- ing to the setting of the sun, a clean oblation shall be offered to my name." Is it so in our day ? Yes, in the Holy Roman Catholic Church, the church which Christ himself established. There is His Divine Body and Blood offered in the manner and according to His divine injunctions. Nor is there a part of the uni- verse wherein that church does not offer that "clean oblation" from the rising to the setting of the sun," and wherever that is offered, so also is the mother honored, from whom He took that body. We read in the "Bible" that at the nuptial feast, Mary, in Her charity, intercedes with Her Son, to relieve those people in their embarrassment. He tells Her His hour to work miracles has not yet come, yet at her request He changes His eternal decree, and works "the miracle of changing the water into wine. In the charity which our holy mother church inculcates, our daily orisons will ascend to the throne of the Most High that the scales may fall from their eyes, that having eyes they may see, and find the only true path to salvation. We will also ask the Mother of our Divine Lord to intercede for our dear brethren, and hope She will succeed as at the nuptial feast of Cana. Child of Mary. "Maryolatry." [From Star and Kansan, May 15, 1885] Editor Star and Kansan : — An article in your paper of last week under the above caption arrested my attention, and after re-reading carefully, I am forced to pronounce the article a remarkable production. It is remarkable, first for its wonderful lack of perspicuity. I am undecided as to whether the writer was attempting to produce a burlesque on one phase of Catholicism, or whether he imagined he was producing an unanswerable ar- gument in favor of the Romish Church. If the writer intends to apply to him self the language he uses when he says, "Can we, poor, self-adulators who would fain attract the attention of mankind to our imaginary gifts and graces, those whose self-esteem and egotism would make their very defects appear as vir- rues." then I have no controversy with him on this point. If the author is attempting to make a sincere argument in favor of the wor- IO ship of Mary the mother of Jesus, then his production is remarkable for its aro- gant assumptions, in which he "begs'' the whole question. Among these as- sumptions I may mention the statement that the angel announcing the birth of Jesus worshipped Mary ; again, that Mary was "Immaculate;" again, that she was ever a virgin ; again, the doctrine of "Trans-substantiation," and again that at the request of the Mother of Jesus "he changes his eternal decree. All of these, and others I might mention, are pure assumptions ; having no basis whatever in the scriptures. To use the language of Jesus himself he is "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." The dogma of "The immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary" was never authoritatively promulgated until December 8th, 1854, when Pope Pius IX per- petrated the farce of issuing such a decree. If the writer is a "faithful catholic" he may be informed by consulting his superiors that he is very foolish to attempt to maintain the doctrines and prac- tices of his church on the basis of the Bible alone, without the help ot tradi- tion, which "our holy mother church" holds as of equal authority with the written word. The Bible teaches us to worship God only. "Thou shalt wor- sbip the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." To worship any crea- ture is idolatry, hence, "Maryolatry" is idolatry. A. Coffey. Independence, Kansas, May 11th, 1885. A Rejoinder. [Star and Kansan May 22, 1885.] Mr. Editor : In thanking you for the accommodation of the columns of your appreciated and widely circulated paper, we would merely say we ignore the illiterate individual. His verbose conglomeration is totally irrelevant to the subject. He asks if we wish "to produce an unanswerable argument in fa- vor of the'Romish Church." Our intention was to adduce an argument to ren- der futile his vile, slanderous and malicious calumnies of the Catholic Church, under whose divine influence idols fell and idolators christianized throughout all nations. Our argument has obliged him to resort to base subterfuge — he says "Mayolatry is idolatry." We happen to be aware of the fact ; hence our indignant resentment of the malicious charge of Catholic idolatry, and that was the only point of controversy in our article, and not the immaculate conception, 1 1 which has been the belief of Catholics for nineteen hundred years The dogma of 1854, all scholars in the church and outside understand. In our defense of the veneration ot Mary, this luminary makes us say that the angel worshipped Mary, when he announced to her the birth of Jesus, which is ludicrously pre- posterous. I think every mother will say she needs no celestial or terrestrial messenger to announce the birth of her child. She becomes fully aware of the fact. The word worship is not used once in our article. The Catholic church has taught for nineteen centuries, throughout all nations, to worship one true and living God, and no more, that we must not give the honor due to God, to a?iy of His creatures. That to venerate Mary because she is the mother of God, is not idolatry, we have proved in our former article by the written word of the Bible, not needing tradition ; (though of equal authority) yet this would-be lit- eratus says we cannot sustain an argument without the aid of tradition. He has not been able to refute our point although he calls the scriptural quotations "arrogant assumptions." He alludes to our Lord's words, "teaching for doc- trines the commandments of men." Surely our Lord did not address these words to the Church, which He Himself commissioned "to teach all nations whatsoever He commandeth them." His words were addressed to those who would presume to teach before they had learned the truths He taught. These words, therefore, would be more applicable to A. C. During all our life, with all denominations, ministers and people, our associations have been of the most cordial and happy character. They were people of culture, and to-day we have some very warm and dear friends, most estimable ladies, outside of our Church, whom we love and esteem for their beautiful qualities of heart and mind. We have observed that whenever the Catholic Church is stigmatized and maligned, the traducers were invariably men of the lowest order of intellect and unedu- cated fanatics. A Child of Mary. That "Rejoinder." [Star and Kansan, May 29th.] As the writer, who skulks behind a pseudonym, makes no attempt at argu- ment but admits that the worship of Mary is idolatry, and that the Romish church holds that tradition is of equal authority with the Bible, I have no need to adduce any further proof of these points. A.s to his personal abuse, vile epi- 12 thets and coarse billingsgate, I have only to say, I have no ambition to rival him in these things. If he feels better after throwing up so much bile, I am willing he should enjoj' the relief. When a whipped puppy howls he is hurt too bad to bite, and it would be cruel to give him another lick. Jesus says : "Blessed are ye when men shall revile you and persecute you and say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake. Rejoice and be ex- ceeding glad, for great is your reward in heaven; for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you." I take him for my example "who when he was reviled, reviled not again." A. Coffey. Independence, Kansas, May 23, 1885. "Mary olatry . " [From the Catholic, June 25th, 1885.] Some more than ordinarily mal-instructed zealots having ventilated their nonsense about "Mariolatry" — whatever that may be — a lady at Independence, through the Independence Star and Kansan, endeavored to promptly dispel the misrepresentation engendered by the meaningless term, but her praiseworthy effort brought out the following "specimen brick" from a genuine bigot fully up to the complete measure of ignorance that bigotry requires: "maryolatry." Emtor Star and Kansan : — An article in your paper of last week under the above caption arrested my attention, and after re-reading carefully, I am forced to pronounce the article a remarkable production. It is remarkable, first for its wonderful lack of perspicuity. I am undecided as to whether the writer was attempting to produce a burlesque on one phase of Catholicism, or whether he imagined he was producing an unanswerable ar- gument in favor of the Romish Church. If the writer intends to apply to him- self the language he uses when he says, "Can we, poor, self-adulators who would fain attract the attention of mankind to our imaginary gifts and graces, those whose self-esteem and egotism would make their very defects appear as vir- tues," ther I have no controversy with him on this point. If the author is attempting to make a sincere argument in favor of the wor- ship of Mary the mother of Jesus, then his production is remarkable for its aro- gant assumptions, in which he "begs" the whole question. Among these as- sumptions I may mention the statement that the angel announcing the birth of Jesus worshipped Mary : again, that Mary was "Immaculate;" again, that she was ever a virgin ; again, the doctrine of "Trans-substantiation," and again that at the request of the Mother of Jesus "he changes his eternal decree. All of these, and others I might mention, are pure assumptions ; having no basis whatever in the scriptures. To use the language of Jesus himself he is "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." The dogma of "The immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary" was never authoritatively promulgated until December 8th, 1854, when Pope Pius IX per- petrated the farce of issuing such a decree. If the writer is a "faithful catholic" he may be informed by consulting his superiors that he is very foolish to attempt to maintain the doctrines and prac- tices of his church on the basis of the Bible alone, without the help of tradi- tion, which "our holy mother church" holds as of equal authority with the written word. The Bible teaches us to worship God only. "Thou shalt wor- ship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." To worship any crea- ture is idolatry, hence, "Maryolatry" is idolatry. A. Coffey. Independence, Kansas, May 11th, 1885. However, he not only misstated her position, but he took the most remark- ably good care to give no proof of his direct "assumption" that anything the lady stated was any "assumption"; she had given authorities for all her state- ments, which he cannot give for his "assumptions," and that is just what both- ered him. But to this caucus diction and elegance of slang of this bigot speak- ing of "the Romish Church," this praiseworthy lady replied : A REJOINDER. Mr. Editor : In thanking you for the accommodation of the columns of your appreciated and widelj- circulated paper, we would merely say we ignore the illiterate individual. His verbose conglomeration is totally irrelevant to the subject. He asks if we wish "to produce an unanswerable argument in fa- vor of the Romish Church." Our intention was to adduce an argument to ren- der futile his vile, slanderous and malicious calumnies of the Catholic Church, under whose divine influence idols fell and idolators christianized throughout all nations. Our argument has obliged him to resort to base subterfuge — he says "Mayolatry is idolatry." We happen to be aware of the fact, that he so considers it; HENCE OUR INDIGNANT RESENTMENT OF THE MA- LICIOUS CHARGE OF CATHOLIC IDOLATRY, and that was the only point ot controversy in our article, and not the immaculate conception, which has been the belief of Catholics for nineteen hundred years The dogma of 1864, all scholars in the church and outside understand. In our defense of the veneration ot Mary, this luminary makes us say that the angel worshipped Mary, when he announced to her the birth of Jesus, which is ludicrously pre- H posterous. I think every mother will say she needs no celestial or terrestrial messenger to announce the birth of her child. She becomes fully aware of the fact. The word worship is not used once in our article. The Catholic church has taught for nineteen centuries, throughout all nations, to worship one true and living God, and no more, that we must not give the honor due to God, to any of His creatures. That to venerate Mary because she is the mother of God, is not idolatry, we have proved in our former article by the written word of the Bible, not needing tradition ; (though of equal authority) yet this would-be lit- eratus says we connot sustain an argument without the aid of tradition. He has not been able to refute our point, although he calls the scriptural quotations '"arrogant assumptions." He alludes to our Lord's words, ''teaching for doc- trines the commandments of men." Suaely our Lord did not address these words to the Church, which He Himself commissioned "to teach all nations whatsoever He commandeth them." His words were addressed to those who would presume to teach before they had learned the truths He taught. These words, therefore, would be more applicable to A. C. During all our life, with all denominations, ministers and people, our associations have been of the ruo.-t cordial and happ3 r character. They were people of culture, and to-day we have some very warm and dear friends, most estimable ladies, outside of our Church, whom we love and esteem for their beautiful qualities of heart and mind. AVe have observed that whenever the Catholic Church is stigmatized and maligned, the traducers were invariably men of the lowest order of intellect and unedu- cated fanatics. . A Child of Mary. Which brought out this veritable gall-burst, in a style that certainly could delight nothing above the level of a pot-house, but which most vividly shows the innate foulness of a bigotry that happily is fast expiring. THAT "REJOINDER." As the writer, who skulks behind a pseudonym, makes no attempt at argu- ment but admits that the worship of Mary is idolatry, and that the Romish church holds that tradition is of equal authority with the Bible, I have no need to adduce any further proof of these points. As to his personal abuse, vile epi- thets and coarse billingsgate, I have only to say, I have no ambition to rival him in these things. If he feels better after throwing up so much bile, I am willing he should enjoy the relief. When a whipped puppy howls he is hurt too bad to bite, and it would be cruel to give him another lick. i5 Jesus says: "Blessed are ye when men shall revile you and persecute you and say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake. Rejoice and be ex- ceeding glad, for great is your reward in heaven ; for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you." I take him for my example "who when he was reviled, reviled not again." A. Coffey. Independence, Kansas, May 23, 1885. There is only one thing he gives "proof" for, and in the above he gives am- ple proof for that, that he can ignore the rules of even the commonest breeding with a completeness rarely seen. To use his own expression, "for personal abuse, vile epithets, and coarse billingsgate" — choice phrases, but he cannot find fault with his own expressions — he fairly takes the palm, and his disgrace- ful effort in that direction we charitably hope will suffice for his lifetime. Of course instinctive self-respect forbade the lady to reply to such a literary boor. But about this Romish Church before commencing, will he be good enough to tell us what church that is? As he appears to be perfectly familiar with "bill- ingsgate," we would like to ask him if there are no amenities whatever that he could compel himself to observe in even that favorite school of his? Because no matter how ignorant or presumptious a bigot nay be, he might still retain some portion of the instincts of a gentleman, and even the densest ignorance is happily seldom accompanied with the indecent slang — and towards a lady — of this unscrupulous romancer. Now a word from us, and we will not apply to him or to any other such a gentlemanly epithet as "puppy," as he applied to this'lady, nor will our remarks be in any way intended to "lick" such an uncul- tivated bigot run mad. To commence with, in one of his contradictions of the plain statement of the lady plainly before his eyes, he at once exemplifies the unscrupulous char- acter and downright falsification of the genuine bigot, when he avers that the lady "admits that the worship of Mary is idolatry" in the very face of her ''indig- nant resentment of the malicious charge." But this is as near any true statement of facts as such men ever get — the direct contrary to truth. The brazenness of this impugning of the known truth by his assertion of this egregrious falsehood shows plainer than any word of ours could show, the untenable position into which truth and the commonest sense drives such persons. But about "idol- atry" in another issue. With the double dealing that is the favorite means of misrepresentation used by such bigots, he says, "The dogma of the immaculate conception of the (Blessed) Virgin Mary"— there are other "virgins" of the name of Mary— "was never authoritatively promulgated until December 8th, 1854, when Pope Pius IX perpetrated the farce of issuing such a decree.' 1 ' As to the "tarce" of the authority and jurisdiction always exercised by the visible head of the church, and Christ's Vicar on earth, when speaking ex cathe- i6 dra, which jurisdiction and authority was itself "decreed" at the Vatican coun- cil composed of 704 bishops, archbishops and patriarchs from every part and na- tion of the earth, from the rising to the setting of the sun, and representing 250,000,000 people, the term 'farce" for such an act is probably as courteous as we might expect, and is certainly no wider from both common sense and truth than such bigots ordinarily venture. But there is a plain intention at misrep- resentation in the above. There is no other kind of falsehood so insidious, and consequently is reprehensible as the false insinuation that is veiled under a portion of truth, and at the same time such means is more cowardly than any other mode of falsehood, and his evident intention is to insinuate that the Im- maculate Conception was not a doctrine of the Church through all ages previ- ous to that time, and we drop his otber vagaries for other issues and meet him here. He can hardly be unaware of the fact that the Church defines what her dogmas are just as fast as the necessity arises, as when they are attacked, but not sooner. The Divinity of Jesus Christ was defined at the Council of Nice in 325, was the Divinity of the Son of God, a new doctrine at that time? And so on through the otber eighteen general councils of the Church of God, ending with the Vatican Council in this century, each one defined only dogmas that were disputed, and only decreed what the doctrine of the Church had been from its very foundation. Let us go back and give him some badly needed informa- tion upon the uniform belief in the immaculate conception of the Mother of God through all ages of the Church of God. The Council of Trent declared that in the decree concerning original sin the Mother of God was not included, and ordered the decree of SLxtus IV, in relation to this doctrine to be observed. Be- fore that, in the fifteenth century, the Council of Basle declared this doctrine ; and in that century the University of Paris forbade the conferring of the degree of doctor of divinity on any one who denied this doctrine. The Emperor Em- manuel Commenus enforced the observance of the feast in 1159, and the feast was observed in the east during centuries before. In the "Life and Letters of Herbert de Lasinga, first bishop of Norwich, England, in the eleventh century, you will find this doctrine enunciated in his sermons, delivered as a matter of course, as it was the belief of all England and all Christendom at that day. But to remove all doubt, any fair-minded searcher after truth need only to go to the Greek Schismatic Church to-day, and find that during the Canon of the Mass, the Greek liturgy of St. Chrysostum handed down to this day from the fourth century makes public affirmation of this doctrine. But as this article is already becoming too long, we must conclude, we give both dates and authorities— in which we differ entirely from such as he is — and the evidence is overwhelming and irrefutable. Not only is this doctrine coeval with the Christian Church, but it is the very embodyment of reason. That the First Person of the Godhead as Father, and the Third Person of the i7 Godhead as her Spouse, would preserve her from ever being the enemy of God by sin, is conformable to the simplest dictates of reason. But what can be more reasonable than that the Second Person of the Triune God and her Creator, would consider the sublime dignity decreed for her, to be his venerable, loved and loving, august, and sacred mother, that he would behold her with an infi- nite complacency, and that he would fit her for that dignity. Docs not the Im- maculate Conception add new lustre to the Redemption, showing that the mer- its of the God - man precluded the possibility of the Mother He made for Him- self ever being under the dominion of Satan. As Mother of God, her Immacu- late Conception was not the on!} 7 general law suspended in her favor, for we can know of no more extraordinary suspension of natural laws than that she should be a mother and a virgin at the same time. Mother of God, is it not the hope, the crown, the reconciliation of our race, and the glory, and the just pride, and are not the virtues with which she was adorned the immaculate pattern for womanhood? Does not reason repel the thought that she who was to be the living Temple of God Incarnate would first become the abode of sin and child of wrath — is not such a supposition contrary to reason? Is it even common sense to say that the Second Person of the Godhead that is the source of all holiness. took His human nature from a corrupt source; that He allowed the Temple in which He remained for nine months to have been under the dominion of the Devil? To admit any of these is to shock reason and common sense; in even its most natural sense, to suppose them is the summit of unreason. This article is already too long — longer than we intended — but to be plain and intelligent we could not well shorten it. Like all the superficial and very religiously ignorant and nihilistic amongst the sects, he puts about the entire Christian doctrine into a dozen printed lines, "worship," "idolatry," "tradi- tion," "transubstutiation," and thus shows that the whole existence of the sects depends upon bare assertions, founded only on "gush" and contrary to everj' fact. In far shorter articles and in other issues, we will, in all charity, vouch- safe to him some badly needed instruction upon them — including Bible — olatry — that we hope may enlighten and last him during the rest of his days. [From the Catholic, June 25th.] Miss Clkveland, by being a sister of the President, is just now receiving an amount of notice that she is far from deserving. She has scribbled off some most silly misrepresentations of "Monasticism." and a glance at the quotations published will convince any intelligent citizen that she knows just as much i8 about the subject as our Independence Coffey-cup knows about the Christian doctrine— absolutely nothing. Because she is a sister to President Cleveland does not give her either knowledge or good taste, nor does it detract from his political fitness. From the Catholic, June 25th. We would fain call the attention of our Coffey-colored Christian friend at Independence to the following passage from a sermon preached on the feast of the "Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary," by Herbert de Losigna, the first Christian Bishop of Norwich, England, in the eleventh century. He will find it both in the recent widely published letter of Rev. Frederick George Lee, D. D., Protestant Vicar of "All Saints," Lambeth, England, and in the "Life and Letters of Herbert de Losequa," by the Protestant Dean and Protestant Pre- center of Norwich Cathedral, published in London in 1878. "To-day the Most Blessed Virgin Mary was taken up above the heavens, and in the presence of the Holy Apostles her body was placed in the sepulchre. She died, but a body of such excellent dignity could not (as Blessed Gregory saith) long be held in the bonds of death. For it was impossible that the flesh should be corrupted by a long death of which the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. For if at the Lord's resurrection many bodies of the saints that slept, arose, how could that flesh not rise again which gave birth to the Author of life Himself? With a full and undoubting fahh, believe ye, my brethren, that the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, made important both in body and soul, sitteth at the right hand of God, with her Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, be- ing the mother of penitents, and the most effectual intercessor for our sins with her most gracious Son.'" This was the language and this was the belief of all Christendom and all England 800 years ago, and they could not then even dream that any other doc- trine could ever be called "Christian." And to further instruct and endeavor to Christianize our pupil, we will give him the volume and page of the book to find it in, so that this prospective Catechumen of ours can have no delay — and less excuse if he does delay — in placing his finger upon it. It is in volume II, on pages 351 and 352. See, we give him Protestant authority, but the authority of educated men, and men who will not try to ignore known facts, no matter how ruthlessly the truth of these facts smashes up generations of instilled falsehood, ignorance and prejudice. The religious misinformation resulting from the apathy of the day is inexplicable, and it is solely and alone by the 19 failure of people to inform themselves upon the veriest and plainest historical facts that the sects exist in this free land. "Worship." [From the Weekly Catholic July 2d, 1885] Our Coffey-colored ''Christian" of the Romish type, comprised about the en- tire Christian doctrine into a dozen lines of type, which we suppose we must accept as the measure of his knowledge of it, but for his instruction we must take one subject at a time, and as he is so confused in his conceptions of "wor- ship" as distinguished from "adoration," a few words upon this subject will be appropriate, and we hope they will not be wasted upon him. As all English speaking persons at least ought to know, the term "worship" signifies different things as it is relatively applied. In religion there are two distinctively differ- ent kinds of worship. There is the superior, the supreme worship paid only to God, and properly called adoration ; it is the highest kind of worship ; this is applied only to God ; it is the highest degree, and it is due to God, and to God alone. The worship paid to creatures is entirely different trom this adoration ; it is an inferior worship. Catholics believe that the beautified Angels and Saints reigning with God in heaven ought to be honored, and the scriptures teach us that they ought to be invoked, and every line of Church history and the practice of every day of her existence proves that they always have been in- voked ; but that worship is infinitely short of the adoration paid to God, and to Him alone. But as we said before, any one pretending to at all understand the English language, ought to know this, as by both English law and custom "worship" is paid to even mere public positions and persons. This inferior worship applied to creatures is veneration for worthy qualities, and is "wor- ship" in that sense — and this worship is such common sense that English, Scotch and Irish municipal officers are by both law and usage entitled to it, and our Catechumen could have found from any properly instructed person that the proper address for the mayor of a city in the British Islands is "Your Worship." The European calls the municipal chief of a British city "Worshipful," yet his Coffey-colored scholarship pretends to confound this inferior "worship" with the adoration paid to God. We will not charge him a cent for the badly needed instruction in his mother tongue that we are vouchsafing to him. Is it not strange that in referring to any subject except the doctrines of the Catholic Church, those bigots would never attempt to confound these two en- 20 tirely different significations and meanings of a well known relative term? Is it common honesty to pretend to confound these entirely different meanings when referring to any Catholic practices, and at the very same moment ac- knowledge their entire difference in all other things? Is it not. And as a re- sult of this dishonesty of intention the fact is fast becoming notorious that whatever you hear a Coffey-colored bigot say is Catholic doctrine, you can nine times out of ten set down as being falacies that the Catholic Church abhors ; and whatever such a dishonestly unreasoning bigot tells you the Catholic Church has done, you may as safely set down in nine cases out of ten to be near about the very thing she has already hindered. One of the peculiarities of such mental and "religious" curiosities is, that the very name of "Catholic" acts up- on some undiscovered agency of evil in them pretty much as a red cloth acts upon the bovine species; they lose control of their natural and better parts. They never lose their common sense until dealing with the Catholic Church, and they are then never able to keep it. This man would not be found mixing such entirely different terms and acts in any other circumstances of life. To the outsider such an entire and so plain a course of error is unaccountable, and yet it is somewhat — although not altogether — accountable when we recollect that until the dawn of this century, for the past three hundred years they have been compelled by the most tyrannical enactments in all English speaking countries to not only receive malicious falsehoods, and an erroneous, mutilated and eor- rupted mistranslation of the scriptures as "the bible," but any attempt to re- fute tlmse errors and corruptions, and the ignorance instilled from these false- hoods into the generations before the present, was during two centuries a "crime" punishable with imprisonment, banishment to death, according to how steadfastly you would maintain the truth. The tyranny that has enforced the teaching of error and falsehood in English speaking lands is what has caused the religious ignorance and consequent bigotry now seen in the Coffey-colored amongst the sects. This is the key to such dishonest nonsense as confounding two such entirely differently different terms, "worship" with "adoration." [From the Weekly Catholic, July 9th, 1885.] As we have shown our Coffey-colored catechumen that reason and common sjnse teaches that the Mother of God must have been always free from all sin — which is the sum of "immaculate" — to fit her for the place she occupies, and that this has been the teaching of all ages of the Christian Church ; and having shown him the strange and inexcusable shortcomings of his schoolmaster in 21 never having taught him the meaning of the plain English term "worship," we will follow up this charitable attempt at his instruction by chasing away his strange hallucination about Catholic "idolatry," a curious fiction that can only find lodgment in a mind either thoroughly ignorant of* the subject before it, or thoroughly malicious in its prejudice. Men of greater ingenuity than he, and of some learning, have in their desperation in their attempts to bolster up the illogical fallacies of the sects, reiterated this stale and most senseless calumny, but they have generally done so with the hope that their slanders would be revered up by their bold assumptions and glaring sophistry. Now, in the first place, all Catholics indignantly repel the stupid calumny, and in the face of this denial by every man, woman and child, does he give any proof for a charge that it is as outrageous as it is absurd ? Oh ! no. That is one thing that the Coffey-colored amongst the sects will never do — give any proof whatever for a single utterance they make, although their refusal to even at- tempt to prove their assertions against an universal denial, is a confession of judgment against themselves as it is a confession of the impossibility of finding any proof. In this, as in everything else, they give unsupported assertion against overwhelming testimony. But we will cheerfully pass over that confes- sion of judgment, and not taking any advantage of it, we will give them proof to the contrary, and although this threadbare falsehood has been repeated a thous- and times, hoping this errancy proceeds more from ignorance than malice, we will refute it again. Let us first take the decree of the Second last General Council, the Council of Trent, explicitly defining the doctrine of the Church upon this subject, as we make no statement with which we do not give authority and proof. The de- cree of the Council of Trent says: "The Holy Synod enjoins upon all bishops and others having the office and charge of teaching others, that, according to the usage of the Catholic Apostolic Church, received from the primitive times of the Christian religion, and accord- ing to the consent of the holy fathers, and decrees of sacred Councils, they should, in the first place, diligently instruct the faithful concerning the inter- cession and invocation of saints, the honor of relics, and the legitimate use of images, teaching them that the saints, reigning together with Christ, offer up their prayers to God for men. that it is good and useful supplicantly to invoke them, and to fly to their prayers, aid and assistance, in order to obtain favor from God through His Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord, who is our only Redeemer and Savior.'' Here is the explicit and solemn decree of the highest authority of the Church disproving anything tendering upon "idolatry." To make such a charge in the face of this fact is simply atrocious. But let us come closer, even. Let any non-Catholic take the forms of invo- 22 cation found in Catholic prayer books, and lie will at once see the romancing misstatements of such men. To whom are addressed the prayers contained in Catholic prayer books, in which the Blessed Virgin and the Saints are commem- orated ? They are all addressed directly to God, asking the intercession of His Saints that these blessings may flow from God to men, and they all explicitly recognize the one and only mediation of Christ. The Litany of the Blessed Virgin ends : "That we to whom the incarnation of Christ, thy Son, has been made known by the message of an angel, may by His passion and cross be brought to the glory of His resurrection through the same Christ, our Lord, Amen." This is the ending of the Litany of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Where is the idolatry in this? In that Litany, in every petition to the Mother of God. the words are "pray for us ;" but in every place in that Litany when God is addressed, the petition is "have mercy upon us." That Litany of the Blessed Virgin itself most clearly sets out the distinction between the creature and the Creator, although that creature is the immaculate Mother of the Second Person , of the Godhead made flesh, and is now enjoying the beatific vision and reign- ing with her own son and God in heaven, it sets the distinction, and forbids any infringement upon that distinction far more clearly than the sects ever can. Gf God, mercy is craved through the merits of the Redeemer of the friends of God now reigning with Him, their prayers to their and our God are asked, that their and our God may grant that mercy. The Catholic Church holds that it is profit- able to desire them to pray to God for us ; but not that they are authors of a pardon, grace, or Salvation, which can only come from God. All their power is dependent upon God's holy will, and independent of that they have no power. Every honor paid to the Angels and Saints, and particularly to the Mother of God, is paid to them because of the bountiful supernatural gifts imparted to them by God, and consequently every such honor must of its very necessity, redound to the greater honor and glory of God ; such honor so paid is adoration of God, because He is the only source and sole author of all the sanctity and holiness His saints, and to honor their sanctity must be to adore Him from whom that sanctity flows. In its words, in its very nature and essence, the prayers of the Church positively exclude and forbid anything bordering upon such a construction. Ought not these men be thoroughly ashamed of such atrocious falsehoods? With all this unequivocal denial of any such assump- tion ; with all this plain recognition of the sole mediatorship of Christ; with all this plain reliance for mercy upon God alone ; w T ith all the testimony to this -in General Councils, in every Catholic book, and in the prayers offered up daily and hourly from hundreds of millions of Catholics — even the schismatic Greeks — is it not a wonder that shame would not blister the tongues of such men ? If our friend Coffey wanted a position in the department of state, would he ^3 not only refuse the recommendation of public men of tried weight and influence, but also scorn a memorial from the President's cabinet? Yet, with the excep- tion that the Angels and 8a ; nts now enjoying the beatific vision and reigning with God have immeasurably more power and influence than any earthly cabi- net, this is about the exact position he pretends to take. Did Mr. Coffey ever read Catholic prayer books and study the Litanies of the Blessed Virgin and of the Saints so that he could intelligenty know what he was writing about? Charity urges us to say he never did, because otherwise his assertions would be- come unpardonable libels. And whilst of course we can blame no man for his ignorance of the subject, provided his ignorance be unavoidable, yet such men should at least attempt to instruct and inform themselves before being guilty of atrocious slanders. Tradition. [From the Weekly Catholic July 16th, 1885.] As w r e have taken Catechumen Coffey under a course of badly needed in- struction in both Christian doctrines and common sense — as well as in the meanings of some of the plainest terms in the English language — we will con- tinue a little further in this work of charity. After the absurd errors we have already dissipated in, his naturally fair intellect, but now clouded with enforced misinformation, the next in the order of his inexplicable Protestant blunders, is his pretense to reject tradition, made in the usual manner of baseless asser- tions, peculiar to the sects— we say pretense to reject it, for we cannot reject tradition — he does not reject tradition ; he even obeys tradition where it is in direct contradiction to and overrides the bible, and his hallucination on this point is what we will this week dispel. In fact we must sincerely say that of all the absurd fallacies of Protestantism probably none are so opposed to common sense and the facts in the case — certainly none are more opposed to both — than this statement of theirs that they do not accept the unwritten word of God con- tained in the tradition of the Church. And first, as to the authority of tradition, the unwritten word of God. Now as the sects are forever poking their mistranslations of a mutilated and corrupt- ed portion of the scriptures that they erroneously call the "bible" at everybody and everything, is it not strange that they do not read it to more advantage, as any ordinarily careful reading of it would keep them out of such a blundering 24 error as this. In our effort to instruct Mr. Coffey in his own mistranslated bible, the space allowed in a newspaper editorial is too small to admit of more than a cursory glance at the numerous places where the scriptures teach and enforce the authority of tradition. Even at the old testament we will stop a mo- ment ; and although a greater authority yet of the old law than even the old testament, is the fact that from the fall of Adam to the days of IVFoses there were no '"scriptures" and the Church of God was all that time governed solely by the unwritten law of tradition ; passing over all this we will onjy take him to Deuteronomy where he will find that the Jews were directed, xxii, 7, to "ask thy father, and he will declare to thee, thy elders, and they will tell thee," and if that be not his understanding of the English word ''tradition," then the school teacher must have shamefullv imposed upon his parents when pretend- ing to teach their hopeful the English language. But he may object that the old law has been fulfilled and replaced by the new law and he would prefer to be instructed in the new testament, so let us hasten to accommodate him. St. Paul, writing to Timothy, the Bishop of Ephesns, directs him, 2 Tim. 13, to "hold the form of sound words which thou hast heard from me." Here he places the "words" spoken to That Bishop on at least an equal footing with his writings. But not content with this, St. Paul tells him to hand these unwritten traditions of the Church down throiigh all generations, "And the things thou hast heard from me before many witnesses'" (in oral instruction) the same commend to faithful men, who shall be Jit to teach others also," 2 Tim. ii. 2. Here he not only orders these traditions of the Church to be handed down through all others to come, but the instructions necessitate a visible and infallible Church, or they are impossible. But to show that before any of the new testament was written, through oral teaching and necessary tra- dition, the Church was in as full operation as it is to-day, he directs the same Bishop, 2 Tim. iii. 14 "But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned, and which have been coynmitted to thee, knowing of whom thou hast learned." Here we have the testimony of St. Paul that the Christian doctrine had been "learned," and "committed" in all its fullness to the Christian Church before a scrap of the new testament was yet penned. He also tells the Corinthians, 1 Cor. xi. 2, to "Keep my ordinances, as I delivered them to you " Where are these "ordinances" that he "delivered" before he wrote aline of scripture, and to which that very scripture refers as being of primal authority ? In any ordinary affair of life, where reason ruled, men would never go be- yond this. But it may be that he will want some scripture yet with the word "tradition" itself in it, as he may be just such a man as for contrariety would object to "two dozen" in an instrument hoping he might get out of paying 'twenty-four." All right. St. Paul, in the second Epistle he wrote, — of course the Coffey-colored know that "Epistle" simpl}' means a letter — says to the 25 Thessalonians "Hold the traditions which you have learned, whether bywoid or by our epistle." 2 Thes. II, 15. Here we not only see that St. Paul places the un- written traditions on exactly the same footing with the written scripture, but also that those very epistles must be but based upon the unwritten "traditions" received and "learned" by him after his conversion. We hope that Mr. Coffey will not presume that St. Paul must have been very presumntious in having been so good a Catholic. But. St. Paid went further yet, and he has had all the Coffey-colored plainly in view, for he warned the Catholic delegations in Thesa- lonica, "And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yo urs el v ks from every brother walking disorderly and not ac- cording to traditions which they have received of us, "2 Thes. iii. 6. Well, we are endeavoring to do as this directs we take St. Paul's advice and "withdraw" ourselves from their errors. St. Paul was "down on" "undenominational de- nominations," and if Mr. Coffey had lived in the first century he would have fought St. Paul, but although St. Paul enjoins us to "withdraw" from the Cof- fey-colored sects, it is nevertheless our duty to try to instruct and enlighten them. As all men can see, there is nothing here about "walking according to the scriptures," nor is there a line in all the scriptures to any such effect. Will Mr. Coffey please tell us in what place any portion of the scriptures tells him that all doctrine is found in them, or will he point where scripture even once says that the written word of God has any greater authority than the unwritten word of God? He cannot, for there is not a single line or place where such an asser- tion is made, and it is a curious comment upon his knowledge of the "bible" that we are compelled to teach it to him. There were no scriptures from the day that Adam was cast out of Eden un- til the time of Moses ; during that vast period of time the Church of God was governed entirely. by tradition alone. The Christian Catholic Church was clos- ing its first century, and had spread to the ends of the earth, and her full and perfect doctrines had been "learned," and were deposited, and were being hand- ed to others before the sciiptures of this new testament were written, and her doctrines during that time were supported by tradition only. Christ never said "Go write," or "Go give a book" that sets the world by the ears ; but "go teach all nations." In an ordinary affair of life, where reason rules, in anything where the Devil does not tempt and prompt to error, men would never think of going beyond this. It is not even pretended that there was one copy of the scriptures for every thousand Christians at any time during the first three hun- dred years, and even those are incompletely handed down to us. Some scrip- tures are known to have passed entirely out of existence, and not a scrap of even what has come down to us is in the handwriting of its author; nothing has come down to us except copies in a different tongue from that of the author, 26 and consequently these very copies of such scriptures as have survived must themselves be verified outside of themselves and by tradition. We have, as will be seen, confined ourselves to the "bible"' itself because the gush and sentimentality of the sects have driven them to substitute bible- on-the-brain for religion. But it is a late day for Mr. Coffey to learn that there are things which Protestants believe — are compelled to believe, and do believe and obey — that are not found any where in the scriptures, and are taken upon the sole authority of tradition. Most Protestants believe in the "Apostle's Creed;" this is not found in the scriptures, what authority have they for it ? Tradition. Most Protestants — all except the Baptists we believe — recognize in- fant baptism ; this is not found in the scriptures, what authority have they for it? Tradition. Mr. Coffey pretends that Protestants reject tradition, why in at least one subject of most vital importance they are governed by, believe in, and bow to a Roman Catholic "Command of the Church," when that command that they obey displaces one of the ten commandments of God and directly contra- venes all scriptures that touch upon it, and that is the observance of Sunday instead of ''the Sabbath of the Lord," which as everyone knows is Saturday. Not only does Mr. Coffey, and not only do all such of the sects obey tradition alone, but they meekly bow to a command of Catholic Church in direct opposi- tion to the scriptures every time they observe Sunday instead of Saturday "the Sabbath of the Lord," contrary to the command given by God himself on Mount Sinai, and never modified in any line of scriptures, but it is contrary to the practice of Christ himself whilst on earth, for He strictly kept Saturday "the Sabbath of the Lord." The man who thinks that he is not obeying, and be- lieving in, and governed by tradition and that tradition a command of the Catholic Church and yet keeps Sunday holy instead of Saturday, shows a blun- dering capacity of error that is hard to fully estimate. These doctrines were all preached by word of mouth, and "learned" from her to whom alone is given the commission to "go and teach all nations," and have been carefully handed down the ages by the Roman Catholic Church of God, from one Vicar of Christ to another, from one Bishop to the other, from Priest to Priest and from father to son to the present hour by the unwritten word of God, and will be handed down with the written word "to the consum- mation of the world" by the Catholic Church against which "the gates of Hell shall not prevail." 27 [From the Catholic July 23, 1885.] We are sorry that Catechuman Coffey must miss his instruction this week in Christian doctrine and common sense, but imperative business matters takes us away from our editorial class room ; however, as our charity exceeds our spare time we will gladly resume our efforts to enlighten him and all who like him blind themselves and sit in the shadow of reason. Plain "Bible" Facts. [From the Catholic Aug. 6th, 1885.] With "hell" knocked into "shoel," and with every page of the New Testa- ment changed in some manner or other in the "latest" revision, the inexperi- enced babbling of a child is wisdom compared with the babbling of Catechuman Coffey about a "basis of the Bible alone," and we think this is the next impor- tant subject upon which to give him some badly needed instruction. The Catholic Church is not only "based on the Bible" as far as it goes— for it must be borne in mind that the "Bible" is only the written portion of revealed truth, for the Sunday that Mr. Coffey keeps "holy" is not only not found in the "Bible," but is contrary to what is found in the "Bible" — but the Roman Catho- lic Church is herself the basis and the mother of the latter portion of the "Bible," for the New Testament was not written until years after she had preached and taught the whole and entire Christian doctrine throughout the world, and it was her children and Saints, the Apostles and their disciples who wrote the New Testament. But to the present received "Bible." Outside the fact that the revision in 1881 has branded the King James version of the "Bible" which is the only version Protestants have used or read or seen for the past 274 years — as "irreconcilable with faithfulness ," and consequently on the Revisor's own testimony, calling down upon its printed pages and corrupt compilers, as an unfaithful and unblushing fraud, the maladiction of St. John in the Apo- calypse : "If any one shall add to these things, God shall add to him the plagues written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the words of this book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life." Leaving this all aside, and even at this late hour accepting the revised version as an improvement — a long ways from a correct translation — as the body that called them handicapped them in such a manner that they were debarred both from using the most authentic manuscripts they could find, and from the aid of the ablest scholars — leaving this all aside — let us see on what grounds any revision of the "Bible," found in the world to-day, must rest its credibility. 28 The "Bible" that has come down to us is only a portion of the Scriptures, as books of the genuine Scriptures are known to be lost, so that if it be a sole 'basis" of faith, some of that basis is gone, and further, reason teaches that mankind cannot know except by some infallible authority whether that portion they think they have, is genuine or not, for the originals were lost long ages ago, and the translations that have come to us are conflicting, and the many variations of, and counter claims for and against the portions that have come down to us preclude any possibility of unaided reason ever guaranteeing what is genuine or what is interpolated, or even forged. This is something that ought to be popularly known, and let us show some facts, for facts are stubborn things, and those terribly stubborn facts are very inconvenient for the sects. Not only is it known that portions of even the New Testament are no longer in existence, as the Book of Nathan, and the Epistle of St. Paul to the Laodi- ceans ; but there are said to be now thirty-five gospels in existence and not re- ceived by any present denomination, that at one time or another were believed by many to be Holy Scriptures. Nor is this all. Some of the books received by all to-day as Holy Scriptures and found in all "Bibles," were gravely doubt- ed by great doctors of the early Church. In the fourth century Eusebius called the Epistles of James, Jude, the Second Peter, the Apocalype, and the acts ot Paul "controverted or spurious." The Ebionites rejected the first two chapters of Matthew. The Marcionites would not receive the first two of Luke. The Armenians rejected the bloody sweat of our Lord. The Council of Laodicea, held in 380, does not mention the Apocalype. St. Jerome says the last twelve verses of Mark were wanting in nearly all the versions of his day. Origen, in the third century, gravely doubted the Second Epistle of Peter besides those of James and Jude and the Epistle to the Hebrews ; and, on the other hand, he as stoutly maintained the books known as Herrnas and Barnabas to be genuine Scriptures. There are verses in the Vulgate that are not in either the Hebrew or the Greek. The authorized manuscript of St. Matthew, that was in existence in the time of Origen, was known to have been corrupted by the heritics known as "Judaisers." From this any man can at once see the utter hopelessness of certainty without some infallible guide. But there is no room in a newspaper editorial to more than merely glance at the abounding but dry testimonies to this fact. The greatest authorities are on all sides of what should and what should not go to make up the genuine and true Scriptures, and it is of course an absolute impossibility to arrive at cer- tainty where the doctors disagree ; and without an infallible authority, we would like to ask any man of common sense if all attempts in that direction must not be futile? At the risk of a longer editorial than we like to write, let us examine this subject a little further. St. Augustine declared: "I would not believe in the Gospel unless compelled by the authority of the Catholic 2 9 Church." When St. Jerome translated the Scriptures in the fifth century, in correcting the version of the New Testament, lie wrote to Pope Damasus : "I have left many things untouched, lest my corrections might be deemed exces- sive.'' Luther in his book against Zuinglius, writes of these interminable diffi- culties : "If the world stands too long, it will be necessary, in order to preserve the unity of the faith, to recur to the decrees of the Councils, on account of the great diversity of translations and interpretations" — a pretty pack to talk of "unity of faith !'' They who were destroying all faith, but you see, even Luther had to acknowledge that an infallible authority was necessary, and that authority the Councils held under the Popes of the very Church the unfortunate man was then apostalising from. Modern criticism claims 80,000 variations in the existing manuscripts, and this is in regard to those that have been saved from destruction and are now in existence ; but each one of these Mss. is but a translation of the original, not one original scrap being in existence, and how can we know that the transla- tions, all made many centuries ago, and at various times and places, and some of them by men whose names even have not come down to us, are correct, that none of them are like the King James mis-translation which the late Protestant revisors have themselves branded as "irreconcilable with faithfulness." All the scriptures that man can expect to get is a substantially faithful translation of yet other and conflicting translations, for as we stated, none of the original writings have been in existence for ages, and how are we to know that we get a faithful version without an authority for it equal to the nature of the matter authorized ? How can we know what versions are even interpolated? What notes and remarks of the old copyists have gone from the margin into the body ? Here, as we see by Luther's own admission, at the very outset, the rebellion of three centuries ago, could at its best only do what it has now con- summated, make "confusion worse confounded" by rejecting all authority and maintaining that God left no guide on earth, the legitimate and only possible result of which is presented to us in the widespread and rapidly growing dis- trust and disbelief in the truth and inspiration of the Scriptures found issuing from the portals of eve^ Protestant church to-day. Protestantism gives the book to man and yet dares not guarantee its authenticity — no Protestant sect can ever even attempt to guarantee the authority of what is given as Scripture, all they can give is an "opinion" as to its genuineness ; even the revisors can- not do so ; all they dared do under the handicapping "rules" cut out for them, was to show that the King James version — yet the only version in the hands of Protestants — is not only incorrect, but mutilated and corrupt, they cannot — without the authority of the Catholic Church, no Protestant can guarantee the authenticity of the Bible. In reality, the}' received it three centuries ago be- cause the Catholic Church had held, used and authorized it for centuries before 30 Protestantism was dreamed of. Take away the Catholic Church and her Fathers and writers, and traditions — take away this sacred deposit of the Faith — and the Koran or the books of Persia or China would he of equal prominence and weight. These are incontravertable and plain facts This editorial is longer than we like, but we deem it necessary, as we believe the time has come for those things to be properly discussed, and we will there- fore add this closing paragraph. How r can you know that a piece of waiting is inspired ? There certainly is nothing in the form of a word or construction of a sentence to prove inspiration, and the Coffey-colored "Christian" ought to know that in any case there is not a scrap of those Scriptures in the handwriting of its author, nor is it certain, for instance, in even what language the Gospel of Matthew, or the Epistle to the Hebrews, was written. Let us exercise our rea- son and common sense. How, then, can man prove the inspiration of what is given to us as Scripture? Evidently by the same rule by which all other mat- ters are proven, by the testimony of witnesses, and such witnesses must be con- versant with the nature of the matter testified to, and to be proved ; the matter to be proved is divine because it is inspired, and the witness to prove it must be conversant with that nature — must be conversant with the Divine Nature. Here is at once a necessity in this case for a Divine — which is an Infallible — au- thority to decide upon what is and what is not inspired. But that leads to what ought — if we could only devote our time to editing — from the subject of another article, the absolute necessity the Bible creates for an infallible guide to its pages ; or in other words, that the subject matter and nature of the Bible ne- cessitates and consequently proves that an infallible guide to its pages must co- exist with it. 3i CHAPTER III. THE SPIRIT OF ROMANISM. I have given the discussion in full, not with a view of taking up each point in its order and refuting the positions taken. This method, while it would be very direct and comparatively an easy task, would at the same time be very tedious and would require more time and labor than I can possibly spare from my other duties to devote to this work. The purpose of this full quota- tion has rather been that the reader may become fully aware of the spirit by which the writers are animated, as well as the weak- ness of the arguments on which they rely to bolster up the mass of corruption which they arrogantly claim to be the true church, through whose offices alone the grace of God is communicated to the souls of men. If these high claims are justified by facts, it is of vast importance that all men should be informed speed- ily, of a matter so fraught with interests of such infinite impor- tance to all ; but if the claims are false, then they point to the power making the claim, as being the power of Antichrist, of whom we find such terrible descriptions in God's word. Now we judge of the character of men not only by their deeds, but also by the spirit they display. This principle is as applicable to organizations as to individuals ; and it seems espe- 32 daily applicable, as a test, to what purports to be a system of religion, claiming on the one hand to be a spiritual system, con- taining the embodiment of the will of God, and on the other hand giving the only correct guide, to human conduct in this life, and to the joys of eternal life. "Beloved believe not every spirit, but prove the spirits whether they are of God." ist John, iv, I. "But if ye have bitter jealousy and faction in your heart, glory not and lie not against the truth. This wisdom is not a wisdom that cometh down from above, but is earthly, sensual, demoniacal. For where jealousy and faction are, there is con- fusion and every vile deed. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without variance, without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace for them that make peace." James 1 1 1, 14 — 18. Such is the picture of the spirit of true Christianity as drawn by the pen of inspiration. With this beautiful picture let every candid reader attempt to draw a comparison, and let him decide for himself whether he does not, instead of similarity, find a most positive and revolting contrast between the spirit of popery as manifested by these modern defenders as well as in the delineations in the history of the past, and the spirit of Christianity as given in the above pas- sage and throughout the Scriptures, in which we are taught that "The works of the flesh are manifest, which are these, fornica- tion, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions, parties, envyings, drunkenness, revelings, and such like ; of which I forewarn you, even as I did forewarn you, that they who practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faith- fulness, meekness, temperance ; against such there is no law. 33 And they that are of Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with the passions and lusts thereof." Gal. v, 19 — 26. Now I aver that the works of the flesh as here set forth are accurately descriptive of the spirit of the church of Rome dur- ing the period of her greatest influence, say from the tenth to the sixteenth centuries. During this period her power was least restrained or modified by external influences, and hence we find here the truest manifestation of her real character and unre- strained spirit. For a sample of "fornication, uncleanness, and lascivious- ness," we have only to turn to Pope Alexander VI, the seducer of his own daughter and the patron of prostitutes, whose abom- inations are too vile to be described for the public eye. But perhaps it may be thought or even claimed that this case is ex- ceptional. But that such is not the case, we find that Pope Pius IV, about the year 1560, issued a bull directing the Inquisition to inquire into the prevalence of this crime which begins with these words : "Whereas, certain ecclesiastics, in the kingdom of Spain, and in the cities and dioceses thereof, having the cure of souls, or exercising such cure for others, or otherwise deputed to hear the confessions of penitents, have broken out into such heinous acts of iniquity, as to abuse the sacrament of penance, in the very act of hearing confessions, nor fearing to injure the same sacrament, and him who instituted it, our Lord God and savior Jesus Christ, by enticing and provoking, or trying to en- tice and provoke, females to lewd actions, at the very time when they were making their confessions," &c. This bull called out such a vast number of depositions, and threatened to bring the confessional and priesthood into such contempt and disgrace, that it was thought prudent to quash all prosecutions under this effort for the right, and consign to oblivion all these depositions. 34 (See Dowling's History of Popery, p. 336; also Gonsalv., 185 ; Llorente, 355; Limbroch, in; Edgar, 529; Da Costa 1, 117.) If any reader should doubt whether any organization calling it- self a church can possibly be held responsible for such a state of moral corruption let him examine any Roman Catholic book of devotions giving rules for the examination of conscience, and especially the instructions, given in Dens, or any similar work, to priests in conducting the confessions of females, and he will find a cesspool of filth which will astonish him ; — some of it so foul that neither friend nor foe would dare publish it in plain English in this country, because of the laws for the suppression of obscene literature. As the confessional is still in existence we need not think it strange that we so frequently hear of similar crimes, in our own day ; notwithstanding the "sacred secrecy" of the institution, and the persistent care with which all knowl- edge of such things is suppressed. (Read "Father" Chiniquy's "Priest, Woman and the confessional.") When we take into consideration the character of the ques- tions which "penitents" are required to answer under penalty of eternal damnation, and at the same time remember that the "father confessor" is often a vigorous man, full of amorous pas- sion, and wrestive under the vow of celibacy, to those who have observed the power of human passion, these results are not mat- ters of astonishment, although they may fill them with horror and indignation. Well may inspiration say "earthly, sensual, devilish." The next description in the works of the flesh is "Idolatry." This is found, as we shall see in succeeding chapters, in the wor- ship of Mary, of angels, saints, the host, relics, images, &c. "Sorcery" is displayed in the use of the "seven holy sacra- ments," by which alone, the faithful are taught that the grace of 35 God can be conveyed to sinners. Thus they are clothed with a "divine magic," culminating in the legerdemain of transmuting bread and wine into flesh, bones, sinews, nerves, blood, soul, and Divinity. There is also a great deal of sorcery in the so-called miracles, wrought by this "Wafer-God," by the saints, relics, images, pic- tures, holy water, crism, &c, &c. Nor is this sorcery and super- stition confined to the "dark ages." It is taught in all its enor- mity and deformity to-day, as witnesses the following item from the "Weekly Catholic" of July 16th, 1885 : "A sensation has been caused near Quebec by the report of a miraculous cure at the shrine of St. Anne de Beaupre. A young girl who was entirely helpless, having no use of her lower limbs, came with a party of eight hundred pilgrims from St. Pierre, near Montreal. She was carried to the altar after Mass. On her third attempt to rise she was able to walk without support. All the pilgrims were witnesses of the cure." This is conclu- sive, and needs no comment. Hastening on we next find "enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions, parties, envyings," and for ample proof of the qualities contained in this dark catalogue I have only to refer to the discussion given in the preceding chapter, which is strongly confirmed by the history of the church in the past. For proof of "drunkenness, revelings, and such like" I point to the known anti-temperance sentiments and teachings of a large majority of the Catholic clergy and church, to the large number of Catholic saloon-keepers, and the vast multitude of Catholic inebriates and criminals, and to the notorious Irish Catholic "wake." Now I submit, that where all these exist, there is but little room left for the fruits of the Spirit. That there are individuals 36 in the church of Rome who are true Christians, I would not for a moment deny ; but I hold that such are Christians in spite of the spirit of the church with which they are connected. Amidst all her errors the church of Rome does teach some truth ; and God may and sometimes does bless that truth to the salvation of the soul. Thus my charity for them is much broader than is theirs for protestants ; for they teach that there can be no salva- tion outside the pale of their church. Dark as is this portrayal of the spirit of popery, it contains thus far no allusion to the blackest characteristic of all, that is the spirit of intolerance and persecution. Why should I, in this unprovoked attack be made the object of such vile abuse and bitter vituperation as the foulest politician or even "sandlotter" would hardly dare to imitate ; simply because of this spirit of intolerance wrought up against me because forsooth, I dared to think for myself, and had the audacity to publish what I believe. It is the same spirit, which has ever been characteristic of popery and has led to the murder, assassination or martyrdom of thousands upon thousands of faithful men and women who have refused to bow in abject submission to her arbitrary dictates in matters of faith and conscience and worship of God. The gloomy history of these terrible scenes is too familiar to need repeating here. But thanks be to God, who rules among the nations of earth; the day of the "reign of terror" is past; the infamous In- quisition is forever dissolved; the sceptre of the pope has lost its power ; the thunder of his maledictions has no more terror, but is held in derision by an emancipated world. 37 CHAPTER I V . THE RULE OF FAITH. Before we proceed to the investigation of any other doctrine, it seems a logical necessity, that we introduce in this chapter an investigation of The Rule of Faith ; for until we have estab- lished a reliable standard, by which to test the truth or falsity of any doctrine under consideration, we shall never be able to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion. Now as we are agreed that God is the author of Christianity, we are likewise agreed that His word is the only standard by which all human doctrines, creeds, opinions and conduct must be judged. But when we attempt to define what we receive as God's word, then we find ourselves separated by a radical differ- ence. We here start upon two divergent ways which are found to separate farther and farther as we journey on. I, in common with all protestants, hold that since the completion of the canon of the holy scriptures, the word of God is contained only in the inspired scriptures ; while my opponent, in common with all Ro- man Catholics, contends that the word of God is contained in the scriptures and in the Traditions of the Church. This is the real point of divergence between us ; and to this can all our other differences be traced. Hence it is of the ut- most importance that this point be brought clearly before the mind. The catholic will readily admit that the written word and 38 tradition are of equal authority ; but if their writers use lan- guage with any clear perception of its meaning, or with any just discernment of its force, they certainly elevate tradition above the written word, and give it an authority which may not only go beyond the Bible, but may nullify it, by setting up doctrines or duties that are contrary to the teachings of the Bible on the same subject. Now when we find a scriptural basis for any doctrine or Christian duty with us it is final ; — but not so with the papist. He must turn away and ascertain whether tradition has substi- tuted for the original meaning something different, or whether it has suppressed or superceded it by something else ; and when he has reached a tradition, with him it is final, whether he has found any scripture or not, either for or against it. Let us proceed then to the discussion of the question; Does the Bible contain the whole of God's authoritative word ? I af- firm : John O' Flanagan, the editor of the Weekly Catholic, denies. But first, by way of definition, let me say that by the term Bible I do not mean the King James translation, nor the Can- terbury revision ; nor do I mean the Douay Bible, nor the Latin Vulgate, nor yet do I mean what is called the Received Greek Text. But I do mean the word of God as penned by the inspir- ed writers. That the above translations are all more or less inaccurate, and therefore fail, in some degree, to give the true sense of the original, is a truth of which scholars are well aware. Every person familiar with more than one language is fully conscious of the difficulty — I might say impossibility — of making a trans- lation from one language into another, without losing or chang- ing more or less the original thought. A Swede once said to me, in illustrating this fact, that he had frequently been chagrined 39 and disappointed in attempting to tell a Swede joke in English ; for, to his dismay, by the time he got it translated he found the "laugh" was all taken out of it. Now this difficulty is just as great in translating the word of God as it is in other translations ; and in addition to this, these translations have sometimes been made in the interests of certain theories ; and even if not intentionally perverted, they have been made by minds strongly biased by favorite theories, and such a mind unavoidably puts a construction upon language as favora- ble as possible to such theories. Now in view of these undenia- ble facts, it would be absurd folly to make any translation the ultimate standard, as Rome has done with the Latin Vulgate, which was first called the "Vulgate" in the fourth century hav- ing been revised at that time by Jerome from a former Latin ver- sion ; and his work has passed through several other revisions ; and although pronounced the infallible word of God, is known and acknowledged, even by Roman Catholic scholars, to be in many particulars at variance with the original.* Thus tradition, the ipse dixit of a council, sets aside the written word and substi- tutes for it a corrupt translation. As to the reliability of the man- uscripts of the original writings, my opponent presents quite an array of pedantry which he, no doubt, would be glad to have us accept as profound learning. But my answer to him is, "I pray thee have me excused." This stuff is made up partly of garbled and perverted truths, partly of arrogant assumptions, partly of weak sophistries, and partly of nan sequitnr deductions. Hence it only serves to show his lack of something reliable to present. But I cannot spend precious time in sifting this unsightly heap of rubbish, to show the amount of trash there is in it ; nor is such '•'•John O'Flanagan says, "There are verses in the Vulgate that are not in either the Hebrew or the Greek."— [See page 28.] 40 a work at all necessary as its utter fallacy and its totally unsatis- factory character is perfectly patent to every intelligent reader. In all this he ignores, either wilfully or ignorantly, all the light thrown upon this subject by the modern science of Philology, and by the remarkable discoveries made in the field of Archaeol- ogy. He also ignores the kind hand of an Omnipotent Provi- dence, by which these writings have been so wonderfully pre- served amid the wrecks of ages. The fact that the light of mod- ern research has come mostly from protestants ; or that Provi- dence has not always made the Roman Catholic Church His agent; is no just ground for rejecting either. The fact is that through these agencies we have as satisfactory knowledge of the exact words of the inspired writers, as we have of the exact words used by Wm. Shakespeare who wrote in our own lauguage only about two hundred and fifty years ago. Now that protestants are dependent upon the traditions and authority of the Roman Catholic Church for their knowledge and acceptance of the sacred writings, I most flatly deny. Pope- ry — by which term I mean that hierarchy which arrogates to it- self the title of "The Holy Roman Catholic Church" — dates no farther back than the year 606 A. D. At that time Pope Inno- cent III proclaimed himself "Universal Bishop," and thus sig- nalized himself as the first Roman bishop to usurp such dignity. His immediate predecessor Gregory, meptropolitan bishop of Rome, — whom they now call Pope Gregory the Great, — was so far from making such a claim that he wrote to the bishop of Constantinople, whose brain was addled by such ambition, that whoever assumed the title of "universal bishop" thereby proved himself to be the forerunner of Antichrist.* * That there may be no question as to my statement, I give his own words : "Ego fidenter dico, quod quisquis se univeralem Sacredotem vocat, vel vocari desiderat, in elatione sua, Antchristum prescurrit." — Greg. Magn. Epist. Lib. VI, epist. 30. 4i Therefore, according to Gregory the Great, Innocent III. and his successors, are in the line of Antichrist, instead of in the true apostolical succession. * Every person at all familiar with the history of Popery, knows there can be no question as to the correctness of the date which I have given as the time when it took its rise. Preceding this there were developments and degeneracies which writers have called "Popery in Embryo ;" but its birth occurred in the year 606. Since therefore the first six centuries of Christianity ante- dates the birth of Popery, her claim of a monopoly of the Apos- tolic Fathers, and all Christian writers of these centuries, is seen to be a most nonsensical farce. Protestants have undoubtedly just as good a right as Rome, to appeal to, and use these writ- ings ; nor do we hesitate to exercise that right. The difference between us in this matter is, that we take them simply for what they are worth ; while Rome attempts to clothe them with an unalterable authority. We receive the sacred writings on the basis of the external and the internal evidences by which they are supported ; and never once think of asking Rome to tell us what is true or what is spurious. We have learned long since to be very suspicious of anything that rests on a "catholic" basis. If the Roman church were blotted out of existence to-day, or had it sunk into nonen- tity a thousand years ago, we would be at no loss whatever for evidence of the genuineness of the scriptures. About the strong- est evidence she gives of the truth of inspiration is the literal- ness with which she works out the fulfilment of the prophecies concerning "The Man of Sin," the "Great Whore" of Babylon, and all that class of predictions. At the same time her abomi- nations and false doctrines furnish infidels with their severest weapons to wield against the Bible. 42 My belligerent antagonist says the autographs of the inspir- ed writers were hopelessly lost, long ages ago. I grant it ; but what of it ? God concealed the grave of Moses, and the Jews were spared from the sin of idolatrous worship of that grave. He also concealed the date of the day on which Jesus was born ; and had it not been for the unauthorized decree of an unauthor- ized council the world might have been spared the sight of the idolatrous worship of Christmas. And well may John O'Flana- gan consider it a great mercy of a kind Providence that no such autographs can be found ; for if one should be brought to light, especially if it was an autograph of "Saint Peter," I should ex- pect to find him immediately on his knees before it. Now my doctrine is — and I conform my practice to it — that the materials used in the production of books of inspiration, whether the autograph manuscripts of the writers, or printed Bibles, are no more sacred than any other materials. They can be called holy only in the sense that the teachings they contain are God's holy truths. But even these doctrines and truths must not be worshipped. "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." Talk about protestant "Bible-olatry !" If anybody worships the material Bible it must be those who hold that it is too holy to be placed in the unconsecrated hands of the laity. 43 CHAPTER V. RULE OF FAITH-Continued. The Weekly Catholic of July 16th, (see page 25) claims that "walking according to the scriptures" is nowhere enjoined, "nor is there a line in all the scriptures to any such effect," or "that all doctrine is contained in them." That I may not accuse the writer of insincerity, I will sup- pose him to be asking for instruction, and will briefly answer him by giving just a few of the many passages touching these points. "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul," &c. Psalms xix, 7, and to end. "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path." Psalms cxix, 105, and the whole Psalm. Jesus said "Search the scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life ; and they are they that testify of me." John v, 39. Jesus' custom was to go into the synagogue on the Sabbath day and stand up to read. Luke iv, 16. When Paul preached to Jews he "reasoned with them out of the scriptures." Acts xvii, 2. To Timothy he says, "From a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scrip- ture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness ; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all 44 good works." 2d Tim. 1 1 1, 15, 16, 17. But why add more ? "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be per- suaded, though one rose from the dead." Luke xvi, 31. Before leaving the discussion of the authority of the Scrip- tures, I want to say, that in arguing that all the authoritative word of God we have, in this day, is contained in the Bible, I would not allow myself to be interpreted as saying everything in the Bible is the word of God. Parts of the Bible are made up of the words of Satan, parts, of the sayings and doings of wicked men, and still other parts are simply historical narratives of passing events. Inspiration is not responsible for any senti- ments or declarations found in such parts ; it is only responsible for the correctness of the accounts. It is very foolish to quote the words of the Devil, or of wicked men as scripture, binding upon us. If it is asked then, what parts are we to believe and accept as the word of God ? my answer is ; all Divine teach- ings, precepts, and commands are authoritative. Also all these, when given to us by men divinely inspired, are to be accepted, as is also the example of such men acting under Divine guid- ance. We are justified also in receiving all plain and necessary inferences and deductions from such words and such examples ; but this last must be used with great caution, because of the strong tendency of human nature to go wrong. Our conclusion then is that whatever the written word of God teaches is to be believed, and whatever it enjoins must be obeyed ; and that it is a perfect standard by which to decide all such questions ; and that as to its meaning, "God is his own in- terpreter, he will make it plain." "The best commentary on the Bible, is the Bible itself," illuminated by the Holy Spirit. My reason for giving this question so much space is the fact of its great importance. I could not do less, would gladly do 45 more, to emphasize its importance, had I time and space. But as my opponent sets up another, different and conflicting stand- ard it is necessary that I devote sometime to its investigation. Following the preceding method the question may be stated fairly thus : "Are the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church binding upon Christians, as containing the word of God ?" John O'Flanagan affirms ; I deny. As the burden of proof always rests on the affirmative, my first work is to refute any arguments he may have produced in favor of his position. My greatest difficulty in doing this is to gather from his rambling statements a clear understanding of what he conceives to constitute the proofs. First, I notice he talks about inability to know what is in- spired, or to know what it means after it is received, and of its incompleteness and inadequacy to meet the demands of the case, and also of the Bible creating a necessity for an infallible stand- ard of truth outside of itself, and of the Catholic Church being- such a standard, and seems to endeavor, by adopting the a priori process of reasoning, to establish the infallibility of the church and hence the authority of her traditions. This argument when reduced to form will amount to about this : By its lack of evi- dence of inspiration, by its obscure meaning, and by its incom- pleteness, the Bible necessitates an infallible guide to its pages. The Roman Catholic Church is such an infallible guide, Therefore, the Traditions of the Church are authoritative. Now I deny both the major and the minor premise in this sylogism ; and if I sustain my denial, the conclusion falls. Now as to the major premise, I have already shown, in this and the former chapter that the Bible furnishes a perfect standard by which to test all doctrines, opinions and human conduct, and I can here only call attention to the bearing of this conclusion on 4 6 these statements. I need only to say further, that the scriptures nowhere give the most distant intimation of the establishment or necessity of such human tribunal, having jurisdiction of the word of God ; while a plain declaration to that effect, would have been absolutely necessary if God had designed to establish such tribunal. Nor does the Weekly Catholic attempt to bring any proof to bear upon this point save its own ipse dixit. This premise therefore falls. To any one familiar with the history of the Church of Rome, the minor premise is too ridiculous to deserve serious consider- ation. Talk about infallibility in the midst of such moral cor- ruption and filthy abomination as I have already quoted from Baronius ! Then add to this the testimony of impartial history as to her character as displayed in intolerance, persecution, blood- shed, rapine, war, devastation and ruin, visited upon all those who hesitated to meekly submit to the galling yoke of her crush- ing tyranny, and the mind involuntarily recoils from all thought of her infallibility. But laying this all aside and appealing directly to abstract reason, we must see that that which is infallible must of necessity be unchangeable. But the Church of Rome has not been un- changeable ; hence she is not infallible. One council has declar- ed one doctrine, another has declared the opposite ; one pope has set up one creed, another has demolished it and substituted another; one age has denounced certain forms of worship, an- other has established them. At one time she dispenses govern- ments, dethrones monarchs, crowns and princes, wields vast ar- mies, drenches the earth with blood, and makes the world tremble with the voice of her power ; at another she concentrates her energies to beleaguer an obscure Baptist preacher quietly at work in his own field, and proposes to crush him with approbium and 47 slang, because she has no power to do more. Surely infallible Rome has fallen. Then major premise, minor premise and con- clusion, are all gone to the moles and the bats, among the ruins. The next attempt at argument in favor of the authority of tradition the editor calls an argument drawn from the "mis- translations of a mutilated and corrupted portion of the Scrip- tures that they erroneously call the bible." He then proceeds to quote different passages to the effect that under certain condi- tions the oral instruction of certain men were authoritative. This fact no one denies ; but let us ask, what are these condi- tions ? One condition was that every such teacher must be "call- ed of God" and sent to deliver such message. Another condi- tion was that he must be inspired. "Holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." Now it is certainly a queer specimen of logic, to argue that certain holy individuals were commissioned and inspired by the authority of God to de- liver to the people his word, before the canon of inspired scrip- tures was completed : — therefore, a vast organization of unholy men succeeding each other from age to age, uncommissioned, having neither Divine authority nor inspiration, — after the scrip- tures are completed, — are equally authorized to deliver the word of God, and their traditions must be received as of supreme au- thority, and implicitly obeyed. This certainly is not very brilliant logic ; yet it is a fair pre- sentation of the dire extremity, to which his desperate cause has reduced the logical (?) editor, who so frequently appeals to "reason" and "common sense," and "plain facts," and "learning;" whose pen also bandies about such expressions as "ignorant," "sophistry," "bold assumptions," "illogical fallacies," &c. With regard to his frequent use of these and many other of- fensive terms and sarcastic personalities, I say to him as I said 4 8 to the "Child of Mary" (for whom he expresses such unbounded admiration, notwithstanding the fact that she unsexed herself by her coarse language), truly I have no ambition to rival him in these things. Could I outstrip him here, I should only show my- self to be the worse blackguard. There is no argument in such ; but strong evidence of lack of argument. "Belligerents do not throw mud, when they can get stones." Neither have I in my heart the least personal enmity towards him. This whole con- troversy has not ruffled my feelings in the least. CHAPTER VI. RULE OF FAITH-Continued. The bold champion of tradition next attempts to convict me and all protestants of obeying tradition, even "a Roman Catholic command of the Church, when that command that they obey displaces one of the Ten Commandments of God and directly contravenes all scriptures that touch upon it ;" but in this he makes, as usual, a signal failure. His first point is "The Apostles' Creed ; this is not found in the Scriptures ; what authority have they for it ? Tradition." I 49 grant it ; but what has this to do with me ? I do not believe in it. For the very reason he gives, I reject it ; and for the further reason that while some of its doctrines are true, others of them are utterly false. A mixture of error with truth is always dan- gerous ; we need "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Again, "Most Protestants — all except the Baptists we be- lieve — recognize infant baptism ; this is not found in the scrip- tures, — what authority have they for it ? Tradition." Again I admit it. But it does not touch me at all ; for I am a Baptist, and, like my people for ages past, I regard it as a sad perversion of God's ordinance, and the very "Pillar of Popery." If the or- dinance of baptism had never been perverted, either in form or design, it would have continued to be the beautiful badge of public profession, by which Christians might be distinguished from the world. The third point — and last in this line — he attempts to make is that, in their observance of Sunday, protestants meekly bow to a mandate of the Catholic church. This claim I also emphatically deny ; and in support of such denial I ask the reader's careful attention to the following reas- ons, which I will give in as condensed a form as possible : My first answer is that the Jewish Sabbath — seventh day — has not been changed into the Christian Sabbath, or First-day Sabbath. My position on this may not be considered, by many protestants, as orthodox ; but I make no claim of authority to speak ex cathedra ; and nobody is responsible for my views but myself. I hold that the seventh-day Sabbath was a national insti- tution peculiar to the Jewish Theocracy. In all the history of the antedeluvian and patriarchal ages, extending from Adam to Moses, — a period of over 2,500 years according to the accepted 5o chronology — there is no allusion to the weekly sabbath, nor any intimation that the devout men who lived during that time, such as Abel, Enoch, Noah, Melchisadeck, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, ever kept such a Sabbath. The declaration in the second chap- ter of Genesis with reference to God's blessing and sanctifying the seventh-day gives no hint that the Sabbath was established at that time ; or that men were required to keep it holy. The idea of man's duty does not enter at all into the passage ; but it is a record of God's doings. Hence I understand that in sancti- fying the day, God set it apart for a holy use, in his purpose for the future, and that the time for accomplishing this purpose came at the giving of the manna, in the wilderness when he gave the people also the sabbath, by his servant Moses. Now I submit that my interpretation has the advantage of agreeing / precisely with the facts of sacred history bearing upon the subject; for we are told plainly that the Lord "made known his holy sabbath by the hand of his servant Moses." — Neh. ix, 14. It may be objected that the word "Remember" used in the command in the decalogue implies the previous existence of the sabbath. To this objection there are two answers, either one of which is fully sufficient to set aside the objection. First, the sabbath was given with the manna, before the giving of the Ten Commandments ; and second, the word remember, not only sig- nifies to cal to mind again, but also to keep constantly in mind, as "Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth." Now that it was purely a Jewish institution is clearly proved by the reason assigned for giving the command, Deut. v, 15, "Remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm : therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day." Thus the sabbath 5i rest was commemorative of their rest from Egyptian bondage ; hence its obligations were peculiar to that nation who had suf- fered such bondage. That it belongs to the civil code of that nation is clear from the fact of the death penalty for its violation being attached to it. From the minute details of the instructions laid down to guide them in its observance, we learn that it par- takes of the character of the ceremonial law. I have just stated above that the sabbath was commemora- tive of rest from Egyptian bondage ; and from the fourth chap- ter of Hebrews we learn that it was prophetic of rest from the worse bondage of sin, which rest is secured through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. To the same effect we are told in Col. n, 17, that holy days, new moons and sabbaths "are a shadow of things to come, but the body (substance) is of Christ." He here places the sabbath in the category of the hand writing of ordinances which Christ has blotted out, and taken away, "nailing it to the cross." From these considerations I conclude that the Jewish sabbath, having fufilled its mission, was abolished when Jesus was crucified and the vail of the temple was rent in twain. On the first day of the week following the abolition of the Jewish sabbath, the Lord arose from the dead, and soon sent his disciples forth "to preach deliverance to the captives, and recov- ering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruis- ed." He thus inaugurated a new institution, belonging to a new dispensation. Now the two covenants, — the one ritual, ceremo- nial, literal, the other spiritual — bear the relation to each other of type and antitype ; and the Jewish sabbath as a type is fulfilled in the Christian sabbath, its antitype. The one was literal, the other is spiritual. The one commemorated deliverance from lit- eral bondage ; the other from spiritual bondage ; the one proph- esied of spiritual freedom in this life, the other of heavenly free- 52 dom in the life to come. The one was observed by literal cere- monies, the other by spiritual worship. The Lord himself having thus consecrated the first day of the week, still further honored it by appearing to his disciples at least twice on that day of the week, and then by giving the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentacost, which also came on the first day of the week. * From this time forth the inspired apostles and all Christians observed the Lord's Day as a day of rest and religious worship. Thus the new spiritual institution rests upon the Savior's own example, and that of his inspired apostles ; and having found a complete scriptural basis, we have no need of papal decrees. Since the boastful editor parades this argument with such a confident flourish of words let me recapitulate and see how the matter now stands. He plants himself upon the assumption that the sabbath has been changed from Saturday to Sunday. I have proved from God's word that no such change ever took place. But if he should seek to change his tactics and say that the new sabbath was established by the authority of the Catholic church : I have shown that its origin is found six hundred years too early to rest on papal authority. f If he should change * Note. — In saying that by his resurrection Christ consecrated the first day. I would not have the reader to understand that I hold that he santified it in the sense of giving to it an intrinsic holiness, for I do not regard temporal things as capable of partaking of essential holiness, which is a characteristic of Divinity. To illustrate : — T he signing of the Declaration of Independence on the Fourth of July rendered that day, in the heart of the American, sacred to the commemoration of our deliverance from British dominion ; so Christ's resurrection rendered the first day of the week sa- cred to his worship, and the commemoration of our deliverance from* the dominion of sin. The Christian may esteem "every day alike." He is not his own, his body, his mind, his soul, his possessions, his time — every day— all belong to the Lord. f In the "Catholic Scriptural Catechism, by the Rt. Rev. Dr. Milner," I find the following question and answer : Q. What traditions of the Christian religion existed before the several Books of the New Testament were promulgated or written ? A. The substitution of the Sunday as a Holy-Day, for the Sabbath, or Saturday ; the abrogation of the necessity of circumcision, and, generally, the whole system of the Christian religion.'' This places the whole matter in the days of inspired oral teaching, just as I've done. 53 again and claim that its authority is ancient tradition, handed down by the Catholic church : I have shown that it stands upon a scriptural basis, and hence that tradition had nothing to do with it ; neither had the Catholic church anything to do with it. My accuser having signally failed, in case of each of his three specifications, to sustain his allegations, the bombastic charge, that I meekly bow to the command of Rome, falls to the ground completely collapsed. Having now gone hastily through the investigation, so briefly outlined in the three last chapters, I stand more firmly convinced than ever of the all-sufficiency of the inspired Scriptures as a "Rule of Faith ;" and as we proceed in this work of investiga- ting the corrupt doctrines and practices evolved by tradition, we shall see abundant reasons for adhering strictly to this great principle of Protestantism. Whenever the church allows herself to be beguiled into the adoption or even imitation of any of the corruptions of Popery, she looses her power, just like ancient Israel when falling into the idolatry of the surrounding nations. 54 CHAPTER VII. THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS. While in the foregoing controversy quoted from the " Weekly Catholic' there is no very positive statement of its indorsement of the Catholic doctrine of the "seven sacraments," we may clearly infer from it, not only the indorsement of thisdoctrine, but of all things else taught and approved by the "infallible church." That this inference does no injustice to that paper, is proved by the following statement taken from the issue of August 27th. "Sanctifying grace can only come through the seven sacraments that Jesus Christ instituted, the Catholic church is the only de- pository of these Sacraments and this sanctifying grace, and through these Sacraments she is the only and the sole power on earth that can give its members power to heed this distinction, to make good use, and shun every misuse of every natural product and human effort." That the reader may have a fair statement of the doctrine of the church, I quote from "The most Reverend Doctor James Butler's Catechism," — New York, Cincinnati, and St. Louis ; Benziger Brothers, Printers to the Holy Apostolic Soc." On pages 74, 75 and 76, we find LESSON XXIV. ON THE SACRAMENTS, AND ON BAPTISM. Q. By what other means, besides prayer, can we obtain the grace of God ? A. By the sacraments, the most powerful of all means. 55 Q. What is a sacrament ? A. A visible, that is, an outward sign or action, instituted by Christ, to give grace. Q. Whence have the sacraments the power of giving grace ? A. From the merits of Christ, which they apply to our souls. Rom. vi, 3 ; v. 9. Q. Why are so many ceremonies used in the administation of the sacraments ? A. To excite devotion and reverence for them ; and to sig- nify and explain their effects. Q. How many sacraments are there ? A. Seven : Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Ex- treme Unction, Holy Orders, and Matrimony. Council of Trent, S S. 7 c, 1. Q. What is Baptism ? A. A sacrament which cleanses us from original sin, makes us Christians and children of God, and heirs to the kingdom of Heaven. Q. Does baptism also remit the actual sins committed be- fore it? A. Yes, and all the punishment due to them. Q. Is baptism necessary to salvation ? A. Yes ; without it one cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John m, 5. Q. Who are appointed by Christ to give baptism ? A. The pastors of his church ; but in case of necessity, any layman or woman can give it. Q. How is baptism given ? A. By pouring water on the head of the person to be bap- tized ; saying at the same time, / baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Matt, xxvin, 19. 56 Q. What did we promise in baptism ? A. To renounce the devil, with all his works and pomps." Then after various lessons on the other sacraments we find this, on page 93 : "Q. Which sacraments are most necessary to us?" and on page 94 : "A. Baptism and penance. Q. Why did Christ institute the sacraments ? A. For the sanctification of our souls, and to prepare us for a happy and glorious resurrection." In this doctrine of sacramental grace we see a striking in- stance in which tradition has set aside the simple and positive teachings of the scriptures, and substituted in their stead the most absurd and corrupt human inventions ; — absurd, because they are contrary to common sense and Divine inspiration ; — corrupt, because they have led to the most wicked practices. They savor far more of the abominations of ancient Roman paganism, than of true Christianity. Hence the church that holds them is a Romish church ; and I regard the title as pecu- liarly appropriate. The doctrine of baptismal regeneration, coupled with the practice of infant baptism and the sacrament of confirmation, has filled the church with unregenerate men. Men whose hearts are "deceiptful above all things, and desperately wicked." These, for the gratification of their sinful lusts, have invented all manner of excuses for their vile crimes, and devised many cloaks to cover up gross iniquities. Adding to the infamous doctrine of pardon of sin through penance, the hideous doctrine of indulgences, and that of purgatory, they have gratified their avaricious covet- ousness, by extorting, from their deluded dupes, vast sums of money with which to carry forward their wicked schemes, and 57 augment their crushing power over their spiritual slaves. Fur- thermore, through the same influence, they have induced men to perpetrate the most revolting crimes that have ever blackened the pages of the world's history, and as a reward for these crimes have promised indulgences for a time or for life, and in the world to come eternal salvation. My limits will not allow me to go into the details of the countless proofs of this assertion; but they are familiar to every reader of the history of the dark ages. I simply refer to the crusade against the Albigenses, the massacre on St. Bartholomew's day, and the terrible Inquisition of Spain, as illustrations. I might continue to point out the evils connected with each of these sacraments, but this must suffice for the present. With regard to this whole subject, I most emphatically deny the existence of any such sacraments in true Christianity. Christ taught his followers to observe only two external ordinances ; and these rites are by no means sacraments as Rome defines that word. In fact I am always pained when I hear protestants apply this word to either of them. The Bible nowhere teaches that either Baptism or the Lord's Supper is a "means of grace," much less that it is a sacrament inevitably "applying the grace of God to the soul," or "conferring it upon the recipient." The simple teachings of the scriptures inform us that these ordinances are memorial in their design and symbolic in their nature. Baptism memorializes the burial and resurrection of our Lord, and sym- bolizes the believer's spiritual death to sin and resurrection to holiness. Romans vi. The Lord's Supper commemorates the Lord's death, and symbolizes the mangled body and shed blood of the Savior of sinners. Thus they harmonize perfectly with the precious doctrines of salvation by grace, with which the Bible so richly abounds, and 58 in which the truly pious have always taken so much comfort. There is no "ritualism" in Christianity. It is entirely foreign to the whole spirit of the New Dispensation. The "hand-writing of ordinances which was against us" and belonged to the old covenant, has been blotted out, by the death of our Savior, to which they all pointed forward, and in which they were all ful- filled and abolished. As His death abolished the old and ritual- istic dispensation, so His resurrection inaugurated the new and spiritual dispensation. Now any system that attempts to mingle Jewish rites, and Druidical festivals, and Roman polytheistic ceremonies, and heathenish idolatry in one conglomerate mass, and then seeks to engraft this amalgamation upon Christianity, most assuredly drives out all real Christianity, for it can never be made to as- similate with such incompatible and antagonistic elements as these. Yet this is just what the Romish Church has done ; there- fore, I conclude there is no real Christianity in the system. How striking the contrast when we turn from this unsightly picture and comtemplate the simplicity and the purity of that relig- ion which Jesus and his disciples practiced and inculcated, "Teaching us that denying ourselves all ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously and godly in this pres- ent world." "By grace are ye saved, through faith ; and that not of yourselves ; it is the gift of God. Not of works, lest any man should boast." "Abraham was justified by faith, and it was count- ed to him for righteousness." "For the just shall live by faith." In all this and much more of the scriptures we see the great Prostentant principle of Justification by Faith ; hence we wholly reject all this human and sinful device of "holy sacraments." 59 CHAPTER VIII. TRANSUBSTANTIATION. As John O'Flanagan charges that I give no proof for my as- sertions, and that "whatever such a dishonestly unreasoning big- ot tells you the Catholic church has done, you may as safely set down in nine cases out of ten to be near about the very thing she has already hindered," hoping by such unscrupulous denial to blunt the penetrating power of the truth, I will again quote from Butler's Catechism, which is an acknowledged authority, whatever may be said of the " Weekly Catholic" — or by it, for that matter. This authority expounds the doctrines of the Catholic church on the present subject in this wise, page 78, Lesson xxvi. "ON THE BLESSED EUCHARIST." "Q. What is the blessed Eucharist? A. The body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, under the appearance of bread and wine. Q. What means the word Eucharist ? A. A special grace or gift of God ; and it means also a sol- emn act of thanksgiving to God for all his mercies. Q. What do you mean by the appearances of bread and wine? A. The taste, color, and form of bread and wine, which still remain, after the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ." 6o Again on page 81 : "Q. What is the Mass? A. The sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, which are really present under appearances of bread and wine ; and offered to God by the priest for the living and the dead." Again on pages 83 and 84 : "Q. How are we to be penetrated with a lively faith ? A. By firmly believing, that the Blessed Eucharist is Jesus Christ himself, true God and true man, his very flesh and blood, with his soul and divinity." I do not feel myself called on to enter into any extended ref- utation of a doctrine so contrary, to the spirit of Christianity, to the teachings of the scriptures, and to the natural senses. This work has been done over and over, again and again, from the days of the fifth century, — when Eutyches first conceived the wild vagaries, which required five or six centuries of degeneracy to develop them into the crude monster of Transubstantiation, — even down to the present age ; and whoever desires can easily find an abundance of literature on the subject. To write a his- tory of the bitter controversies that have attended it during its rise, development, progress and retroversions, in itself would re- quire a volume much larger than the entire present work. To produce such a work I have neither time nor inclination. Yet the terrible evils that are directly traceable to this degrading doc- trine, form so prominent a feature in the errors of Popery that I could not pass by them in silence. I will, therefore, briefly notice some of the. miserable attempts at arguments with which they strive to bolster up this strange superstition : Their first point is usually the words of Jesus, "This is my body," "this is my blood." These words they say must be taken 6i literally ; hence the bread and wine must be changed into flesh and blood. Why must they be so construed ? Simply because Rome arbitrarily so commands ; for there is no such necessity found in the language. The verb "to be" means to represent, just as truly as it signifies to exist ; and we habitually so use it. Of a picture we say "This is General Grant." It is habitually so used in the scriptures, e.g., "I am the vine," "I am the door," "That rock was Christ," "The seven golden candlesticks are the seven churches," &c. But we are not left to conjecture in the matter, for after Jesus had used the words, which are said to produce the mysterious change, he speaks of the cup as "the fruit of the vine ; " it was not human blood then, but simply rep- resented that blood. Paul also speaks of "bread" after its conse- cration ; it was not flesh then, but only represented that flesh. The next plea is that the church has always so held ; but, as is so often the case, this assertion is in direct contradiction to real facts. As I have read history, during the first four centuries, the so-called "apostolic fathers" and other Christian writers in- variably speak, of the elements used in the Lord's Supper, as types, symbols, or emblems of His body and blood. I am well aware that papal writers have often tried to prove the contrary by garbled extracts and misconstructions ; but I am just as well aware that when the full testimony of any one of these writers is brought to bear it proves what I have stated above. More than this there are many writers whom they recognize as author- ities in their church, who condemns the doctrine. "To omit what a Romanist would deem the inferior authorities of Theo- doret and Ephrem and Facundus and Raban of Mentz, a direct censure upon the palpable novelty of a physical change was spe- cially pronounced by the presiding Pope himself. Gelasius, the lawful head of the universal church, for the time being, expressly 62 declared, with the full concurrence of that church, and even in controversial opposition to the then new dogma of a physical change, that the substance or nature of the bread and wine ceases not to exist!' "It was equally impugned by Heribald of Auxerre, Amalar of Triers, Bertram of Corby, Walafrid Strabo, Christian Druthmar, Drepanius Florus, and John Scott, Erigena." Diffi- culties of Romanism, by Faber, pages 130, 131. The last plea I shall notice is that of alleged miracles said to have been wrought by the presence and power of the "consecrat- ed host." In looking at this evidence, it is difficult to determine which feeling predominates in the mind, that of disgust for the knavery displayed, or that of sadness for the ignorance that un- derlies it, and on the existence of which it so largely presumes on the part of those who are sought to be influenced by it. These spurious miracles are of too classes ; a small portion of them are real occurrences misinterpreted, and the rest are base fabrications or tricks of legerdemain. With regard to the healing of diseases, it is a well establish- ed fact that the human mind has a power of overcoming certain diseases, which is denominated the faith cure. In this phrase there is no allusion to spiritual, but simply to metaphysical faith ; — the faith of the mind, not of the heart. On this principle disease may sometimes he cured, whether such faith rests upon some medical agent, or some worthless "charm," or on some conjurer's trick. On the same principle, if a Catholic is superstitious enough to believe in the healing virtue of the "host," such men- tal action may in certain cases effect a cure ; but this is accom- plished only by the operation of natural laws, and is entirely in- dependent of any virtue in the object on which such faith rests. The result is just the same as if he had believed a dose of skunk- oil would cure him ; or a bath before sunrise in some dirty pool, or any other superstitious nonsense. 63 Now John O' Flanagan is forewarned that he dare not assert on the basis of these statements that I admit cases of healing by the power of the "consecrated host." I make no such ad- mission ; I say it may be done by the power of the mind. I have already said the other reputed miracles were deceptive. I will simply give a few samples of this kind of argument, as pro- mulgated by Catholic authority. They will need no comment. I quote from Dowling's History pp. 199 and 200, selecting only two out of many others. "P. Orlandi, in his History of the society, torn. I, lib. 2. No. 2j, says, That, in the sixteenth century, within the Venitian ter- ritories, a priest carrying the holy host, without pomp or train, to a sick person, he met, out of the town, asses going to their pasture ; who, percieving by a certain sentiment, what it was which the priest carried, they divided themselves into two com- panies on each side of the way, and fell on their knees. (!) Where- upon the priest, with his clerk, all amazed, passed between those peaceable beasts, which then rose up, as if they would make a pompous show in honor of their Creator ; followed the priest as far as the sick man's house, where they waited at the door till the priest came out from it, and did not leave him tell he gave them his blessing.(!!) Father Simeon Rodrignez, one of the first companions of St. Ignatius, who then traveled in Italy, inform- ed himself carefully of this matter, which happened a little while before our first fathers come into Italy, and found that all happen- ed as has been told." Again, "This instance is related by Friar Leon, and was first published at Paris in 1633, with the approbation of two popish doctors of theology, and has been reprinted no longer ago than the year 182 1." "In the year of our Lord 1290, in the reign of Philip the 6 4 Fair of France, a poor woman who had pledged her best gown with a Jew for thirty pence, saw the eve of Easter day arrive without the means of redeeming her pledge. Wishing to receive the sacrament on that day, she went and besought the Jew to let her have the gown for that occasion, that she might appear de- cent at church. The Jew said, he would not only consent to give her back the gown, but would also forgive her the money lent, provided she would bring him the host, which she would receive at the altar. The woman, instigated by the same fiend as Judas, promised, for thirty pence, to deliver into the hands of a Jew, the same Lord as the traitorous disciple had sold for thirty pieces of silver. The next morning she went to church, receiv- ed the sacrament, and feigning devotion, she concealed the host in her handkerchief; went to the Jew's house, and delivered it into his hands. No sooner had the Jew received it, than he took a pen-knife, and laying the host upon the table, stabbed it several times, and behold blood gushed out from the wounds in great abundance.(!) The Jew, no way moved by this spectacle, now endeav- ored to pierce the host with a nail, by dint of repeated blows with a hammer, and again blood rushed out. Becoming more daring, he now seized the host, and hung it upon a stake, to in- flict upon it as many lashes with a scourge, as the body of Christ received from the Jews of old. Then snatching the host from the stake, he threw it into the fire ; and, to his astonishment, saw it moving unhurt in the midst of the flames. Driven now to desperation, he seized a large knife, and endeavored to cut the host to pieces, but in vain. And as if to omit no one of the suf- ferings endured by Jesus on the cross, he seized the host again, hung it in the vilest place in the house, and pierced it with the point of a spear, and again blood issued from the wound. Last- 65 ly he threw the host into a cauldron of boiling water, and, in- stantly, the water was turned into blood ; and lo ! the host was seen rising out of the water in the form of a crucifix, and Jesus Christ was again seen dying on the cross. (///) The few having crucified the Lord afresh, now hid himself in the darkest cellar of the house ; and a woman having entered the house, beheld the afflicting picture of the passion of our Lord again exhibited on earth. Moved with fear she fell on her knees, and made on her forehead a sign of the cross, when, in a moment, the body of Jesus Christ, which was suspended on the cross over the cauldron, turned into the host again, and jumped into a dish which the woman held in her hand. (!) The woman took it to the priest, told the story I have repeated to you, and the Jew was seized, sent to prison, and burnt alive. The pen-knife with which the host was pierced, the blood that flowed from the wounds, the cauldron and the dish, are all pre- served, AS AX IXFALLIBLE PROOF OF THIS MIRACLE." Now I take the position that the sure way to avoid such ab- surd and disgusting folly, and the gross idolatry necessarily con- nected with it, is not by modifying transubstantiation into "con- substantiation," or the "doctrine of spiritual presence." All talk about a personal or real presence of Jesus in the materials of the ordinance is folly. The only divine presence is the Holy Spirit ; — and he, not in the material ordinance, but in the hearts of true Christians, just as He is with them at all times, and in the discharge of every Christian duty. Neither is there any better evidence of a "moral change," than of physical, in the essence and nature of the bread and fruit of the vine, at the "awful moment of consecration." They are no more sacred after, than before the prayer, and to apply any that may be left over, to ordinary use is not "sacralege." 66 But the way of safety is found in the plain, simple, and beau- tiful symbolism, so clearly taught in the scriptures. Participa- tion in the ordinance is purely a spiritual service, and consists not in the least of ritualism. By the vision of the soul, J "the eyes of faith," only, do Christians "discern the Lord's body," in observing this memorial ordinance. CHAPTER IX. CREED OF PIUS IV. In order to show plainly that I am not endeavoring to mis- represent the doctrines of the Catholic Church, I here insert, in full, the form of creed to which the members of that church are required to subscribe, or assent, on many occasions. This is called the creed of Pope Pius IV, because it was promulgated by him in the year 1564, the year after the close of the Council of Trent. Its appearance here will be also a matter of convenience for reference as we shall have frequent occasion to turn to it for definitions, and for formal statements of doctrine. "I, N.N., with a firm faith believe and profess all and everyone of those things which are contained in that creed which the holy Roman Catholic Church maketh use of. To-wit : I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, of all things visible and invisible : And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages; 6; God of God ; Light of Light ; true God of the true God ; begotten, not made; con- substantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man. Was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate ; he suffered and was buried. And the third da} 7 he rose again, according to the Scriptures ; sits at the right hand of the Father, and is to come again with glory to judge the living and the dead ; of whose kingdom there shall be no end. And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, and Lifegiver, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who, together with the Father and the Son, is adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And (I believe) One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I confess one Baptism for the remission of sins ; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen. I most steadfastly admit and embrace Apostolical and Ecclesiastical Tradi- tions, and all other observances and constitutions of the same Church. I also admit the Holy Scriptures, according to the sense in which our holy Mother the Church has held, and does hold ; to which it belongs, to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures, neither will I ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. I also profess that there are truly and properly seven sacraments of the New Law, instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, and necessary for the salvation of mankind, though not all for every one; to-wit : Baptism. Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony ; and that they confer Grace ; and that of these, Baptism, Confirmation, and Order cannot be re- iterated without sacrilege. I also receive and admit the received and approved ceremonies of the Catholic Church, used in the solemn administration of the aforesaid sacraments. I embrace and receive all and every one of the things which have been de- fined and declared in the holy Council of Trent concerning Original Sin and Justification. 1 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 Eucharist, there is truly, really, and substantially the Body and Blood, together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that there is made a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood ; which con- version the Catholic Church calls Transubstantiation. I also confess, that un- der cither kind alone, Christ is received whole and entire, and a true sacrament. I constantly hold that there is a Purgatory ; and that the souls therein de- tained are helped by the suffrages of the Faithful. Likewise that the saints reigning together with Christ, are to be honored 68 and invocated, and that they offer prayers to God for us, and that their relics are to be had in veneration. I most firmly assert, that the Images of Christ, of the mother of God, ever Virgin, and also of other saints, ought to be had and retained, and that due hon- or and veneration is to be given them. I also affirm, that the power of indulgences was left by Christ in the Church; and that the use of them is most wholesome to Christian people. I acknowledge the holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Eoman Church, for the Mother and Mistress of all Churches ; and I promise true obedience to the Bishop of Rome — successor to St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ. I likewise undoubtedly receive and profess all other things, delivered, defin- ed and declared by the sacred Canons and General Councils, and particularly by the holy Council of Trent. And I condemn, reject, and anathematize all things contrary thereto, and all heresies, which the church has condemned, re- jected and anathematized. I, N. N., do at this present freely profess, and sincerely hold, this true Catholic faith, without which no one can be saved ; audi promise most con- stantly to retain and confess the same entire and nn violated with God's assist- ance, to the end of my life." This creed has the merit, at least, of being very positive and explicit in most of its statements of doctrines. It also has the merit, (or rather demerit) of making no attempt to conceal the spirit of bold arrogance in which it was conceived. When one sees with what flippancy and brazen impudence it deals out the imperative mandates, and vile traditions of the corrupted organ- ization whence it emenates, and with what cool recklessness it sets aside what God has declared to be truth in the word of in- spiration, and sets up, what God has condemned, as the very things to be believed and practiced, the mind very naturally re- verts to Paul's description of the Man of Sin, "Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is wor- shipped ; so that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, show- ing himself that he is God;" (n Thes. n, 4.) "Even He, whose coming is according to the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceit of unrighteousness 69 for them that perish ; because they received not the love of the truth, that they mijjht be saved. And for this cause God send- eth them a working of error, that they should believe a lie ; that they all might be judged who believe not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." (9 — 12.) Instead of the Bible being recognized as the rule of faith, and court of final appeals, that God-inspired oracle is throttled, and forbidden to speak except by the permission of the church, and even then the true sense can only be known through the same authority ! Such a manacle of spiritual slavery is certainly too galling to be worn by any one worthy the name of a free- man. Its clanking is the muttering echoes of the tyrannical age in which it was brought forth. Its harsh notes make fearful dis- cords in the midst of the intelligence, culture, civilization, refine- ment and piety of the evening of the nineteenth century ; — espe- cially in this fair abode of liberty, "the land of the free, the home of the brave." He who bows his servile neck to this galling yoke debases his own manhood, denies his own capacity and right of judg- ment, spurns the finished work of Jesus Christ, turns away from the scriptures, which "are able to make him wise unto salvation," and like Esau "sells his birthright for a mess of pottage." To my mind one of the saddest scenes to contemplate in this world is the vast number of Catholic schools, — which constitue the boast of Rome, — remembering that each of these is a dismal work-shop in which spiritual chains of bondage are being con- stantly forged and firmly riveted upon the souls of the precious youths who are gathered there, securing them from all indepen- dent investigation, blinding their eyes to the light, stultifying their mental powers, and so poisoning their souls with hatred to the truth, that it is far harder to reach them with the power of yo the Gospel than it is the benighted heathen, who never heard of the true God. Let protestants, and men of the world as well — men of no faith — beware how they consign their sons and their daughters to these factories of servile bondage ! While our pity is awakened by the sight of the helpless youths who are being thus manacled, and our philanthropy is stirred by the ignorance and abject servitude of the laity, a feeling of a very different kind is awakened when we turn our observa- tion toward the motley horde of ecclesiastics, who lay the founda- tion for their tyrannical oppression in the enforced ignorance and debasing superstition which they systematically entail upon their miserable subjects ; — detestable, petty tyrants who gloat over hu- man thraldom, even spiritual thraldom of the darkest dye, and with a flourish of mock piety mingled with fiending satisfaction wield the lash of vile slavery with an effrontery that puts to shame the cruelty of the vilest temporal despot. Note. — The changes from the creed of Pius IV made in that of Pius V, or that of Pius IX are so slight the form here given was sufficient for present purposes. The ad- dition in the last of the doctrines of The Immaculate Conception, and The Infallibil- ity of the Pope, is the most important change. 7i CHAPTER X, THE MASS; SATISFACTION; PURGATORY, &c. For the sake of securing such brevity as I have proposed to adopt in this work, I will group together, in this chapter, several of the doctrines of Rome, as all having a more or less direct bearing upon, and antagonism to the scriptural doctrine of Jus- tification. The Word of God teaches abundantly that the great blessing secured by the sufferings and death of Jesus Christ, and offered to men through the gospel, is justification ; and that the only condition on the part of the individual, upon which his reception of this inestimable blessing depends, is personal faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. "The just shall live by faith." This doctrine of "salvation by grace through faith," is so well understood by the masses of the people who will feel an in- terest in reading this little book, and is so positively taught in the Bible, and especially in the writings of the apostle Paul and particularly in the first five chapters of his Letter to the Romans, that I do not feel myself called upon here to enter into any ar- gument to prove the truth of it. Yet this institution which ar- rogates to itself the name of the Roman Catholic Church denounces the doctrine, and pronounces a curse upon every person who be- lieves it. The decree of the Council of Trent adopted at the sixth session on January 13th, 1547, contains this anathema ; "Who- 72 soever shall affirm, that men are justified solely by the imputa- tion of the righteousness of Christ, by the remission of sin, to the exclusion of grace and charity, which is shed abroad in their hearts by the Holy Spirit and inheres in them ; or that the grace by which we are justified is only the favor of God ; let him be ac- cursed r ." This one sample will suffice to show the character of the teaching of that Council on the doctrine of justification, the de- cree concerning which, consisted of sixteen chapters and thirty- three canons, every one of which he who subscribes to the creed of Pope Pius IV, vows to "receive and embrace" to the end of life. It having been now decided by this great oracle of Roman- ism that the grace of God is insufficient to reach the lost sinner, and that the death of Jesus Christ was inadequate to make a complete atonement for sin, the way was opened up for the in- troduction of all manner of human inventions and wicked abom- inations, and idolatrous ceremonies. Through this broad highway of corruption, the process was made very easy for the introduction of the vilest "doctrines of devils" and "damnable heresies," and the establishment of the most impious rites, and the exaction of almost fabulous sums of money for the gratification of the sordid greed of men wholly given to the worship of "Filthy Lucre." With a zeal and de- votion eminently worthy of a far better cause, their deluded fol- lowers have foolishly been, for centuries, replenishing the swell- ing treasuries of the church and the mercenary ecclesiastics, out of the meagre earnings of their hard toil. The boasted zeal of the propagators of the Catholic faith, when properly analyzed, in most cases, will be found to be "covetousness, which is idolatry.'" In this standard creed we find this to be the definition of the Mass: — "I profess likewise, that in the Mass there is offered to 73 God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead." Butler's Catechism defines it thus : "The sacri- fice of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, which are really pres- ent under the appearance of bread and wine ; and are offered to God by the priest for the living and the dead." Webster says : "The consecration and oblation of the host, still constitutes the principal part of public worship in the Ro- man Catholic churches." As to the importance attached to this sacrifice, "Butler's Cat- echism" gives as the first of the "six commandments of the Church" this injunction, "i. To hear Mass on Sundays, and all holy-days of obligation." By way of explanation he gives these questions and answers ; page 65. "Q. What is our first and chief duty on Sundays and holy- days ? A. To hear Mass devoutly ; and in every other respect we should keep them holy. 0. Is it a mortal sin not to hear Mass on a Sunday or holy- day ? A. It is, if the omission be culpable; and fathers and moth- ers, masters and mistresses, and all such persons, sin grievously , who hinder, without sufficient cause, children, servants, or others subject to them from hearing Mass on a Sunday or holy-day." From the vast amount of literature on this subject, I need only to cite two anathemas, to prove that this ceremony of pub- lic worship is idolatrous, as found in the decree on Transubstan- tiation, issued Oct. 1 ith, 1 5 5 1 , at the thirteenth session of the Council of Trent. "Whoever shall deny, that in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist there are truly, really, and substan- tially contained the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, together with his soul and Divinity, and consequently Christen- 74 tire ; but shall affirm that he is present therein only in a sign or figure, or by his power, let him be accursed. Whoever shall affirm, that Christ the only begotten Son of God, is not to be adored in the holy eucharist with the external signs of that worship which is due to God alone ; and therefore that the eucharist is not to be honored with extraordinary festive celebrations, nor solemnly carried about in processions according to the laudable and universal rites and customs of holy church, nor publicly presented to the people for their adoration ; and that those who worship the same are idolators ; let him be ac- cursed." This proves from their own decrees, that they worship the eucharist with that adoration which is due to God alone, and I have already proved the falsity of Transubstantiation by the tes- timony of the physical laws of nature, by that of the Scriptures and by the evidence of Catholic writers, including the declara- tions of a Pope, speaking ex cathedra ; they therefore stand con- victed of idolatry. I will now dismiss this subject of the sacrifice of the Mass, by contrasting with it just a few sentences from God's word. "For Christ entered not into a holy place made with hands like in a pattern to the true ; but into heaven itself, now to appear before the face of God for us ; not that he should offer himself often ; as the high priest entered into the holy place year by year with blood not his own ; else must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world ; but now once at the end of the ages hath He been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And inasmuch as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this cometh judgment, so Christ also, having been once offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to them that wait for him, unto salvation." Heb. 75 ix, 24 — 28. "For by one offering hath He perfected forever them that are sanctified." Heb. x, 14. The doctrine of satisfaction which I have mentioned at the head of this chapter is held to be one part of the sacrament of Penance. They teach that penance consists of contrition, confes- sion and satisfaction. With regard to the last item their writings are noted for obscurity and indefmiteness. A French champion of the faith (the Bishop of Aire) has this to say, as quoted by Faber : "Although the Savior, by the infinite value of his blood, might no doubt have delivered us both from eternal punishment and from transitory punishment; in matter of fact, it has pleased him to deliver us only from the former. This latter, as justly due to our sins, he has left us still to undergo. Whence, consequently we must undergo it, either in the present world, or in the next world, or jointly in both worlds. Now the undergoing of this transitory punishment is what the Latin Church denominates a making of satisfaction to the justice of God!' We mav consider in connection with this the following can- ons of the Council of Trent : — "Whoever shall affirm, that the entire punishment is always remitted by God, together with the fault, and therefore that penitents need no other satisfaction than faith, whereby they apprehend Christ, who has made satisfaction for them ; let him be accursed. Whoever shall affirm, that we can by no means make satisfac- tion to God for our sins, through the merits of Christ, as far as tlie temporal penalty is concerned, either by punishments inflict- ed on us by him, and patiently borne, or enjoined by the priest, though not undertaken of our own accord, such as fastings, pray- ers, alms, or other works of piety ; and therefore that the best penance is nothing more than a new life ; let him be ACCURSED. 7 6 "Whoever shall affirm, that the satisfactions by which peni- tents redeem themselves from sin through Christ, are no part of the service of God, but, on the contrary, human traditions, which obscure the doctrine of grace, and the true worship of God, and the benefits of the death of Christ ; let him be accursed. Butler's Catechism contains the following : "Q. What do you mean by the penance enjoined by the con- fessor ? A. The prayers and other good works which he enjoins on penitents, in satisfaction for their sins. Q. Will the penance, enjoined in confession, always satisfy for our sins ? A. No ; but whatever else is wanting may be supplied by in- dulgences, and our own penitential endeavors. Q. What is the use of an indulgence ? A. It releases from a canonical penance, enjoined by the church on penitents, for certain sins. Q. Has an indulgence any other effect ? A. It also remits the temporary punishments, with which God often visits our sins, and which must be suffered in this life orthe next ; unless canceled by indulgences, by acts of penance, or other good works. Q. What is purgatory ? A. A place of punishment in the other life, where some souls suffer for a time, before they can go to Heaven. Q. When God forgives mortal sin, as to the guilt of it, and eternal punishment it deserves, does he require temporary pun- ishments to be suffered for it ? A. Yes ; very often for our correction — to deter us from lapsing into sin ; and that we should make some atonement to his offended justice and goodness." 77 From these standards we gather that Romanism teaches that notwithstanding the atonement made by Christ, still God re- quires those who trust in Christ, to make for themselves propi- tiatory satisfaction by prayers, alms-deeds, and other good works performed in this life, or by penal suffering endured either in this world or in purgatory. Thus the atonement of Christ, being insufficient to meet the demands of God's justice, must be supple- mented by an atonement made by the sinner himself; and the work of Jesus Christ is degraded into a mere stepping-stone to be used for ascending up to the higher work of a corrupt and re- bellious sinner, which shall render perfect satisfaction. How ab- surb such folly ! Is this not truly Antichrist ? The doctrine of satisfaction, then, is seen to be one of the im- portant links in the pondrous chain of bondage by which the subjects of the tyrannical system of popery are held in such de- grading spiritual subjugation, connecting as it does the infamous confessional with the atrocious doctrines of indulgences and pur- cfatorv, with all their concomitants of avarice, delusion and crime. When we look at these miserable human inventions and "doctrines of devils," and reflect how degrading their effect on the work of the Son of God, and mark how directly they antag- onize both the spirit and the letter of God's word ; we are no longer surprised at Rome's bitter opposition to the circulation of the scriptures among the people. 78 CHAPTER XI. AURICULAR CONFESSION. I have already stated on page (75) that popery teaches that penance consists of three parts contrition, confession, and satisfac- tion. The second part is so emphasized and magnified by them that it seems necessary to give it a little further consideration. Auricular confession simply means confession made in the ear, and is applied to a secret confession made to a priest whom they call the "father confessor." This confession must be more than a general acknowlegment of sin and consequent guilt, no matter how marked may be the evidence of genuine contrition, and "Godly sorrow." It must in detail particularize every sinful thought, word or deed ; and compliance with this arbitrary re- quirement and tyrannical demand, is enforced by the terrifying threat of eternal damnation. The great end attained by this di- abolical invention is the elevation and perpetuation of the power of the clergy over the deluded people. Now this auricular confession, is that which Rome enjoins as a central and an indispensable part of the great saa i anient of Pen- ance. The standards also teach positively that such sacramental confession is "necessary to salvation',' and that it is "necessary in order to obtain absolution from the priest!'' I am aware that many protestants think it is uncharitable to charge that Catholics teach that the priest can forgive sins ; but I do not regard the mantle 79 of Christian charity as an impenetrable screen to be thrown over falsehood and error, and to hide from view the abominations and corruptions that flow from that error. I am also aware that many Catholics deny the charge ; and aver that while they are Catholics they "do not believe any such stuff;" — that "it is fifty years behind the times ;" — that "progressive Catholics know bet- ter." But I affirm that in the face of the creeds and decrees of councils of the Roman Catholic Church, it is impossible for any one to be a true Catholic without professing, in the most solemn manner, that he believes the priest has power to forgive sins, and any Catholic who denies it is either ignorant of what he profes- ses to believe , or else he wilfully denies his own faith, and in either case his assertions are of no value. In proof of this assertion I refer again to the creed of Pius IV. "I likewise undoubtedly receive and profess all other things, de- livered, defined, and declared by the Sacred Canons and General Councils, and particularly by the holy Council of Trent. And I condemn, reject, and anathematize all things contrary thereto, and all heresies, which the church has condemned, rejected, and anathematized." Now let us see what the Council of Trent has to say on this subject : "Whoever shall deny that sacramental confession was institu- ted by divine command, or that it is necessary to salvation ; or shall affirm that the practice of secretly confessing to the priest alone, as it has been ever observed from the beginning by the Catholic Church, and is still observed, is foreign to the institu- tion and command of Christ, and is a human invention ; let HIM BE ACCURSED. Whoever shall affirm, that in order to obtain the forgiveness of sins in the sacrament of penance, it is not by divine command necessary to confess all and every mortal sin which occurs to 8o the memory after due and diligent premeditation — including se- cret offenses, &c. ; let him be accursed. Whoever shall affirm that the confession of every sin, accord- ing to the custom of the church, is impossible, and merely a hu- man tradition, which the pious should reject; or that all Chris- tians, of both sexes, are not bound to observe the same once a year, according to the constitution of the great Council of Lat- eran ; and therefore, that the faithful in Christ are to be persuad- ed not to confess in Lent ; let him be accursed. Whoever shall affirm that the priest's sacramental absolution is not a judicial act, but only a ministry, to pronounce and de- clare that the sins of the party confessing are forgiven, so that he believes himself to be absolved, even though the priest should not absolve seriously, but in jest ; or shall affirm that the con- fession of the penitent is not necessary in order to obtain absolu- tion from the priest ; let him be accursed." Now this is Catholicism ; and to talk about progressiveness is nonsense. Let them show where the church has ever revoked one of these decrees or curses. It cannot be done : for the corner stone of Popery is the im- mutability of the church, and the infallibility of its decrees and popes ; and such a revocation would undermine the very foun- dation of the whole superstructure. The doctrine of auricular confession is to be condemned and rejected for many reasons, some of which we will briefly notice. And first it is unscriptural. The Bible recognizes and enjoins the duty of confession ; but its doctrine of confession is widely different from that of the Catholic Church. While the church compels her adherents to confess to the priest, the Bible empha- sizes the duty of confession to God. "Against thee and thee only have I sinned and done this evil in thy sight," is a sample 8i of scriptural confession. Every sin is committed against God ; hence confession must be made to God, in all cases, for he is the offended and injured party, in every sin, and from him only can we expect forgiveness. But the priest usurps God's place in the matter, and practically requires God to stand aside, while he hears the case and dispenses pardon. As to confession to our fellow-men the Bible recognizes the reasonable principle that the confession of the transgressor should extend to every person who has been injured by his trans- gression. "Confess your faults one to another." If I have trespassed against my brother, the reconcilation must be between me "and him alone ;" if my fault has affected ten persons, my confession must reach the same ten ; if I have committed a pub- lic offense I must make a public confession. But the above teachings of Catholicism say nothing of confession to God nor to our fellow-men who have been injured, but enjoins confession to the Father confessor, a creature concerning whose existence the Bible is silent. This suggests a second reason for repudiating this doctrine, that is because it puts the priest in the place of God. We have just seen that to hear confessions for all sins is a prerogative that belongs to God alone, as does also the power of dispensing pardon. But I need not consume time to prove that the priest herein assumes divine prerogatives, for Catholics them- selves teach the same thing. "Dens" (the great theologian, as quoted by Dovvling, page 432) "avers that a confessor should as- sert his ignorance of the truths which he knows only by sacra- mental confession, and confirms his assertion, if necessary, by an oath. Such facts he is to conceal, though the life or safety of a man, or the destruction of the state, depend upon the disclosure. The reason, in this case, is as extraordinary as the doctrine. 82 "The confessor is questioned and answers as a man. This truth, however, he knows not as man but as God; and therefore, he is not guilty of falsehood or perjury." (Dens, 5, 219; Edgar 246.) Thus by their own showing the father confessor "opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing him- self that he is God," and proves his identity with "that man of sin, the son of perdition," "whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders." Now it is perfectly evident that those who approve his as- sumptions, believe his lies and bow to his authority "worship the creature more than the Creator," and are therefore guilty of the most debasing idolatry, ascribing to a man the character that be- longs to God alone, and imploring from a man that which God alone can bestow. Again the whole system must be rejected because it en- courages and promotes the commission of crime. The above quotation from "Dens" shows how it leads the confessor into falsehood and perjury, and makes him a participator in the crimes of the so-called penitents, and in common law, he who harbors a thief or conceals his stolen goods becomes a confed- erate with him in his crime. I have already shown in the third chapter of this work, how this institution becomes the vilest hot- bed of adultery and the basest school of debauchery, and need not further unfold the revolting picture in this connection. But this is not all. Stripping sin of its heinousness by mak- ing its pardon hinge upon the payment of a paltry sum of money and a simple narration of his crimes to a man who has pledged eternal silence, under the most solemn vows, it encourages the gratification of the most sinful desires and the perpetration of the most revolting crimes. 83 I suppose this is the reason why our prisons contain such a large percentage of Catholics, and also the reason why the Weekly Catholic and other papers of its class, indulge in such an outburst of indignation when a Catholic priest happens to fail to get permission to enter a prison to administer to the spiritual wants of his parishioners who are incarcerated there. The last reason I shall here give for rejecting this doctrine of confession is, that it keeps the guilty sinner away from Christ, "The Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world, and in none other is there salvation, for neither is there any other name under heaven that is given among men, wherein we must be saved." A mistake here is eternally fatal. He bids us come to Him, and we must come each for himself. We have no need for the interposition of a priest, "but as many as received Him, to them gave He the right to become children of God, even ot them that believe on His name, who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have had our access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and we re- joice in hope of the glory of God. He is the propitiation for our sins. A high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek, unto Him that loveth us and loosed us from our sins by his blood, and made us to be a kingdom, and to be priests unto his God and Father ; to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen." 8 4 CHAPTER XII. HOLY ORDERS, AND ECCLESIASTICAL POWER. Butler's Catechism defines holy orders as "A sacrament which gives bishops, priests, and inferior clergy to the church, and ena- bles them to perform their several duties in it." The Council of Trent passed a decree upon this subject at its twenty-third session, held on July 15th, 1563. This decree consists of four chapters, and eight canons, closing with the usual anathemas. A writer has given the following synopsis, which, though brief, is sufficient for our present purpose : "It taught that the peculiar excellence and glory of the priest- hood was the power to consecrate, offer, and minister Christ's body and blood, and also to remit and retain sins ; that there are 'seven orders of ministers,' viz: 'Priests, deacons, sub-deacons, acolytes, exorcists, readers, and porters ;' that 'orders is one of the seven sacraments of the holy church ;' that in ordination 'grace is conferred;' that bishops have 'succeeded to the place of the apostles,' and 'hold a distinguished rank in this hierachal or- der ;' that 'they are placed there by the Holy Spirit to rule the church of God ;' that they are 'superior to presbyters,' 'ordain the ministers of the church,' &c, and that all who 'presumptu- ously undertake and assume the offices of the ministry' by any other authority than by these popish bishops 'are not to be ac- counted ministers of the church, but thieves and robbers.' ' 85 From this it will be readily perceived that the doctrine of "Holy Orders" is a very important element in the complex or- ganization, which secures a vast "ecclesiastical power" concen- trated on the one hand in the Pope, and on the other, dissemi- nated through the various ranks and gradations of the clergy, all connected together like the wheels of a train of machinery so geared that each communicates its power and motion to the next, securing unison of action. So popery can boast of unity of action on the part of the clergy in wielding the tremendous power of this great hierarchy in securing the complete subjuga- tion of the "laity," the rank and file of her constituency. In fact, so complete is this slavery that no Catholic dares to think, to read, to investigate, to form an opinion, or to act for himself only just so far as the authorities of the church graciously permits, un- der penalty of excommunication, which he is taught to believe is equivalent to eternal damnation. And not content with "lording it" over their own heritage, they apparently would be glad if they had power to put a gag in my mouth, and shackles upon the hand that wields my pen ; but having been deprived of the guillotine, the dungeon, the stake, and the numerous other mur- derous inventions for the extirpation of heretics, they are com- pelled to be content with "waiting and gnashing their teeth" in malicious personal hatred, and exploding the blank cartridges of powerless curses. I rejoice in the freedom which my Saviour has given me. Jesus who came * To proclaim release to the captives, And recovering of sight to the blind, To set at liberty them that are bruised, To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord ;" said to the ritualistic Jews : "If therefore the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed." S6 How striking the contrast when we turn from viewing Rom- ish tyranny, and contemplate the beautiful simplicity and per- fect freedom enjoyed in the primitive church. The idea of or- ders, or ranks, or superior and inferior grades in the ministry is utterly condemned. On this point Jesus quieted the conten- tion of his disciples by declaring to them : "The kings of the Gentiles have lordship over them, and they that have authority over them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so. But he that is greater among you, let him become as the younger, and he that is chief, as he that doth serve." The fiction of Pe- ter's primacy among the apostles is in such direct contradiction to this and many other scriptures, is so nonsensical, and has been so frequently disproved, that it is entirely unnecessary to enter upon its discussion here. While different titles are applied to the ministers of the gospel in the New Testament, they are not used in such a way as to teach a system of Episcopacy. The word apostle, meaning one sent forth, was first applied to the twelve whom Jesus sent out during his personal ministry, and was af- terward extended to Matthias, to Paul and Barnabas, and prob- ably to others. It seems to have been equivalent to our modern use of the word missionary, which has precisely the same ety- mological meaning. Evangelist— a proclaimer of glad tidings — differed very little from the later use of apostle. The words pastor, elder and bishop, were used indiscriminately to designate one who had the oversight of a church. Conceiving of a church as a community, it was natural to call the leader a bishop or overseer ; regarding it as the flock of God, he is the pastor or shepherd ; speaking of it as the Israel of God he becomes the presbyter or elder, and thus these six titles are seen to designate one and the same office. At the same time the churches were independent communi- 87 ties, believing the same doctrines, following the same practices, and laboring for the same ends ; but exercising no jurisdiction over each other. As to the method of departure from the primitive simplicity I will quote from Mosheim, the celebrated church historian : "The power and jurisdiction of the bishops were not long confined to their original narrow limits, but soon extended them- selves, and that by the following means : The bishops who lived in the cities, had, either by their own ministry or that of their presbyters, erected new churches in the neighboring towns and villages. These churches, continued under the inspection and ministry of the bishops, by whose labors and councils they had been engaged to embrace the gospel, grew imperceptibly into ecclesiastical provinces, which the Greeks afterward called dio- ceses. The churches, in the early time, were entirely independ- ent ; none of them subject to any foreign jurisdiction, but each one governed by its own rules and its own laws. For, though the churches founded by the apostles had this peculiar difference shown them, that they were consulted in difficult and doubtful cases ; yet they had no judicial authority, no sort of supremacy over others, nor the least right to enact laws for them. Nothing on the contrary, is more evident than the perfect equality that reigned among the primitive churches ; nor does there even ap- pear in the first century, the smallest trace of that association of provincial churches, from which councils and metropolitans deriv- ed their origin. "During a great part of the second century, the Christian churches were independent of each other ; nor were they joined together by association, confederacy, or any other bonds but those of charity. Each Christian assembly was a little state, governed by its own laws, which were either enacted, or at least approved 88 by the society. But, in process of time, all the Christian churches of a province were formed into one large ecclesiastical body, which, like confederate states, assembled at certain times, in or- der to deliberate about the common interests of the whole. This institution had its origin among the Greeks, with whom nothing was more common than this confederacy of independent states, and the regular assemblies which met, in consequence thereof, at fixed times, and were composed of the deputies of each respect- ive state. But these ecclesiastical associations were not long confined to the Greeks ; their great utility was no sooner per- ceived, than they became universal, and were formed in all places where the gospel had been planted. To these assemblies in which the deputies or commissioners of several churches consult- ed together, the name of synods was appropriated by the Greeks, and that of councils by the Latins ; and the laws that were en- acted in these general meetings, were called canons i. e., rules. "These councils, of which we find not the smallest trace be- fore the middle of the second century, changed the whole face of the church, and gave it a new form ; for by them the ancient privileges of the people were considerably diminished and the power and authority of the bishops greatly augmented. "The humility, indeed, and prudence of these pious prelates, prevented their assuming all at once the power with which they were afterward invested. At their first appearance in these gen- eral councils, they acknowledged that they were no more than the delegates of their respective churches, and that they acted in the name, and by the appointment of their people. But they soon changed this humble tone, imperceptibly extended the limits of their authority, turned their influence into dominion, and their councils into laws, and openly asserted, at length, that Christ had empowered them to prescribe to his people, authori- tative rules of faith and manners. 8 9 "Another effect of these councils was the gradual abolition of that perfect equality which reigned among all bishops in the primitive times. For the order and decency of these assemblies required that some one of the provincial bishops met in council, should be invested with a superior degree of power and author- ity ; and hence the rights of metropolitans derive their origin. In the meantime, the bounds of the church were enlarged, the custom of holding councils was followed wherever the sound of the gospel had reached ; and the universal church had now the appearance of one vast republic, formed by a combination of a great number of little states. This occasioned the creation of a new order of ecclesiastics, who were appointed in different parts of the world, as heads of the church, and whose office it was to preserve the consistence and union of the immense body, whose members were so widely dispersed throughout the nations. Such was the nature and office of the patriarchs, among whom, at length, ambition, being arrived at its most insolent period, form- ed a new dignity, investing the bishop of Rome, and his suc- cessors, with the title and authority of prince of the pafriarclisy To trace in detail this departure from gospel simplicity from its beginning in the second century, to its complete development, in the beginning of the seventh century, into the despotism of popery, would be entirely foreign to the design of this little work. The reader is referred to the elaborate works of the various church historians for information on this subject. The great mistake of Protestantism has been that in too many cases episcopacy, or some modified form of clerical dominion, has been borrowed from Rome, and imposed upon the churches ; while "the mark of the beast" has been made in the forehead, by unscriptural rites and sacraments, and "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men," and supplanting the teachings of 9 o Divine inspiration by the traditions of the corrupt ages of the church. I suppose it was more than could be expected from hu- man nature in the dark times in which the Reformation took its rise, to look for a complete riddance from all error, and a perfect return to the beautiful simplicity and the untarnished purity of primitive Christianity, at one stroke ; but it certainly is to be re- gretted that after a lapse of more than three hundred years, prot- estant Christians are still sometimes found adhering more firmly to some papal tradition, yet clinging to the church, than to the plain doctrines of the Bible. The idea of sacramental grace con- ferred in ordination, or the kindred doctrine of ministerial au- thority descending in an "unbroken chain of apostolic succes- sion," is certainly very foreign to the spirit of primitive Christian- ity ; and bears the unmistakable "mark of the beast." f CHAPTER XIII. IMMACULATE CONCEPTION OF THE VIRGIN MARY. We now come to a subject concerning which we can gain no information from the creed of Pope Pius IV. If we turn to the statements of John O'Flanagan, as given in Chapter 1 1, we find a high flourish of words but gain very little light. The "badly 9i needed information" I do not find in his pedantic muddle. His futile attempt to prove the universality of the doctrine is rather amusing. He refers to the Council of Trent, which instead of promulgating the doctrine, adopted the policy of non-committal, and hence gives him no comfort. He would fain have the unin- formed to accept testimony from the Council of Basle ; when in fact that council was so far out of harmony with the accepted doctrines of the Catholic Church, as to renew the decree of the Council of Constance, declaring the right of a general council to exercise jurisdiction over the Pope himself, and under this de- claration of authority cited Pope Eugenius IV, to. appear at its bar, and on his refusal to answer their charges he was pronounced a heretic and deposed from office, and a successor elected, who styled himself Felix V. All this it is true came to naught un- der Pope Nicolas V ; but their testimony came to naught also, — but "a drowning man will catch at a straw." He claims further to have found one man in England, in the eleventh century, in the person of the first bishop of Norwich, who taught the doc- trine ; hence, "it was the belief of England and all Christendom at that day." (!) He next leaps right into the "Greek Schismatic Church" and claims to find this doctrine in the "liturgy of St. Chrysostum, handed down to this day from the fourth century," but fails to tell us that the Greek Church celebrates the festivities in honor of the "immaculate conception" of St. Anne instead of that of Mary. He seems also to have dealt unfairly with dates, as Chrys- ostom died in the year 407. This being his earliest reference, he stops in his investigation nearly four hundred years away from the purity of primitive Christianity, in the midst of corrup- tions and degeneracies which have completely changed the face of Christianity from its present beauty. This dark chasm he at- 9 2 tempts to bridge by the unsupported assertion that "this doc- trine is coeval with the Christian Church," and then boasts of giving dates and authorities. A more reliable history of this matter is found in the "Peo- ple's Cyclopedia," p. 945. "The festival of the conception itself is traceable in the Greek Church from the end of the fifth cen- tury, and in the Latin dates from the seventh ; but a great con- troversy prevailed for a long time in the West as to whether, and in what sense, the conception of the blessed Virgin Mary was to be held immaculate, and in what sense the blessed Virgin herself was to be held conceived without sin. In the end, at the instance of bishops in various parts of the Church, Pope Pius IX, address- ed a circular to the bishops of each nation, calling for their opinion and that of their people as to the faith of the Church on the point ; and on the receipt of replies all but absolutely unani- mous, he issued a solemn decree at Rome, in a numerous coun- cil of bishops, on December 8th, 1854, declaring the doctrine to be an article of Catholic belief, and proposing it as such to the universal church." Such was the procedure to which I deliberately applied the word "farce" in my first communication to the Star and Kansan, which seems to have stirred up such bitter umbrage in the mind of the editor of the Weekly Catholic. I used this epithet, not with the least personal feeling toward him or anyone else, but as be- ing well suited to express my conception of the folly of such solemn mockery in the name of Christianity. It was a farce be- cause the declaration of the dogma that this had been, from the beginning, the universal belief of all Christians, was false. I have not been able to find any allusion to such a doctrine pre- vious to the introduction of the worship of the Virgin Mary, which dates from the fourth century. Epiphanius, of Salamis, 93 who flourished in the first half of the fourth century, says : "Some persons are mad enough to honor the Virgin as a sort of god- dess. Certain women have transplanted this vanity from Thrace into Arabia. For they sacrifice a breadcake in honor of the Virgin, and, in her name, they blasphemously celebrate sacred mysteries. But the whole matter is a tissue of impiety, abhor- ent from the teachings of the Holy Spirit ; so that we may well call it a diabolical business and a manifest doctrine of the spirit of impurity." (Epiph. adv. Haer lib. ill, 78.) We have already given proof that after this there was long and bitter controversy over the matter, even in the church of Rome, extending on down to Pope Pius IX. So we see it was not the universal doctrine of even the Roman Catholic Church, and was entirely unknown in primitive times. The promulgation of this dogma was a farce also, because the doctrine itself is untrue. As demonstrated in the former part of this work, no doctrine has any claim of authority as a doctrine of Christianity unless it rests upon a scriptural basis. Now I deny that there is any evidence whatever, to be found in the scriptures, which proves this theory of "the immaculate con- ception ;" by which I understand them to mean, the original sin- lessness of the mother of Jesus. But as this is a negative propo- sition, the burden of proof lies with the affirmative, and I am sorry John O'Flanagan has furnished me with nothing on this point to refute. Whether he declined to attempt such an argu- ment, because of ignorance of the line of argument adopted by his church, or whether he did so because of a consciousness of the weakness and insufficiency of such arguments, I am not au- thorized to say, but such failure is very noticeable. The cliampion has evidently allowed himself to be outstripped in this matter by the "praiseworthy lady' "Child of Mary," whose zeal provoked 94 this controversy. It seems somewhat remarkable that women are so ready to espouse this theory ! Her first quotation is from Luke i, 28 : "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women." This quotation is taken from the Douay Bible, a translation of the Latin Vulgate, and hence in- volves the question of translation as well as interpretation. The King James Version renders the first clause thus : "Hail, thou that art highly favoured." The Canterbury revision : "Hail, thou that art highly favoured," with the marginal reading, "or endued with grace," and the American Bible Union, "Hail, highly fa- vored." Now if the word "grace," in the Douay rendering, be construed as meaning favor, then these various readings have essentially the same meaning. But Catholics seem to persist in making the word, as here used, signify intrinsic, innate holiness, and thus in the language of W. H. Van Doran, "Idolatrous Rome changes a salutation into idolatry." The reasonable way to ascertain the true meaning of the passage is to go to the origi- nal Greek. The words here used are, "Chaire, kecharitomene." The first word all agree means hail) the second, the one on which the matter hinges, is a participle in the passive voice from the verb charitoo, which Greenfield in his New Testament Greek Lexicon defines thus : "To make accepted or acceptable, Ep. 1, 6; to favour, regard with favour and approbation ; pass, to be favour- ed, &c, Luke 1, 28;" and Pickering's Lexicon gives this definition, "To render lovely or agreeable ; to treat well ; to give a kind re- ception ; pf.pass. part, having obtained favour." This is the form used in the salutation. If this should leave any doubt in the mind of any, let him take Gabriel's own definition in verse 30, "thou hast found favour with God." This Greek word is used in only one other place in the New Testament ; in Eph. if, 6, it is applied to Christians : "To the 95 praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accept- ed in the Beloved," as rendered in the King James version, or ac- cording to the Canterbury and Bible Union revisions, "To the praise of the glory of his grace, which he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved." Now, if repenting sinners, through faith, "find favor with God," what evidence have we that Mary found it in any other way, when the Holy Spirit expresses it, through the inspir- ed writers, by the use of the same word. Jamison, — Fausset, — Brown Commentary has this to say on Luke I, 28, " 'Highly fa- vored' — a word only once used elsewhere (Ephesians I, 6, 'Made accepted'): cf. v. 30, 'Thou hast found favour with God.' The mistake of the Vulgate's rendering, 'full of grace,' has been taken abundant advantage of by the Romish Church. As the mother of our Lord, she was the most 'blessed among women' in ex- ternal distinction ; but let them hear to the Lord's own words : 'Nay, rather blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it.' See on ch. xi, 27." "With true womanly feeling, she" (a woman of the multitude) "envies the mother of such a wonder- ful Teacher. Well, and higher and better than she had said as much before her, ch. 1, 28, 42; and our Lord is far from con- demning it. He only holds up — as 'blessed rather' — the hearers and keepers of God's word ; in other words, the humblest real saint of God. See on Matt, xn, 49, 50. How utterly alien is this sentiment from the teaching of the Church of Rome, which would excommunicate any one of its members who dared to talk- in the spirit of this glorious saying !" I have now shown conclusively that the salutation of the angel furnishes no foundation whatever for the doctrine of the "immaculate conception." The other references of the "lady' writer are entirely irrelevant to the subject, and in fact the one discussed is, I believe, about the only text on which they attempt to build any argument from the Scriptures. 96 We turn next to the bold editor's appeal to Reason. The greatest difficulty I have here is to gather from his language any definite idea of what he means. As near as I can gather his ar- gument it would amount to about this, when reduced to sylogistic form : — By a law of necessity, that which is pure must have emanated from a pure source : — Jesus was sinlessly pure : — Therefore, his mother must have been always sinless. The fallacy of this argument will be readily seen by anyone in the least acquainted with the science of logic, because the con- clusion contains an assumption which cannot possibly be de- duced from the premises. The legitimate conclusion is simply that his mother was pure — a proposition which no one will be disposed to deny. But to deduce from these premises the con- clusion that she was born sinless, is to deny God's power to cleanse the sinner. We may also apply to the argument, the principle of the reductip ad absw dum. If the sinlessness of Jesus necessitates a belief in the "immaculate conception" of Mary, then her sinlessness necessitates the same with regard to her mother ; the same is true of each mother all along the line back to Eve ; but the scriptures tell us "Eve was first in the transgression." Again while the major premise is true in reference to mat- ters in general, it does not follow that it applies to the birth of Jesus. While He derived his physical body from Mary, He de- rived His spiritual being, His life, from God. Now in case of the natural man, does not sin attach rather to the spiritual nature than to the physical? But we are not called upon to philosophize as to how he was sinless ; but simply to believe what God's word teaches about it, 97 because it is God's word given to us in his holy Book. Human opinion and human tradition are, alike, out of place in this matter. This doctrine, like the fiction of the "Assumption of the Bless- ed Virgin Mary," is nothing more, nor less, than a diabolical in- vention, designed to cover and excuse the heinous idolatry of her worship. It prepares the way for the use of that blasphe- mous title of "Mother of God," which is simply an indirect way of calling her a goddess. This is blasphemy ; for while she was the mother of Jesus, she was only the mother of his humanity ; but not of the Divinity which dwelt in him as the "Christ of God." The final outcome of this and their other teachings with re- gard to Mary, is to magnify her greatness above that of her di- vine Son, ascribe to her the crowning glory of the work of hu- man redemption, and to bestow upon her that Divine worship that is due to the "Son of God." 98 CHAPTER Xr'IV. ASSUMPTION OF THE VIRGIN MARY. In the last chapter I have alluded to this feast of the Catholic church, or rather to the doctrine which underlies it, as a fiction, invented to justify, or strengthen the plausibility of her worship. Inasmuch as but few persons outside the Catholic fold, have taken the pains to inform themselves as to the meaning of this expression, or the place it occupies in this monstrous system of abominable corruptions, it seems necessary to give here a little space for its consideration. Webster's sixth definition of assumption reads thus : — "The taking up a person into heaven. Hence, in the Roman Catholic and Greek churches y a festival in honor of the miraculous assent of the Virgin Mary into heaven." The "People's Cyclopedia" is a little fuller, thus : — "Assumption of the Virgin Mary. A festival of the Romish Church. In the seventh century the idea originated that the soul and body of the Virgin had been carried up to heaven by Christ and his angels. The Roman Catholic Church, therefore, has ever since that period kept the 15th of August in memory of Mary's translation into glory ; although from the fourth century until then it had kept the same day in memory of her death." Now these are the plain, unvarnished facts in the case, as shown by all reliable history bearing upon the subject. Yet Cath- 99 olic writers and orators will not hesitate to declare, in the face of these facts, that the Christian church has observed this festival from the beginning. As a proof of this reckless daring in deal- ing with the facts of history I need only refer to the "False De- cretals, a collection of the Papal letters, canons, etc., chiefly for- geries, ascribed to Isidorus Mercator, and dating from the first half of the ninth century. The object of the fraud, first estab- lished by German Protestant critics, sixteenth century, was to exalt ecclesiastical above secular dominion ; and upon it, as some Protestant historians assert, is based the claim of papal supremacy." (Peop. Cyc, p. 546.) It is not, by any means, a pleasant duty for me to bring so grave a charge as this is, against their historians and other de- fenders ; nor would I have the reader to understand that it is absolutely universal in its application ; for while the majority are guilty, still there are honorable exceptions, such as Fleury, Baronius and a few others, in parts of their writings. But it seemed necessary to say this much, in order to warn the student of history to withhold his credence until he has heard the evi- dence, and beware of accepting unsupported assertion for facts. But how can men of any sense of honor reconcile their con- sciences to such falsehoods ? To answer this question we must look at it from the Catholic's standpoint. As a faithful Catholic, in his judgment, the most honoj able position in the world is to be a bold defender of the church. The glory of that church is that it never changes. Just what it is now, it ever has been from the days of the Apostles down to the present. And as "the end justifies the means," if he does manufacture historical statements or misconstrues others, he has committed no crime, for he has defended the church, and as her doctrines and prac- tices never change, in recording what is true now he has re- lOO corded what has always been true, and a slight discrepancy in dates or names is a matter of small consequence. In addition to such reflections as these, he has the example of a long line of popes and prelates, of bishops and saints, whom he has been taught, from his infancy, to hold in high reverence. If it be ob- jected that this is a very low standard of moral integrity, I reply, it is just as high as the "holy mother church teaches." The last mention of the mother of Jesus in the scriptures, is found in Acts i, 14, where she is mentioned as assembled with the Apostles, and women before the day of Pentecost. Nor is there to be found, either here or in any other scriptural allusion to her, the least evidence of any intrinsic holiness dwelling in her in any sense different from that which is found in every true child of God. From this time forward we have no record of her life, nor have we any reliable information with regard to her death. All we have to bear upon these things, which Divine Wisdom has chosen to conceal from our knowledge, is to be found in vague and misty traditions, bearing the marks of the supersti- tious age in which they were originated. On Aug. 13, two days before the festival, the "Weekly Cath- olic" published an editorial under the caption "The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary," a marked copy of which came to me, indicating that it contained some "much needed informa- tion" for which I now return my thanks, for it enables me to pre- sent this subject with a freshness which would have been im- possible. No one can now say I am "fighting a man of straw," or a "myth of the dark ages," for he has proved it to be a present reality. The article is too long to present here in full, but it con- tains no attempt whatever to produce any scriptural authority. He gives history thus : "The weight of authorities locates the place of her death at Jerusalem, and all these authorities agree IOI that her patience was tested by a separation from her Divine Son to a very advanced age. The assumption of the Blessed Virgin into heaven, body as well as soul, is but due to the honor and justice of God, for the body from which the second person of the Godhead took flesh should never know corruption. The con- stant doctrine and tradition of the Church in all ages render this certain and authortative. It has been taught and has been the belief of Christians and held in the Latin and Eastern Church. From St. Theodosius we learn that the feast was kept at Jeru- salem with the utmost solemnity in the fifth century, and the cel- ebration of the feast is found in ancient sacramentaries before the time of Pope Sergius in the seventh century, besides being found in the liturgies of the Visigoths and Franks before the days of Charlemagne. It was called 'the translation' by the Greeks, 'the assumption' by the Latins." In the light of what I have just said above, this is "too thin" to need very much comment. It is noticeable that the earliest date is the fifth century ; and more particularly that "the con- stant doctrine and tradition of the Church in all ages render this certain and authoritative."(!) His allusion to the "honor and justice of God," is remarkable for its presumption in dictating to God what he ought to have done. He next draws upon his not- very-faithful imagination, and fills about a fourth of a column in an attempt to draw a picture of her reception into heaven, in which he talks of God the Father receiving His daughter ; the third person, of the Godhead, his Spouse, and the Second person of the Godhead his mother. After calling upon his readers to "imagine" these wonderful scenes, he says : "To attempt to measure the mysteries of the infinite God by our finite reason, is of course pure presumption, and the glory with which Christ received his mother must be equally beyond our understanding 102 while we are in this lower state. The best enquiry we mortals can make into such an ineffible scene of coronation and glory, is a silent wonder of admiration and praise, for the mystery of the Incarnation, and through it the raising of a child of Adam to the incomprehensible dignity of the Mother of God. * * * The earth was blessed and humanity raised by the creation of the Im- maculate Mother of the Word made flesh." Now the object of all this imaginary picture is very plain. In it we see her figur- ing as a very conspicuous member of the Divine Family. She is at the same time daughter, wife and mother, and who would dare rob her of Divine homage. And that this is the real ob- ject is clearly proved by the closing paragraph of this wonderful editorial production. After going through a lengthy argument to prove that the faithful ought to address prayers to her, he gives approvingly a few very striking quotations : "Well does St. Francis de Sales say, 'from my heart I proclaim this loving and true thought. The Angels and Saints are only compared to stars, and the first of those to the fairest of these. But she is fair as the moon, as easily to be discerned from the other Saints as the sun from the stars.' St. Bernard exclaimed in his Me?norare, and common sense will teach that it must be true, 'never was it known that anyone who fled to thy protection, implored thy help and sought thy intercession, was left unaided.' For as that Saint says : 'She shows to her Son in your favor the breasts that gave him suck, and the Son presents to the Father his wounds and open side.' " This dreadful apology for idolatry is certainly fittingly closed with this revolting climax so striking for vulgarity and coarse conception. To what deeper grossness could any thought of the Divine character descend. But one or two other points deserve a passing notice. He IO has already asserted as quoted above that "The earth was blessed and humanity raised by the creation of the Immaculate Mother of the Word made flesh," and to emphasize this idea he intro- duces this mock lamentation : "But in the midst of this joy and hope to man, comes pain. Must it not be on this feast day a keen morsel of satanic gratification to the devil, whose power she so completely crushed by her consent to the mystery of the In- carnation, — for as a human being endowed with free will, her consent was necessary — to see our deplorably blind and sepa- rated brethren of the sects, and still calling themselves Chris- tians, attempting to rob her of the prerogatives of her merit?" Now no one will for a moment believe that there were any tears of sympathy and pity for the "sects" shed over this sen- tence. It was evidently written for the sake of saying that the "merit" of human redemption is found in "her consent" to the mystery of the Incarnation. This is a favorite thought with the editor. The next issue August 20th contained a bombastic dissertation on "The Patience of the Blessed Virgin Mary," in which he asserts that the Son was a "man of sorrows" and she was the "sea of affliction." Thus he magnifies the sufferings of Mary, and minifies those of Christ. But of course he cannot close his article on the Assumption without quoting from the Apostolic Fathers : "One of the first Fathers of the Church, St. Irenaeus, who was taught by St. Poli- carp, an immediate disciple of the Apostles, tells us that 'Mary is made the advocate of Eve' for all mankind." On the authority of the writings attributed to the Church Fathers Dr. Arnold says : "When we leave the writings of the Apostles, we pass at once into chaos. We come to works of disputed genuineness, with a corrupted text, full of interpolations. * * * * We stop at the last Epistle of Paul to Timothy. * * * * Fur- io4 ther the mist hangs thick, and few and distorted are the objects which we can discern in the midst of it." The reader will notice that O'Flanagan interpolates the words "for all mankind," into his quotation from Irenaeus. Now I af- firm that this gives the passage a meaning entirely foreign to that intended by its author. Let us look at this isolated clause re- stored to its connection. "As Eve, by the discourse of a fallen angel, was seduced to apostatize from God ; disobeying his word ; so Mary, by the discourse of a good angel, was evangelized, that she should bear God in her womb, obedient to his word. And as the former was seduced to disobey God ; so the latter was persuaded to obey God ; in order that the Virgin Mary might thence become the advocate of the Virgin Eve. Thus, as the human race was doom- ed to death through a virgin ; so the human race might be de- livered also through a virgin ; the balance being equally held, between the disobedience of one virgin, and the obedience of another." Now it is plain that the writer, in Iren. adv. Haer. lib. v. c. 16, — whether Irenaeus or not — is running a fanciful parallel between Eve and Mary, and as Eve's rebellion consisted in one act of disobedience, so Mary's advocacy for her— whatever that may mean — consisted of the one act of obedience. Now the reader may judge whether Irenaeus taught that the Virgin Mary was the perpetual advocate of the whole human race, and ought to be supplicated as such. Irenaeus never thought of such a thing as Christians praying to Mary. I think this brief history of the rise of the doctrine of "As- sumption," showing that it originated after the Church had been so corrupted as to make it possible for Divine worship to be of- fered to Mary, together with the plain facts as to the nature and 105 design of that doctrine, will be sufficient to satisfy any unpreju- diced reader that I am justified in calling it a fiction, invented to attempt to justify the bestowment of Divine worship upon her. He will further see how it robs Christ of his glory, deifies a human being, and degrades the Divine character. Such a doc- trine is certainly befitting no one, save an idolator. CHAPTER XV. WORSHIP. As there is a radical difference between Catholics and Prot- estants, not only with regard to the meaning of the word worship, but with regard also to the nature of religious worship itself, it seems necessary at this point to investigate the nature of that difference in views. So wide is this difference, that, in the views of Protestants, much of the worship found in the Catholic Church is idolatrous, while Catholics repel such a charge with great ve- hemence. Now it is plain to any reasonable man, that under these circumstances, crimination and recrimination can only serve to make the breach still wider. The more reasonable course to pursue is to go back to first principles, and examine the foundations on which these different views rest. It is just here that the " Weekly Catholic' failed in its editorial on this sub- io6 ject, which appears in the second chapter. As the editor has contented himself with spiteful personalities and boastful as- sumptions, and has failed to analyze and make plain these differ- ent views, he has only succeeded in making confusion more con- fused. I shall not therefore answer him by following him, seri- atim, in an itemized rejoinder, but will give such analysis as will set the matter in a clear light, and make plain the difference be- tween us. The fact to which he refers, that the word worship is some- times used to denote the feeling or act of respect bestowed upon a man because of the dignity of his person, official or otherwise, has nothing whatever to do with this investigation. That is civil worship ; but we are now concerned only with religious worship. The Unitarian uses this same subterfuge with a great deal more plausibility, claiming that the worship bestowed on Jesus was simply civil worship, and therefore does not prove the Divinity of his character. The answer to this is, that the Scripture state- ments show plainly that such worship was a religious act and in- cluded devotion and adoration, and hence recognized his Di- vinity, and so civil worship is excluded from the interpretation. By similar reasoning we readily see that civil worship is excluded from any investigation concerning Christian worship. In the light of the teachings of the Scriptures, and hence in the view of the Protestants, worship consists of such reverential feelings of the soul, and such spiritual acts of devotion as are fit- ted to honor and glorify God, in his true character as the Su- preme Being, in whom alone is found worthiness to receive such worship. It includes love, .faith, trust, thanksgiving, praise, as- cription of glory, reverence, adoration and supplication ; in fact, every conception and aspiration of the soul which recognizes and glorifies his true character as God in his supreme perfections. \oy Thus the devout child of God, "worships the Lord in the beauty of holiness." "For he seeketh such to worship Him as wor- ship Him in spirit and in truth." In its realization worship is spiritual, and may consist in the silent communion of the soul with God, or it may be expressed in words and acts of devotion. It may be the private service of one individual as in secret prayer and solitary meditation ; or it may be social as between friends, or in the family devotions in the do- mestic circle, or it may be public as in the general assembly of the church in the sanctuary, or other place, for the express pur- pose of uniting" together in the service of God. The exercises of social and public worship usually consist of reading the Script- ures, adoration and praise frequently expressed in song, prayer, thanksgiving, public discourse and other methods of honoring God and bringing the soul into sweet communion with him. The forms of speech used in worship, may be either impromptu, or they may be liturgical, in the former, the leader expresses the feelings and reverential emotions as they come spontaneously welling up in the soul ; in the latter established forms are read, generally partaking of the responsive character. A Liturgy, Book of Devotions, or Litany, is a work containing such forms. Roman Catholics use a Latin Liturgy. Some sects of Prot- estants use a liturgy in their own vernacular ; but most protes- tants worship impromptu, believing that this is more in harmony with the true spirit of pure Christianity, and that liturgical ser- vice tends to dead formalism. In all worship the idea of sacrifice is fundamental. This is true of paganism as well as of the worship of God. Under the Jewish dispensation the offering of sacrifices constituted the prin- cipal part of public worship. These were typical of the sacrifice to be made by the Messiah. Christian worship is based on the io8 fact of a complete sacrifice made by Christ when "he offered himself once for ally Hence, in this dispensation, we "worship God in spirit and in truth" when we approach him in the name of Christ and on the basis of the sacrifice which he made in our behalf. In this work we have no need of any priest save Jesus who is our High Priest. In fact we are all "priests unto God," "a royal priesthood," each offering for himself unto God the sac- rifices of thanksgiving and praise and good works. But in regard to this matter of sacrifice Catholics differ essen- tially from us. They hold that the priest in the mass "makes a true, proper and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead." They further teach that worship, like all other good works con- stitutes a basis of intrinsic merit and a ground of personal worth- iness, by which we render satisfaction for our sins. All this theory of sacrifice and merit Protestants most emphatically deny and positively reject as being both unscriptural and totally an- tagonistic to the genius of Christianity. The highest religious exercise in which man is capable of engaging, the noblest duty he can perform, is the work of worshiping God. In this he ap- proaches nearest to the sphere of the bright angels around the throne of God in heaven, and with this supreme act of piety God is well pleased. On the other hand, to bestow upon any crea- ture the honor that is due to God alone, constitutes the sin of idolatry, a sin the most heinous in its character, and upon which God looks with the most intense righteous indignation. Yet it is a sin toward which unsanctified human nature seems to have a very strong bias, and into which it seems peculiarly eager to run. Ever since the entrance of sin into this world men have ''Ex- changed the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen." (Rom. i, 25.) Thus idolatry, the gravest sin, stands over against the worship of God, the highest piety. 109 Now the observance of external rites, and the performance of actual ceremonies of worship before some idol or other creature, is not absolutely essential to the existence of the sin of idolatry It may and does exist without these. Any state of heart or course of life, that puts some creature in the place God alone has the right to occupy, or that claims or expects, or seeks from a creature that which God alone can bestow, is idolatry. God re- quires for Himself the supreme place in our affections, hence if we bestow this place upon our earthly property, we become guilty of the sin of "covetousness, which is idolatry." Again we desire perfect happiness. This God alone can give. If then man expects or seeks it from any creature, he puts that creature in the place of God and seeks from it that which God alone can give, and thus he robs God of his glory, and worships "the creature rather than the Creator," and this again is idolatry. Under this principle, it is evident that any one who trusts for salvation in the Church, or its ministers, or its ordinances or sacraments, will not only fail to receive what God alone can give, but becomes in this very act guilty of idolatry. It yet remains for me to present the peculiar views of the Catholic church on the nature of Christian worship. They teach that, while God alone is entitled to supreme worship, and to be- stow this on any of his creatures is idolatry, yet Christianity rec- ognizes and enjoins an inferior worship which is due, as a sacred reverence, to the holy angels, to the saints, to relics, images, and many other things which they call holy. To distinguish between these two degrees of worship they use two Greek words. Su- preme worship or that which is due to God only they call latreia. To make this plainer to the English reader I may say the word idol joined to this word forms the word idolatry ; and Mary join- ed with it, forms Mariolatry. The inferior worship bestowed no upon saints, &c, they designate as dulia. This again is the word from which we derive our English word adulate. We have seen in a former chapter that "Mary is as easy to distinguish from the other saints as the sun from the stars." She therefore is entitled to more honor than they ; hence her worship they call hyperdulia. Now protestants hold that this division and sub-division of worship is wholly fanciful, and has no foundation either in scrip- ture or in fact ; but that it is a distinction without a difference. The reader can now see readily how the protestant may hon- estly say, "To worship the Cross, is idolatry," for he recognizes no worship short of "latreia ;" but the Catholic may just as hon- estly say, "To worship the Cross is not idolatry," for he means to worship with "dulia." This may have been the meaning of "Child of Mary," when she wrote with regard to the proposition "Mariolatry is idola- try," the sentence "I happen to be aware of the fact." If so the editor of the Weekly Catholic, did a work of supererogation, when he falsely interpolated the words "that he so considers it," and thereby demonstrated his dishonesty as an editor, and at the same time showed himself less acute in discerning the meaning of language than the "estimable lady," whom he labors so hard to help out of a "bad scrape." This whole theory and practice of inferior worship, which they sometimes call honor and sometimes reverence, is based on a doctrine of holiness, which Protestants reject as untrue. Cath- olics hold that ordination "confers grace" on the clergy, and that as a consequence they are possessed of a personal holiness which entitles them to the reverence of the laity. To them the title "Reverend" seems to have this meaning. Further this intrinsic holiness and grace carries with it the mysterious power to con- secrate or bless other persons and things. Not only churches, 1 1 1 bells, crosses, and other things pertaining to public worship may be thus consecrated, but also agnns deis } books, ornaments, trink- ets, jewelry, and various other things, may also be blessed and made Jioly. When thus sanctified these things cease to be com- mon, and become sacred, and must be honored and reverenced accordingly. It is very difficult for those who have never been taught this superstition, to realize the sacred awe that fills the mind of a devout Catholic at the presence of any of these holy things. In like manner it is equally difficult for such a one to appreciate the real nature of the worship of dulia, which they bestow upon these, and holy relics, saints and angels. In contradistinction to these views, the teachings of the scrip- ture lead me to conclude that absolute holiness is an attribute of God alone. As "there is none good save one, that is God" as Jesus taught, so there is none holy but God. Hence there is no other being that has any claim on our devotion, because of the possession of holiness. The holiness of angels and of sanctified men is only such as God has imparted to them ; and as they are not the authors of it, they are not entitled to worship because of its possession. Furthermore, from the same source we learn that, the nature of holiness is such that it necessarily pertains to a rational, moral being ; and by no power of sacred legerdemain, can it be com- municated to inanimate objects. To believe in such transfer- ence, is a vain superstition, and leads directly into base idolatry. I 12 CHAPTER XVI MARIOLATRY. Having given, in the previous chapter, a plain and faithful explanation of the difference between my own views and those of Roman Catholics as to the nature of worship, I wish to examine their worship of the Virgin Mary, in the light of these views, and determine whether it is legitimate Christian worship or whether it is idolatry. In applying to it the term hyperdulia, they ac- knowledge it to be the highest order of their so-called inferior worship. Accordingly they make it most prominent in their de- votions. "Many festivals are celebrated in the Roman Catholic Church in honor of Mary., Her conception is commemorated by the feast of the Immaculate Conception (Dec. 8.); her birth, by the Nativity (Sept. 8); the message of the angels by the Annun- ciation (March 25); her visit to Elizabeth by the Visitation (July 2); her visit to the temple by the Purification (Feb. 2); and her ascent to heaven by the Assumption (Aug. 15.) The Na- tivity and Assumption are celebrated by both Greek and Latin churches. In the eleventh century it became the custom in some places to honor her by special devotions on Saturdays, and later to devote the month of May to similar practices of piety." — American Encyclopedia, Art. Mary. 1 1 The prominence of her worship is again indicated by the as- sociation of the "Hail Mary" with the "Lords Prayer" in their books of devotion. But the relative importance of these two forms of devotion is better exhibited in the use of the rosary, said to have been invented in the tenth century. A writer, (who re- fers for authority to "The Rosary of the Blessed Virgin" in "The Garden of the Soul," page 296, a work published in New York, 1844, with the approbation of the Rt. Rev. Dr. Hughes") gives us the following description of the rosary and its use, viz: "This is a string of beads, consisting of one hundred and fifty, which make so many Aves or Hail Marys, every ten beads being divided by one something larger, which signifies a Pater, or Lords Prayer. Before repeating the rosary, it is necessary for the person to take it and cross himself, and then to repeat the creed, after which he repeats a prayer to the Virgin for every small bead, and a prayer to God for every large one. Thus it is seen that ten prayers are offered to the Virgin, for every one offered to God ; and such continues to be the custom, as we learn from 'the Garden of the Soul,' and other popish books of devotion, down to the present time. In the chaplets, more commonly used, there are only fifty Ave Marias, and five Pater NostersT Thus in their "Daily Ex- ercises," as well as in their more public devotions, the worship of Mary has so prominent a position, that one is unavoidably lead to ask the question, Do they put her in the place of God ? Perhaps some reflections may help us to answer this ques- tion. One place which God occupies is that of the object of our supreme worship. Do they give Him supreme worship, who be- stow ten acts of devotion upon Mary, to one bestowed upon God ? What would a wife think of her husband, who bestowed ten to- kens of devotion and affection upon a domestic, while he gave the wife of his bosom only one such testimonial ? Would her 114 jealousy be quenched by an empty profession of ''supreme" af- fection, which found no response in his daily deportment, which continues the same as before? So God is a "jealous God," and will not suffer his honor given to another. Another consideration that will help us to answer this ques- tion, is the fact that love is a prominent element in devotion so that it is but a slight variation in the proposition to say that God must occupy the supreme position in the affections of his chil- dren. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul, aud with all thy mind." (Matt, xxn, 37.) Now the charge which God brought against his ancient people, by the word of the prophet, which Jesus also repeated, was : "This peo- ple draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoreth me with their lips ; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." (Matt. XV, 8, p.) There is therefore no true worship of God without the affections of the heart are placed individually upon Him. Now I ask, does it indicate such an affection for God to see a person boastful of his devotion to the worship of Mary, and more eager to be known as a "Child of Mary" than as a child of God. We find another indication that she is put in the place of God, in the titles which they apply to her. The favorite name used is "The Blessed Virgin." We have seen in a former chap- ter that the Catholic idea of Messed is that it denotes intrinsic, personal, uncommunicated holiness. Therefore it conveys to them the idea of a divine attribute. The title next chosen is used to the same effect; for if she is the "Mother of God," she must be possessed of a divine nature. Their argument for the immaculate conception leads to this con- clusion. They say Jesus was sinless, therefore His mother was i'5 sinless. With equal propriety they may say, Jesus was divine, therefore His mother was divine. No doubt this is why they persist in saying Mother of God. "Queen of heaven" is a title frequently used, which seems to have been borrowed from pagan Rome, as applied to their Goddess Cybele. "There is indeed a strong resemblance, in many points between the pagan worship of Cybele, and the Pop- ish worship of the Virgin," says Dowling. Now as the queen is of equal dignity and rank with the king, what does "Queen of Heaven," as applied to Mary mean, except to signify that she is of equal rank and dignity with Him who is "King of kings." Cybele, "the queen of heaven" was also called "Mother of the gods," as being the mother of Jupiter. I might go through the whole catalogue of titles, with simi- lar results, but these must suffice. Now I ask, in all candor, does not the use of these and similar appellations, in itself ascribe to her Divine honors ? In the last chapter we have shown that this act of ascribing Divine honors to a creature is idolatry ; and also that to invoke, from any creature, such blessings as God alone can give, consti- tutes the same crime. To prove that Catholics do both these things — ascribe to her Divine honors and ask from her Divine blessings — we need only turn to the litany used in her worship. Here are four or five prayers quoted by Faber and Burnet, from the liturgy of the church of Salisbury: I, "Holy mother of God, who hast worthily merited to con- ceive him whom the whole world could not comprehend ; by thy pious intervention wash away our sins, that so being redeemed by thee, we may be able to ascend to the seat of everlasting glory, where thou abides with thy Son forever." 1 16 After the Divine honor contained in this prayer, she is cred- ited with redemption and asked to wash away sins, and to enable her devotees to ascend to heaven. 2. Comfort a sinner ; and give not thy honor to the alien or the cruel I pray thee, O queen of heaven. Have me excused with Christ thy Son, whose anger I fear and whose fury I vehe- mently dread ; for against thee only have I sinned. O Virgin Mary, full of celestial grace, be not estranged from me. Be the keeper of my heart ; sign me with the fear of God ; confer upon me soundness of life ; give me honesty of manners ; and grant me at once to avoid sins and to love that which is just. O Virgin sweetness, there neither was nor is thy fellow." The idolatry here is so plain, and also in the two following, that I need spend no time in pointing it out. 3. "O singularly special Virgin, mild among all, having de- livered us from our sins, make us mild and chaste. Grant to us a pure life; prepare for us a safe journey; that seeing Jesus, we may always rejoice together." 4. "Holy Mary, succor the miserable, assist the pusillani- mous, cherish the mourners, pray for the people, interpose on be- half of the clergy, intercede for the devout female sex." I will add yet one more from the same source, which will show how Mariolatry blends into the worship of angels. 5. Let our voice first celebrate Mary, through whom the re- wards of life are given to us. O Queen, thou who art a mother and yet a chaste virgin, pardon our sins through thy Son. May the holy assembly of the angels, and the illustrious troop of the archangels, now blot out our sins by granting to us the high glory of heaven." In further proof of the fact that they attribute divine honors and divine acts to her I may refer to the Breviary as quoted by "7 "Father" Chiniquy in his little work on "Transubstahtiatiori and Mariolatry" pg. 29: "Rejoice, Virgin Mary, for thou alone hast destroyed all the heresies in the whole world." Of course every Catholic is bound to admit the authority of the Breviary. If he is a true Catholic he must believe in it, whether he believes in the Bible or not. Furthermore, if he is a clergyman and is officiating as such, whether as priest or bishop, he must use these forms, and repeat these sentiments in his most solemn devotions. He then either believes it, or he is guilty of base hypocrisy and solemn mockery. If the words are taken literally, they are untrue ; for it is evident that all the heresy in the world has not been destroyed. And if we give the word heresy the meaning that Catholics attach to it, i. e. Protestantism — it is rapidly increasing, and fast driving Romanism to the wall. But if the meaning is that all the heresy in the world, that has been destroyed, has been destroyed by her power, then the proposi- tion is still untrue, and declares a most glaring falsehood. Mary never destroyed a heresy in the world, but on the other hand her worship is one of the most abominable heresies that was ever in- troduced into the world. It is a heresy that robs God of his honor, strips Christ of the glory of human redemption and drags down to eternal damnation the soul that bows in worship to her. These are strong words, and perhaps some may feel that I am harsh in finding such dangerous doctrines in these words of the Breviary. Let such a one reflect a moment on the paraphrase given by the highest authority in the Church, quoted by the same author, p. 30. Pope Gregory xvi, speaking " ex cathedra" Sept. 18, 1 832, says : "But, in order that we may receive all these blessings, let us raise our eyes and our hands to the most holy Virgin Mary, who alone has destroyed all the heresies; who is the surest foundation of our hope; nay, who is ALL the founda- u8 tion of our hope." The latter part : "nostra que maxima fiducia, imo, tola ratio est spei nostras, " might be more literally trans- lated thus : "and is our greatest confidence, nay, the only founda- tion of our hopes." According to this infallible declaration of the Pope, though we may have faith in Christ, our "greatest confidence" is Mary; though we may believe Jesus died for us, yet Mary "is the only foundation of our hopes." Now if worshiping her under a character thus highly ex- alted, is not bestowing upon her divine worship, — "Supreme worship," latreia — then, I submit, that it is impossible to do so. Then I come back to my original proposition that "Mariolatry is Idolatry," for I have proved that the worship they give her is latreia. Now the fact that not only the editor of the Weekly Catholic, but also all their writers deny their guilt under this indictment, will make no difference in the judgment of an impartial and dis- cerning public. Many a criminal has been executed while pro- testing his innocence ; and the public, whenever the testimony proved guilt beyond a doubt, have said, "Amen." Bishop Hay — "The Right Rev. Dr. George Hay," — in a work entitled "The Sincere Christian Instructed in the Faith of Christ, from the Written Word," — a work approved by a long list of Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops and Catholic Doctors and Priests, — says on page 448 : "To accuse the Church of Christ of idolatry on account of the respect and veneration she pays to the saints and angels of God, is an error which can arrise only from ignorance, misconception, or malice." In reply to this statement, so characteristic of Catholic writers, and of speakers when in presence of protestants, I have only to say that the above "ignorance and misconception" is based on the words and 1 1 9 expositions of their own authorities ; and as to "malice," the reader may judge as to which side of this controversy bears its footprints. I have certainly endeavored to deal fairly in this matter, "with charity for all and malice toward none." CHAPTER XVII HAGIOLATRY. This word is derived from the Greek hagios, holy, and latreia, worship, and signifies, specifically, the worship of the saints ; but it may also be applied to the worship of other things holy. The list of things, which Catholics regard as holy, and hence worthy of "honor" and "reverence," is too long to be put into the heading of a chapter, and hence I have chosen this word, to be understood in this broad sense. Of course they will say that hagiolatry is a misnomer ; for they only bestow the worship of dulia on these things. It will also be observed that Mariolatry is really included under this head. The worship of Mary is per- haps the first form of saint worship that was introduced into the corrupted church. A fuller extract from Epiphanius, (earlier half of fourth century,) will not only throw light upon this point, 120 but will also help us to see how it lead into the worship of the dead ; — the "hero-worship" of pagan Rome Christianized. This early writer says : — "Some persons are mad enough to honor the Virgin Mary as a sort of goddess. Certain women have trans- planted this vanity from Thrace into Arabia. For they sacrifice a breadcake in honor of the Virgin ; and in her name, they blas- phemously celebrate sacred mysteries. But the whole matter is a tissue of impiety, abhorrent from the teachings of the Holy Spirit ; so that we may well call it a diabolical business, and a manifest doctrine of the spirit of impurity. In them is fulfilled this prophecy of St. Paul : "Certain persons shall apostatize from the faith, attending to fables and doctrines concerning demon- gods. For the purport of the apostle's declaration is this: They shall pay Divine worship to the dead, even as men form- erly paid such worship in Israel. In like manner also the glory due unto God has been changed into error by those who see not the truth. For the natives of Neapolis still sacrifice to a girl, whom I take to have been the daughter of Jephthah ; and the Egyptians honored Termutis, Pharoah's daughter, as a goddess ; and many such things as these have happened in the world to the seduction of those who are seduced. But we Christians must not indecorously honor the saints ; rather ought we to honor Him who is their sovereign Lord. Let, then, the error of seducers cease. The Virgin Mary is no goddess. To the peril, therefore, of his own soul, let no one make oblations in her name." Epiph. adv. Haer. lib. in, haer. 78 ; as quoted by Faber — "Difficulties of Romanism" — who comments as follows: "From the passage be- fore us it is indisputable that, by the early church, the apostle's demonia were understood to mean, not devils, but demon-gods ; that is to say, his demonia were thought to be the souls of canon- ized mortals. Equally indisputable is it, that the prophecy was 121 explained, as announcing a lamentable apostasy in the Christian Church to the worship of dead men, who during their lives had been revered on account of their virtues or services. "The same apostasy to the worship of dead men is clearly foretold also by St. John, who adds some additional particulars, by which the predicted apostates might be better distinguished whenever they should be developed, 'And the rest of the men, which were not killed by these plagues, yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship demon-gods and idols of gold and silver and brass and stone and wood, which can neither see, nor hear, nor walk.' Rev. ix, 20. "The predicted worshipers of dead men, were also, it seems, to be worshipers of images; which they would fabricate to them- selves out of various materials." — Diff. of Rom., pages 190, 191. Rome has still added to these the worship of angels, sacred relics, holy water, crism, crosses, agmis dels, pictures, images, and many other things. My limits will not permit me to take up each of these abominations, and give its history and derivation from heathen worship and its degrading effects, together with its di- rect antagonism to the plain teachings of the Scriptures. As when one attempts to destroy vinegar by adding to it sweetened water he only increases its quantity without changing its nature, the sweet water being converted into vinegar; so the efforts of Rome to Christianize paganism, have only augmented its power, as the effect has only been to paganize Christianity. While I cannot enter into the details of these various forms of hagiolatry it seems desirable that I give a few facts with regard to one or two, which may be taken as a sample of the whole. With regard to the worship of saints and relics, the Creed of Pope Pius IV, declares "Likewise that the saints reigning to- gether with Christ, are to be honored and invocated, and that 122 they offer prayers to God for us, and that their relics are to be had in veneration." The character of this worship of "honor" and "veneration" wili be clearly seen from the following extract from an epistle written by Pope (?) Gregory the Great, about the end of the fifth century, to the Empress Constantina, who was building a church at Constantinople in honor of St. Paul, and had requested from Gregory some relic of that saint to be enshrined in her church. The reader may make his own comments on this authoritative document. He says : "Great sadness hath possessed me, be- cause you have enjoined upon me those things which I neither can or dare do ; for the bodies of the holy apostles, Peter and Paul, are so resplendent with miracles and terrific prodigies in their own churches, that no one can approach them without great awe, even for the purpose of adoring them. When my predecessor, of happy memory, wished to change some silver ornament which was placed over the most holy body of St. Pe- ter, though at the distance of almost fifteen feet, a warning of no small terror appeared to him. Even I myself wished to make some alteration near the most holy body of St. Paul, and it was necessary to dig rather deeply near his tomb. The Superior of the place found some bones which were not at all connected with that tomb ; and, having presumed to disturb and remove them to some other place, he was visited by certain fearful apparitions, and died suddenly. My predecessor, of holy memory, also un- dertook to make some repairs near the tomb of St. Lawrence ; as they were digging, without knowing precisely where the ven- erable body was placed, they happened to open his sepulchre. The monks and guardians who were at the work, only because they had seen the body of that martyr, though did not presume so much as to touch it, all died within ten days ; to the end that 123 no man might remain in life who had beheld the body of that just man. 4, Be it then known to you, that it is the custom of the Rom- ans, when they give any relics, not to venture to touch any por- tion of the body ; only they put into a box a piece of linen (called brandeum)) which is placed near the holy bodies ; then it is withdrawn, and shut up with due veneration in the church which is to be dedicated, and as many prodigies are then wrought by it as if the bodies themselves had been carried hither, whence it happened in the time of St. Leo (as we learn from our ances- tors), when some Greeks doubted the virtue of such relics, that Pope called for a pair of scissors, and cut the linen, and blood flowed from the incision. And not at Rome only, but throughout the whole of the West, it is held sacrilegious to touch the bodies of the saints, nor does such temerity ever remain unpunished. For which reason we are much astonished at the custom of the Greeks to take away the bones of the saints, and we scarcely gave credit to it. But what shall I say respecting the bones of the holy Apostles, when it is a known fact, that at the time of their martyrdom, a number of the faithful came from the East to claim them ? But when they had carried them out of the city, to the second milestone, to a place called the Catacombs, the whole multitude were unable to move them farther, such a tempest of thunder and lightning terrified and dispersed them. The napkin, too, which you wished to be sent at the same time, is with the body and cannot be touched more than the body can be ap- proached. "But that your religious desire may not be wholly frustrated, I will hasten to send to you some part of those chains which St. Paul wore on his neck and hands, if indeed I shall succeed in getting any filings from them. For since many continually so- 124 licit as a blessing that they may carry off from those chains some small portion of their filings, a Priest stands by with a file ; and it sometimes happens that some portions fall off from the chains instantly, and without delay ; while, at other times, the file is long drawn over the chains, and yet nothing is at last scraped off from them." Epist. Greg. mag.Lib. iv, Epist. 30. I will also briefly notice the worship of images. Geiseler says: "In the fourth century the worship of images was still abomi- nated as a heathen practice." Epiphnius, as quoted, gives proof of this near the close of that century. In A. D. 754 a council was convened at Hiera, opposite to Constantinople, consisting of 338 bishops, which passed the following decree : "The holy and ecumenical council, which it hath pleased our most orthodox emperors, Constantine and Leo, to assemble in the church of St. Mary ad Blachernas in the imperial city, ad- hering to the word of God, to the definitions of the six preced- ing councils, to the doctrine of the approved fathers, and the church in the earliest times, pronounce and declare, in the name of the Trinity, and with one heart and mind, that no images are to be worshiped ; that to worship them or any other creature, is robbing God of the honor that is due to him alone, and relapsing into idolatry. Whoever, therefore, shall henceforth presume to worship images, to set them up in the churches, or in private homes, or to conceal them ; if a bishop, priest or deacon, shall be degraded, and if monk or layman, excommunicated and punished as guilty of a breach of God's express command, and of the im- perial laws, that is, of the very severe laws issued by the Chris- tian emperors against the worshipers of idols." Through the influence of the wicked Irene, the murderer of her own son, for the express purpose of establishing image wor- ship a council was convened at Nice in the year 787. This is 125 usually called the second Council of Nice. Catholics reckon it the seventh general council, while the Greeks hold that of 754 as such. Here is the declaration of this council : "The venerable im- ages, both of the dispensation of our Lord Jesus Christ as he became man for our salvation, and of our unpoluted lady the holy Mother of God, and of the god-like angels, and of the holy apostles and prophets and martyrs, and all the saints, I salute and embrace and adore, according to their just degrees of honor, rejecting and anathematizing from my whole soul and intellect, that synod, which was congregated through madness and folly, and which has been denominated the Seventh Council : though, by persons who think rightly, it is lawfully and canonically styl- ed a false synod, as being alienated from all truth and piety, and as having rashly and boldly and atheistically barked against the heaven-delivered ecclesiastical legislation, and as having insulted the holy and venerable images, and as having commanded them to be removed from the holy churches of God — Anathema to the calumniators of Christians! Anathema to the breakers of images ! Anathema to those who call the holy images idols ! Anathema to those who aid and abet the dishonorers of the holy images !" By this and much more of the same sort the worship of im- ages was at length legalized, and to this law the authorities of the Roman church have ever adhered, though there has been much bitter controversy over the matter. There has been also much written about absolute and relative worship. This is again a distinction without a difference. God made no such distinction in the first commandment, which for- bids the adoration of images with any kind of worship whatever. James Naclantus, bishop of Clugium gave an exposition of 126 the doctrine of the Council of Nice, published in the seventh century, which contained this passage as quoted by Faber : "We must not only confess, that the faithful in the church worship before an image ; as some over-sqeamous souls might peradventure express themselves ; but we must furthermore con- fess, without the slightest scruple of conscience, that they adore the very image itself ; for, in sooth, they venerate it with the iden- tical worship wherewith they venerate its prototype. Hence, if they adore the prototype with that divine worship which is rendered to God alone, and which technically bears the name of Lalria, they adore also the image with the same Latria or divine worship ; and if they adore the prototype with Dulia or Hyperdulia, they are bound also to adore the image with the self-same species of in- ferior worship." By this Catholic authority then, we see that when an image of Christ is adored it is with divine worship, for such is the wor- ship due him. Here then, they are guilty of positive idolatry. Also they bestow this same worship upon the consecrated host, in the Mass, declaring that the wafer is then really Jesus Christ. But we have seen that Transubstantiation is false; hence here again is positive idolatry. Again, we have seen the distinctions of worship, to be fanciful, unreal, and unfounded; hence the whole scheme of hagiolatry is positive idolatry. Such is a partial outline of the character of an institution that claims recognition among us under the name of Christianity; a power which proposes, by strategy, and intrigue, and political affiliation, to destroy from our midst every other form of religion, all of which they call heresies, without distinction ; a power also that contemplates the overthrow of the free institutions of our Nation, having already made a direct assault upon our free school system, against which they are circulating most dangerous liter- ature in our midst. Let American patriots beware. 127 APPENDIX. For convenient reference I subjoin the closing paragraph of "The Sincere Christian," by Bishop Hay, together with Appen- dix A, B and C, found in the same book : "To read bad books is forbidden by the law of nature and by the law of God, as well as by the positive law of the church, pre- cisely on account of the danger of being seduced by them to evil. Now, suppose a person to be thoroughly learned, and in no probable danger of being seduced by them, yet he cannot read them with a clear conscience, unless he have received permission from his spiritual superior to do so, even though with the design of refuting them. If he read them without such leave, notwith- standing all his learning, he exposes himself to the danger of being injured by them in punishment of his disobedience to what the laws of God require of him. But if he have such permission, and read with the intention of refuting them, he may then do it lawfully, and has every reason to hope that God will preserve him from danger. In like manner, if a learned person, by per- mission of his lawful superiors, should go to the meetings of those of a false relegion to learn their doctrine, that he may be better able to refute it, this will take away the sin as to this one point of exposing himself to the danger; but then even this will not excuse the other evils of his doing so — namely, an apparent communication with a false religion, a seeming approbation of it, and a cause of offense to the faithful, who, not knowing either of the permission he has received or the intention with which he goes, cannot fail to be scandalized by it. So that, except in 128 such circumstances where all these evils can be prevented, such permission could not be granted ; and though granted, would not, I fear, give him full security before the tribunal of God ;' especially when it is considered that there seldom or never can be a necessity for granting such permission, since the tenets and doctrines of all false religions can easily be known from their books, or from the accounts of others, without doing a thing so detrimental to the honor of the true religion, and so obnoxious in the eyes of all pious members of the Church of Christ." APPENDIX A. By the Bull Ineffabilis Deus, dated 8th December, 1854, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was solemnly defined : 'It is a dogma of faith that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of orig- inal sin.' — Ed." APPENDIX B. In the constitution Pastor ^Eternus, dated 1 8th July, 1870, our Holy Father Pope Pius IX, with the approval of the Sacred Council of the Vatican, thus solemnly teaches and defines, as a dogma divinely revealed, the infallibility of the Roman pontiffs : 'We teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed, that the Roman pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra — that is, when in the discharge of the orifice of pastor and doctor of all Christians, 129 by virtue of his apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regard- ing faith or morals to be held by the universal church — by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, enjoys that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that his church be provided for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and that, therefore, such definitions of the Roman pon- tiffs are irreformable of themselves, and not from the- consent of the church. 'But if any one — which may God avert — presume to contra- dict this our definition, let him be anathema.' — Ed." APPENDIX C In consequence of an application made to the congregation de Propaganda Fide, by the Right Rev. the Vicars Apostolic of Scotland, the Holy Father, Pope Gregory xvi, by a rescript dated the 28th day of June, 1831, granted to the Catholics of Scotland a Dispensation from Abstinence on all Saturdays throughout the year that are not fasting days. — Ed." CHAPTER I. Introductory ; ' 3 CHAPTER II. Newspaper Controversy 8 CHAPTER III. Spirit of Romanism 31 CHAPTER IV. Rule of Faith 37 CHAPTER V. Rule of Faith — Continued 43 CHAPTER VI. Rule of Faith — Continued 48 CHAPTER VII. The Seven Sacraments 54 CHAPTER V I 1 I. Transubstantiation 59 CHAPTER IX. Creed of Pius IV * CHAPTER X. The Mass, Satisfaction, and Purgatory 71 CHAPTER XI. Auricular Confession . 78 CHAPTER XII. Holy Orders and Ecclesiastical Power 84 CHAPTER XIII. Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary 90 CHAPTER XIV. Assumption of the Virgin Mary 98 CHAPTER XV. Worship 105 CHAPTER XVI. Mariolatry U2 CHAPTER XVII. Hagiolatry H9 Appendix l-« ERRATA. Page 14, line 12, read surely for "suaely." Page 20, line 4, read It is not for "Is it not." Page 21, line 12, omit "it" after "charge that." Page 27, line 8, read sheol instead of "shoel." Page 40. Foot Note, read universalem instead of "univeralem. Page 40, " " read prsecurrit for "prescurrit." Page 46, 5th line from bottom, omit "and" before "princes." Page 61, 6th line from bottom, omit "s" from "condemns." Page 70, 3d line from bottom, read fiendish for "fiending." Page 85, 22d line from top, read wailing for "waiting." Page 87, 18th line from top, read deference for "difference." Page 91, last line, read pristine for "present." Page 101, 23d line, read very fruitful for "very faithful." Page 124. 9th line, read Fpiphanius for "Epiphnius." » \S I i7< 3 3 3* 3> 3 3 3 „^ 3 3 33 3> 3> 3>3> S>-'S3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3» 3 > ■> ■■ £>- C> 3> -2> 3 3 3 :> >->.?> j> 3 5> <■:> 33 j> > 3> 3> 3> j> > 3 > ,^-> 3>>3 3 . j> j> :>3 3 35 n>-3' 3 x> 3 2> J* >>' 3 2 > 3'3> 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 >> 3 3> >>£> -' r .:>>- >> 3 > 3 3 p > -> ■■> > > j> 3> 33> .3 .333 3» 5 >3 3> vr> 3> 3 3>33 333 ■ 3>->3 333 33 3>3 33 3 ? 3 > p ^ 3 3 >•■ 3 3 333 33 33 3 3 3 33 3 3 3 > 3 3 3 3> 3 3> 33323* :> z> 3 3 33 3 3* 3 :>. ? z>^ 3 3 3 srr > > 3 3 333 3 3 3_> r: 3 3333 3: "> > ::»■■>> 33* 3> 33 3 ?3 3_ 3 33 3 £> :■■ 3> 3 3 > 3 _Z> 3 3 3> 3' 3 3* >-3 > > > . 3 ^ xi> > 333, I > ~3 ^> » _> :> o ^^ J> 333 JO 3 >0 %>3 ■• ~> XO >3 > 3 ^oS> 3 3 > D V> 3D > > \3 3 3 3> .3 '.jX> 3C 3 3 3> ^>3> I> 3 . ' : *' 3 3 3> 3> 3>3> ^3 X>3> >3 333> 33 3 3> 3». •>> i> • ->3 >y> 33 3 i> 3 3v J > 3 3> ).3 ■ 3 , ~> • 3- : >3))3 33> '.» > > 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 : 3 3 3 ► >3 ^> > 33 ^ ^>3 Z ' 3 -> ^Z> » 3 \ >3 3 3 3>,^. ■ r> > > > 33 r> 3 » >-^> 3> > > 3 3 ^ ->3 3 -> 3J> : ^-3> ^ -3> 3J 3 3 3 33 3 3 _33> ~>>3 33 3 3 3 3, y^ >3> > r^ > >3 -» 3b , ^ ^3> 3 3 53 -^.^> 3 3 33 >^> > 3 3 ,>3 > 33 3 its, ^ 3 3 > >3> 3t> 3 ^> 3^>j> 3 ~33> 3 3 ~3 3J>' 33 _L> 3_. : ^3>'3> -:■- >: 33 3 3 3 1,3 3 > 3 3 '-3 D:3 3':3 3> -3 > 3 > 3> ■ ■->> «» 3 -■ 3 >-3; 3^3 >'' 3 3o 3 3^3 333 3 3 ' 333 J3> >I3 J>-'-J>^> _3> 3 3-3 Z>33> 3> ^> > -3 Z> :>3 >3> > 3> T> §} >3? ^.3 t>33 >v3> > 33 3 333 . 33 * >>3» ■3 3 3 y>iD» 3 3 J -3 _3 3 >3>^3> j> 3> ZJ>. 3 3 3 >3J» 33 3 ~ ^3 3_^ » >>33» . ^> 3^3-.' 5 ^ >tO > P33>> " 3. 3 3 \D >3 3 >])> 3 3 3 *-]>3)> 3> ^ ^3J>3 *. 3> . 3 3 3 » S>3 r>> 3 j>" - "> >i3 3 3 3>' 3 3 3 ► 3 3 3 i>33 3: 1,3 5). 3>33 3» 3.J> 3 33 333 3; 3>> ^.>->. ^>3*> 3* .5 3 3 -> ;3 3;);OJ))) > >3>3 3 i>' 3^ 3r) 3 3 -3 3." 3 :-> "3 ^ •3 3 3 - 3 3 3 >■ 3 3'. 3 ' 33 3 3 »3 33 ■ > 3 3 ^-3 > 5> > > '-3 - 1 3' l> 3 : "3 3 '. i 3 3 3.3 >3> > 3> > S3* 33>33* 3>3> >3 33^ •3»> 3 ^> -^r^ v> :»^ V^ "^ >'-">■ ._3T ^ 3>3 3 3 "-> 3 3> 3«3 ^ :> ^ B 3 3 ^ 3333 C 3 3 3/3 3 ;> > 3> 3 33 3 :>3 J> 3 >3 .3 ^-^ 3 ) >^ > 33 >3 3 3 ^ 3 > 3 3 >3 3> i\3. > -^ 3 3.3. ; 3 J> • » T2>" : > 3> 3 v 3 3 3 3> ■ > 3 33 3 3 3 3 -3 3> ->* ■> "3 3 3 3 -■>-.> 3 3 3.3 3*3 3 3 33 3 ; 3 , > ; ~' > ^ > 3>" 33 f*.vS 33> 3 J 3 3 > 3 3 i -^ 3*>- 33D k22& 3 3 3 ;0 3333 3>' »3)3' 33 ^">, j .\ ^ , A 3^> ^ >_ .3>-i>_ .> 2 >5">>»V 3iST 3 3> o° -^,^ 3^?3> . >,)3> 30 " 3i>; 33% ^3 3333)i) 3333 33^ ' ?^P--4^^> 3>33 "3333 3.3 ^ ?^3 ^^33V'^ - ,:> ^ > * - ) 33 ^>3 33) 333 3>3'J > 33 "^ .333 i S 3_j> 3 -.-a 33 33 33 3 3 ^ ^ 33> 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 :;g>|3.f ^ .-> 3 JT r^ ^3'T ^ 3 3 3> ^ ^3 _3> > > ~> 3^3 3 3aTs" -v-^ ^>_33r> 3 3 -^' J 3 3> > 33: > -^-32^ >3 3- 33> ^v,,3 ^ ^ 3> j - -' >3J> 333 ^ 3 s,33> 3 >3 - < - > 3 3 -33 3 ,3^ >-3> 3 33 ^ '-3 33>> 3 ><2>." 3 O 333 "^ Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide Treatment Date: Jan. 2006 PreservationTechnologie! A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 111 Thomson Park Drive Cranberry Township, PA 16Q66 > > T3 3 Xl> > ? > 3 3 > > ■:> X 5 > :> >^ > > ' 3 _:> 33 > • 3 >>3 3 > 3 > > 3 >> > o > >3> > :> > > > ;> r^ > >3 > . > 3 > 3 > ) > > :> > > ► > j> > > > 3 3 :> o > > > > r 333 > > > 3 53 > £> :> )> > > J> J> > > > >o -_> > 3 :> 3 > ~> o > ^ . j > > 3 >33 > > 3 33 3D 3 33 P .<> :> o > 3 > > > > 3 i> > 3 > > > 3 :> o * 3 j> ^ > > :> :> > > LZ> > 3 3 3 3 > -"> J> 3 3 > 3 3 J> > 3 > >> ^ > >^> ;> ) » > s > J^ > • a •> > . o » > > ^ > ) o Z > > J > > z> : > ~> ~>> > > > > > ^> ) > L> > J > > j> ; > > O > > > > D > 3 3^> > > ^3 >0)> > y > O )) 3 ► z>zrz> > z> .> o J> > ^r> ■■;> ^> :>C3 J> ^> 3 '.Z> 33a j> )3 3 3 ^3 S '•>£> > 3 ^^ _> i> > > 3 -3 •;>_> - >5>3> ^J> > > ^> >> ,^_ > 3 . ) ) 3 ">p 3 > y ^ 3 XX> 3 3 > 3 > > ->3 - > 3 > J> ^3 3 > r> i> > x zz » 3 3 > ) 3 3 > > i> j> > > 3 > > )3> ->• 3 , X 3 j> > i> 3 > D > > z> „ -^> ' > » :> > > 3 -.>3 ">-53 » 3 > >> > > ? » .3 >^3 > 3 3 3 3 3 ^ 3 ^3 3 3 3 Z> 3 :> 3 I > > :3 3 ) ^ > > 2> v^> "> ) 3 5>3>3 3 3. 3 3 »'3o3 >®L > ^ > £> i> 3> 3 y ?> - p "3 ^> ^ - >> >> ^> ^> y Z& » > \> > >> ^» -> i p> ) >> ^> ^ > J> ' ' > ^> -_> > J .^ > >*> 1Z> ► J> >^> 3 3>tD 3 )tP3 ^ > -^3> > . ■-> ^> > > 3 3 3 3 3 ^3 \ > -> 3 3 >^» > » )3 >333 3 > )j 3 y 3 ^3 > > ^> »3 ^ '3 ^^3 ■ >3 3J>"3 3 ^^ 3 3 -3> >;JT> P 3 3> >^ > 3_0> 3^-^ ^> > 3 >3 13 XX > - \3 ^» > 3 >3 _3 X Z> J S> 33i33 >„.~3 >> ,: 3 33 3 33 3 33 J 3 j>3 J> 33 Z> o ^ 3 3^3 >3 3 33 "3 3>3 3 3 3 33 > 3 » ,x> 3 >:3 3 ).i.3>.^ = >> -3 ) 3 > 3 "^> /3 > > - 3 33 -3-3 3 V>> ^3 3 3)3 33 3 33 .3-.^ J> .>3 3 X Z> »53i ^' :> 33 o -3 3 3P yp >■ > 533 3> : 3 '3 "3 3 -> > > §> 3 >3> 3 3 3 > > > ; 3 i>3 v^> ZZ>X[> > > > 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ' 3 > >>3 ^..^32> :>£> ^> > > > 3 3 > >3 >o 3 - > 3 >3 3 > >3 33 33 ^ ^> > j> :> 5 > > ^»->.^> > 3 > > 3 -> 33 J0>0 3^ >3 3 > o ^> _)o 3 3 ^ I> ■ >33 3 J) 3 o>3>3 3 "! > > 3 >> % > X >> Z> > 3 >>»»32> >33 3 >>3 3^0 > > > .^ -^ j> > > > > > > > '_3 > ; 3 ; ^> jjp > i>. i 3 )_>•-> 5 >) > >^ > j>J,^J ^> > ■ . > )^ > > > o > j.)>. Z> 3 3 3>^ >> 3> 3 ^ 3 ,3 i •> _> >3 ?. as>->^_> > 3 3> > '3 .> ^5 > > :^> •> 3> > 3 3 5 3 \> > ' » > > j> ; >3 3> : > » :> j> » > • 0->/>3> 3 O- 3>>'J ■■> 3 ;)3 ^"3 » )3,33^ > 3 >> 5 > > - ■> , v -> • i ) > s> ~> > > "> T5> > ^ > > ■ • > ' ^ 3 ? 3 ) ^3 P 3 3 3 > 3 3» 3 > >3 3 ►^ > 3 3 > 3 y 3'3 3 5J) 3 >J> ::> ^>:3> .>: 3 3 3 O >33 >3>) >3 \> 3 ^ >3 >33 ) 3 >3 3 3 3 \ > 33 33 3 3 3) > >V > > >> 3>> .)> 3 3> 3 3»^3> 3)33 ^3>>\> i \3> >33 >3 3 ' 3 3 3 > ? 3J>3)33 33 3 33 > 3 ^ > LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 017 318 645 9