■ r* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ++ • 
 
 
 , 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ; aV tp 7. ^pl^i^ .- .$ <^ o fy;^ 
 
 
 v 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ * 
 
 
 
 
 
 Q^ ^ 
 
 
 
 ^ -2c 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 8 * % \^ , 
 
 o cf 
 
 
 'r^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 W* 
 
 
 
 
 
 , - 
 
 
 \° q* 
 
 
 0> ^ 
 
 
 
 
 A N 
 
 O.V" 
 
 ^ ^ 
 
 % 
 
 OCT 
 
 1 J S 
 
 0^ 
 
 ^ ^ 
 
 N ^. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 < ' 
 
 
 o 
 .,-1 -/_, 
 
 N°°x. 
 
 
 3 '' / 
 
 
 
 
 
 *S> 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 '* .\V 
 
 
 ^ <> 
 
 
/ 
 

 £ 
 
 ANTI- POPERY; 
 
 OR POPERY 
 
 UNREASONABLE, UNSCRIPTURAL AND NOVE 
 
 BY JOHN ROGERS, 
 
 MEMBER OF THE SOCIETY OP FRIENDS, 
 AND COUNSELLOR AT LAW. 
 
 WITH A PREFACE, NOTES, AND INDEX, 
 BY REV. C. SPARRY, OF NEW-YORK. 
 
 A Minister of the Reformed Church. 
 
 " Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins,rT^\ 
 and that ye receive not of her plagues." — Rev. 18 : 4. ^0 
 
 Popery is a cunning compound of superficial truth and solid error • 
 
 FIRST AMERICAN FROM THE LONDON SECOND EDITION, 
 ENLARGED AND CORRECTED. 
 
 NEW- YORK : 
 
 PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY D. FANSHAW, 
 
 No. 150 Nassau-street. 
 
 1841. 
 

 / 
 
 c 
 
 .» 
 
 If c 
 
 ^** Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1841, by 
 
 Daniel Fanshaw, in the Clerk's Office of the District 
 ^6 Court of the Southern District of New- York. 
 
 J f 
 
 ■ . 
 
 v <w> 
 
 r^ 
 
 V* 
 
THE INDEX. 
 
 jlution; nature of, design of, to rivet chains of priestly tyranny on the people, 
 248, 249 ; papal authors' opinions of this, 250 ; refutations of this impious 
 tenet and practice, 252, 253. 
 :dote of a little girl, and absolution, 250. 
 ichrist, who? where? what? 63,84. 
 
 erypha, and the Vulgate declared by the Trent Council to be of Divine authority, 
 142; in what sense, 143 ; arguments against this, 148-150; all this a novel fic- 
 tion, 160 and 312. 
 with five legs, relics of, 305. 
 
 .n.micular Confession, 266 ; it originates five great evils, 268. 
 
 B 
 
 Baptismal regeneration, one of the delusive and mortal errors of popery, 294 ; by 
 . what men this is advocated, 295 ; refutation of it, 296. 
 
 Berkely, his absurdities matched by transubstantiation, 188. 
 
 Bible, according to popery, is " not a sufficient rule and guide ;" this deism rebuked, 
 159; the Bible a prohibited book by Rome, 161, 162. What the Holy Bible is 
 in the pope's kirk, 166; the Bible and popery cannot travel together, — parable 
 of the two pots of iron £td clay travelling, 167, 168. 
 
 Bible Societies denounced by the papal doctors, 166. 
 
 Blasphemy, a variety of specimens of papal, 307-311. 
 
 Bossuet and Edgar noticed as champions of their respective churches, 70, 71. "Note. 
 
 Brownlee, Dr. his character of thit volume, 19, 20. 
 
 Burnet, Bishop, his idea of the spirit of discussion, 39. 
 
 C 
 
 Cannibals. By the eating of the body and blood, literal, of Christ, in the mass wafer, 
 men are made cannibals, 194. 
 
 Catholic; this title not conceded to the papal sect, — the true name of it, 76. Rea-r ? 
 son of ihis, 77, 7tf. Romanite, papite, the true titles, reasons, 79. 
 
 Celibate of priests, two arguments for it, 275; object of it, pecuniary gain to the 
 pope, 274 ; five other imaginary arguments for it, 275 ; the pope cherishes celi- 
 bacy, and leaves priestly chastity to take care of itself, 279 ; it is the source 
 of boundless vileness and polluiion, 279. 
 
 Celibacy and Owenism, 52-55 ; celibacy and misery, 55-57. 
 
 Chastity of priests left by the pope to take Care of itself, 279 ; priestly practice con- 
 trasted with that of Luther, 281. 
 
 Chillingworth and Chalmers, matches for Bossuet and Pellarmine, 70. 
 
 Christ's body in the mass wafer, a body not born of woman, hence not his body, 191. 
 
 Christendom, divisions of, 71. 
 
 Collier's faith, the faith of papites, "Believe as the church believes," 172. 
 
 Confession, auricular, 266; it originates five grievous evils, 268; it displays the 
 tyranny, hypocrisy, and lewdness of priests, 270. 
 
 Confirmation, a papal sacrament, 282 ; its real object and design, 288. 
 
 Controversy, the spirit of, 39. 
 
 Critiques of foreign reviews in this volume, 21-34. 
 
 Crucifixes and crosses; worship of God by them unscriptural and impious, 230. 
 
 Cup denied to the laity by Roman priests, reasons of this, 218; arguments against 
 this atrocious sacrilege, 219; reason, Scripture, primitive practice, against 
 it, 219; the true reason and design of the priests in this tyranny, 219; Pope 
 Gelasius against their modern practice, 219. Note. 
 
4 INDEX, 
 
 3D 
 
 Deism, the tendency of papism to it; it destroys the logical foundation of the Holy 
 
 Scriptures, 198-201. 
 Devil's master-piece, popery so called by Cecil, 64, 
 Drelincourt, quotes the dying words of Cardinal Perron, 185. 
 Duration of popery, 84, 85. 
 
 Eucharist, see transubstantiation and mass. 
 
 Excommunication by priests ; what, exposition, refutation of this tremendous wea- 
 pon of ghostly despotism, 259, 260 •, it is presumption, pride, and blasphemy, 262. 
 
 Extreme unction, facetiously made a pope's sacrament, 286 ; base design of, 292, 
 
 F 
 
 Fictions, popery a collection of modern, in eighteen specimens, 312-315. 
 
 Fletcher's lectures on the Catholic religion, great value of, 214. Note. 
 
 Frauds, an engine of papal support, 67. 
 
 O 
 
 Grace, conferred through the sacraments, an essential and fatal error of popery, 29£ 
 
 Government civil, union of the church, or papal kirk with, produces persecution, 175. 
 
 Greek tongue ; six reasons why rational men should have preferred the Greek 
 to the Latin, in case of selecting an "unknown tongue" for the laity, 180- 
 182. Reasons which induced the papites to select the Latin, 183, 184. 
 H 
 
 Host, worship of the, what, 216 ; the grossest of modern idolatry, proof of this, 
 217. No papite can have the faith in the Host, — doctrine of intention, 217, 
 Note. Saying of pope Adrian VI. on this, — " If thou be Christ, 1 worship thee !" 
 217. The same argument by which the priests sanction this Host worship, will 
 sanction the worship of any conspicuous object of nature, 220. Note. 
 
 Hume; the dark and dire spirit of Hume's philosophisms matched by the vagaries 
 of transubstantiation, 188, and Note. 
 I 
 
 Idolatry of the papal church, twofold, 220 ; it is unscriptural, 221 ; it is irrational, 
 222«- Invoking a saint as mediator, unscriptural and irrational, 223. By idolatry 
 papites dishonor Almighty God — by their " merit " they glorify man, 235. 
 
 Indulgences, what, exposure of them, 255, &c. 
 
 Images, worship of God by them most solemnly condemned by the Scriptures, 230. 
 The papites leave out the second commandment, this condemns themselves, 230, 
 Effect of this image worship on the human mind, 231. Objection, answer, 23L 
 
 Implicit faith in priests, hence the power of priestcraft, 170. 
 
 Index prohibitory, 173. 
 
 Infallibility, what? not in the pope, not in councils, 130. Eight arguments against 
 it, 123-130, a demonstration of its utter absurdity, 123-133 ; found no where, 
 135; how far does it extend, — absurdity of this, 135, 136 ; the Bible decidedly 
 against it, 137, 138 ; it is an impudent imposture in every sense, 139 ; pretend- 
 ers to infallibility of three kinds, 140 ; one definition of infallibility will make 
 it extend to all who agree in one, all the Reformed churches, 140, 141 ; differ- 
 ences of papites on this article go against their infallibility, 141; true infalli 
 bility found only in God and the Holy Bible, 142. 
 
 Infidelity, is popery run to seed, 62. 
 
 Inquisition, Dr. Pye Smith's remark on the, 65-, this and persecution the two sup- 
 porters of popery, 66. 
 
 Intention, chances of failure of, in transubstantiation, 206, 217. Note. Refutation 
 of this terrible power of ghostly ambition, 297-300; the difficulties attending 
 it, 301. 
 
INDEX. 5 
 
 Irish bishop's response to pope Leo XIPs Bull against Bible Societies, 170. 
 
 J 
 Jesuits, zeal and labors of, 12. 
 
 John the apostle had abetter right to the primaty, if auy had, 92 ; farther proof, 101. 
 Justification and sanctification, exhibited in the two sacraments, and hence but 
 
 two, 287. 
 
 K 
 Kirk, used in preference to church, why, 37 ; different kirks, 71. 
 Knowledge and philosophy, feared and proscribed by papist priests, 162, 165, 166. 
 
 L, 
 Latin tongue of papism, 175 ; absurdity of the unknown tongue system, 176-179. 
 
 Design of this by Rome, 180, 
 Leo XII. the pope denounced Bible Societies, 169: the response of the Irish bishops 
 
 to this impious attack on the Bible, 170. 
 Liberty, course of, against papism, 51. 
 
 Lyrin, Vineentius, his views of infallibility, and what? 140. 
 Luther and the Pope in contrast on marriage and celibacy, 281. 
 
 M 
 Magna Charta of English liberty obtained by papal barons, but declared null and 
 
 void by pope Innocent, 261. 
 Mass, full review of, 210, its monstrous absurdity, 210, 211 ; is unreasonable, 211, 
 
 212 ; is unscriptural, 213 ; it gives the lie to St. Paul in Hebrews, 215. The real 
 
 use and design of the mass, to glorify and give power to the pope and priests, 
 
 215, 216. 
 Matrimony ludicrously made a sacrament, 286 ; priests' aim in this, 291. 
 Merit, papal doctrine, what, — of three uses, monstrous impiety of this, 234 ; by this 
 
 they glorify man, as by idolatry they dishonor God, 235 ; its fatal tendency, 
 
 235; it is impracticable and impossible to do more merit than what God re- 
 quires, 236-238 ; an appeal to papites on this, 239. 
 Milton's ode on the Piedmontese massacre, 67. 
 
 Ministers have their wives in holy wedlock, priests have their concubines, 281. 
 Miracles, the dogma of the mass tends to take away the evidence of our Lord's 
 
 miracles, 201, 202. 
 Miracle-mongers, each Roman priest is a,— he creates bodies, souls, and even his 
 
 Creator, 193. 
 Modernity of the system of papism, in eighteen specimens, 312-315. 
 Monstrous doctrines of the mass, — body of Christ in it, not born— every where, 
 
 human flesh eaten by the priests' dogmas, 193, 194. Monstrous ideas of the soul 
 
 in the mass wafer, 195, 196. Christ eaten alive, yet the wafer is dead, 196. 
 
 Priests swallow his soul, 196,197; they swallow his divinity, — they actually 
 
 avow this, 197, 198, 204. 
 
 N 
 Nephews and nieces, the unusual number of, in papal countries, in consequence of 
 
 the priests' celibacy, 280. 
 Nepotism, whence its origin, 281. 
 Novelty of popery, — retaliation of the charge of papites on us, 311 ; " Where was 
 
 your religion before the council of Trent?" 312. Eighteen specimens of its 
 
 novelty, 312-315. 
 
 O 
 Orders, holy, a papal sacrament; refutation of, 284; the proud design of, 290. 
 Owenism, atheism of, 52 ; and priestly celibacy, 53, 54, 55. 
 Oxford and Jesuits, 13. 
 Oxford Tracts,—" Oxford Trash," 69 ; popery the same in Rome and in Oxford, GO. 
 
6 INDEX. 
 
 Popes, character of, 106; how they arrived at papal power, by armies, frauds,— and 
 some of them by their mistresses, 107, 108 , the popes primaty, 87. 
 
 Papism, apathy of many on this subject. 12; excitement increasing on it, 14. Pa- 
 pism as it is, 40; tendency of it, 41; its influence on Pagans, Jews, and Mo- 
 hammedans, 42, 43 ; papism and Owenism, 53; peculiar character of papism, 
 63,64; it has been sustained by persecution and the inquisition, 66, 174; by 
 frauds, 67; it is the fond invention of men, 67; papism is still papism, 69; 
 works against popery, 69 ; papal unity and plurality, 72; some worthy papites, 
 79; Note, on tins, 79; popery at war with reason, the Bible, and antiquity, 80- 
 82; papism placed in contrast with the Holy Bible, 107; it is at war with our 
 senses, deprives us of the necessary use of them, and in the place of all these 
 gives us the pope's infallibility, 189 ; papism is ** a cunning compound of super- 
 ficial truth and solid error/' 293 ; it is a system of novel fictions,— eighteen 
 proofs and specimens of its novelty, 312-315. 
 
 Penance a papal sacrament, refutation of it. 283; true despotic design of it, 289. 
 
 Perron, cardinal, the dying words of; called transubstantiation "a monster," 185. 
 
 Persecution, one main pillar of papism, 65 ; number of its victims of persecution, f)6. 
 
 Peter never had any supreruaty, 88-91 ; even if he had, it did not descend, 97-99 ; in- 
 quiry if he ever was at Rome, 101, 102. 
 
 Phocas, the tyrant, made Boniface, the bishop of Rome, the first pope, 85. 
 
 Poisoned bread and wine, a grand and infallible means proposed to the priests to 
 test transubstantiation, 205. 
 
 Politikirkalily in papism, this originates persecution for religion, 175. 
 
 Priest, true id.-a of a, 37 ; a filthy and unchaste creature, 281. 
 
 Prie-tcraft, most strikingly displayed in auricular confession, 267, &c. A striking 
 picture of it in the mass-houses, and papal worship, 303. The marvellous trump- 
 ery employed by it to delude the senses of men, 304. 
 
 Purgatory, what it is, 239,— iis real use to support priestal power over man, 239, 
 240; it is unscnptural in the basis it assumes, 240; hostile to Christ's atone- 
 ment, 241 ; it opposes the work of the Holy Ghost, 241, 242 ; it nurses impiety 
 and immorality, 241 ; it tends to make the sinner neither to fear nor regard 
 hell, 244, it is a tremendous weapon of priestly tyranny, 245, 246 ; it insults 
 the Almighty, and sets up a new way of cleansing sinners, apart from the Lord's 
 atone nent. 246, 247; it reverses the quack saying, and says, no pay, no cure, 
 257. Purgatory represents priests as cruel and savage, 257. 
 
 Puseyism and popery, 69. 
 
 R. 
 
 Reformed church ; in her the ministry have their wives and children ; in the papal 
 church the priests have their concubines, and bastards called nephews and nei- 
 ces, 279-282. 
 
 Regeneration, baptismal, Rome's fatal error, 234 ; by whom advocated, 295; refuta- 
 tion of, 296. 
 
 Relics, iheir folly and impiety, 305. 
 
 Rock, the famous text of the, examined, 93-96. 
 
 Rogers, Jo in our author. The object of this book, 9, 10, 45. He coins new words, 
 45.51. Note, 86. 
 
 S 
 
 Sacraments, the papal seven, 282 ; there are only two in number, one reason, 287. 
 
 Saints, invocation of as intercessors, unscriptural and irrational, 223, &c. Objec- 
 tions of the papites answered, 225. Invocation of them as intercessors with 
 Christ, unscriptural and irrational, 226. Papite objection answered, 228. 
 
INDEX. 1 
 
 Scriptures ; the priests palm the absurdities and impiety of the mass on them, hence 
 deism, 200. 
 
 Sectaries abroad in the world, 49, 50. 
 
 Senses of man testify against the impiety and absurdity of transubstantiation, 187 •, 
 our Lord appeals to them for his identity, 189, 201. 
 
 Smith, Dr. J. Pye ; remark on the inquisition, 65. 
 
 Soul of Christ, where to be found in the mass wafer, 195. 
 
 Superstition essentially an element of popery, 301. 
 
 Suprematy or primaty of the pope, ten proofs against it, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92. Pa- 
 pal arguments examined, 93,97; not only the abuses of it condemned, but the 
 primaty itself, 100, 101; the papal suprematy comes not from Christ, or by St. 
 Peter, but from the pagan emperor who had the title of " Pontifez Maximus^ 
 103. Suprematy lost if it ever did exist, in the popes, 105. 
 T 
 
 Talmud, traditions of the, 150. 
 
 Traditions; what, nature of, Hebrew traditions, 151; Romish traditions, 151, 152. 
 Nine arguments against oral traditions, 153-158. 
 
 Transubstantiation, definition— a monster, 185 ; Cardinal Perron called it so, 185. 
 Our Lord's soul, according to the papites, is in the wafer, 186 ; it is not the old 
 body of, but a new body that is made, 186 ; many bodies, absurdity, 187, 190, 194 ; 
 Eighteen arguments against this irrational and impious fiction, 187, &c ; it makes 
 Christ's body omnipresent, 189, &c. ; this body in the mass wafer not born of 
 woman, hence not Christ's body, 191 ; this impious dogma represents Christ's 
 living body breaking to pieces, the self-same body in the wafer, 191 ; it makes 
 a whole Christ in each wafer and in each particle — an infinity of bodies, 192 ; it 
 makes men cannibals, 194 ; this dogma makes infidels, 198, 199, 200 ; this is a 
 suicidal doctrine, 201 ; even if true, it could not be proved, 203 ; a grand test 
 of its truth formally proposed, by poisoned bread and wine, 205 ; the chances 
 against a genuine change of the wafer into Christ, 205-207; the only argument 
 for this novel doctrine, 207 ; reply to, and refutation of this, 207, 208 •, it involves 
 error, falsehood and the mortal sin of idolatry, 216. Note. 
 
 Triple crown of the pope figures forth the great earthly three, — Moloch, Mammon, 
 and Belial, 66. 
 
 U 
 
 Unction, extreme, facetiously styled a saerament in the papal kirk, 286 ; the true 
 design of this by despotic priests, 292. 
 
 Unity and plurality of papism, 72-75. Unity in papism, and in Protestantism fairly 
 compared, 73. % 
 
 Unknown tongues, 170. 
 
 V 
 
 Victims, number of, slain by papal persecution, 66. 
 
 Vulgate and apocrypha declared to be of Divine authority by the Council of Trent, 
 142; in what sense Divine 142. Reasons against the Divine authority of the 
 Vulgate, 143-148. 
 
 TV 
 
 Wives ; Luther and the reformed ministers have their wives, but priests have their 
 concubines, 281. 
 
 Worship of papists in their mass-houses, a true picture of, 303. 
 
 Writers on papism, 17 ; kind of, required in this cause, 69, 70. 
 
PREFACE BY THE AUTHOR. 
 
 1 have here to inform the reader that what was 
 formerly called Jlntipopopriestian r is now called Jlnti- 
 Popery, the name of the work being changed in 
 order more clearly to indicate its nature. The for- 
 mer edition contained some remarks not relating to 
 Popery, that are omitted here ; and the present edi- 
 tion is confined to Popery. In the work as now 
 altered or amended, the reader will not find the ex- 
 traneous matter, the particulars foreign to the great 
 subject of the book, that were in the former edition ; 
 he will not find any remark (so far as I remember) 
 really painful to the mind, or very opposite to the 
 view of any real Protestant. The w r ork now relates 
 to Popery, the whole of Popery, and nothing but 
 Popery ; and therefore will, I hope, be acceptable or 
 unobjectionable to the whole Protestant world, and 
 even to the whole christian world that oppose the 
 plan of papal Rome. 
 
10 PREFACE. 
 
 Having exerted myself in defending Protestantism 
 against Popery, I am advised, by both churchmen 
 and dissenters, to let my next literary effort be in 
 defence of Religion at large against Infidelity, by 
 bringing out a work (that has cost much time and 
 thought) on Moral Freedom and Responsibility, in op- 
 position to the Fatalist Infidel, and Sceptic. I incline 
 to follow the advice; for Popery and Infidelity, or 
 rather Infidelity and Popery, are the two leading ene- 
 mies we have to oppose. 
 
THE PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. 
 
 One of the striking characteristics of this literary age, 
 is the deep and earnest attention bestowed on the sub- 
 ject of Romanism by the best writers and reviewers of 
 America and Britain. Some eighty or a hundred years 
 ago, the subject was deemed to be exhausted; no one 
 could say any more on the subject. There had been 
 giants before our day, who had left nothing to be done 
 by those who came after. It was, therefore, useless for 
 any writer to enter the field of discussion strewed with 
 the trophies of Protestant victory. The last word had 
 been said: the last argument exhausted. " The Beast" 
 was dying : it was convulsed in the head and mem- 
 bers. It was a waste of strength and ammunition to con- 
 tinue the attack on the dying " Dragon." The result 
 was what might have been anticipated by an " earnest 
 contender for the faith once delivered to the saints." The 
 Protestant watchmen and warriors, with the exception 
 of a gallant and faithful few, turned away their eyes ex- 
 clusively to other objects ; and did no more deem the 
 expiring "Man of Sin" worthy of any further watching, 
 or even a serious consideration. And even to this day, 
 even in the eulogized light of the nineteenth century, 
 how many do yet actually profess to assure themselves 
 that there can be no possible danger from Popery and Je- 
 suitism, either to our holy religion or our civil liber- 
 ties. They can see no need of watching; no need of 
 defence against the inroads of papism ; although even un- 
 der their own eyes, and in our own life-time, the humble 
 and obscure bishop or two have been increased to up- 
 wards of twenty bishops ; and the narrow diocess has 
 extended to upwards of twenty extensive diocessesj 
 
12 PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. 
 
 while Jesuit seminaries are reared on every hand : and 
 the land swarms with priests and nuns, sisters of cha- 
 rity and sisters of mercy of every gradation, and friars 
 white, black and grey. They aim at converting our 
 land into a Spain or an Austria, in a short time. 
 
 Meantime another species of multiform popery, under 
 the name of deism, and atheism, arrested the attention, 
 and summoned forth the watchful energies of the chris- 
 tian warriors. Even so late as thirty or forty years ago, 
 our pulpits resounded universally with all the eloquence 
 of argument and declamation against deism. Hume, 
 and Voltaire, and Paine were in every lip. Every minis- 
 ter wrote, and spoke, and entered the arena of public 
 discussion against deism, and atheism. And our fathers 
 in the ministry and many religious laymen having pum- 
 meled these two emissaries of Rome, and driven them 
 into a shameful and hopeless obscurity, they have been 
 lying on their oars, and doffing their arms; for ha- 
 ving annihilated these rampant foes, they can see no 
 danger of papal Rome invading the church and our free 
 republic in its old and wonted form. They have so 
 long dreamed over their deistic victories, that they seem 
 actually not yet awake to the appalling fact that Jesuit- 
 ism is resuscitated, and in the fullest and most vigilant 
 and wonted vigorous activity ! And what were Hume,Vol- 
 taire, Gibbon, Paine, and all the higher and minor cham- 
 pions, compared to the phalanx of desperate Jesuits mov- 
 ing in over Britain and our republic, with a moral force 
 propelled by all the combined hatred and force of deism 
 and atheism, and Rome and the Holy Alliance ; and ne- 
 ver to be stayed or subdued, but by God and the ener- 
 gies of a christian and republican people ! 
 
 For, while these infidels, — the enemies of God and man, 
 who were let loose, at the French Revolution, upon Bri- 
 tain and our republic, — were thus falling and fleeing be- 
 fore the Lord's host, as the hosts of Midian before the 
 
PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. 13 
 
 sword of the Lord and Gideon ; the watchful and re- 
 cruited powers of Rome began to raise their heads 5 
 and have been putting forth their last desperate strug- 
 gle to regain all that they had lost by the Reformation. 
 These struggles of Rome and the De Propaganda, now 
 animated by the demon power of Jesuitism, and direct- 
 ed against Protestant truth and liberty, have been long 
 carefully concealed. And every advancing step of the 
 foes was soft and sly 5 and no overt cause of alarm given 
 to Protestants. " Strike ! but let it not be seen whence 
 the blow comes !" this has been the watchword, utter- 
 ed by the dark and designing provincial 5 and whispered 
 along the gloomy and lowering ranks of the reckless 
 sons of Loyola ! 
 
 But, at the close of the late wars of Europe, Pius VII. 
 having regained his tiara and throne, girded up his loins, 
 and began his last desperate effort to regain no less 
 than all the former papal power and ascendency in the 
 -world. Adopting pope Paul III. as his model, he revived 
 the sect of Jesuits, the bitterest and most successful 
 and sanguinary of all the enemies of the reformation. 
 This outrage upon the honor and liberties of the Euro- 
 pean powers, and upon us in this republic, was done in 
 1814, without even a remonstrance from the slumbering 
 Protestant powers. And these Jesuits have been, since 
 that era, busily at their dark work, w 7 ith all their former 
 powers, learning, cunning, duplicity, and immeasurable 
 atheism and licentiousness! They spare no pains nor 
 expense. They hesitate at no sacrifice of truth, honor, 
 morals, men's lives. They peril their own personal safe- 
 ty, and even their souls' salvation, to obey the pope! 
 They form one solid column of the Babylonian host, mo- 
 ving on, with the most abject submission to their des- 
 potic and cold-blooded provincial, to any work assigned 
 them, to any warfare, to any service, moral or immoral, 
 loyal or treasonable, christian, or literary, or profane, 
 
34- PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. 
 
 or atheistic ! Bound to the car of their idol, the Roman 
 Juggernaut,they are prepared to sacrifice for its interests 
 their health, their conscience, their life ; and I repeat it, 
 even their souls' eternal salvation ! Milton represents 
 his demon as one who would " rather reign in hell, 
 than serve in heaven." But the Jesuits outstrip that 
 proud Lucifer. They would rather serve as slaves their 
 haughty lord, than "serve in heaven or rule in hell! 1 ' 
 They are imperialists with the emperor ; royalists with 
 the king ; republicans with the republicans ; Jews with 
 the Jew ; infidels with the deist ; atheist with the atheist ! 
 They are puritans with the dissenter ; high churchmen 
 with the Oxfordites ! They are presbyterians among the 
 presbyterians ; they are pushing themselves forward 
 among all classes, and all sects, in morals, literature, 
 religion, politics! If they hear of a protestant mission- 
 ary eminently successful at his station, be it in the old 
 world or new world, they hasten through all perils by 
 sea and land, through fire and water, to prevent the con-, 
 version of heathens! If they find a people abandoning 
 their gods, they bring them a new set of glittering idols ! 
 If they find the chiefs and people at peace, they kindle the 
 flames of discord and war. If they find difficulty in cor- 
 rupting the public morals, they introduce intoxicating 
 liquors, and boundless licentiousness, by their confes- 
 sional and their nunneries! 
 
 In a word, they are playing the same deep game, to 
 the fullest extent of their vast means, which their prede- 
 cessors played of old in the wide field of Europe and 
 America. And now, without concealment or blush, they 
 are boasting that they will soon be what their forefathers 
 were, in their unparalleled ascendency in every court, in 
 every government, whither they can force or worm 
 their way. And their object, for ever kept in their eye, 
 is the extinction of the light, the purity, the liberties, 
 and glory of our blessed reformation ! Their war of exter- 
 
PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. 15 
 
 ruination is waged against pure Christianity and liberty! 
 
 There are two reasons, not usually noticed by writers, 
 which paved the way secretly, but too effectually, for 
 the papal success in Protestant Britain. First, Eome was 
 on the British side, and in her interests in her struggles 
 in the late wars of Britain with France ; and Rome 
 even caused a medal to be struck in honor of her mighty 
 Protestant ally, with the motto, " Rome protected by the 
 British cannon /" Second : At the beginning of the French 
 revolution great multitudes of emigrants, popish priests, 
 friars, and seculars, and nuns, and literary men, flocked 
 into Britain, especially England. These found their way 
 into innumerable families of the higher and middle 
 classes, as tutors, governesses, and school-masters ; and 
 these repaid their benefactors by sowing copiously the 
 seeds of popery. And the present generation are reaping 
 the bitter and fatal fruits ! 
 
 But a crisis has been induced, and is steadily ap- 
 proaching. The Jesuits from the De Propaganda, and the 
 Oxford doctors, their overt auxiliaries, have been push- 
 ing matters rather too fast, and too far, for their own 
 security. These combined emissaries of Rome had 
 probably calculated in doing their work of proselytism 
 thoroughly, while the dissenters and voluntaries were 
 engaged in the present pitched battle with the doctors 
 of the established churches of England and Scotland. 
 The former seem even to court the papists as their aux- 
 iliaries in overthrowing the establishments ; and the 
 papists are nothing loth to smile on their labors and 
 lend them a helping hand. But this is done and managed 
 by them, just as the fox in the fable managed to keep 
 up the keen combat of the lion and the tiger, in order 
 that he might seize the carcase. They urge on the con- 
 flict; they wish both parties to be devoured and eaten 
 up, in order that they may come quietly in and seize the 
 entire prey ! 
 
16 PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. 
 
 But we rejoice to see that the men of God in Britain, 
 who ought long ago to have hastened into the field for 
 the help of the Lord's bleeding cause, are now roused 
 from their long and heavy sleep. The most accom- 
 plished preachers are now sounding the alarm. Elo- 
 quence and literature are putting forth their choice and 
 most admired sons into the thickening and tumultuous 
 battle with Rome. The most prominent and influential 
 ministers are uniting in regular courses of lectures 
 against the popery of Rome and the popery of Oxford. 
 The General Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland has 
 enacted that each of her ministers, in each parish in 
 the kingdom, shall preach once each month on the 
 ruinous heresies and innumerable evils and dangers of 
 Romanism. And the number of able writers, and the 
 number of thoroughly equipped disputants descending 
 into the arena of public discussions with priests 5 and 
 the number and variety of books teeming from the 
 press against the " man of sin," " the beast,"" and " false 
 prophet," are almost incredible ! The beginning of the 
 end of Romanism has taken place ! 
 
 Among these, w r e hail John Rogers, Esq. the author 
 of the following work, entitled, xx Anti-Popery $ or Po- 
 pery unreasonable, unscriptural, and novel" And we 
 cordially bid him welcome into the field as a spiritual 
 warrior against Antichrist, of no ordinary zeal, activity, 
 and prowess. 
 
 The reader will find this volume of Mr. Rogers an 
 original and extraordinary work. The author displays 
 talents of the very highest order; a mind accomplished, 
 and thoroughly disciplined by divine truth. He takes a 
 clear and comprehensive view of each portion in the 
 detail, of the Roman Catholic controversy, now occupy- 
 ing so extensively the deepest and most intense interest 
 at home and abroad. He selects with great sagacity 
 and judgment the most prominent topics. His argu- 
 
PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. 17 
 
 ments are choice, logical, and precise. He does not 
 stop to throw any unnecessary ornament around them. 
 He disdains to pause in his urgent career, to dispute on 
 small matters. He does not suffer himself to be turned 
 aside from his main object. He marches directly up in- 
 to the breach made by the well-directed force of Divine 
 truth, and seizes upon the very citadel itself. He is 
 brief on every point 5 some will think him too brief. It 
 is true he enters into no long and profound investiga- 
 tion ; he leaves that to the learned theologians and 
 Biblical scholars. He does not, like the unmatched 
 Samuel Edgar, in his " Variations of Popery," battle 
 the foemen with their own weapons, gathered so suc- 
 cessfully from their own armory and that of their fa- 
 thers. He does not stop to clinch each statement by an 
 unquestionable quotation from Roman bulls and canons. 
 He leaves that to be done by Cramp, in his " Text-Book 
 of Popery." He does not go slowly over the field, and 
 touch upon and exhaust each topic. He leaves that to 
 the fascinating and successful anti-popery man, M'Ga- 
 ven, of " The Glasgow Protestant." He writes studied- 
 ly, in a popular manner, for the people. Dr. Usher, Dr. 
 James, in his " Bellum Papale," and his " Treatise on 
 the Roman Corruptions of the Scriptures, the Councils, 
 and the Fathers $" and Wijlet, in his " Synopsis Papis- 
 mi ;" Edgar, Finch, Mendham, Chillingworth, unmatch- 
 ed by any disputant in clearness, force, and logical 
 accuracy, and a host of giants of this class, wrote for 
 scholars and divines. But John Rogers, Esq. writes 
 this book for studious youth, and the Protestant people, 
 and also for Roman Catholic people; and he has dis- 
 played that remarkable tact which men of talents only 
 do possess, namely, that of adapting his statements, 
 illustrations, and appeals, to every one ; and to captivate 
 every class of even the most careless students. The 
 theologian who has deeply studied the history and dog- 
 
18 PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. 
 
 mas of papism, will not, indeed, find much that is new 
 here. But, the manner of treating the whole subject 
 possesses novelty ; and to the great mass of the people 
 of our republic, both the matter and his manner will be 
 found new and fascinating. He is at antipodes with the 
 bulky folio-writers of the past centuries, and especially 
 of those who lived near the Reformation. He sifts out 
 the grains of wheat from the chaff and inferior grain, — 
 the verbiage and repetitions of those great men, — and 
 he sets it before us well winnowed, and in a state to be 
 converted into genuine and nutritious food for our souls. 
 The numerous eulogies bestowed on the first edition 
 of this work by the British and Irish Reviewers, which 
 we have herewith republished, and the praises of our 
 own best critics, will abundantly sustain me in all parts 
 of this my hearty commendations of this work, which 
 we now present to the American public. At the same 
 time, I must not forget to add, that as the second Eng- 
 lish edition — from which we print and stereotype this 
 first American edition — is far superior to the first, the 
 author having greatly improved and thoroughly cor- 
 rected it : so, as I have had the benefit of the volun- 
 teered assistance of my estimable and reverend friend, 
 J)r. Brownlee, in making corrections, valuable addi- 
 tions, with notes, and an index, I may venture to say 
 that this will be found to be superior to the second 
 English edition. I trust, therefore, that this attempt to 
 satisfy and please the American public with a new and 
 greatly improved edition of J. Rogers' rr Anti-Popery," 
 will be duly appreciated at the hands of their obedient 
 and devoted servant, for Jesus Christ's sake, 
 
 Charles Sparry. 
 
 New- York, April, 1841. 
 
RECOMMENDATIONS. 
 
 This work of John Rogers I have examined with consider- 
 able care, and very great interest. The British and Irish reviews 
 of the first edition, as appears from the following numerous 
 quotations from them, exhibit one continuous eulogium upon 
 it. And after examination, I am satisfied that there is no ex- 
 aggeration in their praises. This new champion — whom we 
 welcome into the field — richly merits their applause and ours. 
 The author, it is said, is an eminent counsellor at law, in Lon- 
 don. He displays a mind at once vigorous, thoroughly disci- 
 plined, and possessed of great critical acumen. He is tolerably 
 well acquainted with the best books on the Roman Catholic 
 controversy. Guided by these, he fixes upon the more promi- 
 nent points of Papism; states them with accuracy and candor, 
 and selects his arguments with admirable discrimination. And 
 while his language is most obliging, and his whole manner, as 1 
 it ought to be, perfectly courteous, he lays hold of his oppo- 
 nent's entire creed, rites, and ceremonies, with a giant's grasp, 
 from which there is no escape. And the reader rises from the 
 perusal of the book, fully satisfied with the manner in which 
 Mr. Rogers has utterly annihilated the defence of a system 
 which all good men have pronounced to be as detestable as it 
 is dangerous to the souls of men ; which is at irreconcilable 
 war with reason and the Holy Scriptures; and which history 
 has pronounced to be a combination of all errors and heresies, 
 mixed up with modern fictions, ludicrous fables, and puerile 
 ceremonies borrowed from heathenism by The Man of Sin. 
 
 If Mr. Rogers has a weak part in his argument, — it is this : — 
 he does not stop to give his readers the copious authorities, 
 which he might easily have given from the Doctors, the Canons, 
 and Bulls of the papal " Kirk," to sustain his charges and 
 strengthen his arguments. His opponents in Britain may, per- 
 haps, not pursue the disreputable course pursued by our Jesuit 
 disputants in the United States. If they do, Mr. Rogers will find 
 
20 RECOMMENDATIONS. 
 
 them actually denying the most accurate quotations — and even 
 their own books — and even the notes of the Rhemish New Tes- 
 tament — although these are composed either of quotations from 
 " the Fathers," or of doctrines taught by the canons and bulls 
 of Rome! Hence, if Mr. Rogers continues his argument — as 
 he must do in his own defence — he will soon discover the ne- 
 cessity of not only indicating the volume, the chapter, the page, 
 and the edition whence he quotes his materials, but of estab- 
 lishing the authenticity and authority of even the papal standard 
 works ! For the Jesuit priests and bishops, with face of bronze, 
 avowedly act on the old resuscitated maxims of the sons of 
 Loyola — "Admit nothing; deny every thing, when reasoning 
 with heretics /" 
 
 The style of Rogers is sententious, clear, and forcible; and 
 possesses great logical precision. With its richness, however, 
 there is a singular quaintness. And to some, his new nomen- 
 clature will seem, at first, rather singular. For " church," he 
 invariably uses "kirk;" for "primacy," "primaty;" "papite 
 and Romanite," for " papist and Romanist ;" " perhap," for 
 " perhaps ;" also, " nowafter," for " hereafter ;" and " priestal," 
 and "priest ruled," and " priestrulive," " politikirkal," and 
 " politikirkalian." 
 
 And we are not unwilling to admit that he is sustained in all 
 this, by the reasons and authorities which he advances. He 
 has put us in mind, more than once, of the fine, old, manly, 
 vigorous, and majestic style of Milton's prose. And we like it 
 the more for this very reason. 
 
 W. C. Brownlee, 
 
 One of the Collegiate Pastors of the Prot. Ref. 
 Dutch Church in New- York. 
 New- York, April, 1841. 
 
CRITIQUES ON THE FORMER EDITION. 
 
 ff In this work, the Pope and his adherents are pummelled 
 by a most vigorous antagonist in a way that will make their 
 bones ache for many a day. Mr. Rogers has not only assailed 
 the leading errors, and absurdities, and blasphemies of the Ba- 
 bylonish religion, but has attacked, unripped, and exposed, seri- 
 atim, the details of the idolatry of the Romish Anti-Christ. He 
 fastens on the hoary delinquent with the pertinacity of a mas- 
 tiff, and never relinquishes his hold till he has shaken him and 
 his trappings to tatters. He exposes the naked deformity of the 
 whole heap of cardinals, monks, nuns, and friars, 
 
 1 Black, white, and grey ; with all their trumpery/ 
 
 and fairly kicks them out of the pale of the religion of the Bible, 
 which they have so long disgraced with their absurdities, ob- 
 scenities, and delusions. Mr. Rogers is no common combat- 
 ant. He is armed at all points, and dexterous in the manage- 
 ment of all weapons of attack and defence. This work should 
 be read, and will be read by all Protestants. It has conferred a 
 service on Protestantism, and placed in the possession of every 
 Protestant, a manual for his protection from error and deceit, 
 The whole subject of Popery is examined with judgment and 
 learning by a man of strong mind, considerable erudition, and 
 indefatigable industry. The result is, as maybe supposed, an 
 
 excellent work essentially excellent in its object, 
 
 and decisive in its reasoning. An extract from the chapter 'An 
 Account of Popery,' will induce the reader to go through the 
 whole work." — Times. 
 
 n It is the production of an original mind, and a sound think- 
 er, and one truly earnest in the Protestant cause. 
 
 "We should regard it as little short of a calamity to the in- 
 terest of truth, were the title of this volume to operate as a 
 
22 CRITIQUES ON THE FORMER EDITION. 
 
 hinderance to its extensive circulation. Strange as it may at 
 first sight appear to be, we are disposed to think that, upon ex- 
 amination, it will be found to be etymologically correct and ap- 
 propriate. But whatever judgment may be formed of a name 
 consisting of seventeen letters, and forming an entirely new 
 coinage of the author's own, we beg to assure our readers that 
 the work itself is one of the most original, elaborate, searching, 
 and conclusive exposures of Ptomanism that has seen the light 
 in modern times. It is hopeless, perhaps, to suppose that Ca- 
 tholics will read it ; but this we will say, that an unprejudiced 
 Catholic could scarcely rise from its perusal the dupe of Romish 
 superstition. But the value of the work, at the present junc- 
 ture, as a weapon in the hands of Protestants, is great beyond 
 what we can well express. Those who will determine to sur- 
 mount the prejudice which certain features pertaining to Mr. 
 Rogers' style may possibly create, will soon find that they are 
 holding converse with a mind of \he first order, and that Rome 
 in his hands is tossed about upon the horns of a thousand di- 
 lemmas. The author possesses great powers of logical discri- 
 mination, and knows how to select the weak point in his an- 
 tagonist's argument, and to bear down upon him with almost 
 annihilating force. 
 
 " There is moreover nothing prolix, nothing verbose, nothing 
 weak or trifling in Mr. Rogers' mode of attack. He opens a 
 broadside in every instance, at once, upon the enemy ; and trusts 
 the victory to great principles rather that to minute and feeble 
 details. He uses very strong language indeed in portraying 
 the horrible abominations of Popery ; but as he speaks not poli- 
 tically, we like his honest and uncompromising denunciations of 
 "the man of sin," who is " the son of perdition." Those who 
 wish to see a thorough dissection of Popery, in all its hideous 
 deformity, as the direct antagonist of the Gospel, and the inve- 
 terate enemy of human kind, will find in Mr. Rogers' work a 
 mental feast equally refreshing and invigorating. What will 
 Papists do with this book ? We predict that they will either 
 pass it by in dignified silence, or misrepresent all its arguments 
 and details by that Jesuitical sophistry for which their best wri- 
 ters are shamefully notorious. If Mr. Rogers is spared, we can- 
 not help thinking, from this specimen of his pen, that he is des- 
 tined to be the troubler of Rome. We trust he will watch Dr. 
 
CRITIQUES ON THE FORBIER EDITION. 23 
 
 Wiseman and the Dublin Review, and make them feel his 
 withering touch. He is fit to grapple with them, and he should 
 know it, and not shrink from the task at a time when Popery 
 is stalking abroad in the land with a boldness and an effrontery 
 unknown of late years in Great Britain." — Evangelical Magazine. 
 
 " Here are manifest and numerous proofs of integrity of pur- 
 pose, ardency of spirit, and a love for the truth, with great ori- 
 ginality and strength of thought. . . We doubt not that in con- 
 sequence of his efforts, discussions will be elicited that may 
 tend to bring back many sections of the church to a nearer ap- 
 proximation with the faith once delivered to the saints. In this 
 work he assails the errors of Popery, and with a giant arm. . . . 
 He grasps a ponderous club r like a weaver's beam,' and march- 
 ing with firm and fearful step into the very camp of papal er- 
 ror, deals out, r right and left,' tremendous blows which lay 
 whole armies groaning at his feet. The rigid application of the 
 ordinary rules of composition will not answer here. In waging 
 polemic war, the genius of Mr. Rogers, like that of our Nelson 
 in naval fight, must be honored with a roving commission. His 
 forte is his own — he must be unique. . . . Our gratitude rises 
 high indeed when we consider that he has rendered signal ser- 
 vice to the sacred cause of truth. We restrain our pen — and 
 assure Mr. Rogers that on the subject of Popery he need fear 
 no opponent — he is invincible — a rock not to be moved. In the 
 forthcoming works we anticipate discussions, the very sound of 
 the near approach of which, judging from the present produc- 
 tion, is enough to make those whose interest and spirit lead 
 them to espouse such principles, quail and tremble. . . . The 
 perusal of this extraordinary book has made us feel that Mr. 
 Rogers is a learned, intelligent, sound, and godly Protestant 
 champion, of consummate skill and Herculean power." 
 
 Methodist New Connexion Magazine, 
 
 " Mr. Rogers' logical acuteness and Herculean power as a 
 polemical writer, are displayed in a manner that must be truly 
 astounding to the abettors of the papal system . . . The author 
 wastes no time in useless parleys, but, conscious of the strength 
 
24 CRITIQUES ON THE FORMER EDITIO^ 
 
 of his arm and the goodness of his cause, he brings the heavy 
 artillery of his logic to bear on the strong-holds of his enemy ; 
 and having, without much difficulty, effected a practicable 
 breach, rushes to the onslaught, and triumphantly completes the 
 work of utter demolition .... The style of the work is lucid, 
 vigorous, and melodious. * * * * A book which, as a concise 
 refutation of the leading errors of Popery, so far as our know- 
 ledge extends, is without a rival in the English language; and 
 proves Mr. Rogers to be decidedly an original and first-rale 
 reasoner; and a man who, with Davy, Drew, and others, will 
 nobly uphold the literary glory of Cornwall." — West Briton. 
 
 " This work is one of surpassing merit. It is perhaps the 
 most searching and successful exposure of the errors of Popery 
 which has ever appeared. Mr. Rogers has brought all the en- 
 ergies of his powerful mind to bear upon the subject, and has 
 made out a case against the papal system which must fill with 
 alarm every votary of the Romish faith. It is a perfect armory, 
 out of which, those who would fight the battles of the Protes- 
 tant faith may at all times equip themselves." — Observer. 
 
 "It is clear and simple, straightforward and conclusive, and 
 altogether the most logical and searching dissection of Popery 
 that we ever encountered in any form. If any person have a 
 doubt between Protestantism and Popery, let him read the pre- 
 sent work. Infallibility, transubstantiation, auricular confes- 
 sion, &c. are each, in turn, hurled to the earth — remorselessly 
 and irretrievably trampled into the mire — annihilated ; and all 
 this by the clearest, the most logical, the most searching and 
 irrefutable arguments. That Mr. Rogers is a man of extensive 
 reading, and a scholar, is apparent from every page of his book. 
 His solutions of the famous f Grecian Dilemma' and r Pseudo- 
 menos,' are masterly." — Court Journal. 
 
 "Mr. Rogers wields his polemical cudgel with terrible effect, 
 hitting Rome right and left with a rapid succession of the hard- 
 est blows she ever received." — Grant's London Journal. 
 
CRITIQUES ON THE FORMER EDITION. 25 
 
 *■ An extraordinary work, full of learning and sound sense. 
 The reasoning is close and conclusive, and the arguments al- 
 most superabundant. One of the most remarkable productions 
 of our day. John Rogers exhibits proofs of profound thought 
 and extensive erudition, and will be recognised as one of the 
 master-spirits of the age." — Era. 
 
 v This is a work written with the intent to exhibit popery in 
 its true light, and he who could rise from a perusal of its pages 
 without having his mind stored with arguments unanswerable 
 in their nature, against the monstrous politico-religious system 
 of popery, can have made little use of his reasoning faculties. 
 We should like to be placed on our defence, with this book in 
 our hand, before the pope and a full conclave of cardinals, and 
 if they chose to abide by the decision of twelve honest and 
 impartial men, popery would be extinguished for ever before 
 they left the jury-box. The map which accompanies the work 
 we consider very valuable. It contains a graphic delineation 
 of the errors of Popery, and the date of the introduction of 
 each — which propositions are amply proved. The style is 
 original, vigorous, and clear. The arguments are laid down 
 with a force of diction which must overthrow all opposition — 
 and every page contains the incontrovertible proofs from his- 
 tory. We know of no work which promises more efficient aid 
 in the cause of Protestantism, or which opens a sharper fire on 
 the falling cause of Popery. We hope that the advocates .... 
 of Rome .... will candidly confess their errors after a perusal 
 of this volume. . . . We sincerely recommend the perusal of this 
 book to all Protestants, and to all Roman Catholics who wish 
 to know what is truth." — Dublin Statesman. 
 
 "Seldom have we read so powerful a production. Mr. Ro- 
 gers is gifted with a mind capable of the most logical preci- 
 sion — no fallacy, either in doctrine or in ethics, can endure his 
 searching scrutiny. Hence the various errors and corruptions 
 of Popery are here not merely exposed — they are absolutely 
 demolished. The author is indeed a perfect r Root and Branch* 
 man ; first applying the well-tempered knife of skilful excision, 
 
 2 
 
26 CRITIQUES ON THE FORMER EDITION. 
 
 then using the irresistible axe of utter eradication. We would 
 defy Cardinal Bellarmine himself, if he were living, to answer 
 
 this book As an effectual antidote to Papal error, we can 
 
 cordially recommend the very extraordinary book before us." 
 
 Bath and Cheltenham Gazette. 
 
 " The work is full of learning and sound sense ; and a very 
 slight perusal of it will at once show the originality of Mr. 
 Rogers, and that he is a profound thinker. Every thing about 
 the book is original — the ideas, the style, and the construction. 
 Even Roman Catholics must admit that he has placed himself 
 in the position of a powerful leader of the Protestants. . . . He 
 has shown, as far as argument goes, that he is possessed of a 
 lion's strength. . . . We are convinced that most of our Protest- 
 ant and Catholic readers will be acquainted with its contents." 
 
 Tyne Mercury. 
 
 rr If the cry of T No Popery'' shall have done nothing else than 
 caused the appearance of this book, it will have done good ser- 
 vice to mankind. A valuable, clear, and entertaining book. . . . 
 the work of great labor and research, by a man thoroughly 
 conversant with polemical controversy, and who yet has the 
 rare power of simplifying his subject, and writing with ease, 
 vigor, clearness, and benevolent warmth of spirit. No man, 
 whether he be priest or layman, can peruse without advantage 
 the powerful and elaborate articles in this work, on infallibility, 
 transubstantiation, and tradition. 1 * — Maidstone Gazette. 
 
 " This is an extraordinary book. We have seldom seen Po- 
 pery so vigorously handled. Mr. Rogers has taken up the 
 question in all its bearings, and applied to it the powers of a 
 masculine intellect trained to habits of searching analysis, and 
 clear, logical, bold, and comprehensive reasoning. He sifts the 
 lofty pretensions, and exposes the errors and impositions of the 
 church of Rome, with unrelenting severity, showing its false, 
 blasphemous, and anti-social character, its hostility to Scripture, 
 reason, and antiquity . . . The work will prove a valuable auxi- 
 liary to the cause of Protestantism. No one possessing it, need 
 
CRITIQUES ON THE FORMER EDITION. 27 
 
 be at a loss to give to any one that asks him, a reason for pre- 
 ferring the religion of the Reformation to that of the usurping 
 Italian bishop. Furnished with the weapons here supplied, he 
 will be f armed at all points' for resisting the subtleties and 
 subterfuges of Jesuitical sophistry, or the open denial of plain 
 facts by the barefaced assertors of the liberality of modern Ro- 
 manism. The author's style is free and nervous .... He has 
 rendered a service to the cause of truth, of civil liberty, and of 
 social happiness, which cannot be too highly estimated." 
 
 Liverpool Courier. 
 
 rt Mr. Rogers is a scholar every inch of him, and a man of 
 dauntless mould . . The book is a good one, vigorous, racy, and 
 original .... He has strength of mind and information enough 
 to grapple successfully with any Goliath the Philistines may 
 send against the truth." — Congregational Magazine. 
 
 " The book contains much that is valuable, and much that is 
 seasonable. Popery is making great exertions to regain its 
 former ascendancy in this country. Few have the time or the 
 inclination, even if they had the ability, to follow the Papists 
 in their ever-recurring references and appeals to decrees of 
 popes and general councils, to the dogmas of right reverend 
 fathers and tradition; and a book which would furnish Protes- 
 tants with arguments against the anti-christian system, without 
 the necessity of having recourse to such recondite and legen- 
 dary lore, was greatly to be desiderated. Such a book w r e have 
 before us ... . We are convinced that a person, thoroughly mas- 
 ter of its arguments and illustrations, need not be greatly afraid 
 to encounter a whole host of friars, or even a general council, 
 claiming infallibility as its prerogative .... Mr. Rogers proceeds 
 to attack the system of Popery with right good will, and wields 
 his weapons with a sturdy arm and a fearless heart. The 
 towers and the battlements, the outworks and the citadel of 
 her who sits on the seven hills, are vigorously assaulted, and 
 irreparable damage done to her glory and her greatness. To 
 change the figure : the lady on the scarlet-colored beast is made 
 
28 CRITIQUES ON THE FORBIER EDITION. 
 
 to cut a very sorry figure, and is left in no very desirable plight. 
 .... The book is any thing but common-place — any thing but 
 uninteresting. It shows its author to be an original thinker, a 
 skilful logician, a close and powerful reasoner, and a fearless 
 
 follower of truth We take our leave of him, thanking him 
 
 for the service he has done to the cause of truth by the stal- 
 wart and telling blows he has inflicted on the head of *The 
 Beast.' '" — United Secession Magazine. 
 
 " This is altogether an extraordinary book . . . The author has 
 plenty of talent and learning . . . has pith and vast stores of 
 knowledge . . . His style is very quaint and rich . . . Rogers is 
 terse and strong, and delights to express his thoughts in short, 
 clear, pointed sentences. He is, in fact, too sparing of words ; 
 and the mind has not sufficient time to rest upon a thought and 
 prize its value . . . The volume is worthy of a careful perusal by 
 all at the present moment, and especially by ministers. It is 
 always masterly/'- Christian Journal or Relief Magazine. 
 
 " There is enough in the material and structure of the work to 
 
 constitute it really a good one There is an earnestness in 
 
 the man, and withal a measure of clearness and force of concep- 
 tion, which we believe will fit him for usefulness in the kind of 
 
 labor on which he has entered We are not disposed to 
 
 attribute his quaint style or even his new words to affectation, 
 so much as to a simple honest wish to do his work well — to 
 strike the nail home. . . . His work has an enlightened spirit of 
 toleration. His sentences seem to come down like the blows at 
 Marston Moor and Naseby. There is that sort of heartiness in 
 them which never fails to interest ; and, like the true Cromwel- 
 lian soldier, Mr. Rogers not only does not understand what it is 
 to be beaten, but seems to be incapable of thinking that he has 
 
 done quite enough even when his victory is complete 
 
 There is a distinctness in all the parts, and a consecutiveness 
 
 in the whole We trust that we have said enough to 
 
 induce many of our readers to possess themselves of this sin- 
 gular volume." — Eclectic Review. 
 
CRITIQUES ON THE FORMER EDITION. 29 
 
 " This work evinces great mental power, combined with in- 
 genuity ; and as the writer follows a process of his own in deal- 
 ing with every subject that comes before him, there is much 
 novelty in many of his illustrations. . . . His manner is discur- 
 sive, frank, and occasionally sportive. . . . There is an ample ex- 
 hibition of good sound sense ; and we look forward with plea- 
 sure to the Remainder of the journey in which he proposes to 
 lead us, along less beaten paths, to the palace of universal free- 
 dom." — Baptist Magazine. 
 
 w It has seldom fallen to our lot to read so very singular and 
 original a volume, or one containing so much energy of thought 
 and solid argument. It is the production of a man of native 
 genius. His writing is terse and clear. — The work is well 
 adapted to promote the cause of Christianity. We recommend 
 this erudite and curious volume to the diligent and devout pe- 
 rusal of our readers, being fully assured that their labor there- 
 in will he richly repaid." — Wesleyan Association Magazine. 
 
 "We must say that we rise from the perusal of the work 
 with a firm persuasion that no Romanist who will candidly and 
 calmly weigh all the arguments against popery which it con- 
 tains, will be able to remain a day longer within the pale of 
 what has been improperly called r the Roman Catholic church.' 
 Mr. Rogers has assailed the leading errors and blasphemies in 
 doctrine, and the most remarkable fooleries, absurdities, and 
 vicious practices connected with popery, with such powerful 
 arguments drawn from Scripture and reason, as cannot fail to 
 carry conviction to every candid mind ; while he has so fully 
 laid bare the imposture, tricks, and pious frauds employed to 
 support the monstrous system, as must render it really hateful 
 to all who love the volume of inspiration, and are jealous for 
 the glory of God. And all is done with an evenness of temper, 
 and benevolence of feeling, which cannot fail of adding weight 
 to the unanswerable arguments employed. It is a work which 
 all protestants should carefully read. We heartily wish that 
 papists in general may read the work, as we are satisfied they 
 must see that the arguments are unanswerable." 
 
 Bible Christian Magazine. 
 
30 CRITIQUES ON THE FORMER EDITION. 
 
 " The author here shows himself to be a most daring foe to 
 the popish religion ; he takes the whole system of fraud and 
 fallacy to pieces, cutting it up with the skill of an anatomist, 
 and the rottenness of the whole papal constitution is amply de- 
 monstrated. John Rogers deserves thanks for this remarkable 
 performance. His book will do good service to the cause of 
 truth, reason, and common sense." 
 
 Sunday- School Teachers 1 Magazine 
 
 "Mr. Rogers' writings ought to acquire popularity. The 
 volume before us bears the impress of fervent piety, and of con- 
 siderable mental power. It has more than common literary 
 merits. Our Roman Catholic friends will do well to peruse it > 
 and if they find themselves able to refute the principles of the 
 author's arguments, they will have no reason to fear an encounter 
 with the ablest champions of protestantism We recom- 
 mend this work." Herald of Peace. 
 
 " In discussing the branches of Romanism, the author reasons 
 powerfully, ingeniously, and with considerable originality of 
 method. The sections on Infallibility, Transubstantiation, and 
 Purgatory, are excellent specimens of argumentation, proving 
 in the most triumphant and satisfactory manner, that they are 
 absurd and impious inventions, designed to uphold priestly 
 power and priestly tyramry. With some of the other sections 
 we have also been much pleased . . . Bearing down on popery 
 with irresistible force, like a torrent, and pouring on it a deluge 
 of severe and harsh epithets, the book annihilates the system . . . 
 On the whole, we recommend it to our readers as an instructive, 
 interesting, and amusing volume." — Orthodox Presbyterian. 
 
 tr Upon a mature consideration of the arguments and facts 
 which the learned writer of this work has produced against the 
 errors of Popery, we must repeat our surprise that he has 
 brought so much acuteness and such powerful reasoning to 
 bear upon a subject which we had deemed exhausted. He is 
 a strong and original thinker, and one of the most powerful anti- 
 popery writers of the day." — Bcirs Weekly Messenger. 
 
CRITIQUES ON THE FORMER EDITION. 31 
 
 " It confutes Papal error at all points, in a manner which it 
 would puzzle the utmost resources of the Vatican to answer or 
 evade. His conclusions are perfectly sound." — Patriot. 
 
 ""A work of remarkable originality, great research, powerful 
 reasoning, and in various places, of a condensed nervous style 
 which rises into eloquence. The force, necessity, and advantage of 
 the coined words, are frequently apparent." — Morning Advertiser 
 
 "Popery he attacks on all assailable points with very un- 
 questionable spirit, very considerable skill, and abundant re- 
 source. He must be considered a good soldier in the faith: 
 
 in the days of Cromwell he would have been inestimable 
 
 He is a vigorous controversialist. 
 
 " The Grecian Dilemma and Pseudomenos set all philosophy 
 at defiance, and remained to be solved by John Rogers." 
 
 Morning Herald. 
 
 "Popery* is examined and considered in all its features, bear- 
 ings, and pretensions ; and its dark and soul-destroying princi- 
 ples thoroughly exposed. There are many powerful, and even 
 eloquent passages in the volume." — Conservative Journal. 
 
 "A literary curiosity. — It is in form and substance, the coin- 
 age of words, the style, and the ideas, about as singular a work 
 as we ever saw. It displays so much learning and originality 
 as to be well worthy the attention of the public." — Lit. Gazette. 
 
 Tr Mr. Rogers has entered at once manfully and energetically 
 into the battle against Popery, dividing his attack, if we may 
 so term it, into two chapters, viz. r Popery in General' and 
 r Popery in Special.' In the first chapter, he has very ably 
 given the character and general repulsive points of Popery ; in 
 the second, with singular power and industry, he has entered 
 upon a searching analysis and confutation of its special abomi- 
 nations. We would refer to his chapters on ' Infallibility, ' 
 1 Transubstantiation,' and f Idolatry,' as evincing great research 
 
32 CRITIQUES ON THE FORMER EDITION. 
 
 and acumen. Mr. Rogers seems enthusiastic in his labors, to 
 which we wish all the success they seem so well calculated to 
 command." — Age. 
 
 "We cannot withhold our admiration of the manner in which 
 Mr. Rogers has denounced and scattered the baneful errors of 
 Popery. His facts and his reasoning as to the asserted r infalli- 
 bility' of the Pope, the preposterous monstrosity of f transub- 
 stantiation,' with the other manifold assumptions of papistry, 
 are incontrovertible ; indeed, of such a character, that we earn- 
 estly recommend them to universal perusal, truly believing that 
 no tolerably intelligent Roman Catholic could soberly read 
 them, and afterwards have faith in the monstrous doctrines 
 which they are intended to refute." — Argus. 
 
 " This work is strikingly original. The thoughts are original, 
 the argumentation is original, the style, construction, and 
 
 phraseology are original The thinking of the author 
 
 breaks through all fetters or impediments, and powerfully illu- 
 mines the dark mazes through which it is necessary for him, 
 in pursuit of his object, to wander." — Scottish Pilot. 
 
 "The work consists of about 380 pages of as curious original 
 matter as a man may find on a summer's day, and is studded 
 all over with the most recondite expressions and choice fancies. 
 Mr. Rogers is very decided in his arguments and opinions. 
 He belabors the Pope and the Popites most unmercifully — re- 
 duces infallibility to a mere shadow — and makes minced meat 
 of transubstantiation. Auricular confession is also thoroughly 
 exposed, with all manner of priestal absolution and excom- 
 munication — and in short, Popery in general and Popery in spe- 
 cial are not left with a leg to stand upon." — Inverness Courier. 
 
 "This work contains a great quantity of original thought, and 
 is calculated to be useful in the war with Antichrist." 
 
 Inverness Herald. 
 
 " Among the many powerful and irresistible strokes which 
 have recently fallen upon the head of * the beast,' we know of 
 
CRITIQUES ON THE FORMER EDITION 33 
 
 none that has been levelled with a surer aim, or with a more 
 deadly effect, than in the volume before us. We consider it, in 
 every respect, an entirely original and singular work. The au- 
 thor is evidently a man of very superior intellectual endow- 
 ments, of a metaphysical and logical turn of mind, and accus- 
 tomed to look much farther below the surface of things than 
 the generality of writers. We think that his book is a heavy 
 and destructive blow to the whole popish system ; and one 
 which must be severely, and we doubt not permanently felt. 
 His language is forcible, and his arguments clear, cogent, and 
 irrefragable. On each of the eighteen heads, the author's argu- 
 ment is forcible and triumphant. We have only to request 
 that our readers will so far gratify themselves as to procure a 
 copy of the book with as little delay as possible." 
 
 Sunderland Mirror. 
 
 Tf This work has a great deal of originality of thought and 
 conception, and an admirable fund of new words, as well as 
 new thoughts. ... Its blows at Popery are dealt very heavily, 
 and the protestant clergy as well as the laity will do well to pos- 
 sess themselves of this well-stored quiver from whence so many 
 arrows against popery may be drawn.' 1 — Nottingham Preview. 
 
 " This is an extraordinary work, the production of a vigor- 
 ous thinker, who possesses the power of boldly setting forth 
 and declaring his views .... The reasoning is powerful and 
 christian, and the author, who is carried along in a fervid and 
 enthusiastic spirit, occasionally gives us passages of eloquence 
 as well as force." — Western Times. 
 
 "We cannot but offer our testimony to the zeal evinced by 
 the author in the prosecution of his object, as well as to the abi- 
 lity and skill with which the subject is treated The ar- 
 guments adduced against the tenets of Popery are both nume- 
 rous and forcible, and the deductions logical The zeal and 
 
 spirit of the work are highly commendable. The style is ner- 
 vous and expressive, and the subjects and divisions lucidly 
 
 classified It is a book of peculiar interest and value at 
 
 2* 
 
34 CRITIQUES ON THE FORMER EDITION. 
 
 this moment It is one, moreover, that may advantage 
 
 ' the Papist ' something, (though it cannot please,) whilst it 
 will be sure to obtain the approbation of the Protestant." 
 
 Skipping and Mercantile Gazette. 
 
 " A very original book. Mr. Rogers has brought to his task 
 
 very considerable research and much logical reasoning 
 
 Let him but remove these defects," [i. e. some defects of style, 
 &c] " and his writings will prove valuable to all the present 
 age of religious controversy." — Hertford Reformer. 
 
 " Antipopopriestian is a work evincing very considerable re- 
 search, and a thorough knowledge of the points in dispute 
 among theologians. ... is devoted to a full and searching ex- 
 posure of the errors of Popery, . . . and will well repay the cu- 
 rious in such studies for an attentive perusal."— Kent Herald. 
 
 " Mr. Rogers has performed the task imposed on himself 
 generally with clearness of reasoning and great force of lan- 
 guage." — Cambridge Chronicle. 
 
 " This volume displays great judgment and elaborate research. 
 We would recommend it to all who value sound religious con- 
 troversy. The author's arguments are keen and sensible." 
 
 Northern Liberator. 
 
 n Mr. Rogers' arguments are logical and persuasive, exhibit- 
 ing an originality and strength which prove them to be the pro- 
 duct of a powerful mind. He has tested popery both by reason 
 and revelation, and found it miserably wanting. He has track- 
 ed the Mystery of Iniquity to its hiding-place ; and the verdict 
 which any honest jury would give, after hearing his evidence, 
 is that which he himself pronounces,— r Popery is a cunnin* 
 compound of superficial truth and solid error? " 
 
 Londonderry Sentinel. 
 
THE INTRODUCTION. 
 
 I. To you who bear the christian name, and particu- 
 larly to you who are christian in name and in nature, I 
 more peculiarly submit the present work, hoping that 
 you will judge kindly of my motive, candidly of my exe- 
 cution, and rightly of the result. What may be fitly- 
 done, regard with pleasure and approbation ; and what 
 may be defective, view with an indulgent and forgiving 
 eye. And if your impartial reason decidedly disapprove, 
 blame the head of the writer, rather than the heart. 
 
 I come before you with a degree of solicitude, and 
 with a deep and solemn feeling of responsibility to God 
 and man in relation to my work now laid before the 
 world. Being my first work, I have an anxiety to know 
 how it will be received by the reading public ) and be- 
 ing on a very important subject, I am greatly concern- 
 ed that it be found likely to promote the glory of God, 
 and the temporal and eternal good of mankind. The 
 literary name or fortune of the author, though import- 
 ant to him, is unimportant to the world \ therefore on 
 that point he will say no more. But the moral tenden- 
 cy of his work, the effect it may have on the present 
 and future well-being of himself and other people, the 
 character" it has in relation to earth, and heaven, and 
 hell, and according to the infinite wisdom of God, — 
 this is a matter of another kind, and of grave concern, 
 and whereon the writer ought to feel and does feel 
 warmly interested and awfully accountable, and where- 
 
36 THE INTRODUCTION. 
 
 on the reader ought to feel an interest lively and strong, 
 both writer and reader being morally bound to care and 
 desire that what is written and read may forward mo- 
 ral and natural good, and lead to holiness, and happi- 
 ness, and heaven. May the present work aid in lessen- 
 ing the immorality and misery of man, in promoting 
 purity, peace and joy upon earth, and in guiding many 
 an immortal soul to glory and to God ! 
 
 We live in an eventful and even alarming time. The 
 whole world is in commotion ; the world christian, 
 Jewish, Mohammedan, and Pagan ; religious, political, 
 and social, — all are powerfully moved to and fro, and 
 their peculiarities are being tried, and being retained un- 
 altered, or reformed, or ruined, " men's hearts failing 
 them for fear," Luke, 21 : 26 ; and the question being 
 every where put, "Watchman, what of the night 1" Isa. 
 21:11. The different schemes of polity current on the 
 globe, are all undergoing an ordeal ample and severe, and 
 are held or repelled as deemed utile or not, utility of a 
 higher or a lower kind being taken for the standard. Of 
 course, a very great amount of careful examination is 
 bestowed on the subject of popery. A system actino* 
 with uncommon power on the fortune of many millions 
 of mankind, ought to be rigidly examined and accurate- 
 ly known ; and any system ought to be tested and tried 
 in proportion to its effect on the condition of the world. 
 All plans of polity being now on their trial, may the 
 great and good Jehovah cause the bad to be removed, 
 and the good to be confirmed and continued! God how- 
 ever works by the agency of man ; and therefore man 
 is bound to inquire in what way he can be most effect- 
 ively an agent in carrying on the work of God. As a 
 result of the inquiry in regard to myself, I write the 
 present work, and come forward as a public opponent of 
 what I deem public evil. I sincerely think that what is 
 here opposed, forms a great evil ; and that in opposing 
 
THE INTRODUCTION. 37 
 
 it, I am keeping in the path of duty, and concurring 
 with the Divine will. And may the all-wise God of love, 
 who knows the sincerity of the writer, smile on him ! 
 and make the work a medium of good to many! crown- 
 ing the writer and the reader with his heavenly approv- 
 al, and blessing them now and for ever ! 
 
 II. The word Kirk is employed in the present un- 
 dertaking, instead of the word Church ; for kirk is the 
 better word of the two, being shorter, more musical, 
 and more like the etymon. 1st. Kirk has only four let- 
 ters, while church has six. 2nd. The term church is 
 extremely dysphonical and harsh. The beginning and 
 ending of the term church, are grating and unpleasant 
 to our ear. 3rd. Kirk, or church, comes indirectly 
 from the Greek Kvpsou c/*c?, kuriou oikos, house of the 
 Lord. Query. Ought the word to be written Kurk 1 
 The kurk of Scotland I 
 
 III. The word priest is often employed in the pre- 
 sent work, to mean the christian minister or pastor. 
 The word having a degree of ambiguity, and being ca- 
 pable of a meaning highly objectionable, I deem it right 
 to give the following explanation. Priest may have a 
 twofold meaning. 1st. Being probably a contraction 
 of presbyter, it may mean the same thing, namely, elder, 
 minister, preacher, pastor, or the like. 2nd. It may 
 mean sacrificing priest, or sacrificer. The word priest 
 taken in the latter meaning, that of sacrificer, is offen- 
 sive and painful to the truly christian or truly protest- 
 ant ear; and ought to be avoided as a fragment of papal 
 corruption, and even of Judaism. Christianity knows 
 no other sacrifice than the one great sacrifice of Christ, 
 completed on the cross. She knows nothing of the 
 pretended sacrifice of the mass, that huge fable of popery. 
 The word priest, taken in the former meaning, that of 
 presbyter or pastor, may be fitly employed in conver 
 sation, a speech a sermon or a book. The word is em- 
 
38 HE INTRODUCTION. 
 
 ployed in the former signification, throughout my work, 
 whether simply, as priest, or compoundly, as priesthood, 
 priestal,* and the like. 
 
 IV. I indulge the hope that, in composing the work, 
 I shall carefully avoid railing, angry terms, and bitter 
 language. The foul epithet, bad name, scurrile phrase, 
 ology, and personal invective, often found to come from 
 pen and tongue, ought to be declined and shunned, for 
 they do no good, and do great harm. The employment 
 of them will foster bad feeling in the writer or speaker, 
 affect with pain, and provoke to sin, the reader or hear- 
 er, make a good argument often appear a bad one, ex- 
 cite unduly the ire and sympathy of another in favor of 
 the object of attack, set an evil example to the world, 
 and contemn and contravene the plain declaration of 
 Scripture, and the palpable dictate of reason. " The 
 servant of the Lord must not strive ; but be gentle unto 
 all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing 
 those who oppose themselves. 2 Tim. 2. Speak evil 
 of no man, be no brawlers, but gentle, showing all 
 meekness unto all men. Tit. 3 : 2. The wrath of man 
 worketh not the righteousness of God." James, 1 : 20. 
 
 It will not follow, however, that we are forbidden to 
 write or speak boldly, decidedly, and in a manner not to 
 be mistaken. We are quite justifiable in using a vigo- 
 rous word, a strong style, and a mode of expression 
 giving our full, entire, undoubted meaning, without favor 
 and without fear. Our language is not required to be 
 timid, luke-warm, feeble, and finical; deprived of ener- 
 gy, void of nerve, and destitute of spirit, edge, and 
 point. " It is good to be zealously affected always in a 
 good thing. Gal. 4 : 18. Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy 
 voice like a trumpet, and show my people their trans- 
 
 * The word pricstal, comes regularly from priest, and is a proper 
 adjective. 
 
THE IKTRODUCTION. 39 
 
 gression, and the house of Jacob their sins. Isaiah, 58 : 1. 
 Rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the 
 faith." Titus, 1 : 13. 
 
 I hope carefully to control my temper, and to be cool 
 and cautious; and yet to keep my ardor, and to be zea- 
 lous and warm. Kind and gentle, yet decisive and firm \ 
 pleading soberly, yet strongly \ having love for my oppo- 
 nent, but greater love for truth. Bishop Burnet wrote, 
 tf Whatever moderation or charity we may owe to men's 
 persons, we owe none at all to their errors, and to that 
 frame which is built on and supported oy them." Soft 
 word and hard argument — is undoubtedly a good rule ; 
 but beware of going to the hurtful extreme ; and let not 
 the softness of the former enfeeble and nullify the 
 hardness of the latter. Suaviter in mo do, fort iter in re. 
 
 V. Some may object that I employ too condemnatory 
 language, write in a strain of undue severity, and be- 
 tray too much of the spirit of carnal censure, and too 
 little of that of christian love. They may object that the 
 style is too cutting, and the spirit too severe ; and that 
 popery, considering the moderate measure wherein it is 
 held by enlightened men, is treated in a way somewhat 
 harsh, sarcastic, and bitter. 
 
 I however beg the objector to bear in mind that my 
 book is written not merely against moderate popery, 
 popery deprived of its worse qualities, the system of en- 
 lightened, excellent, liberal men ) but also against full- 
 grown and exclusive popery, popery in its most hideous 
 form, popery as held by the bigot, the persecutor, and 
 the mental slave. I attack with severity, not the popery 
 of Fenelon, Pascal, and Gregory Lopez, but that of 
 Hildebrand, Bonner, and bloody Mary ; not the popery 
 that granted the edict of Nantes, but that which revoked 
 it ; not the popery that, by going little beyond protest- 
 antism, and so by allowing the more of protestant opera- 
 tion, leads in a degree, to happiness here, and to salva- 
 
40 THE INTRODUCTION. 
 
 tion hereafter, but that which, as a full-grown or mere- 
 ly carnal and prideful scheme, rides rough-shod over 
 soul, body, and estate, and puts people into purgatory, 
 in order to be well paid [or putting them out. I write to 
 oppose less popery as appearing in Great Britain, than 
 popery as existing in Italy and Spain ; less popery as 
 held in check by the vicinity of the purer and more 
 liberal spirit of protestantism, than popery as having 
 the whole field to itself, and showing its corruption and 
 illiberality aloof .from the rebuke and counteraction of 
 a better system. In brief, I delineate popery as it has 
 been, as it is where its spirit and principle can work 
 without control, and as it will be where and when able, 
 while darkness shall be dark, cruelty cruel, and corrup- 
 tion corrupt. 
 
 Examples. " When we contemplate popery upheld by 
 intolerating persecution and the infernal inquisition, 
 &c." Chapter first, section 1, S. 2, A. 3. ft So far as I 
 understand the papal doctrine of merit, as exhibited in 
 the prosperous and palmy days of popery, or as grown 
 to the full, &c." Chapter 2, section 12. " What does 
 the doctrine mean, when fully carried out, when taken 
 in its whole extent, in its length, breadth, and depth 1" 
 Chapter second, section 14. 
 
 After giving the foregoing reason for not handling 
 popery in a softer and gentler mode, I may surely add, 
 that they whom I oppose have no good ground in the 
 strong and uncompromising language employed, for 
 throwing my book aside without perusal. Let them act 
 as generous and manly opponents, not abusing my book, 
 but using it ; not flinging it away in a fit of ill nature, but 
 frankly and honestly weighing its arguments and ex- 
 amining its value. May the work have fair play with 
 friend and foe, being received with candor, and read 
 with impartiality and a sincere desire to find and follow 
 truth, even by the large party whom it is written to op- 
 
THE INTRODUCTION. 41 
 
 pose! May the papal party, against whom the work is 
 aimed, peruse it with care ; may they " read, mark, 
 learn, and inwardly digest it !" 
 
 VI. Popery leads to Infidelity, being a very plentiful 
 cause hereof 5 it tends to form, to foster, to harden in- 
 fidels, and to encourage them to continue their despe- 
 rate career. This is a painful thought, but not more 
 painful than true, as will be made to appear. 
 
 Theory. When unconverted people see Christianity 
 mingled with the error, the superstition, the crime, the 
 abomination of popery, of full-formed or perfect popery ; 
 see the rational and noble doctrines of the Bible joined 
 to, and disfigured by the absurd and monstrous inven- 
 tions of the " man of sin, the son of perdition 5" 2 
 Thess. 2 : 3, see the pure precept of the Gospel disre- 
 garded and forgotten amid the foul practice and corrupt 
 doing of the papal kirk 5 see the holy and heavenly 
 spirit of God's word, " swallowed up and lost" in'the 
 wide ocean of papal ignorance, vice, misery, of papal 
 heresy and immorality, of papal fraud and hypocrisy, 
 cruelty and satanical oppression, mammonism and ex- 
 tortion, lust and sensuality, anger, envy and malignity; 
 see Jesus Christ compelled to appear in unnatural alli- 
 ance with the Pope and the devil, the holy and benevo- 
 lent Jesus having often appeared allied with a profane 
 and profligate Pope and the deceiving and devouring 
 devil; is it improbable, is it unnatural that the uncon- 
 verted people will confound Christianity with popery, 
 and will oppose the former, in order effectively to ex- 
 pel the latter'? 
 
 Practice. The papal world is full of infidels ; popery, 
 in the countries where she claims to reign supreme, is 
 jostled and elbowed by infidelity ; papal superstition 
 and infidel devastation appear, in a large part of the 
 christian world, to contend for an ignoble masterdom ; 
 and Italy, the unholy land of his holiness or unholiness 
 
42 THE INTRODUCTION. 
 
 the pope, has been affirmed to contain more of the infi- 
 del tribe than any other nation in Europe. 
 
 Reader, think now of the fearful character of popery, 
 and of its melancholy effect in the formation of the in- 
 fidel. Whether we consult theory or practice, reason- 
 ing or fact, we find the result to be that popery is the 
 forerunner of infidelity ; that papal perversion brings on 
 infidel infatuation and impiety, or that Rome papal great- 
 ly tends to form the character, to confirm the hardihood, 
 and therefore to augment the number of the miserable 
 men termed infidels. Popery leads men to oppose 
 Christianity, and even to deem her untrue, unholy, and 
 unhappy. Papal seed gives an infidel crop. In fine, po- 
 pery draws men to doubt and reject revelation, and 
 makes them run blindly, carelessly, desperately into 
 that awful world where the doom of mankind will be 
 either the happiness of heaven, or the misery of hell ! 
 either joy inconceivable, or sorrow beyond compare ! 
 
 With heavenly pleasure bless'd, or curs'd with hellish pain ! 
 With angels gloried, or with devils dammed ! 
 
 VII. Popery delays the conversion to Christianity of 
 Jew, Mohammedan, and Heathen. It does the thing in a 
 two-fold way, by making christian less willing, worthy, 
 and able to convey, and by making Jew, Mohammedan, 
 and Heathen less willing to receive Christianity. 
 
 The effect of popery on the christian as the conveyer 
 of Christianity. Because of the hurtful operation of the 
 papal bad scheme among christian people, christian 
 kirks and individuals make fewer and smaller efforts ex- 
 clusively and purely to christianize the world, and to 
 gather the Jewish, Mohammedan, and Heathen portions 
 into the fold of Christ. Popery exerts a baneful and be- 
 numming effect on the head, and heart, and hand of the 
 christian world, lies heavily on the holy active energy 
 
THE INTRODUCTION. 43 
 
 of Christendom, and wofully impedes the truly mission- 
 ary and evangelizing labor of worthy and pious people. 
 Because of popery, there is less will and moral ability 
 for the scriptural and saving conversion of Jew, Moham- 
 medan, and Heathen ; there being a smaller portion of 
 people christian in nature, or a greater proportion chris- 
 tian in mere name. Moreover, because of popery, the 
 comparatively few real christians have less natural abi- 
 lity for the real and rational conversion of Jew, Moham- 
 medan, and Heathen, as will appear by the following 
 three reasons. 1st. Real christians have less power and 
 effect for good. 2nd. They have less time, being occu- 
 pied in papal contention and debate. 3rd. They have 
 less union. 
 
 The effect of popery on Jew, Mohammedan, and Hea- 
 then, as receivers of Christianity. Popery, clouding the 
 heavenly beauty of Christianity, and hindering her bene- 
 ficent and healing operation, makes Jew, Mohammedan 
 and Heathen less inclined to receive her, less prone to 
 take her for their place of refuge, safety, and comfort ; 
 for their guide through life, and their hope in death. 
 The papal scheme will bring the three kinds of people to 
 eye Christianity with something like suspicion and un- 
 favorable feeling 5 will lead them to doubt her Divine 
 origin, to question the uncommon purity and holiness 
 of her character, and to diffide in her great utility, her 
 great power and operation in promoting peace, and 
 happiness, and hope. 1st. When a contemplative and 
 thoughtful Jew, Mohammedan, and Heathen ponder the 
 great and heavy amount of papal absurdity and wrong, 
 of papal evil moral and natural, under the christian name, 
 will they be forward to view Christianity as the immedi- 
 ate gift of God '! They will not. 2nd. When they be- 
 hold her as a mother of the papal bad scheme, a foun- 
 tain-head of the sin and crime flowing from popery, will 
 they be apt to regard her as the firmest friend and ally 
 
44? THE INTRODUCTION. 
 
 of virtue 1 They will not. 3rd. When they contem- 
 plate her as abounding in cruelty, oppression, persecu- 
 tion and war ; as being a fertile origin of suffering and 
 misery, will they be ready to hail her as the best bene- 
 factress of mankind ! as the great spring of earthly and 
 temporal joy, and of hope of joy beyond the grave, of 
 pleasure heavenly and eternal 1 as the main pillar, the 
 real foundation, the very life-blood of human happiness 
 both here and hereafter 1 They will not. They will 
 not be according to the 1st. the 2nd. or the 3rd. A 
 Jew, Mohammedan, and Heathen will not easily per- 
 ceive, will not readily and clearly know, and of course, 
 will not take over great time and pain to inquire where- 
 in Christianity is superior to their own melancholy and 
 miserable system, wherein she is more Divine, more 
 holy, more beneficial. Therefore accusing her of evil 
 not properly her own, blaming her instead of popery, 
 the real blamable, to their own system they will cling, 
 her (Christianity) they will reject, God's message of 
 mercy they will hear little, and heed less ; and instead 
 of going to Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost, holiness, hap- 
 piness, hope, and heaven, will " lie down in sorrow, in 
 darkness, and in the land of the shadow of death, having 
 no hope, and without God in the world." Is. 50:11. 
 Is. 9:2. Eph. 2:12. 
 
 By the foregoing, we learn the lamentable effect of 
 popery in retarding the sound or solid conversion of 
 Jew, Mohammedan, and Heathen. We see that it goes 
 directly to darken and deaden the christian world ; 
 throwing a thick cloud before the moral vision, and 
 bringing a withering wind or poisonous vapor upon all 
 the purer and better feeling and working of the heart. 
 We see too that popery goes to uphold the power 
 and continue the sway of Judaism, Mohaminedism, and 
 Heathenism. The papal system leads the Jew to reject 
 the Messiah, the Mohammedan to repel the Justifier and 
 
THE INTRODUCTION. 45 
 
 the Sanctifier, and the Heathen to repudiate the one true 
 God, hindering the conversion of the three to the happy 
 fold of Christ. N. B. Of course, by conversion, I mean 
 real, rational, scriptural conversion ; and not a mere no- 
 minal one, not a conversion that leaves the convert as 
 unconverted in nature as afore, an unconverted convert, 
 N. B. The Jews perhap have been kept from going to 
 Christ, mainly by papal Idolatry. 
 
 VIII. I may say for myself that perhap I should ne- 
 ver meddle with the papal system, by writing this work, 
 if its evil nature and bad effect had no relation to, no 
 connection with the world to come, eternal joy and sor- 
 row. For what is the present world, compared with the 
 world to cornel A shadow. What is our life here, 
 compared with our life elsewhere 1 A dream. What is 
 Our pleasure or pain now, compared with our pleasure 
 or pain nowafter 1* A phantasy. What is the duration 
 of all the generations of mankind upon earth, compared 
 with eternity 1 A moment. 
 
 I oppose popery, and write my work, mainly and pri- 
 marily on account of religion, for the good of Christiani- 
 ty, to aid in saving the human soul commonly weighed 
 down by sin and sorrow ) to promote, in some poor way, 
 the object near and dear to the heart of God, the ever- 
 lasting happiness of his rational creation. I oppose po- 
 pery, principally because it opposes the grand, the fun- 
 damental, the leading, the all-prevailing system of Jeho- 
 
 * I beg leave to coin the word Nowafter, it being a more correct 
 one than hereafter. Nowafter and now, both refer to duration ; but 
 hereafter refers to duration, and here to expansion, here, when 
 alone, having a meaning radically different from what it has when 
 compounded with after. But the word here ought not to jump from 
 expansion to duration, contravening logical order. We may coin a 
 new word corresponding with here, as hereaway, hereoffway, or the 
 like. Then we shall have the following correct arrangement : now, 
 nowafter j here, hereaway, hereoffway, or the like. 
 
46 THE INTRODUCTION. 
 
 rah, the system of good-will and love toward his crea- 
 tures ; of freeing them from pain, and filling them with 
 pleasure through all time, and through all eternity. 
 I begin, continue, and end the work, chiefly through a 
 strong and lively conviction of the value of a soul ; of the 
 worth of an immortal mind ; of the awful importance, 
 in the eye of the Bible and of reason, of a spirit who will 
 have existence rolling on through eternal duration, who 
 will think, and feel, and be happy or miserable for ever 
 and ever; and who, if happy after death, will probably 
 go on increasing in happiness while eternity itself will 
 remain. 
 
 Happy, happy are they who promote the salvation of 
 souls, carefully, constantly, collectively ; in every time, 
 in every place, by every mean ; from the press, in the 
 pulpit, on the platform, in the parlor, and on their 
 knees in private and public prayer to God ! 
 
 Have gift and grace to thee been given 1 
 Employ them to bring souls to heaven ! 
 
 Heaven ! How cheering and exhilarating is the 
 thought of heaven ! — particularly if we have a well- 
 founded hope of going thither, if our heart be turned 
 to heavenly things, if our soul be in a godly frame, or 
 if we love God, The Good Being, Who makes heaven 
 His throne. Isa 66 ; 1. Eeader, may you and I find our 
 way to heaven ! 
 
 Angelic, Godlike joy in heaven we'll prove, 
 
 Our head being full of light, our heart being full of love. 
 
 IX. Heaven apart, a more noble or delightful subject 
 of contemplation can hardly be found, than the coming 
 thousand years of holiness and happiness, called the 
 Millennium. Think of the world as it has been in all 
 time, and is now, and then think of it as it will be in 
 the bright and beautiful day of millennial light and love, 
 
THE INTRODUCTION. 47 
 
 and as it will begin to be ere very long, and what a flood 
 of glory rolls on before the enraptured view of the 
 mental eye ! Amid the sin and sorrow now everywhere 
 abounding, amid the iniquity and misery prevailing 
 throughout, how pleasing the prospect of millennial 
 purity and joy ! how animating the thought that our 
 globe will be occupied by hundreds of millions of 
 people holy and happy ! and how ennobling the con- 
 sideration of our being instrumental in bringing for- 
 ward the state so full of good to man, of gratification 
 to angels, and of glory to God ! But what a deal must 
 be done, and what a deal must be undone afore that 
 time can arrive ! Many a thing now existing will be 
 thrown down, and many a new one set up ere we see 
 the swelling tide of millennial wisdom and virtue. In 
 particular, ere the millennium will rise, popery will fall, 
 the glory of the future day being incompatible with the 
 mental dark and moral degradation of papal Eome. 
 And I frankly avow that I the more readily and willing- 
 ly take the field against Rome, and give manly battle to 
 papal error, by knowing that in wielding my pen to 
 help in overturning popery, I help in preparing the way 
 for the millennium ; or that in forwarding the ruin of 
 the " man of sin," 2 Thess. 2 : 3, I promote the hea- 
 venly rule of the " Man that is the Fellow of the Lord 
 of hosts." Zech. 13:7. that the Lord may gladden, 
 and convert, and save the world! turning the whole 
 earth into one grand temple where he will be glorified, 
 and man filled with life, and light, and love, and joy ! 
 
 Oh what a change the world will prove ! 
 A thousand years of peace and love ! 
 God in the human heart will reign, 
 And heavenly glory dwell with men ! 
 
 In writing here of the millennium at large, I do not 
 commit myself to every opinion put forth by millena- 
 
48 THE INTRODUCTION. 
 
 rians ; and in particular, I have no concern with, and do 
 not enter into the question of what kind of reign Christ's 
 will be, spiritual or personal, or of where his human na- 
 ture will be, in heaven or on earth. I deem it enough 
 for our good, and enough for holiness and happiness, 
 that our Lord will reign and rule by his spirit in the 
 hearts of his people, whether his humanity will be in 
 heaven or Jerusalem. But without giving or professing 
 to have a decided and well weighed opinion on the contro- 
 verted question of where he will be, I beg leave to make 
 three short remarks. 1st. The question appears to be 
 of minor moment, and to have too little practical impor- 
 tance to deserve to occupy much of our time and thought. 
 2nd. It appears more noble, sublime and glorious for our 
 Lord to be at God's right hand in heaven, than for him 
 to be in a palace in Jerusalem. 3rd. The notion of the 
 personal reign appears more or less to resemble the 
 Jewish earthly notion of the temporal Messiah. To 
 the three remarks, I will venture to add one humble re- 
 quest, namely, that people will write, and speak, and la- 
 bor more in relation to where we shall be, in heaven or 
 in hell, than in regard to where our Lord will be, in 
 heaven or in Jerusalem. 
 
 X. I am a firm believer in Christianity, and a profes- 
 sor of religion, and one who values above all earthly 
 joy, the "pearl of great price," Matt. 13 : 46 5 the 
 " wedding-garment," Matt. 22 ; the " one thing needful," 
 Luke, 10:42; justification from guilt, and peace with 
 God through Jesus Christ, and the sanctifying and com- 
 forting operations of the Holy Ghost, the well-founded 
 hope of heaven. Therefore I have not, and cannot have 
 identity of interest, community of feeling, oneness of 
 object or unity of aim or design with infidel, sceptical 
 and atheistical people either at home or abroad, what- 
 ever noise and clamor they may make about liberty civil 
 or religious, and however hostile and opposed they may 
 
THE INTRODUCTION. 49 
 
 be to slavery and tyranny. I do not give my heart, friend- 
 ship, or company to men, merely and only because they 
 happen to oppose temporal slavery. For alas ! it is pos- 
 sible, and even quite easy and quite common to be at 
 once a foe of slavery, and a slave of sin and Satq^ ; to 
 oppose despotism, without aiding piety ) to love human 
 liberty, without hating human folly and human crime ; 
 to be a fierce enemy of tyrannical rulers, and yet no 
 friend of God. We have seen, and may now see active 
 enemies of human tyrants, to be active enemies of re- 
 ligion, of man's main good, of God himself ; to be firm 
 allies of the devil, zealous and effective agents of hell. 
 "O my soul, come not thou into their secret ,- unto 
 their assembly, mine honor, be not thou united. Gen. 
 49 : 6. Blessed is the man that walketh not in the 
 counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sin- 
 ners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. Ps. 1: 1. 
 My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not. Walk 
 not thou in the way with them, refrain thy foot from 
 their path. Prov. 1 : 10, 15. Enter not into the path of 
 the wicked, and go not in the way of evil men. Avoid 
 it, pass not by it, turn from it, and pass away. Prov. 4 : 
 14, 15. Evil communications corrupt good manners. 
 1 Cor. 15 : 33. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. 
 Gal. 5 : 9. Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works 
 of darkness, but rather reprove them." Eph. 5:11. 
 
 XL Great Britain and America have Owenism, France 
 has Simonianism, Germany and other countries have an 
 ism of similar kind. What is the nature or character of 
 the several 'isms ? Do they not imply infidelity'? do 
 they not appertain to scepticism 1 do they not lead to 
 the dark and dreary shores of atheistic folly 1 The two 
 forenamed isms, or schemes, and the like appear to me, 
 so far as I know them, republications of old and exploded 
 pestilent error, reproductions of what have been afore 
 brought forward, examined, " weighed in the balances, 
 
 3 
 
50 THE INTRODUCTION. 
 
 and found wanting." Dan. 5 : 27. The schemes appear 
 to me unchristian and unphilosophical ; irreligious, im- 
 moral, and irrational. The infidel, sceptic, and atheist 
 often pretend to be friends of virtue, while they are con- 
 cealed and crafty allies of vice. Moreover, they often 
 know very little about religion, while they fancy they 
 know a very great deal. Their fancied knowledge often 
 is mainly painted ignorance. 
 
 We have now in England and America a new thing, 
 or an old thing under a new name, to wit, Socialism, 
 If the thing be new, it is new by diving more deeply in- 
 to evil than any former scheme has done ; and as to the 
 name, it is remarkable not only by being new, but also 
 by being a misnomer. Regarding the thing, it is nota- 
 ble privatively and positively, as to what it rejects, and 
 what it receives. Among the things rejected, are Pro- 
 perty, Marriage, and Religion, — three things blasphem- 
 ously termed by the Socialists, the trinity of evils. Oh 
 men trinally tried and bound to folly and to sin ! Of 
 course they do not hold Immortality \ that bright and 
 blessed ground of hope for the future ! and do hold In- 
 fidelity, that dreary swamp of mere negation I Among 
 the things received, are Fatalism, and perhap Atheism! 
 Behold the Fatalist creed ! a miserable farrago of the 
 wicked and the weak, a creed fit for none but a devil, a 
 brute, or a fool ! Indeed Socialism appears a woful kind 
 of compound of blasphemy and bestiality, or of devil- 
 ism and swinism, and possibly began on that memorable 
 day when the devils got into the swine. Matt. 8 : 32, 
 Regarding the name, Socialism is by no mean to the 
 point, the thing being about as unsocial as can well be 
 imagined. The Socialism is doubly unsocial, dissociat- 
 ing man from man, and men from God. Instead of 
 terming it Socialism, we shall be far nearer the mark in 
 calling it Sensualism. Oh filthy dreamers ! Oh men 
 full of the world, the flesh, and the devil ! how long 
 
• THE INTRODUCTION. 51 
 
 will ye wallow in sin and sensuality \ neglecting the 
 soul ! despising God ! disregarding eternity ! turning 
 away from heaven ! and tending toward hell ! that dark 
 and dreadful gulf that yawns beneath ! that abode of 
 misery and black despair ! 
 
 Sinner, O why so thoughtless grown 1 
 Why in such dreadful haste to die % 
 
 Daring to leap to worlds unknown ! 
 Heedless against thy God to fly ! 
 
 Wilt thou despise eternal fate. 
 
 Urg'd on by sin's fantastic dreams 1 
 Madly attempt th' infernal gate 1 
 
 And force thy passage to the flames ? — Unknown* 
 
 u This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is 
 earthly, sensual, devilish. James, 3 : 15. Thy wisdom 
 and thy knowledge, it hath perverted thee. Isa. 47 : 10. 
 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and 
 vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudi- 
 ments of the world, and not after Christ. Col. 2 : 8. 
 Avoid profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of 
 science falsely so called. " 1 Tim. 6 : 20. 
 
 XII. I desire, heartily desire that the noble cause of 
 liberty, both religious and civil, may have better and 
 worthier advocates or champions than infidel, sceptical, 
 and atheistical men $ than the holder and defender of 
 the forementioned opinions, dangerous doctrine, crude 
 conceit ; than the mad and miserable men, antihuman 
 and antidivine, who " wax worse and worse, deceiving, 
 and being deceived. " 2 Tim. 3:13. "Be ye clean, 
 that bear the vessels of the Lord." Isa. 52 : 11. " Let 
 every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from 
 iniquity." 2 Tim. 2 : 19. 
 
 * The word Unknown put after lines, stands for Author unknown, 
 i. e. unknown to me. Lines accompanied neither by the name of 
 the author or work, nor by the word Unknown, are my own. 
 
52 THE INTRODUCTION. 
 
 XIII. One of the most abominable and baneful doc- 
 trines ever sent into the world to corrupt and degrade 
 it, one of the most depraving and disgusting proposals 
 that ever sprang from a foul and filthy soul, one of the 
 most indecent, immodest, impure tenets ever put forth 
 by the slave of sensuality, is that of having wives or 
 rather women in common. The scheme of community 
 of wives or women, is perhap* the very master-piece of 
 the great patron of sensual impurity, of Belial. This pol- 
 luting principle, the principle of universal prostitution, 
 makes a leading part, so far as I know, of the creed of 
 Owenites, of Simonians, and of a like set of people in 
 Germany. But the scheme of Belial will not do, and will 
 not be adopted afore the Bible be burned ; ere religion 
 be sent back to heaven y afore the eye of reason be put 
 out ; ere philosophy be driven from the world \ afore 
 mankind be turned into brutes ; ere men and women be 
 brought down to the level of swine ; afore good sense, 
 fine feeling, chastity, delicacy, happy home, pure plea- 
 sure be banished from earth ; ere folly, brutal appetite, 
 fornication, coarseness, dismal and hated home, painted, 
 plated, gilded misery be rendered universal. " But this 
 thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, 
 which I also hate. So hast thou also them that hold the 
 doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate." Rev. 
 2 : 6, 15. 
 
 Hail, wedded love ! mysterious law, true sour 
 
 Of human offspring, sole propriety 
 
 In Paradise of all things common else. 
 
 By thee adulterous Lust was driven from men 
 
 Among the bestial herds to range ; by thee 
 
 * Why do people write perhaps, rather than perhap ? Perhap is 
 better in a threefold way. 1st. It is more like the origin, per and 
 hap. 2nd. It has one letter less. 3rd. It is more musical. Now let 
 the three good reasons overcome the bad custom. Or if the reader 
 prefer old perhaps, let him not quarrel with new perhap. 
 
THE INTRODUCTION. 53 
 
 Founded in reason, loyal, just, and pure, 
 
 Relations dear, and all the charities 
 
 Of father, son, and brother, first were known. 
 
 Par. Lost, B. IV. 
 
 O happy they ! the happiest of their kind! 
 Whom gentler stars unite, and in one fate, 
 Their hearts, their fortunes, and their beings blend. 
 
 Thomson. 
 
 Granting, for the sake of argument, that Belial will be 
 able to set up the libidinous scheme, people will indulge 
 in obscenity and lewd living, without restraint, without 
 fear, without infamy, condemnation, and disgust ; they 
 will give the rein to all the contemptible, low, vile, and 
 to the furious or violent passions of the fallen and cor- 
 rupt human heart ; they will take their full swing in every 
 kind of sensuality, and in vice less carnal or material, 
 rolling and wallowing in moral or immoral mire, u wax- 
 ing worse and worse." 2 Tim. 3: 13. If Belial should 
 ever carry his favorite plan against Jesus Christ, (what 
 he certainly never, never will do,) then we should see 
 reason dethroned by passion, the soul overcome by the 
 body, love supplanted by lust, virtue expelled by vice ; 
 then we should see no virtuous affection, no wedded 
 love, no husband, no wife, no beloved offspring ; then 
 we should see the world become one boundless brothel, 
 every man a lewdster, every woman a harlot, every child 
 a bastard ; then we should see ignorance, and then vice 
 of manifold kind and degree, cruelty, rage, revenge, 
 bloodshed, murder, suicide, savagery, brutality, diaboli- 
 cality overflow, overturn, overwhelm every thing good, 
 pure, noble in the human heart, defile, deform, destroy 
 the human creation of God, expunge our globe from the 
 map of morality, and give to hell, a lewd triumph over 
 heaven. 
 
 " God sitteth upon the throne of his holiness. Psalm 
 47 : 8. Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, who was, 
 
54 THE INTRODUCTION. 
 
 and is, and is to come. Rev. 4 : 8. Holy, holy, holy, 
 is the Lord of hosts : the whole earth is full of his 
 glory. Isa. 6 : 3. For thus saith the high and lofty One 
 that inhabiteth eternity, Whose name is Holy ; I dwell 
 in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a 
 contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the 
 humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones. 
 Isa. 57 : 15. Holiness to the Lord. Exod. 28 : 36. 
 and 39:30. Zech. 14:20. As He who hath called 
 you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversa- 
 tion. Because it is written, Be ye holy ; for I am holy. 
 
 1 Peter, 1 : 15, 16. Follow peace with all men, and holi- 
 ness, without which no man shall see the Lord. Heb. 
 12 : 14. Having therefore these promises, dearly be- 
 loved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the 
 flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. 
 
 2 Cor. 7 : 1. The grace of God that bringeth salvation, 
 hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying 
 ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, 
 righteously, and godly, in this present world. Titus, 
 2:11, 12. Blessed are the pure in heart ; for they shall 
 see God. Matt. 5 : 8. Thou shalt not commit adultery. 
 Exod. 20 : 14. The man that committeth adultery with 
 another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery 
 with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adultress 
 shall surely be put to death. Lev. 20 : 10. Deut. 22 : 22. 
 For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and 
 cleave to his wife ; and they twain shall be one flesh. 
 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. 
 What therefore God hath joined together, let no man 
 put asunder. Matt. 19 : 5, 6. To avoid fornication, let 
 every man have his own wife, and let every woman 
 have her own husband. 1 Cor. 7 : 2. Marriage is hon- 
 orable in all, and the bed undefiled ; but whoremongers 
 and adulterers, God will judge. Heb. 13 : 4. Be not 
 deceived : not fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, 
 
THE INTRODUCTION. 55 
 
 nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselv r es with mankind, 
 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, 
 nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 
 Flee fornication. 1 Cor. 6. The* works of the flesh are 
 these \ adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lascivious- 
 ness — they who do such things shall not inherit the 
 kingdom of God. Gal. 5 : 19, 21. Fornication, and all 
 uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named 
 among you, as becometh saints ; for this ye know, that 
 no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous 
 man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the 
 kingdom of Christ and of God. Eph. 5 : 3, 5. For the 
 time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought 
 the will of the gentiles, when we walked in lascivious- 
 ness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and 
 abominable idolatries: wherein they think it strange 
 that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, 
 speaking evil of you : who shall give account to Him 
 that is ready to judge the quick and the dead. 1 Peter, 
 4 : 3-5. The fearful, and unbelieving, and the abomi- 
 nable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, 
 and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the 
 lake that burneth with fire and brimstone : which is the 
 second death." Rev. 21 : 8. 
 
 XIV. A wise, virtuous, and holy man finds a delight- 
 ful amplitude of meaning in the word wife, taking the 
 word in a sense high and favorable, and implying w T hat 
 some wives are, and what all ought to aim to be. His 
 wife is the sharer of all his sorrow, and of all his joy ; 
 the lessener of his pain, and the augmenter of his 
 pleasure ; the partaker of his care, and the refiner of 
 his recreation ; his nurse and consoler when ill, his 
 compeer and coadjutor when well, his associate and 
 helper continually ; the companion, the counsellor, the 
 comfort of his life. She is one whom he regards with 
 reverence for her profound piety, with admiration for 
 
56 THE INTRODUCTION. 
 
 her fine improved intellect, with kindliness for her sweet 
 temper, with grateful satisfaction for her noble charac- 
 ter in general. 
 
 To her he will unbosom his thought, and lay open 
 his whole soul, with most entire confidence ; to her 
 firstly in time, she being the first in order of his friends, 
 he will reveal his theory and practical plan, his present 
 scheme and future view, his desire, hope, and fear ; and 
 from her he will obtain the counsel, encouragement, and 
 aid that are given by virtue, w T isdom, good temper, and 
 other things, all acting unitedly or as one, and moving 
 at the call of love. She will study to please him ; will 
 gratify him by her obliging behavior ; will make him 
 happy, and herself too, by her mild and gentle spirit, her 
 complying disposition, her amiable turn of mind ; will 
 bind his soul to hers by accommodating herself to him, 
 and by making his joy and sorrow her own ; will main- 
 tain her refining power and purifying ascendent over 
 him by the beauty of her character, the dignity of her 
 life, and by yielding to his reasonable request, and giv- 
 ing way to his innocent wish and plan ; will turn by a 
 kind word, a sweet smile, an endearing look, a tender 
 tear, turn the lion into the lamb ; will control, virtually 
 and really control by being willing to be controlled. 
 
 She is one whom he loves with exclusive, with ten- 
 der, with chaste, with pure affection \ one who lives in 
 the very centre of his heart, one dear to him like his 
 own soul, one who is another himself. She loves not 
 less than she is loved, will return his affection in full 
 measure, will scorn to be outdone in kind attention and 
 tender care, and will find a pure and perennial spring 
 of joy to her own soul, in making joyful the soul of her 
 husband. 
 
 Between them are no jarring or contrary feeling, no 
 separate interest or view, no counteractive scheme, no 
 mine and thine ; between them all is our, all is concord- 
 
THE INTRODUCTION. 57 
 
 ant co-operation, all is living harmony, all is pleasureful 
 unanimity, all is endearing unity of soul. They are one 
 in outward things or external good, one in hand ; one 
 in intellectual communion, one in head ; and one in the 
 vast variety of feeling, in the broad and unbounded do- 
 main of joy and sorrow; one in heart, having entire sym- 
 pathy, or identified interest, affection and hope. 
 One single soul doth in two bodies dwell. 
 
 . They cause, one to the other, many, very many plea- 
 sures 5 and they occasion one pain — the pain connected 
 with parting, with being divided by death, with one of 
 them being left alone, mournful, soul-sick, inconsolate, 
 and gloomy. But even in relation to death, and for its 
 uncontrollable conqueror and king, they see God, The 
 Good Being, and their reconciled Father and Friend. 
 To the Good Being they bow, in him they confide, and 
 through him they are, or try to be, resigned. Moreover, 
 having a hope full of immortality, they look beyond 
 death to heaven, to the joy and glory of the life to come, 
 when death will be swallowed up in victory, when God 
 will wipe away all tears from their eyes, and when sor- 
 row or pain will not be found. Is. 25:8. 1 Cor. 15:54. 
 Rev. 7 : 17, and 21:4. In heaven they will be re-united 
 for ever; there they will meet to part no more 5 there, 
 in the beatific presence of their God, and with innu- 
 merable saints and angels, they together will share and 
 rejoice in God's eternity. 
 
 Death ! 'tis a melancholy day 
 
 To those that have no God ! — Watts, 
 
 She will be his affectionate co-pilgrim through the 
 world of sin, his faithful fellow-traveller in the way of 
 holy love and labor, his watchful and helpful guide to 
 glory. And probably she will be his guardian angel or 
 saint, if she shall die before him ; will be his peculiar 
 partner in heaven, his dearest friend among all the saints 
 
 3* 
 
58 THE INTRODUCTION. 
 
 and angels around the throne of God ; and allied with 
 him by an extraordinary heavenly affection, will, ascend 
 with him to higher degrees of light and love, becoming 
 more and more happy in God, throughout the revolving 
 ages of eternity. 
 
 " Let every one of you in particular so love his wife 
 even as himself." Eph. 5 : 33. M Heirs together of the 
 grace of life." 1 Pet. 3 : 7. 
 
 XV. I do not desire to appear to the reader better 
 than I really am ; I do not incline to put myself forward, 
 or before the eye of other people, as having more reli- 
 gion and religious zeal than I actually have. I have 
 written, in article X, that " I am a firm believer in 
 Christianity, and a professor of religion, and one who 
 values above all earthly joy, the * pearl of great price,' 
 Matt. 13:46, the 'wedding-garment,' Matt. 22, the 
 'one thing needful,' Luke, 10:4-2, justification from 
 guilt, and peace with God through Jesus Christ, and the 
 sanctifying and comforting operations of the Holy Ghost, 
 the well-founded hope of heaven." 
 
 But I do not profess to abound in religion, to have 
 uncommon piety, or to be an extremely holy man: and 
 I hope that no part of my work will be found to imply 
 so great a profession. I have a share of piety, but not 
 a great one ; a small quantity of religion, not a great 
 deal. I do love God , but alas ! little, languidly, coolly, 
 and timidly ; in a manner infinitely below the goodness 
 and amahility of his character ; in a manner forming a 
 poor and beggarly return, a paltry and contemptible de- 
 gree of gratitude for the creative, providential, and re- 
 demptional favors that I have received from his bounty ; 
 and therefore in a manner that does not deserve, that 
 cannot merit his continued love to me. "God is love." 
 1 John, 4. " What is man 1" Psalm 8. 
 
 Dear Lord ! and shall we ever live 
 At this poor dying rate 1 
 
THE INTRODUCTION. 59 
 
 Our love so faint, so cold to thee, 
 
 And thine to us so great ! — Watts, B 2. H. 34. 
 
 I do love the soul and eternal good of mankind ; but 
 not with a burning and absorbing desire, not with a 
 heart overflowing with sympathy or compassion, nor 
 with a feeling duly organized and attuned by the refin- 
 ing, ennobling hand of consummate charity or univer- 
 sal love. Holy love has length, and breadth, and depth, 
 the extremity whereof I have not arrived at or advened. 
 Holy love, and light, and life, extend to a remoter point 
 than I have hitherto gained, expand to a wider circum- 
 ference than I have yet gone round or over, ascend to 
 a higher altitude than I have attained, and have, in 
 the loftier degree of human experience, an intensity, a 
 thrilling ecstasy, and a power far beyond any thing that 
 I have hitherto felt and experimentally known. I am a 
 very frail christian, am a poor weak worm creeping 
 slowly and scarce perceptibly after Christ, and enjoy 
 but a feeble measure of assurance. But I do not despair 
 of being better. I hope and believe that I shall be bet- 
 ter, more imbued with love for God, and with love for 
 the creature ; shall be more holy, more happy, more 
 fully assured that my soul is safe or going on to glory. 
 Whether or not christian perfection is attainable, prac- 
 ticable, enjoyable in life, I give here no decided, posi- 
 tive, formal opinion, It is certainly a beautiful and holy 
 doctrine, and one that I incline to hold. I however am 
 far from perfection. But I will try to be perfect ; and 
 if I fail herein, hope to be far less imperfect than I am. 
 rr I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which 
 also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus." Phil. 3 : 12. 
 
 Happy soul, when all renewed 
 God in thee, and thou in God ! 
 Only feel'st within thee move, 
 Tenderness, compassion, love ! 
 Love immense and unconfined, 
 Love to all of human kind, 
 
60 THE INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Love that willeth all should live, 
 Love that all to all would give, 
 Love that over all prevails, 
 Love that never, never fails. 
 Stand secure, for thou shalt prove 
 All th' eternity of Love ! — Unknown. 
 
 Every encouragement is given to grow in grace, to 
 become more and more sanctified and holy, to proceed 
 farther and farther in the life divine, to have more and 
 more of the mind of Christ Jesus, Phil. 2 : 5, our Lord, 
 Eedeemer, and Pattern, our Priest, Prophet, and King. 
 If we need to encourage ourselves, we may amply do so 
 by the following three delightful words, — " God is love." 
 
 I hope I shall not offend my readers by telling them, 
 in passing, that I mean to take for my personal motto 
 the following six words of the Bible, — " God is love. 
 What is man ?" 
 
 If any one be in want of a motto, I beg leave to re- 
 commend the following two short passages, as being, 
 when joined in one, a motto very admirable. "What is 
 truth ? God's word is truth." John, 18 : 38, and 17 : 17. 
 Though not a son of song, I have humbly endeavored 
 to form thereon a morsel of poetry. It may lead some 
 one to do better. I shall be truly glad to see the thing 
 finely and fully poetized by an able poetic pen. 
 
 " What is truth V— blind Pilate cried. 
 " God's word is truth,''* — did Christ decide. 
 Haughty sinners seek the truth in vain, 
 And rove in error's cold and dark domain ; 
 Godly christians find the truth is plain, 
 And freely own her holy, happy reign. 
 
 The former part of the present article was written 
 more than a year ago ; and it correctly describes my 
 then state or condition relative to personal piety, or 
 real, practical, experimental religion. Since writing the 
 former part, however, I have made a move forth in vital 
 
THE INTRODUCTION. 61 
 
 piety, have gone forward in the Divine life, and am 
 nearer to the Lord now than I was then. I now love 
 God and human kind more than I did, being more anx- 
 ious for the glory of the former and the salvation of the 
 latter. Blessed be the Lord for the onward movement, 
 however small ! From him it came, and to him be the 
 praise. Would that I were far more like God than I am ! 
 Would that I loved him and his creatures far better than 
 I do ! Moreover, I now more fully and firmly believe 
 the great and glorious doctrine of christian perfection, 
 or entire sanctification of heart and life. 
 
 Holy God, regard my prayer : 
 
 Give me perfect purity here ; 
 
 All renew'd by the Spirit let me be : 
 
 Bid sin from thought, word, act, e'en now to flee. 
 
ANTI-POPERY. 
 
 CHAPTER FIRST. 
 
 POPERY IN GENERAL. 
 
 Section 1. An account of Popery. — 2. Works against Popery. — 
 3. Two divisions of Christendom. — 4. Papal unity and plu- 
 rality. — 5. Papite and Patriarchite. — 6. Neither Catholic nor 
 Roman Catholic, but Papite, Romanite, and the like.—rl. Wor- 
 thy Papites. — 8. Popery at war ivith Reason, the Bible, and 
 Antiquity. — 9. A condemnation, and the time of Popery, are 
 found in the Bible. 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 AN ACCOUNT OF POPERY. 
 
 Subsection /. I venture to remark that among the 
 mental and moral desiderata of the present day, we may- 
 rank a work against Popery. The work appears desira- 
 ble because of the error and evil of popery, and because- 
 of the chance that decrease of popery may be followed 
 by corresponding increase of infidelity. Popery pre- 
 pares the way for infidelity, being her handmaid. Infi- 
 delity has been called "Popery run to seed." Where 
 popery loses ground, is the vacant place filled by pro- 
 testantism, or by infidelity 1 by a reformed religion, or 
 by no religion at all 1 This is an important and solemn 
 inquiry with all who are alive to the eternal, or even 
 to the temporal welfare of man. Popery is bad, infideli- 
 
64 AN ACCOUNT OF POPERY. 
 
 ty is worse ; the former corrupting religion, the latter 
 destroying her. 
 
 A good work against popery will give no aid to infi- 
 delity ; for in freeing Christianity from papal innovation, 
 corruption, usurpation, and fraud, it will enable her 
 beauty and splendor to appear more fully, more clearly, 
 more convincingly, hereby leaving infidelity without 
 palliation or a plea. It follows that the downfall of po- 
 pery will by no mean infer the downfall of Christianity, 
 the unholy triumph of the infidel. In passing from po- 
 pery to protestantism, Christianity appears like the sun 
 when breaking a way through vapor, cloud, and gloom, 
 gradually giving fuller, purer, steadier light. 
 
 Subsection II. Article 1. Popery is unchristian and 
 unphilosophical, unscriptural and unreasonable, a foe to 
 the Bible, and a foe to logic and knowledge. Popery will 
 imprison revelation, and put an extinguisher on reason ; 
 and then lead her votary blinded and enslaved. Popery 
 is opposed to moral and to mental eminence ; to the 
 march of morality, and to the march of mind. Popery 
 is an anti-christian form of Christianity, an impious in- 
 novation on the Bible, a pernicious perversion of Holy 
 Writ. Popery is not apostolical, but apostaticaL Popery 
 is overrun by absurdity, superstition, and idolatry. Po- 
 pery is a consummation of corruption. Popery goes to 
 unchristianize Christendom, depriving Christianity of life 
 or spirit, and turning it into a lifeless lump, or a cold, 
 inanimate thing, attended with idle formality, and ac- 
 companied by priestly power and presumption. Popery 
 tends to slavery, the more sad and hopeless kind of sla- 
 very, slavery of body, and slavery of soul ; therefore, 
 he who is a real, complete, whole, thick and thin papite, 
 is little or no better than a slave, a row, contemptible, 
 miserable slave. That wise and good man, Richard Cecil, 
 wrote, — " Popery was the master-piece of Satan. ! ' 
 
 Article 2. Bigotry and illiberality reign in the papal 
 
POPERY IN GENERAL. 65 
 
 kirk ; cruelty and intolerance form her natural element, 
 her favorite logic \ the infernal inquisition is her grand 
 argument. 
 
 1st. Her bigotry and illiberality are proved by her 
 monopolizing dogma of exclusive salvation, salvation 
 within her pale, and only there. According to her pre- 
 sumption, all' christians dying without her pale, how- 
 ever christian and good in character, however holy or 
 godly, are doomed to damnation ! are accursed in the 
 present world, ajid will be damned in the world to come ! 
 Dreadful and diabolical dogma ! How opposite the doc- 
 trine of the word of God ! " Grace be with all them 
 that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. Eph. 6 : 
 24. Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth, 
 I perceive that God is no respecter of persons ; but in 
 every nation, he that feareth him, and worketh righ- 
 teousness, is accepted with him. Acts, 10 : 34, 35. He 
 that believeth on the Son, hath everlasting life. John, 
 3 : 36. He that hath the Son, hath life. 1 John, 5 : 12. 
 He is not a Jew, who is one outwardly $ but he is a Jew, 
 who is one inwardly." Eom. 2 : 28, 29. The papal 
 notion of exclusive salvation, is apt, very apt to lead 
 people to depend more on external conformity than on 
 internal conversion ; to rely more on papal kirk-member- 
 ship, than on real christian character ; and to be more 
 anxious for belonging to the kirk of Rome, than for being 
 adopted into the kirk of Christ and the family of heaven. 
 
 2nd. The cruelty and intolerance of the papal kirk 
 are proved by her prodigious persecution, her wicked 
 wars, her horrid bloodshed, her massacre and murder. 
 
 3rd. Her infernal inquisition, the diabolical invention 
 of Dominic, is too well known to need any remark from 
 me. Spain and Portugal, and their foreign dependen- 
 cies, Italy, and other parts of papal Europe, can bear wit- 
 ness with groaning, and agony, and blood, against that 
 cursed engine of hell, that machine invented by de- 
 
66 AN ACCOUNT OF FOPEUY. 
 
 mens, and worked by dembnized men. The learned and 
 pious John Pye Smith declares the infernal inquisition 
 to be " the most horrible tribunal that ever trampled on 
 justice and human nature. " # 
 
 Article 3. 'Really, when we contemplate popery up- 
 held by intolerating persecution and the infernal inquisi- 
 tion, or when, guided by the light of history, we consider 
 it under the character of a mighty monster intolerantly 
 persecutive and infernally inquisitional, we view not a 
 thing that has a mark of the light and love of heaven, but 
 one black and hateful as hell, and cruel as a conclave of 
 devils ; one belched from the burning pit, and giving 
 dreadful proof of its infernal origin \ one whereof the 
 head or soul is not the merciful Redeemer, the Lord of 
 love, but the leading devil himself, Satan, the great 
 enemy of God and man, aided by Moloch on the one 
 hand, and by Mammon and Belial on the other. When 
 we regard popery as prevailing by persecution, and the 
 pope as the prince of persecutors, we are drawn to ex- 
 claim, — Let Satan be figured on the three parts, and let 
 Moloch, Mammon, and Belial be figured each on one 
 part of the triple crown of the pope, of the viceregal 
 diadem of Satan's viceroy ! 
 
 Article 4. Papal persecutions are declared to be the 
 most prominent in history, both in nature and in number. 
 They are perhap the most varied, multiform, atrocious, 
 infernal, diabolical ; aud they are undoubtedly the most 
 numerous and manifold. Millions, many millions, some 
 declare that fifty\ millions, and some declare that even 
 nearly seventy^ millions have gone to the grave through 
 
 * See the Doctor's admirable Sermon intitled — " The Reasons cf 
 the Protestant Religion," a sermon well worthy of general perusal, 
 being mulium in parvo. 
 
 t See Buck's Theological Dictionary by Henderson, article Per- 
 secution. 
 
 % See Spragues' Lectures on Religion, Lecture V. 
 
AN ACCOUNT OF POPERY. 67 
 
 papal persecution ! The soil of the greater part of 
 Europe has been drenched with the blood of martyrs ; 
 blood spilled by the papal monster, really to attain his 
 own infernal ends, though professedly (a profession im- 
 plying all the hypocrisy of devils !) to uphold the reli- 
 gion of the God of love ! Papal persecutions are clearly 
 foretold, and powerfully drawn by the prophetic pen of 
 John. M I saw the woman drunken with the blood of 
 the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus." 
 Rev. 17:6. 
 
 Avenge, O Lord, thy slaughtered saints, whose bones 
 Lie scattered on the Alpine mountains cold ; 
 E'en them who kept thy truth so pure of old, 
 When all our fathers worshipped stocks and stones, 
 Forget not ; in thy book record their groans, 
 Who were thy sheep, and in their ancient fold 
 Slain by the bloody Piedmontese who rolled 
 Mother with infant down the rocks. Their moans 
 The vales redoubled to the hills, and they 
 To heaven. Their martyr'd blood and ashes sow 
 O'er all the Italian fields where still doth sway 
 The triple tyrant ; that from these may grow 
 A hundred fold who, having learned thy way, 
 Early may fly the Babylonian wo. — Milton. 
 
 Article 5. Popery has largely dealt in fraud and force, 
 in guile and cruelty. Popery has carried the point by cun- 
 ning wile or smooth-tongued hypocrisy, when able ; and 
 when unable to carry it hereby, has had full and horri- 
 ble recourse to the dungeon and the infernal inquisition, 
 to the sword, the torture, and the burning pile. In 
 breaking faith and playing false, the kirk of Rome pro- 
 fanely pretended to promote the dominion of truth ! and 
 in massacring, burning, and otherwise destroying men, 
 women and children, it wickedly and absurdly pretend- 
 ed to serve and glorify the God of love ! But to the Ro- 
 man or papal kirk one may say, " Lie not for the truth \ n 
 (or rather, for power, pelf, and the like !) " and kill not 
 
68 POPEKY IN GENERAL. 
 
 men for the sake of God!" (or rather, of mammon!) 
 Subsection III. A great deal of popery is will worship, 
 vain invention of man, crude conceit and imagining some- 
 deal systemized, an aggregate having no solid warranty, 
 no foundation, no support either in revelation or in rea- 
 son. Now will worship and arrogant invention are ex- 
 ceedingly bad in the domain of religion, and therefore 
 ought to be repelled whenever proposed. In the begin- 
 ning, they are inutile, are not good ; and in the end, 
 they are hurtful, antichristian, bad in a high degree. 
 They being of very evil character and tendency, de- 
 serve to be thrown aside as unworthy of regard, as a 
 real object of sincere and hearty reprobation. They are 
 proud and presumptuous, endeavoring to improve God's 
 order ; an order that He has given, not to parade our 
 skill in the vain and overweening attempt of mending, 
 but to employ our energy in the utile pursuit of follow- 
 ing, so that we may live and die holy and happy. To 
 conceit ourselves capable of improving God's good and 
 perfect arrangement, is to deem ourselves wiser, holier, 
 better than God ! Popery abounds in things that came 
 not by God's command, and that bring not God's smile 
 and blessing. Do not they bring His frown and curse 1 
 " Let no man beguile you of your reward, in a volun- 
 tary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into 
 those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by 
 his fleshly mind; and not holding the Head. Which 
 things have indeed a show of wisdom in will worship, 
 and humility, and neglecting of the body ; not in any 
 honor to the satisfying of the flesh. Col. 2. Who hath 
 required this at your hand! Bring no more vain obla- 
 tions. They are a trouble unto Me ; I am weary to bear 
 them. Isa. 1. In vain they do worship Me, teaching for 
 doctrines the commandments of men. Matt. 15:9; Mark, 
 7 : 7. Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and command- 
 ments of men, that turn from the truth." Titus, 1 : 14. 
 
WORKS AGAINST POPERY. 69 
 
 Subsection IV. Popery is popery, and is to be uproot- 
 ed whenever, wherever, and however it appears to our 
 eye. Popery is popery, whether nakedly exposed in all 
 its deformity, or partly concealed in apparel termed 
 protestant ; and it is often the more dangerous by being 
 disguised, as a snake hid in the grass may do more harm 
 than one apparent on the beaten path. Popery is popery 
 in the papal kirk, or in any other ; in Italy, or in Great 
 Britain ; in Rome, or in Oxford ; in the pope, or in Pu- 
 sey, Newman, Froude, and Co. Query. Are not these 
 men and the like, if not decidedly papal, the pioneers 
 of popery % and are not they endeavoring to bring a 
 dark papal cloud athwart our clear and bright protest- 
 ant firmament, by circulating the Oxford Tracts, or 
 rather Oxford Trash 1 They are men to whom I cannot 
 say, " God speed," 2 John, 10, 11, but to whom I rather 
 say, "The Lord rebuke you." Jude, 9 ; Zech. 3 : 2. 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 WORKS AGAINST POPERY. 
 
 Subsection I. We have many an able work against po- 
 pery j but perhap not one of that varied, universal, high, 
 commanding character demanded by our day, and by the 
 magnitude of the interest involved in the debate. A 
 work is required that will wind along throughout all 
 papal countries, that will be read by all papal readers, 
 that will incite inquiry in all papal thinkers, that will 
 command attention and examination from all literary 
 men in all nations of the christian world. 
 
 Subsection II. Indeed it may be a query if three works 
 be not required : one containing clear, powerful, original, 
 
70 POPERY IN GENERAL. 
 
 first-rate reasoning; one containing great and irresisti- 
 ble eloquence ; and one containing vast and prodigious 
 learning, particularly in theology and history; and all 
 three containing pure, fervent, elevated piety. 
 
 Subsection III. One work containing the four requi- 
 sites, the reasoning, eloquence, learning and piety, would 
 be a work of such uncommon character and value, and 
 so truly unequalled, as to be an object of desire rather 
 than of expectation. The author of the masterly, com- 
 plete, incomparable work, will be a kind of miracle, and 
 will be found when Locke, Milton, Selden, and Leigh- 
 ton will re-appear, and be formed into one man. I opine 
 that no one will ever be able to write the work, and sure 
 I am that no one now alive is equal to the great under- 
 taking. 
 
 Subsection IV. I have here made an effort to meet a 
 part of the demand, and have heartily wielded my pen 
 to promote the well-being of scriptural Christianity and 
 pure protestantism. And in aiding the protestant cause, 
 I have tried reasoning more than eloquence or learning ; 
 or have endeavored to show that popery cannot stand 
 upon clear, strong, and solid argument, more than to 
 write with a fascinating flow of style, or more than to 
 go into theological, historical, and lingual particularity 
 or detail. May the reader receive the work with ge- 
 nerous impartiality and christian candor, and not mag- 
 nify defect, nor put a harsh construction where a kind 
 one is practicable ! 
 
 Subsection V. As an equal in eloquence to Bossuet, a 
 living name that would appear to many to be qualified 
 for an able advocate of the protestant plan, is a great 
 orator of Scotland, Chalmers. Two of the leading papal 
 champions are Bellarmine and Bossuet, and one leading 
 protestant champion is Chillingworth. And if the great 
 orator of Scotland were to enter the field, we should 
 then oppose to the celebrated names of Bellarmine and 
 
THE DIVISIONS OF CHRISTENDOM. 71 
 
 Bossuet, the names no less renowned, of Chillingworth 
 and Chalmers.* 
 
 SECTION III. 
 
 THE DIVISIONS OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 Subsection I. Christendom sometime is divided into 
 three grand kirks ; kirk Patriarchal, kirk Papal, kirk 
 Protestant. The division, however, is not remarkably 
 accurate, clear, or free from ambiguity. We may well 
 speak of kirk Greek, Patriarchal, or Con slant inoplan, 
 and of Kirk Latin, Papal, or Roman, the two being single 
 or individual. But we may not speak of kirk Protest- 
 ant, as if it were single or individual, as if all protestants 
 formed but one kirk. Kirk Protestant is a term univer- 
 sal, a term including many particular kirks. When there- 
 fore kirk Protestant is opposed to kirk Greek, Patriar- 
 chal, or Constantinoplan, or to kirk Latin, Papal or Ro- 
 man, a term universal is opposed to a term particular, 
 many kirks are opposed to one. 
 
 Subsedio7i II. But though Christendom has not been 
 very accurately divisible into three grand kirks, it has 
 been properly divisible into three grand parts; that 
 holding Patriarchy, that holding Popery, that holding 
 Protestancy. The head of that part holding Patriarchy, 
 is the Patriarch of Constantinople ; the head of that part 
 holding Popery, is the Pope of Rome ; the head of that 
 
 * And it would be wrong to omit the name of the venerable Ed- 
 ger, of Armagh, Ireland; who has given us one of the most learned 
 works of our age, in reply to Bossuet's Variations of. Protestantism. 
 We allude to Edger's admirable and unanswerable work, entitled 
 " The Variations of Popery" which has passed to a second edition 
 in London. — W. C. JR* 
 
POPERY IN GENERAL. 
 
 part holding Protestancy, is Jesus Christ. " The head 
 over all things to the church. Eph. 1 : 22. Who is the 
 head, even Christ. Eph. 4 : 15. He is the head of the 
 body, the church." Col. 1 : 18. 
 
 SECTION IV. 
 
 PAPAL UNITY AND PLURALITY. 
 
 Subsection I.. Papists are continually talking of the 
 identity of creed among them, and of the diversity of 
 creed among protestants. It is true that protestants are 
 more divided in point of kirk ; it is not true that they are 
 more divided in point of creed. Papites form but one 
 kirk, while protestants form many; herein therefore the 
 latter are more various and multiform than the former. 
 
 Subsection II. In point of creed, however, papites and 
 protestants, other things being equal, are about equally 
 diversified ; though papal writers lead an ignorant and 
 careless reader to believe that papites enjoy the advan- 
 tage of uniformity of opinion, while protestants endure 
 the disadvantage of multiformity. This papal mode of 
 writing is unfair, is an uncandid trick. Both bodies are 
 well known to differ in opinion among themselves, and, 
 other things being equal, in an equal degree ; therefore 
 papal pretension to uniformity of creed, is hypocritical 
 farce and folly. The real point at issue, the proper subject 
 of debate is the comparative degree or amount of multi- 
 formity ; for by deciding this point or subject, we shall 
 know if papites have smaller multiformity than protest- 
 ants. A papite will find it no trifling task to prove their 
 doctrinal diversity smaller than our own. Be it known 
 that protestancy requires fewer creeds than kirks, or 
 
PAPAL UNITY AND PLURALITY. 73 
 
 not a peculiar creed for every kirk ; many kirks, in 
 point of fact, having one and the same creed. As to uni- 
 formity of opinion, the assertion of it is ridiculous and 
 absurd, the claim to it is founded on nonsense and folly, 
 the inexistence of it is proved by clear, palpable, indu- 
 bitable fact. The notion of "Unity of Opinion," is a 
 mere papal \yhim, vagary, phantasm, ignisfatuus. The as- 
 sumption of unity of opinion, is a mere anility or puerili- 
 ty, an act of an old woman or a child, or a piece of fraud ; 
 is a mere offspring of folly, or of falsehood, or of both. 
 Fi?'stly. Let us view protestants taken collectively, 
 taken under the collective term kirk. Papal writers will 
 hardly pretend that their kirk has smaller multiformity 
 of opinion than any single kirk protestant, they will 
 hardly presume that one kirk protestant can be found 
 having greater multiformity of opinion than their own 
 kirk. They ought to know that every protestant kirk 
 has power and ability for attaining real and true uni- 
 formity of opinion, equally to the papal one; all kirks 
 being, in this affair, on the same footing, on equal terms. 
 The notion of diversity of doctrine or variety of creed, 
 is not contained in the notion of kirk protestant single, 
 more than in the notion of kirk papal ) the latter being 
 as diverse or various in doctrine or creed, as any one 
 kirk protestant. Papal writers will not venture to affirm 
 that the notion of kirk protestant individual, implies the 
 notion of diversity of doctrine and contrariety of creed, 
 contains the notion of difference of opinion and belief, 
 more than does the notion of kirk papal. Literate men 
 know well that, peculiarly and exclusively, one does 
 not connect the notion of particular protestant kirk or 
 body, with the notion of variety and contrariety of creed. 
 No kirk protestant can be fairly and truly described to 
 be a scene of contrariety and confusion of creed or faith, 
 to be without discipline and order, to be without means 
 of promoting real and true uniformity of opinion or har- 
 
 4 
 
4^b POPERY IN GENERAL. 
 
 mony of doctrine, and due conformity of conduct. The 
 description would be caricature, would be wrong in 
 point of fact. N. B. Kirks protestant do not deem igno- 
 rance and Insincerity to be uniformity of opinion, and 
 do not deem Intolerance to be capable of promoting it. 
 
 Secondly. Protestants taken singly or individually, are 
 not more multiform and divided in opinion than papites 
 taken singularly or individually, two things being pro- 
 vided. 1st. Provided that papites are as enlightened 
 and informed as protestants. 2nd. Provided that pa- 
 pites declare and make known their opinion as fairly and 
 fully as protestants. 
 
 1st. Well informed protestants will probably differ 
 in opinion more than ill-informed papites; intellectual 
 protestancy will probably produce greater variety of 
 opinion, doctrine, and creed in the many and varied 
 modes of mental exertion, than unintellectual popery. 
 Absence of opinion however is not uniformity of opinion, 
 mental vacuity is not union of doctrine, mere ignorance 
 differs widely from identity of creed. Ignorance is not 
 uniformity of opinion. 
 
 2?id. Protestants enjoy the privilege of declaring, 
 telling, publishing their opinion under cover either of 
 equality or of toleration ; while papites do not enjoy 
 either equality or toleration. Ask Italy, Spain, and other 
 papal countries, if persecution, if intolerance, if the in- 
 fernal inquisition do not form a leading cause of doc- 
 trinal agreement. If few really and truly believed in 
 papal peculiarities, many would profess to do so while 
 seeing, like Damocles, a sword hanging over them. 
 Concealment of opinion, however, is not uniformity of 
 opinion ; keeping one's peculiar view in one's own bosom, 
 is not being without a peculiar view ; uniformity in pro- 
 fession and external ceremony, is not uniformity in doc- 
 trine and belief; secrecy of conviction, is not sameness 
 of creed. Insincerity is not uniformity of opinion. 
 
PAPITE AND PATRIARCHITE. 75 
 
 SECTION V. 
 
 PAPITE AND PATRIARCHATE. 
 
 Subsection L It ought to be borne in mind that papites, 
 or Romanites, have no better reason for claiming unifor- 
 mity either in creed or in kirk, than patriarchites or 
 Constantinoplanites ; each sect arrogating to have but 
 one creed, and having but one kirk. Therefore, what-* 
 ever honor belongs to papites or Eomanites, because of 
 their unreal, imagined, dreamed uniformity in creed, or 
 because of their real uniformity in kirk, belongs equally 
 to patriarchites or Constantinoplanites. 
 
 Subsection II. Do the two bodies, and particularly do 
 papites derive any honor from the nature of their unity 
 of kirk 1 No; their kind of unity being dishonorable 
 instead of honorable, being a ground of condemnation 
 rather than of praise. Protestants deserve to be honor- 
 ed, applauded, copied for avoiding the like unity. If 
 they had but one similar kirk, and particularly a kirk 
 like the papal one, they Avould have, more or less, a 
 large, unwieldy, overgrown bulk, fertile in vice and folly ; 
 a huge, heterogeneal, heretical system ; a big and bloat- 
 ed body covered with corruption, a body without a soul ; 
 a kind of moral or immoral monster. Such wholely or 
 mainly is the kirk papal, and such it has long been, to 
 the great degradation of Christianity, and the grave dis- 
 honor of Christ. A kirk containing many millions of 
 people, and comprising many countries and nations, and 
 kept together by priestly rule, by kingly despotism, by 
 political authority, by the magisterial sword, cannot be 
 wholly christian and scriptural, cannot be otherwise than 
 unchristian and unscriptural. I will end with a query : — 
 the papal unity being very bad, what is the patriarchal?, 
 is it good 1 
 
76 POPERY IN GENERAL. 
 
 SECTION VI. 
 
 NEITHER CATHOLIC NOR ROMAN CATHOLIC, BUT 
 PAPITE, ROMANITE, AND THE LIKE. 
 
 Subsection I. In the present work, I do not employ 
 the term Catholic or Roman Catholic, but write Papist 
 or Papite, Romanist or Romanite, and the like. In so 
 writing, however, I am far, very far from intending or 
 "wishing to hart the feeling, or pain the mind of any mem- 
 ber of the kirk of Rome ; but I intend to follow a plan 
 scriptural and reasonable, and to write with grammati- 
 cal and philosophical propriety. I desire not to be, and 
 not to appear to be offensive or insulting ; but to be or- 
 derly, or to be conform to method and rule. I desire 
 not to give displeasure or pain, but to have dennitude 
 or precision. I aim to be accurate or correct, and to 
 employ words in their right and true meaning. I avoid 
 using Catholic and Roman Catholic, on five grounds; 
 in order to be analogical, in order to be logical, in or- 
 der to oppose papal bigotry, in order to oppose papal 
 pride, and in order to oppose papal persecution. 
 
 First, Analogical. We employ the terms popery, pa- 
 pism, Romanism, and the like ; therefore we may well 
 have papist or papite, Romanist or Romanite, and the 
 like. Popery, papism, and Romanism being proper, po- 
 pite,* papite, Romanite, or the like are proper too. 
 
 Second. Logical. Catholic means universal or gene- 
 ral, but universality or generality is very far from be- 
 longing to the kirk of Rome. If that kirk were univer- 
 sal or general, it would properly be called, not the kirk 
 of Rome, but the kirk. Therefore it is not catholic, or 
 has not catholicity. To limit and narrow the meaning, 
 people use Roman catholic ; but they may about as well 
 
 * Popitc is new, but not less correct than pope or popery. 
 
 , 
 
NOT CATHOLIC OR ROMAN CATHOLIC. 77 
 
 use particular, universal, or special, general, a phrase- 
 ology clearly incorrect and absurd. That kirk cannot 
 be, in one and same meaning and relation, both particu- 
 lar and universal, both special and general. Being the 
 former, it cannot be the latter. Therefore it cannot be, 
 in one and same point of view, both Roman and catho- 
 lic. In brief, universal or general being wrong when ap- 
 plied to the kirk of Rome, and particular universal, or 
 special general being wrong and contradictory, either 
 catholic or Roman catholic cannot be right, cannot be 
 logically right. 
 
 Third. Opposing papal bigotry. If Romanites fancy 
 the kirk of Rome to be catholic or all-containing, they 
 unavoidably fancy all other kirks to be no real or right 
 kirks at all, unkirking them, and denying their distinct 
 ecclesiastical reality or rectitude. Assuming their own 
 kirk to be catholic or universal, papites assume every 
 other kirk to b<i merely a nominal one, or to have not 
 the ecclesiastical thing, but only the name ; and hereby 
 they feed their own bigotry, and confirm their illiberal 
 view and feeling. By having the name catholic or gene- 
 ral, they are apt to presume that they have the thing 
 catholicity < >r generality , and therefore they presume 
 that the papal kirk is the only real and proper one in 
 Christendom ; and that every other is a mere thing of 
 nought, or a vain and wrong pretender. Through their 
 imaginary Catholicism, they are unjust toward other 
 kirks, doing them the injury ©f denying their essentially 
 ecclesiastical character, or of deeming them devoid of 
 solid, reasonable, scriptural ground. In fine, their pre- 
 tended catholicity confirms their bigotry, making them 
 narrow in their mind, narrow and exclusive in their heart, 
 and narrow and repulsive in their acting. N. B. The Ro- 
 manite would take Roman catholic to mean catholic. 
 
 Fourth. Opposing papal pride. Do not the members 
 of the kirk of Rome, or many of them, pride them- 
 
78 POPERY IN GENERAL. 
 
 selves on the title catholic, and arrogate to their kirk, 
 on the strength and merit of their pretended catholic- 
 ism, a superiority to every other kirk % They do. If 
 Romanites imagine the kirk of Rome to he catholic or 
 universal either in fact or in right, either de facto or de 
 jure, they imagine it to be an incomparable one, an ec- 
 clesiastical nonpareil ; and therefore they are liable to 
 imagine themselves incomparable, and to be led away 
 by inordinate self-esteem If papites take the papal 
 kirk to be catholic or general either in fact or in right, 
 they are tempted to be proud, and often tempted effec- 
 tively. In fine, the name catholic is apt to lead them to 
 think of themselves, as an ecclesiastical body, more 
 highly than they ought to think. Eom. 12:3. N. B. 
 The Romanite would take Roman catholic to mean 
 catholic. 
 
 Fifth. Opposing papal persecution. If papites ima- 
 gine their kirk to be catholic or universal in right or 
 de jure, they are prone to infer that protestants and the 
 like who are not actually within her pale, ought to be 
 there ; and to infer that, if they get the power, they 
 may compel all Christendom to follow their catholic 
 kirk, and to submit to her or their ecclesiastical rule. 
 If Romanites deem the kirk of Rome catholic or gene- 
 ral in right or de jure, they are apt to conclude that it 
 has, or that they have a right to rule all christian peo- 
 ple, and to control and compel all who are baptized. 
 Building on their pretended catholicity, they are liable 
 to conceit themselves a kind of ecclesiastical lords, and 
 to fancy that their will ought to be the law ; therefore 
 they are tempted, and often effectively tempted to be per- 
 secutive, to let loose the devil of persecution, and to per- 
 secute all who are out of their kirk. N. B. The Ro- 
 manite would take Roman catholic to mean catholic. 
 
 Subsection II. The words papist and Romanist are 
 unmusical and grating to our ear ) therefore let them 
 
WORTHY PAPITES. 79 
 
 give way to papite and Romanite, words of a sound 
 musical and agreeable. I know no good and adequate 
 reason for retaining the unwelcome sound of ist^ where 
 we may have the melody of ite* 
 
 In our authorized translation of the Bible, commonly 
 deemed a noble standard of our noble language, we find 
 not Israelist, Edomist, Moabist, Ammonist, Canaanist, 
 and so on, but Israelite, Edomite, Moabite, Ammonite, 
 Canaanite, and the like. Moreover, we find Elijah the 
 Tishbite, Ephron the Hittite, Ittai the Gittite, Barzillai 
 the Gileadite, Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, 
 Zophar the Naamathite, and more of the kind. There- 
 fore let none blame me for making harsh ist give wav 
 to euphonical He. 
 
 SECTION VIL 
 
 WORTHY TAPITES. 
 
 I hope no worthy papite will be offended by the free- 
 dom of my remarks. I see great difference between pa- 
 pites. The name of Fenelon, Pascal, and Malebranche, 
 is loved and gratefully remembered equally with that of 
 Taylor, Boyle, and Berkeley.* And the protestant pub- 
 lic hold in everlasting honor the name of the very holy 
 people, very eminent saints, Gregory Lopez, Molinos, 
 Lady Guion, De Eenty, Thomas a Kempis, and the like.f 
 Though I hate papism, I love the good papist. Great 
 
 * Yet these men celebrated mass, and bowed down before the 
 wafer god, and professed all the essential peculiarities of the man 
 of sin!— W. C. B. 
 
 t These have some good things occasionally, especially Kempis. 
 But those acquainted with their writings, cannot acquit them of 
 Quietism, and immeasurable fanaticism. — W. C. B. 
 
80 POPERY IN GENERAL. 
 
 and good people have been, and are within the visible 
 and exterior pale of the papal kirk ; but they are papal 
 more in name than in nature. Though within the visi- 
 ble and exterior circle of that kirk, they partake not of 
 her spirit ; for they acknowledge and lament her mani- 
 fold abomination, they admit and bewail her error and 
 her crime. Moreover, when speaking, in strong terms 
 and with ample condemnation, of the papal priesthood, 
 I speak not of the excellent individual, but of the body 
 at large ; not of the honorable exception, but of the 
 rule. Some papal clergymen have done honor to hu- 
 manity, but they have been papal more in name than in 
 nature. Why good men remain in the guilty and cor- 
 rupt communion of the papal kirk r sanctioning, by their 
 presence, evil that they condemn, but cannot prevent ; 
 why they do not leave her for a better and purer plan ; 
 why they do not forsake her, and hereby avoid every 
 degree and kind of participation in her error, her vice, 
 and her punishment ; — is indeed a solemn and awful 
 question, one claiming their present, very earnest, and 
 carefui consideration and regard. For their conduct 
 therein, their conduct in belonging to the corrupt kirk 
 of Rome, they will and must answer, and give a full ac- 
 count to their conscience and to God. "Come out of 
 her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, 
 and that ye receive not of her plagues." Rev. 18 : 4.* 
 
 SECTION VIII. 
 
 POPERY AT WAR WITH REASON, THE BIBLE, AND 
 ANTIQUITY. 
 
 Subsection L Popery is contravened and condemned 
 alike by the human understanding, by the word of God, 
 
 * See the Introduction, article 5. 
 
POPERY AT WAR WITH REASON. 81 
 
 and by the pure primitive kirk ; being contrary to rea- 
 son, opposite to the Bible, and adverse to antiquity ; 
 being irrational, antibiblical, and merely modern. And 
 in a corresponding threefold way, popery may be, and 
 ought to be examined, opposed, and held up to public 
 view as an evil thing. The protestant advocate ought 
 to show that popery cannot stand the test of clear and 
 solid reasoning, cannot abide the searching and probing 
 spirit or even language of Holy Writ, and cannot en- 
 dure the weight of disproof given it by pure christian 
 antiquity, speaking through the historic page, and the 
 work of the christian father. 
 
 Subsection IL My work however treats popery main- 
 ly in the first way, showing more its irrationality and 
 principally proving it to be inconsistent and at war 
 with good sense and logical wisdom. But though the 
 opposition of popery to Scripture is not here mainly 
 exhibited, it is far from being forgotten, but is shown 
 in a considerable degree ; and moreover, the papal op- 
 position to antiquity will be more or less unveiled. I 
 handle popery in a manner having trinal gradation, or 
 three degrees : primarily, according to reason ; secunda- 
 rily, according to Scripture , and tertiarily, according 
 to antiquity. (See section II. Subsection IV.) In the fol- 
 lowing or last section of the present or first chapter, I 
 will briefly point out the leading Scripture passages 
 that condemn popery ; and in section last of chapter 
 second, I will curtly prove, by a short historical ac- 
 count, that popery is a novelty, and has gradually 
 arisen or grown up since the primitive and pure time 
 of Christianity, not only since the apostolic age, but 
 even since the memorable union of kirk and state by 
 Constantine. 
 
82 POPERY IN GENERAL. 
 
 SECTION IX. 
 
 A CONDEMNATION AND THE TIME OF POPERY, ARE 
 FOUND IN THE BIBLE. . 
 
 Subsection L Of the places in the Bible that refer to 
 the papal kirk I will here mention the following. 1 
 Tim. 4 : 1-3. The man of sin or son of perdition of 
 Paul. 2 Thess. 2 : 3-12. The little horn of Daniel, 
 7 : 8, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26. The second or twohorned* 
 beast of John, Rev. 13: 11, which probably is what is 
 called the false prophet in 16 : 13 ; 19 : 20 ; and 20 : 10. 
 The whore of Babylon. Rev. 17. The foregoing pas- 
 sages relate to popery, and particularly to the papal 
 priesthood. The four notable characters, the little horn 
 of Daniel, the man of sin or son of perdition of Paul, 
 the twohorned beast or false prophet of John, and the 
 whore of Babylon, are all taken to mean the corrupt 
 and rotten kirk of Babylon Rome, or rather the pope 
 and papal priesthood. 
 
 Firstly. The second or twohorned beast meaning the 
 papal priesthood, what does the first or tenhorned beast 
 mean % The tenhorned beast means popery in general , 
 and the twohorned beast means popery in particular, or 
 the papal priesthood. Or the tenhorned one means the 
 power political, and the twohorned one means the power 
 ecclesiastical. See Rev. 13:1, 11. Secondly. That the 
 first or tenhorned beast means not Rome Pagan, but 
 Rome Papal, will be clear by the consideration of the 
 following three reasons. 1st. John saw it rise up out of 
 the sea, and therefore it was to come \ but Rome Pagan 
 had risen or come long afore. 2nd. It had ten horns 
 or kingdoms, which Rome Pagan never had. 3rd. 
 
 * The two horns of the second beast represent the two kinds of 
 papal priesthood, the secular and regular. 
 
CONDEMNATION AND TIME OF POPERY. 83 
 
 " Power was given unto him to continue forty and two 
 months," that is, 1,260 years. Rev. 13: 5. 
 
 Subsection II. Probably the Antichrist of John, and 
 perhap the blaspheming king of Daniel, 11 : 36, mean po- 
 pery, popery in particular. They may mean other things 
 in a secondary kind of way, or taken generally. For ex- 
 ample : Antichrist may mean Mohammedism, Infidelit}', 
 and the like ; and the blaspheming king may mean the 
 corruption of the Greek church, infidelity, and the like. 
 But primarily, mainly, peculiarly, they mean the un- 
 reasonable and unscriptural kirk of Babylon Rome ) an- 
 tichrist probably, and the blaspheming king possibly 
 being popery in particular, or the papal priesthood, and 
 therefore being identical with the little horn, the man 
 of sin, the twohorned beast, and the whore of Babylon. 
 
 Firsily. Concerning Antichrist, the council of Gap 
 in 1603, formally identified him with the pope. I will 
 quote two periods from the Encyclopedia Britannica, 
 article Antichrist. rt The point having been maturely 
 debated at the council of Gap, held in 1603, a resolution 
 was taken thereupon to insert an article in the Confes- 
 sion of Faith, whereby the pope is formally declared to be 
 Antichrist. — Pope Clement VIII. was stung to the quick 
 with this decision $ and even king Henry IV. of France 
 was not a little mortified to be thus declared, as he said, 
 an imp of Antichrist." Secondly. Our renowned coun- 
 tryman, the famous Roger Bacon, entertained no favora- 
 ble notion of the christian character of the pope ; for 
 that great genius and good man thought the pope to 
 be antichrist, deemed his holiness supereminently un- 
 holy and antichristian, and found the leading earthly 
 enemy of Christ and the kirk, to be the pretended uni- 
 versal bishop. 
 
 I remark that in relation to Antichrist and the blas- 
 pheming king, we meet not few difficulties, and some 
 that I am not enough a Scripturian and historian to de- 
 
84 POPERY IN GENERAL. 
 
 termine. A great deal of minute or circumstantial 
 knowledge, Biblical, historical, and lingual, is required for 
 the determination of questions relating to the foregoing 
 two and other like points; and my line of pursuit is not 
 there. To decide the points fully and finally, is not an 
 easy affair for any one, reasons being found pro and con ; 
 therefore I leave the decision to writers who make the 
 interpretation of Prophecy their main and peculiar de- 
 partment. And may the great and good God, the Lord 
 of love, by the overruling providence without, and by 
 the Holy Spirit within, guide my readers and myself in 
 the way of doctrinal truth, and of practical rectitude 
 and purity! Amen. 
 
 Subsection HI. Divine Revelation declares the dura- 
 tion of popery to be 1260 years. Six or seven passages 
 concur in ascertaining the time. " A time, and times, and 
 the dividing of time. Dan. 7 : 25. A time, times, and a 
 half. Dan. 12 : 7.* A time, and times, and half a time. Rev. 
 12: 14. Forty and two months. Rev. 11:2, and 13 : 5. 
 A thousand, two hundred, and threescore days." Rev. 
 11: 3, and 12: 6. Now a time, times, and half a time 
 are one year, two years, and half a year, or 3£ years, 
 years prophetical. And the old Jewish year had 12 
 months, each month of 30 days; therefore it had 360 
 days. And adding together the three separate sums, we 
 obtain the following sum total : 
 
 A time or one year .... 360 days. 
 
 Times or two years .... 720 
 
 Half a time, or half a year . 180 
 
 Total . . - 1260 days. 
 
 Moreover, 42 months of 30 days each, contain 1,260 
 days It follows that the three kinds of expression, — 
 
 * Does the passage in Dan. 12 : 7. refer to Popery 7 or does it re- 
 late to Mohammedism, &c. 1 
 
CONDEMNATION AND TIME OF POPERY. 85 
 
 a thousand, two hundred, and threescore days, — mean 
 severally the same period, 1260 days. Now in pro- 
 phetic language, a day is put for a year, day and year 
 being identical. Numb. 14 : 34 ; Ezek. 4:6; Dan. 9 : 
 24. It folldws that 1260 days are 1260 years. By the 
 foregoing, we find the duration of popery to be 1260 
 years. 
 
 Though the foregoing six or seven passages prove the 
 duration of popery to be 1260 years, two other passages 
 make mention of two other periods, namely, 1290 and 
 1335 days or years. Dan. 12 : 1 1, 12. To the great num- 
 ber of 1260, a small number is added, namely, 30 or 75, 
 the two latter differing to 45. Probably the plagues or 
 things that will overturn Popery, Mohammedism, &c. 
 will begin at the end of the 1260 years, and continue till 
 the end of the 1290, or during 30 years. From the 1290th 
 year to the 1335th, or during the period of 45 years, 
 things will be getting settled ; peace, liberty, knowledge, 
 holiness, and happiness will be gaining ground ; the king- 
 dom of heaven and of God will be taking root upon earth • 
 and the way will be cleared for the march of the millen- 
 nial glory, by the end of the 1335 years, when Christ 
 will begin to reign fully upon earth, and when the Spirit 
 will begin to dwell in the heart of mankind in general. 
 
 Knowing the duration of popery, if we know when it 
 began, we know when it will end. Commentators in 
 general deem popery to have begun either when the 
 pope became the universal bishop, or when he became 
 a temporal prince. The former view appears the better. 
 Therefore we date popery from the year 606 A. D. when 
 pope Boniface III. was declared, by Phocas the emperor 
 of Constantinople, to be the Universal Bishop. Accord- 
 ing to our view and date, the 1260, 1290, and 1335 
 years will terminate in A. D. 1866, 1896, 1941. 
 
 We do well to remember that Boniface was declared 
 the universal bishop, not by Jesus Christ, nor even by 
 
86 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 Peter or any other inspired man, but by Phocas, a vile, 
 wicked, and infernal monster, or rather an incarnate 
 devil. Therefore the origin of the proud title is not 
 divine, but ratherdiabolical. 
 
 CHAPTER SECOND. 
 
 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 THE SPECIES. 
 
 In order to give the reader one comprehensive and 
 clear view of the many subjects that will be singly 
 brought under our consideration, I will here mention 
 the parts whereinto popery will be divided, putting 
 them down in the special order wherein they will be 
 handled. I divide popery into, and examine it under 
 eighteen parts or heads, making every part an indepen- 
 dent section. N. B. Popery is here taken in an exclu- 
 sive meaning, or as confined to the matters that it con- 
 tains in addition to Biblical Christianity, or over and 
 above pure Protestantism, 
 
 1st. Papal Primaty.* 
 
 2d. Infallibility. 
 
 * I write Primaty, and Supremely ; not Supremacy, and prima- 
 ry. Suprematy and primaty are more musical, and more etymolo- 
 gical ) and therefore doubly better. 
 
THE PRIMATY OF THE POPE. 87 
 
 3d. Vulgate, Apocrypha, Tradition. 
 
 4th. Knowledge a proscribed thing, and the Bible a 
 
 forbidden book. 
 5th. Unknown Tongue, or Latin the general language 
 
 pf popery. 
 6th. Transubstantiation. 
 7th. The Sacrifice of the Mass. 
 8th. The Worship of the Host. 
 9th. Half Communion, or no Cup to the Laity. 
 10th. Idolatry. 
 11th. Merit. 
 
 12th. Purgatory, and praying for the Dead. 
 13th. Priestal Absolution and Excommunication. 
 14th. Auricular Confession. 
 15th. Celibate of the Clergy. 
 16th. The Seven Sacraments. 
 17th. Priestal Intention. 
 18th. Superstition. 
 19th. Blasphemy. 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 THE PRIMATY OF THE POPE. 
 
 Subsection I. In treating of the primaty or suprematy 
 of the pope, I confine myself to the ecclesiastical pri- 
 maty or spiritual suprematy, to the claim of the pope to 
 rule the kirk, or to be her sovereign head, the primal or 
 supreme, according to the following papal boast, " Peter 
 and the pontiff possess the plenitude of power." I keep 
 to the ecclesiastical part of the question, on the follow- 
 
88 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 ing twofold account. 1st. The political primaty or se- 
 cular suprematy of the pope, is a doctrine so peculiarly 
 and preposterously absurd, as not to deserve a formal 
 refutation here. Its uncommon monstrosity renders it 
 comparatively impotent for evil, counteracting the poi- 
 son, and blunting the sting. 2nd. Many popites, a ma- 
 jority of them, do not allow the pope's primaty politi- 
 cal, do not admit his cla'im to meddle in political or se- 
 cular affairs, and will not permit him to domineer over 
 the temporal doing of the nations, or to order the course 
 and guide the wheel of civil government. Both papal 
 individuals and papal nations, private persons and the 
 government, deem the pope an injurious intruder on the 
 political arena, and judge the deposing and dispensing 
 power, and other temporal power claimed by the pope, 
 to be hurtful to the state, contrary to reason, and oppo- 
 site to the current of Holy Writ. 
 
 Subsection II. In order to prove their favorite and 
 fundamental doctrine of the primaty or supreme power 
 of the pope, papal folk affirm, in plain terms or by impli- 
 cation, the following three things. 1st. That Peter was 
 the prince of the apostles, having had a great prerogative 
 peculiar to himself Or superior to theirs, namely, the 
 primaty. 2nd. That Peter's princedom or primaty de- 
 scended after him to all time. 3rd. That Peter's pri- 
 maty or supreme spiritual power has descended to and 
 through the Roman bishops, he having been peculiarly 
 bishop of Rome. 
 
 I have here to make three remarks. Remark 1st. 
 The tremendous power implied in papal or rather popan 
 suprematy, and the overwhelming burden hereby laid 
 on the whole christian world, justify our demanding 
 from Rome, proof clear, and solid, and strong; or argu- 
 ment convincing like philosophical or moral certainty, 
 or like mathematical demonstration, or like supernatural 
 evidence and light. The apostolic princedom of Peter, 
 
 
THE PRIMATY OF THE POPE. 89 
 
 the descent of his princedom or primaty, and the descent 
 of it through Rome, are three things that must be proved 
 beyond all doubt, must be made as clear as the uncloud- 
 ed sun at noonday, must be upheld by an evidential 
 power sufficient to content the reason, and to carry the 
 mind of carefully inquiring Christendom. Very great 
 power being; here claimed by Rome, very great proof 
 must be given to substantiate the claim 5 for in prop or* 
 tion to the magnitude of the privilege sought for po- 
 pery, must be the evidence offered by the papal cham- 
 pion. They who may lose greatly, may require great 
 proof 5 and they who try to gain much, ought to be 
 ready to give much argument. The primaty of the pope 
 is a fundamental of popery ; therefore let it be proved 
 fundamentally, firmly, fully. Geometry is built on her 
 postulates and axioms, and Philosophy is founded on 
 clear and solid principles ; while Astrology fares better 
 with imagination than with reason, and Alchemy prefers 
 the occult to the open, the dawn to the day. Now let 
 popery resemble the former two, and not the latter. Let 
 it clothe itself with geometrical certainty or philoso- 
 phic clearness, and not shrink behind the lunacy of the 
 astrologer or the dream of the alchemite. Remark 2nd. 
 The foregoing three things must be proved, every one 
 of them must be proved to be true, or the papal scheme 
 falls ; for if only one be wrong, the scheme cannot be 
 right. If any one of the three links of the papal chain 
 be broken, the chain is broken ; and then it cannot drag 
 along the weight of spiritual suprematy. Remark 3rd. 
 The foregoing three things can be disproved, every one 
 of them can be shown to be wrong ; and therefore the 
 apal scheme is not only wrong, but wrong to a three- 
 old degree, or wrong trinally. Oh thrice broken chain ! 
 all the three links being broken ! 
 
 Subsection III. Article 1. Affirmation first. ff Peter 
 was the prince of the apostles, having had a great pre- 
 
90 POFERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 rogative peculiar to himself or superior to theirs, name- 
 ly, the primaty." Now this I deny, flatly and fully 
 deny, and will go on to show the utter want of proof, 
 the utter want of rational and Biblical argument. 
 
 Article 2. To show that Peter was not a prince or 
 head over the other apostles, I will give ten proofs. 
 
 Proof 1st. Peter, in his two Epistles, claims no su- 
 prematy, giving not one hint in either of them, that he 
 was supreme. Instead of calling himself the ruler, he 
 calls himself " an elder" 1 Pet. 5 : 1. Surely if he were 
 the supreme head, he would give some intimation of it 
 in his writing. But Peter was not the pope, and did not 
 assume what was not his due. 
 
 Proof 2nd, Scripture affords not one real example of 
 Peter's primaty over the other apostles. He nowhere 
 exerts the mastery over them, and they nowhere treat 
 him as being their spiritual master. In no time and no 
 place, did Peter act as the apostolic head, or show him- 
 self supreme over his colleagues; and in no time and no 
 place, did they act as his inferiors, or concede to him 
 the pretended suprematy. Neither did he actively, nor 
 did they passively give ground for concluding that he 
 was authorized to command, and they bound to obey. 
 And that Peter had the primaty over the apostolic 
 band, and yet that he and they never made it appear, 
 never let it be known, he never ordering, and they 
 never submitting, is a marvel of marvels, is indeed a 
 miracle, is a w T onder of the world. " The other apos- 
 tles acted so well as not to afford Peter an opportunity 
 for exerting his supreme power in correcting them." 
 Oh the rogues ! They unluckily behaved so well as to 
 make Peter's primaty a sinecure ! and to keep from 
 the Romanites a knock-down argument ! Pity that the 
 apostles were not popes ! poor Peter would then have 
 work enough to keep them in order ! 
 
 Proof 3rd, All were alike called by Christ, and 
 
THE PRIMATY OF THE POPE. 91 
 
 all were alike commissioned by Christ. Matt. 10 : 1, 
 and 28 : 19. The power of binding and loosing was 
 given equally to all the apostles. Matt. 18 : 18. John, 
 20 : 22, 23. "■ Priestal Absolution^ A. 5, may now be 
 read again. 
 
 Proof teh. " It shall not be so among you. Matt. 
 20 : 26. One -is your Master, even Christ, and all ye 
 are brethren. 23 : 8. They had disputed among them- 
 selves, who should be the greatest. Mark, 11 : 34 ; Matt. 
 18 : 1. I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas. 
 1 Cor. 1 : 12. First, apostles. 1 Cor. 12 : 28. Some, 
 apostles. Eph. 4:11. The foundation of the apostles 
 and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief 
 corner stone. Eph. 2 : 20. The names of the twelve 
 apostles of the Lamb." Rev. 21 : 14. Now do not these 
 passages disprove the notion of Peter's primaty 1 do not 
 they prove that the apostles were on an equality \ or 
 do not they show that Peter's fancied princedom over 
 his colleagues was quite unknown to him and to them \ 
 They do. 
 
 Proof 6th. Peter was called to account by others. 
 rt They that were of the circumcision contended with 
 him." Acts, 11:2. What! contend with the supreme 
 head of the kirkl contend with their master 1 contend 
 with their ecclesiastical king ! No, no. Away with the 
 figment of Peter's supreme power ! 
 
 Proof 6th. The apostles sent Peter and John. Acts, 
 8 : 14. Truly if Peter were the prince of the apostles 
 he would not be sent by them. The master is not sent 
 by his servants, the ruler by the ruled. 
 
 Proof 1th. It is certain that Peter was not superior 
 to Paul, was not the head over him. Paul declares him- 
 self to be " not a whit behind, in nothing behind, the 
 very chiefest apostles." 2 Cor. 11:5, and 12: 11. Paul 
 publicly rebuked or reproved Peter. Gal. 2 : 11-14. Now 
 who do not see that, if Peter were the primal or su 
 
92 tOPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 preme, Paul would be greatly behind him, and would 
 not presume to take him to task for his fault 1 
 
 Proof 8th. James appears more like the prince or 
 head than Peter. " He (Christ) was seen of James. 1 
 Cor. 15 : 7. Paul went in with us unto James. Acts, 
 21 : 18. James, Cephas, and John." Gal. 2:9. James 
 took the lead in the great council of Jerusalem ; for he 
 clearly presided, and he gave the decision, pronouncing 
 the definitive sentence, or dictating the decree. Acts, 15. 
 If James were not head over Peter, Peter certainly was 
 not head over James. James, or neither. 
 
 Proof 9th. John appears to have a better right than 
 Peter to the title of the prince of the apostles, as Barrow 
 and others have remarked. I will give six reasons. 1st. 
 John did not deny the Lord. 2nd. John asked Him a 
 question that Peter durst not ask. See John, chapter 
 thirteenth. 3rd. Johr was the beloved disciple. 4th. 
 John had the Virgin Mary confided to his care. 5th. 
 John outlived all the apostles. 6th. John wrote more 
 than any one of the twelve, and far more than Peter, 
 and so did greater good to the christian world. 
 
 Proof 10th. If Peter were supreme over the other 
 apostles in authority, he would very probably be supe- 
 rior to them in mental endowment, in miraculous pow- 
 er, or in holy attainment. But he was not their superior. 
 In regard to mental endowment natural and acquired, 
 he was not superior to Paul, nor to James, nor to John, 
 nor to Matthew, nor probably to every other, and he 
 was clearly inferior to Paul; in relation to miraculous 
 power, he was not superior to Paul ; and as to holy at- 
 tainment, he was not superior to John, nor to Paul, nor 
 to James, (called the Just,) nor probably to all the others, 
 and he was perhap inferior to John. Therefore we may 
 fairly infer that Peter was not the supreme. 
 
 Article 3. Having given ten proofs in opposition to 
 the princedom or primaty of Peter, I will go on to con- 
 
THE PRIMATY OF THE POPE. 93 
 
 sider the evidence brought by the party of Rome. We 
 will examine three objections. 
 
 Objection 1st. Peter often spoke first, and his name 
 is often put first, of the twelve. Reply. Firstly. Peter 
 often spoke first, or often was the spokesman or spoke- 
 man of the twelve, because probably of his warm tem- 
 per and natural zeal, or of his early call, or of his age. 
 He appears to have been an ardent, active, ready man, 
 forward to speak and forward to act, and sometime too 
 forward. He appears confident, self-confident; and his 
 self-confidence or presuming turn led him too often into 
 fault, led him once to rebuke the Lord, and afterward 
 to deny Him. Matt. 16 : 22, and 26 : 72. Secondly, 
 Peter's name is often put first, probably either because 
 he was the first to speak or the spokeman, or because 
 he was the first or one of the first called by our Lord 
 to the apostolate. How far the order of naming result- 
 ed from age, I will not affirm. 
 
 Objection 2?id. Peter received the power of the keys, 
 the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Matt. 16 : 19. Re- 
 ply. Peter had the honor of first preaching, or opening 
 the door of the Gospel to Jews and Gentiles; to the 
 former, on the day of Pentecost, and to the latter, in the 
 case of Cornelius. Peter turned the key, and unlocked 
 the Gospel door. But this work implied mere priority, 
 priority in time ; but no primaty, no suprematy, no su- 
 periority in rank or power. 
 
 Objection 3rd. " Upon this rock I will build my 
 church." Matt. 16 : 18. Now the church being built on 
 Peter, Peter must be the supreme head of the church. 
 Reply. Upon mrp* the roc k confessed, upon the con- 
 fession that Peter made, upon " the Christ, the Son of 
 the living God ;" and not upon Uzr^g or Peter the stone 
 or piece of rock confessing, not upon the confessor, not 
 upon Peter the man. Upon the rock of a noble and di- 
 vine truth, and not upon the sand of a frail human crea- 
 
94 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 ture ; upon Jesus Christ himself, and not upon poor 
 Peter, a weak, ignorant and sinful worm. Peter said, 
 "■ Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Our 
 Lord replied, Upon this rock, or truth ; this truth, firm as 
 a rock, I will build my church. To prove our view to 
 be correct, I will give five reasons. Reason 1st. com- 
 mon sense utterly repudiates the papal view, and up- 
 holds our own. Common sense or right reason cannot 
 allow that our Lord built his church on a mere man, 
 built it on ignorance, frailty, and sin ; or built it on some- 
 thing no more able to support the burden, than a tor- 
 toise w r ould be to carry the world. Common sense or 
 right reason cannot admit that Christ built on a rotten 
 foundation, built on the shifting sand of human infirmi- 
 ty, or built a thing that must tumble down. Christ did 
 not build a cathedral on a cabbage-stump. Reason 2d. 
 Parallel passages prove our point. " This is the stone 
 which was set at nought of you builders, which is be- 
 come the head of the corner. Acts, 4:11; Matt. 21 : 42 ; 
 Ps. 118 : 22. Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner-stone 
 — the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is 
 made the head of the corner, and a stone of stumbling, 
 and a rock of offence. 1 Pet. 2 : 6, 7, 8. The founda- 
 tion of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself 
 being the chief corner-stone. Eph. 2:20. They drank 
 of that spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock 
 was Christ. 1. Cor. 10 : 4. Whosoever heareth these 
 sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a 
 wise man who built his house upon a rock. Matt. 7 : 24. 
 Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation, a stone, a tried 
 stone, a precious corner-stone. Isa. 28 : 16. Other foun- 
 dation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus 
 Christ." 1 Cor. 3:11. N. B. In Scripture, the Lord is 
 often signified by the term rock. Reason 3d. The 
 original words oppose the papal whim, and show our 
 view to be the right one. nirpoc, Pcfrus, or Peter is in 
 
THE PRIMATY OF THE POPE. 95 
 
 the masculine gender, and means, a stone or piece of rock 
 — a stone or piece of rock ; while Tierp*. or Petra is in the 
 feminine gender, and means rock. "Thou art Peter," 
 (rifTPflf or Petrus,) " and upon this rock," (iist/j*. or Pe- 
 tra,) " I will build my church." " Thou art n^pog, and 
 upon this n«T/>«, I will build, &c." " Thou art a stone, 
 and upon this. rock I will build." Our Lord therefore 
 did not build upon FIst/>o?; (a stone;) but He took oc- 
 casion from the meaning of the word n«T/>sc or Peter, (a 
 stone or piece of rock,) to refer to Himself as The 
 Rock, and perhap significantly pointing his finger to 
 himself at the same time. N. B. The apostle, having 
 been aforenamed Cephas, (a stone,) John, 1 : 42, perhap 
 to denote his strength or hardihood of character, is now, 
 after nobly confessing Jesus to be M the Christ, the Son 
 of the living God," named nerpo;, (a stone,) in allusion 
 to the strength and stability of the truth confessed, and 
 also perhap to his own hardy character. Reason 4th. 
 Our interpretation of this noted passage of Matthew, 
 was given by many of the early Fathers. It was given 
 by Chrysostom, Augustine, Jerome, Nazianzen, and se- 
 veral more ; and probably by Origen and Tertullian. 
 Reason 5th. Our interpretation has been given by many 
 Romanites, by four or five popes, by the venerable Bede, 
 Anselm, and several more. 
 
 Subsection IV. Affirmation second. "Peter's prince- 
 dom or primaty decended after him to all time." Now 
 this papal affirmation I deny, flatly and fully deny ; and 
 I proceed to show it to be quite unsupported by solid 
 or convincing proof, or to be unproved and unprovable, 
 Even if Peter were (but he was not) the supreme, the 
 suprematy was a mere personal distinction, and there- 
 fore did not and could not descend to any after him. If 
 with Peter it lived, with Peter it died. One death took 
 them both away, and one tomb holds them together. 
 As Peter's shadow went with him, so went his supre- 
 
96 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 maty, — into the other world. It might be enough here 
 to say that Romanites cannot prove their affirmation, 
 cannot prove it certainly or probably, cannot prove it at 
 all. They affirm, and they can do no more. And to 
 their mere affirmation we might be content, as to bare 
 logical requirement, with giving a mere denial. Our 
 nay equals their yea. But we will not be content with 
 remarking that they cannot prove, for we will go on to 
 disprove. To show that Peter's primaty did not descend 
 after him, I will give four arguments. 
 
 •Argument. 2. If the supreme power be claimed by 
 any one, it will probably be claimed by or for some 
 bishop ; but the claim displays a daring degree of pre- 
 sumption and pride. The bishop of Rome, an uninspired 
 man, and often an unconverted one, a man peccable and 
 fallible, and too often immoral and ignorant, has no kind 
 of title to the uncommon power of an inspired apostle. 
 And the bishop of any other place, has no kind of title 
 to the power. The modern pretension to the power, by 
 the pope or by any other man, is impudent and pro- 
 fane, is a huge monstrosity. Supposing a weak, igno- 
 rant, and sinful man to be the supreme head of all Chris- 
 tendom, the primal or absolute ruler of the whole chris- 
 tian world, the guide and lord of every member of every 
 christian country, dictating what must be believed, and 
 commanding what must be done, directing every head 
 and every hand, — is supposing a moral impossibility, 
 supposing in opposition to reason and the Bible, or sup- 
 posing in a way that would lead a jury of angels to 
 deem the supposer a fool, and to send him to the Limbo 
 of Vanity ! How far an angel or an inspired and mira- 
 culous man might wield the universal suprematy, I will 
 not presume to decide ; but a mere uninspired and un- 
 miraculous man might as well attempt to wield the 
 moon. To what precise point the apostolic power ex- 
 tended, I do not exactly know ; but whatever the full 
 
THE PRIMATY OF THE POPE. 97 
 
 power was 3 it is not found in our day. The apostolic of- 
 fice died with the apostles, the suprematy (if any) died 
 with the supreme, it being personal only. If suprematy 
 lived with Peter, it was crucified with him, and with its 
 head downward, so that it died as certainly as he. Peace 
 to its ghost ! 
 
 Argument 2nd. That the primaty does not descend 
 to our day, may be inferred from our utter want of in- 
 formation concerning the legitimate line of descent. 
 How do we know the real and rightful successor to 
 Peter 1 how can we clearly ascertain which of two or 
 more claimants, is in the direct line from the apostle 1 
 how can we tell w T hether the reigning man is the primal 
 or a pretender 1 Does the apparent supreme derive from 
 the lineal successor to Peter, or from the party autho- 
 rized to elect 1 or does he derive from his own usurpa- 
 tion, or from a usurper or usurping party 1 The reigning 
 man may be the first to break through the lawful line, 
 or may follow an individual or a party who had broken 
 through ; he may be the first or the second link of a 
 new and counterfeit chain. What sure test or criterion 
 have we for distinguishing the right from a wrong, the 
 real light from an ignis fatuusl No sure or certain one. 
 By what rule can we clearly determine the direct succes- 
 sion 1 By no rule. What clew or direction is given in 
 Scripture, for knowing the true line of descent, or the 
 veritable descendent of Peter 1 None at all. On this 
 great point Scripture leaves one quite in the dark. 
 Ample direction was given for knowing the high-priest 
 and any other priest under the Jewish economy. They 
 were of the tribe of Levi, and the family of Aaron ; and 
 therefore were easily known or distinguishable from 
 members of the other eleven tribes, and from the other 
 Levites. Moreover, the New Testament gives direction 
 about christian ministers, who and what they are, their 
 character, qualification, and the like. Paul writes much 
 
 5 
 
98 POPERY IN SPECIAL 
 
 about bishops and deacons, and what they ought to be, 
 and how they may be known ; and other parts of the 
 New Testament afford similar information. But no- 
 where in Holy Writ do we find anything about ascer- 
 taining the Supreme Head! We are not told who he 
 is, or what, or where 5 we are not told how to find him 
 out, or how to discern him from every or any other. 
 We have no scripture rule for knowing the Supreme 
 from a subordinate, the head from a member. Men talk 
 and write about the identity of the body, and the identi- 
 ty of the soul, and the puzzling questions connected 
 therewith ; but the most puzzling kind of identity, is the 
 identity of the supreme head of all Christendom. How- 
 ever much we puzzle our brain here, we shall puzzle in 
 vain ; for we shall find no identity, but diversity enough. 
 Having therefore no information or no rule to guide us 
 in tracking the line of descent of the primaty, or in dis- 
 covering where or in whom the primaty is lodged, we 
 may fairly infer that it is not lodged any where on earth, 
 that it is not the property of any living mortal, that it is 
 not found out of Christ. Not knowing where or in 
 whom to. find it here below, we are certain that here it 
 cannot be found. 
 
 Argument 3rd. That the primity does not descend to 
 our day, may be inferred from the utter silence of Scrip- 
 ture in regard to it in any way, in regard to its descent 
 abstractedly, or in regard even to its existence. Not only 
 are we not told in whom it is, but we are not told that it 
 is at all. We are not told any thing about the primaty, 
 are not told that it descends any where, are not told 
 that it is in being. Even if it lived in Peter, we read 
 nothing of its living now; therefore we may conclude 
 that, even if it were formerly alive, it is now dead and 
 gone — never to return. Scripture nowhere makes men- 
 tion either of the line of descent of the primaty, or of 
 its descent at all, of Its bare being; nowhere declares 
 
THE PRIMATY OF THE POPE. 99 
 
 in whom it shall be after Peter, or that it shall be in any 
 one ; nowhere even alludes thereto. In the Revelation, 
 where it would properly and very probably be spoken 
 of if existing, it is not spoken of at all, John not alluding 
 to it in any way. Surely the silence of John concerning 
 the primaty, is remarkable, and proves the papal figment 
 not to be existing, and not to be intended by the Lord 
 for the kirk. John gave a kind of prophetic history of 
 the kirk, but yet wrote not one word on the supreme 
 power pretendedly committed by Christ to a mere man. 
 Surely the silence of the apostle ought to silence the 
 pope, and ought to make him and all reject the notion 
 of supreme power being put in a feeble, ignorant, and 
 sinful man. 
 
 Argument Uh. That the primaty has not descended, 
 may be inferred not only from what Scripture does not 
 say, but even from what it does say, coupled with what 
 it does not. In arguments 2nd and 3rd, we have seen 
 that Scripture gives no direction for knowing its true 
 line of descent, and gives no intimation that it does de- 
 scend ; not telling that it descends here or there, and 
 not telling that it descends any where. In arguments 
 second and third, I wrote of a proper or pure primaty, 
 of one agreeable to the Divine will, one derived from 
 the Lord Himself; and concerning that primaty, I said 
 that Scripture is silent. But concerning another kind 
 of primaty, Scripture is not silent, speaking of it often, 
 and in a pretty plain way. There is the primaty of the 
 little horn of Daniel, or of the man of sin or son of per- 
 dition of Paul, or of the two-homed beast, or of the 
 whore of Babylon, or in other words, of corrupt papal 
 Rome. (See chapter first, section IX.) Concerning this 
 primaty, Scripture is pretty full and very severe, speak- 
 ing of it often, and condemning it very pointedly and 
 very strongly. Of course, this primaty is not from God, 
 because it is bad, and a bad thing cannot come from the 
 
100 FOPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 Good Being ; and because it is strongly condemned, and 
 he does not condemn what is according to his will, does 
 not condemn what he has set up, does not condemn his 
 own work, does not condemn himself. And remember 
 that the condemnation is levelled not at the mere abuse 
 of the papal or Roman primaty, but at this primaty it- 
 self; not at the mere excrescence or excess, but at the 
 essence or existence. Remember that the thing is con- 
 demned not merely for going too far or being too great, 
 but for going or being at all; is condemned unreserved- 
 ly, condemned altogether. Now to the candid reader, I 
 put the following query. Is not the Biblical condem- 
 nation of the bad or papal suprematy, coupled with the 
 want of allusion to any other, an argument against su- 
 prematy in the abstract 1 Suprematy is mentioned to 
 be condemned, none is mentioned without being con- 
 demned, condemnation of the papal being unaccompa- 
 nied by commendation of the fancied pure ; and there- 
 fore we may well infer that no rightful or heaven-born 
 suprematy is now in the world. Were there a good su- 
 prematy, would God condemn the bad, without com- 
 mending the good ] would he contravene the papal or 
 corrupt, without commanding the pure 1 would he speak 
 frowningly of that derived from man and the devil, 
 without speaking smilingly of that derived from him- 
 self! No. While hurling back the primaty that came 
 from popery and Satan, he would bring forward that 
 which came from Peter and Christ. Were he to con 
 demn the bad without commending the good, he might 
 lead men to disregard the good, and so might indi- 
 rectly lead them to contravene his own will ; and as 
 he, The Good Being, would not lead men so, we fairly 
 infer that there was not and is not a good suprematy 
 To forbid the wrong or papal primaty, and not to speak 
 of any other, not to except the right one, if the right 
 one exist, would be to throw the right one into the 
 
THE PRIMATY OF THE POPE. 101 
 
 shade, and to bring it into suspicion and jeopardy , and 
 as God would not so treat his own institution, (his 
 goodness not allowing him to do so,) we may be sure 
 that the right primaty is not in being. In fine, the re- 
 jecting of the papal primaty afforded the Lord the most 
 opportune occasion (and an urgent one) for requiring 
 the pure primaty, if it were meant to exist ; and there- 
 fore as he did not require the pure, it was not meant 
 to exist. 
 
 Subsection V, Article 1. Affirmation third. "Peter's 
 primaty or supreme spiritual power has descended to 
 and through the Roman bishops, he having been pecu- 
 liarly bishop of Rome." Now this papal affirmation I 
 deny, flatly and fully deny , and I will go on to show it 
 to be utterly without foundation, or to be no better than 
 the baseless fabric of a dream. It might be enough 
 here to say that Romanites cannot prove their affirma- 
 tion either certainly or probably, cannot prove it at all. 
 They merely affirm ; and to their mere affirmation we 
 might be content with giving a mere negation, our nay 
 equalling their yea. But we will not be content with 
 remarking that they cannot prove, for we will go on to 
 disprove. 
 
 Article 2. " Peter was peculiarly bishop of Rome," 
 affirm the Romanites. Now this we deny, flatly and 
 fully deny ; and I proceed to show their affirmation to 
 be a mere empty sound or vain boast, or to be quite 
 void of solidity or of strong and prevailing proof. Who- 
 ever was first bishop of Rome, Linus, 2 Tim. 4 : 21, or 
 another, Peter was not, was neither first nor second. 
 If Peter were (but he was not) the bishop of any place, 
 he was of Antioch. In order to see that Peter was not 
 the peculiar bishop of Rome, let the reader peruse and 
 ponder the following six arguments. 
 
 Argument 1st. We find in the New Testament, no 
 mention of Peter's being at Rome at all, no account 
 
102 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 that he was ever there during his whole life. Paul no- 
 where (not even in his Epistle to Rome) alludes to Pe» 
 ter's being there, nor does any other of the sacred wri- 
 ters allude to it, not even Peter himself. Babylon, in 1 
 Pet. 5 : 13, may be the real or great Babylon the an- 
 tient capital of Asia, or Babylon in Egypt, or Jerusa- 
 lem, and probably the first. Now as Scripture does not 
 tell that Peter was ever at Rome, we may certainly 
 conclude that he was not particularly bishop of Rome. 
 Were he the Roman bishop, some mention either of 
 it, or of his being at Rome, would surely be made in 
 Holy Writ. 
 
 Argument 2?id. No apostolic Father mentions that 
 Peter was ever at Rome ; no Father of the apostolic 
 time gives ground to believe that the apostle w^as ever 
 there. Peter therefore could not be the bishop of Rome. 
 
 Argument 3rd. The earliest writers who mention that 
 Peter was at Rome, do not tell that he was the peculiar 
 bishop of it. They may write of his martyrdom, but 
 w r rite not of his episcopate \ of his suffering and dying, 
 but not of his ruling. Therefore he w r as not peculiarly 
 the Roman bishop. 
 
 Argument teh. Several learned writers, Scaliger, Sal- 
 masius, Spanheim, Adam Clarke, and others deny that 
 Peter ever was at Rome, deny that he either lived or 
 died there. And as there is ground for doubting that 
 he was at Rome at all, there is ground for being certain 
 that he was not bishop there. 
 
 Argument bth. In Gal. 2 : 7, 8, Paul calls Peter the 
 apostle of the circumcision, or of the Jews. Now how 
 could the active minister of the circumcision, live as 
 the head minister of uncircumcised Rome 1 how could 
 the peculiar apostle of the Jews, be the peculiar bishop 
 of the capital of the Gentile world ! How 1 Not at all. 
 
 Argument 6th. An apostle was not confined to one 
 place, but was a kind of bishop universal, having the 
 
THE PRIMATY OF THE POPE. 103 
 
 whole world for his field of labor. The apostolate dif- 
 fered widely from a mere episcopate. Therefore Peter 
 was not stationary in Rome, but travelled tip and down 
 among the nations ; he was not the Roman bishop, but 
 a catholic minister. 
 
 Article 3. The primaty has not descended to and 
 through the Roman bishops. Romanites cannot prove 
 that it has, and we can prove that it has not. The pope 
 is very many a thing rather than the representative of 
 Peter. The Sovereign Pontiff of Rome papal, is the 
 successor not of Peter, but of the Pontifex Maocimus of 
 Rome pagan. To show that the Roman bishops do not 
 inherit Peter's pretendedly supreme power, I will give 
 six arguments. 
 
 Argument 1st. John was the last of the apostles, and 
 outlived Peter many years, thirty years, we are told. And 
 during the whole or a part of the time from the death 
 of Peter to the death of John, Linus, we are told, was 
 the bishop of Rome. Now beyond all question, Linus 
 was not the universal head during the life-time of John, 
 Linus the mere Roman bishop was not supreme over 
 John tire catholic Apostle. John was over Linus, and 
 not Linus over John. This is plain from Scripture. 
 "First, apostles; secondarily, prophets; thirdly, &c. 
 1 Cor. 12:28. Some, apostles; and some, prophets; 
 and some, &c" Eph. 4: 11. Moreover, it is plain from 
 reason. The inspired apostle was superior to an unin- 
 spired minister ; John, one of the very greatest of apos- 
 tolic men, and the disciple uncommonly beloved by 
 Christ, was greater than Linus, of whom little more is 
 known than the name ; John, the direct agent of Christ 
 and the Holy Ghost, the medium between the Lord and 
 the kirk, and to whom the whole christian world looked 
 up with awe, John was above Linus, and supreme over 
 him, a man of no note in Scripture or in apostolic his- 
 tory, and who appears to have been one of the many or 
 
104f POPEHY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 ordinary ministers. The general commanding the army, 
 is superior to a colonel of a regiment ; the high admiral 
 of the fleet, is greater than the captain of a single ship ; 
 and the prime minister of the nation, is supreme over a 
 magistrate of one county or one town. Therefore John 
 the apostle of Christendom, was above and over Linus 
 the bishop of Rome. It follows that if Linus or his suc- 
 cessor had the universal headship at all, he had it from 
 John, and not from Peter. The surviving or last apos- 
 tle John being the supreme head, if Linus had the su- 
 prematy, he must have had it from John. But if the su- 
 preme power descended from John to any one, it went 
 to his successor, and that successor certainly was not 
 the bishop of Rome. If John's suprematy lived after 
 him, it lived in his own immediate follower ; and the 
 follower or successor (if any) was an Asian bishop, and 
 not the Roman. If the primaty be in the world at all, it 
 is in Asia; therefore Rome must give up all claim, and 
 be out of all hope. To sum up. John was the supreme 
 over Linus — If the suprematy came down from the 
 apostles, it came from or through John — Coming from 
 John, it went to his successor — John's successor was 
 one of Asia, and not he of Rome ; and therefore the 
 pope of Rome cannot be the head, cannot be more than 
 a member. It follows that the papal party should stop 
 their boasting ; and that people ought to speak not of 
 the suprematy, but of the subordination of the pope ; 
 not of Roman primaty, but of Roman secundaty* 
 
 Argument 2nd. The bishops of Antioch (if not those 
 of Jerusalem) have quite as good a claim to succeed 
 Peter, as have the bishops of Rome. Antioch has an 
 equal or superior claim to Rome ; for Antioch was the 
 elder see of the two, according to the Romanites, they 
 
 * I could not well avoid coining the word secundaty ; and it comes 
 as regularly from sccundus, as primaty comes from primus. 
 
THE PRIMATY OF THE FOrE. 105 
 
 telling that Peter was firstly bishop of Antioch and 
 lastly bishop of Rome. Surely the elder may claim be- 
 fore the younger, the earlier see may take precedence 
 of the later one ; this being according to the law of pri- 
 mogeniture, or agreeable to the past and present rule 
 of descent. Moreover, Peter lived at Antioch, and only 
 died at Rome, even if he were ever there ; and as the liv- 
 ing is more important than the dying, the place of his apos- 
 tolic life ought to carry it rather than that of his death. 
 It follows that the bishop of Antioch has a title to the 
 primaty, equal or superior to that of his rival of Rome : 
 firstly, because Antioch is the elder of the two ; and se- 
 " condly, because it is the city where Peter sometime 
 lived. N. B. Romanites affirm the kirk of Rome to be 
 the Mother kirk. But the affirmation is contrary to his- 
 tory and Scripture. 1st. History declares Jerusalem to 
 have been the cradle of Christianity, and the christian 
 kirk there to have been the earliest or mother of all. 
 2nd. Scripture proves the priority of Jerusalem. "Jeru- 
 salem which is above, is free, which is the mother of us 
 all. Gal. 4: 26. Beginning at Jerusalem. Luke, 24 : 47. 
 The word of the Lord from Jerusalem." Isa. 2 : 3. 
 
 Argument 3rd. The primaty or pontificate has been 
 stained with impiety, and immorality, and crime, many 
 popes having been very guilty before God and before 
 men. The ecclesiastical heads of Rome have not been 
 remarkable for virtue or wisdom, neither reforming the 
 world by their moral qualities, nor enlightening it by 
 their mental. Instead of being pillars of piety and ex- 
 amples of knowledge, they have often been quite the 
 reverse, having often, too often, been supporters of sin, 
 and upholders of ignorance, corrupting the world by the 
 depravity of their heart, and clouding it through the des- 
 titution of their head. The popes have often, too often, 
 heen foes of moral purity, and enemies of mental light. 
 Now were they the men to have and to wield the su- 
 * 5* 
 
106 POPERY IX SPECIAL. 
 
 preme spiritual power 1 to be the lords paramount of the 
 whole christian world 1 or to reign and rule over the 
 souls of all men and women of all parts of Christendom \ 
 No. The Roman popes having been carnal, supreme 
 spiritual power would fare ill with them, and would not 
 be put there ) for how could sinners promote sanctity % or 
 how could unholy or ungodly popes forward the interest 
 of the holy Godl The Roman popes having been so 
 bad, we may infer that the primaty has not been with 
 them. See chapter second, section 2, argument first. 
 
 Argument Uh. That the primaty has not descended 
 to and through the Roman bishops, any more than to 
 and through the bishops of Antioch, Jerusalem, or any 
 other place, may be inferred from our utter want of in- 
 formation concerning the legitimate line of Roman de- 
 scent. (See Subsection 4. argument 2nd.) How do we 
 know the real and rightful Roman successor to Peter % 
 how can we clearly ascertain which of two or more 
 claimants is in the direct line from the apostle % It 
 would puzzle a wizard and a witch to tell how. By what 
 rule can we fully determine the direct succession in 
 Rome % By no rule. Who was the direct or lineal suc- 
 cessor to Peter at the time of the council of Constance ! 
 Martin V, or one of the three deposed antipopes 1 Which 
 was the real pope, he at Rome or he at Avignon 1 And 
 during the forty or fifty years of the great popan schism, 
 which of the three or two contending infallibles came 
 from the prince of the apostles 1 and which came from 
 the prince of the devils! Alas! We are quite at sea 
 here, and without rudder, sail, compass, or star j and 
 we have little hope either of long remaining safe on the 
 ocean, or of finding our way to port. But again. The 
 popedom has been gained by political intrigue, by fraud, 
 by force, by bribery, by debauchery, and the like ! It 
 has been gained by a plot, obtained by a lie, won by 
 the sword, bought with money, procured by a whore, 
 
THE PRIMATY OF THE POPE. 107 
 
 and so on ! A man may become pope through a cabal 
 among the cardinals, or through the influence of Italian 
 princes, or through that of the king of Spain, or that 
 of the king of France, or that of the emperor ! A man 
 may become pope through a cunning plan of deception ! 
 A man may become pope by the mean of an army ! A 
 man may become pope through buying up a majority 
 of cardinals ! A man may become pope by the influ- 
 ence of his mistress, a lewd woman, and perhap the 
 wife of another man ! And men not only may, but actu- 
 ally have, actually have become popes in all these ways, 
 as we too fully learn from history. Alas I Among that 
 impious and immoral crowd of rebels toward God, 
 where shall we look for the rightful successor to Peter 1 
 How shall we find supreme spiritual power in men whol- 
 ly destitute of spirituality, and quite full of carnality ; 
 men actuated by no other spirit than that of the flesh 
 the world, and the devil 1 What direction does Holy 
 Writ afford for ascertaining the rightful Roman holder 
 of the supreme power 1 None. And we having in Scrip- 
 ture no rule whereby to know in what popan pretend- 
 er to find the primaty, may well infer that in the popes 
 it cannot be found, any more than in another episcopal 
 line ; or that it is not in Rome, any more than else- 
 where. In relation to the line of descent, the claim of 
 Rome is not better, even if it be so good. 
 
 Argument bih. That the primaty has not descended 
 to and through the Roman bishops, or that we w T ant a 
 proof of its having descended there, is clear from the ut- 
 ter silence of Scripture in regard to it in any w r ay, in re- 
 gard to its descent abstractedly, or in regard even to its 
 existence in relation to Rome. (See Subsection 4. 
 argument 3rd.) We are not told anything about the pri- 
 maty, are not told that it descends anywhere or any- 
 how, are not told that it is in being, in the metropolis 
 or domain of popery. We have seen, in last argument, 
 
108 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 that Scripture nowhere makes mention of the line of 
 descent of the Roman primaty, or nowhere declares in 
 whom it shall be after Peter ; and we see here that Scrip- 
 ture nowhere makes mention of its descent at all, of its 
 bare being, nowhere declares that it shall be in any one 
 after the apostle, nowhere even alludes to the pretend- 
 ed primaty of Rome. As the Bible is silent relatively to 
 other places, so it is silent in relation to Rome; and 
 herein therefore Rome has no advantage over them, or 
 has no better claim than they. 
 
 Argument 6M. That the primaty has not descended 
 to and through the Roman bishops, may be inferred not 
 only from what Scripture does not say, but even from 
 what it does say coupled with what it does not. (See 
 Subsection 4. argument 4th.) In arguments 4th and 
 5th, we have seen that Scripture gives no direction for 
 knowing its true line of descent through Rome, and 
 gives no intimation that it does descend there, Scrip- 
 ture being silent in regard to a pure or heaven-born Ro- 
 man primaty. But in relation to a primaty of another 
 kind, namely, that of the little horn, or of the man of 
 sin, or of the two-horned beast, or of the whore of Baby- 
 lon, or in other words, of corrupt papal Rome, Scripture 
 is far from silent, speaking of it largely and severely. 
 Now finding that Scripture condemns the papal or bad 
 primaty, without alluding to the pure one, I ask the 
 candid reader if we have not an argument against Ro- 
 man primaty altogether. Were there a good primaty in 
 Rome, would the inspired penmen so largely condemn 
 the bad, without at all commending the good 1 would 
 they so fully contravene the papal or corrupt, without 
 anyhow commending the pure 1 No. If they would do 
 so, they might lead men to disregard the good or pure, 
 and so might indirectly lead them to contravene the Di- 
 vine will ; and as they cannot be imagined to lead men 
 so, we fairly infer that there was not and is not a good 
 
THE PRIMATY OF THE POPE. 109 
 
 primaty in Rome. To forbid the wrong or corrupt 
 primaty, and not to speak of any other, not to except 
 the right one, if the right one exist, would be to throw 
 the right one into the shade, and to bring it into suspi- 
 cion and danger ; and as God's penmen would not so 
 treat God's own institution, we may be sure that the 
 right primaty is not in being. The Divine condemnation 
 of Babylon or Rome papal, having given the very best 
 and an urgent opportunity for speaking of the heaven- 
 born Roman primaty, supposing it to exist, as the Di- 
 vinely inspired penmen did not speak of it, we may 
 deem it not to exist but in imagination. We have to 
 consider that a reason exists for speaking of the pure 
 primaty, taking it to be in Rome, that exists not for 
 speaking of it, taking it to be in any other place, a rea- 
 son relating to Rome only. The papal, or bad primaty, 
 that of the little horn, the whore of Babylon, or the like, 
 is represented as being in Rome, in Babylon Rome ; and 
 therefore in condemning it, Scripture would be more 
 likely to commend the pure or good primaty if in Rome, 
 than if elsewhere. The bad system being in Rome, the 
 forbidding of it would more naturally and readily draw 
 the sacred penmen to mention the good one if existing 
 there, than if existing elsewhere. We may infer this 
 from the principle of the association of ideas in the 
 mind: Rome bad readily suggesting the idea of Rome 
 good, or the passing from the bad Roman primaty to 
 the good one, being natural and easy. And even if the 
 inspired writers should be willing to omit all allusion to 
 the good one, the goodness of God would not allow the 
 omission. Now, seeing that if the good primaty be in 
 Rome, it would very naturally, and very probably, or 
 even certainly be spoken of when the bad one was con- 
 demned, we, finding it not spoken of, may fairly infer 
 that it is not in Rome. 
 
 Subsection VI. We go on to confirm the reasoning 
 
 a O 
 
110 FOPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 of the three last subsections in opposition to the three 
 great affirmations involved in the papal claim to the pri- 
 maty, namely, that Peter was the prince or primal of the 
 apostles, that his primaty has descended, and that it has 
 descended through Rome, To confirm the reasoning, we 
 declare that the claim of the Roman popes to have de- 
 rived their power from Peter, was made not from the 
 beginning, but from a far later date ; not from the apos- 
 tolic time, but only from the fifth century ) pope Inno- 
 cent being the first who made the claim. The Roman 
 bishops did not claim from or through Peter, till many 
 ages after Peter w 7 ent to heaven. Now if the claim w r ere 
 good, why was it not made earlier % If the pope did de- 
 rive from the apostle," why not state it from the begin- 
 ning ? If the pretended primaty of the Roman bishop 
 were really obtained from the apostle Peter, why wait 
 during four centuries or more before beginning to de- 
 clare it to the world % The long delay in making the 
 claim, proves that the claim ought never to be made; 
 or as the claim ought not to be made during the first 
 four centuries, it ought not to be made at all, or at any 
 time. Delays are proverbially dangerous ; and the delay 
 here, is fatal to Rome. The delay in claiming the su- 
 prematy from Peter, shows that it did not come from 
 him ; for if it did come from him, it would be so claim- 
 ed long afore the fifth century, and even ere Peter's 
 body was laid in the tomb. If the primaty really came 
 from Peter, it w r ould be so claimed not only in the fifth 
 century, but also in the first ; and not firstly by Inno- 
 cent, but firstly by Linus the first Roman bishop. In 
 fine, the long delay of four centuries or more, proves 
 the claim to derive from Peter, to be a mere papal 
 phantasy, or Roman romance. 
 
 Subsection VII. Objection. If all the foregoing be 
 true, if the reply to the three great papal affirmations be 
 valid, and if the delay to claim from Peter prove the claim 
 
THE PRIMATY OF THE POPE. Ill 
 
 a rotten one, how came the see of Rome to have the 
 first ecclesiastical rank, and to be the first patriarchate, 
 the first of the five, long afore the time when the Ro- 
 man bishops obtained the proud title of Prince of the 
 Patriarchs 1 how came the order of the five patriarch- 
 ates to be, Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, 
 Jerusalem 1 or how came Rome to take the lead 1 
 
 Reply. The ecclesiastical rank of the see of Rome 
 was settled by councils, and therefore was of merely hu- 
 man origin ; and moreover, was proportioned to the po- 
 litical rank of the city of Rome. Man gave the rank, 
 and gave it on political or civil ground. The ecclesias- 
 tics of the day, and not Christ or Peter, gave to Rome 
 the priority; and they gave it because Rome was the 
 capital of the empire. The rank came not from inspired 
 Peter, but from uninspired this, that, and t'other; and 
 came not because Rome had any peculiar title to spirit- 
 ual pre-eminence, but because it had secular or politi- 
 cal preponderance as the political metropolis of the 
 world. Men gave rank to Constantinople, Alexandria, 
 Antioch, and Jerusalem ; and made the ecclesiastical 
 rank of the sees, in proportion to the political rank of 
 the cities : and what men did for these four, that they 
 did for Rome. The origin and measure of Rome's rank 
 may be told in two words, Human and Political. 
 
 To confirm the two points in the foregoing reply, 
 (about the origin and measure of the rank,) I will quote 
 a part of a canon of the general council of Chalcedon, 
 held in the year 451, and consisting of 630 bishops 
 ?r Whereas the fathers, with great propriety, bestowed 
 the chief honors on the see of old Rome, because it teas 
 ike imperial city ; and whereas the 150 Con-stantinopoli- 
 tan fathers beloved of God, actuated by the same mo- 
 tive, conferred the like dignity on the most holy see of 
 New Rome, (Constantinople,) judging it reasonable that 
 the city honored to be the seat of empire and of the 
 
112 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 senate, and equal in civil privileges with ancient royal 
 Rome, should be equally distinguished also by eccle- 
 siastical privileges, &c. &c." 
 
 Subsection VIII. I conclude the examination of the 
 Primaty of the Pope, by remarking that the primaty really 
 began not when Christianity began, but 600 years after, 
 having actually begun in century seventh, in A. D. 606, 
 when the pope gained the proud title of Universal Bishop. 
 The popan suprematy was coeval with the universal 
 bishoprick, and came not from the Lord Jesus Christ, 
 nor from the apostle Peter, but from the emperor 
 Phocas ; and therefore it is a novelty. 
 
 SECTION III. 
 
 INFALLIBILITY. 
 
 Subsection I. Where, in whom, in what man or men, 
 does Infallibility reside 1 Who is infallible 1 Does In- 
 fallibility reside in the Pope, in the episcopal head of 
 Rome 1 No, no. 
 
 Firstly. How will any one prove the pope to be in- 
 fallible 1 By what mean will a popite show that the great 
 prerogative belongs to the bishop of Rome 1 Will he 
 say that we know it intuitively, that we derive the doc- 
 trine from intuition 1 No. Will he say that we know 
 it demonstratively, that we have the portion of creed 
 from demonstration! No. Will he say that popan* infal- 
 libility is probable % that it has the evidence of probabi- 
 lity, if not so great as to be absolute certainty, yet so 
 
 * Popan comes from pope, means belonging to the pope, and ap- 
 pears a proper adjective. 
 
INFALLIBILITY. 113 
 
 great as to be far above doubt ] He may indeed -say it, 
 and say it again and again, but can he prove it 1 Can he 
 make it clear and plain ! He cannot. Will he go for 
 proof to Reason 1 Reason will laugh in his face, call 
 him a fool, and order him to door, deriding, rebuking, 
 and eliminating him for his irrationality. Will he go 
 for proof to Revelation 1 Revelation will not befriend 
 him in the point, will not give him the proof he requires. 
 Scripture will be ransacked and examined in vain \ 
 and will show passages either to convince him of his 
 folly, or to reprove him for his sin in pretending that an 
 antichristian priest of an antichristian kirk, is infallible ! 
 The Bible will display the pope not as the great deposi- 
 tary of Divine knowledge, not as infallible, inspired by 
 the illuminating power of the Holy Ghost, not as God's 
 great vicegerent holding the keys of earth, and hell, 
 and heaven \ but as the earthly head of a monstrous and 
 horrid combination, a combination hostile, cruel, and 
 destructive to man, opposed to, and abhorred by God, 
 and in virtual league with the power of hell. rt The 
 horn made war with the saints. Dan. 7: 21. That man 
 of sin, the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth 
 himself above all that is called God, or that is worship- 
 ped. 2 Thess. 2. He whose coming is after the work- 
 ing of Satan." 2 Thess. 2. 
 
 Seco?idly. I will give eight arguments from reason, 
 to prove the pope not infallible, but fallible. 
 
 Argument first. The popes have been, in general, a 
 bad set of men, very guilty and corrupt ; and some of 
 them have been exceedingly bad, horribly w T icked and 
 vile, uncommonly irreligious and immoral. The Roman 
 Popes have been compared with the Roman Emperors. 
 Properly speaking, the popes so compared ought to be 
 the popes who lived after the pope became a temporal 
 prince in the eighth century, and afore the Reformation 
 in the sixteenth. Taking the popes who lived from the 
 
114 POPERi' IN SPECIAL. 
 
 eighth to the sixteenth century, we find that both popes 
 and emperors may be viewed as being, with few excep- 
 tions, bad, immoral, depraved men ; but the popes are 
 deemed the worse of the two. Now truly the bad cha- 
 racter of the popes is an argument of some weight 
 against the notion of their being endowed by God with 
 infallibility. 
 
 Argument second. The same pope has been known 
 to oppose and contradict himself, maintaining an opin- 
 ion at one time in opposition to what he maintained an- 
 tecedently. Now when was he infallible, formerly or 
 latterly 1 And as he was not so at both times, how will 
 any one prove that he was so at either time 1 
 
 Pope Liberius, in the fourth century, declared him- 
 self by turn, a Trinitarian, an Arian, a Semiarian, and 
 a Trinitarian again ! changing his creed several times, 
 and holding by turn, three creeds ! What an admirable 
 example of Infallibility ! 
 
 Pope Zozimus, in the fifth century, first declared the 
 Pelagian heresy to be innocent, and afterward declared 
 it impious} formerly approving, and latterly condemning 
 the same doctrine ! According to Zozimus, orthodoxy 
 in one year became heterodoxy in about a year after. 
 He openly and officially affirmed either that Pelagian- 
 ism is not a bad, but an innocent thing, or that Pelagius 
 and Celestius were not Pelagians, but held a pure creed ; 
 and afterward recanted his affirmation, and affirmed the 
 direct opposite. 
 
 Pope Vigilius, in the sixth century, and on the ques- 
 tion of The Three Chapters, changed side four times, al- 
 tering his opinion or creed like a very fallible, saying 
 and unsaying, affirming and denying by turn ! How 
 infallible ! 
 
 Pope Honorius, in the seventh century, changed his 
 creed, going from orthodoxy to the Monothelite heresy. 
 
 Pope John XXII, in the fourteenth century, publicly 
 
INFALLIBILITY. 115 
 
 affirmed, in his sermons, that departed saints are not 
 admitted to the beatific vision till after the resurrec- 
 tion ; and afterward, publicly and solemnly retracted his 
 affirmation or doctrine as an error, declaring that he 
 had been in the wrong. This pope therefore allowed 
 not only his fallibility, but his actual mistake ; admitted 
 not only that he could err in doctrine, but even that he 
 did err. 
 
 •Argument third. Two, and even three popes have 
 been found existing at one time, antipopes, condemn- 
 ing, excommunicating, anathematizing each other. At 
 the time of the Council of Constance, 1414, three men 
 claimed the popedom ; and there were three, or two op- 
 posing popes during about forty or fifty years. Now 
 which of the rival co-existing popes was infallible % Will 
 any papal wiseacre tell one that they all were infallible, 
 though affirming contraries, things directly opposite 1 
 
 Argument fourth. Successive popes differ widely one 
 from another in opinion ; the pope who comes after, 
 often opposing and contradicting the pope who went 
 afore. Who is infallible, the former pope or the latter? 
 It is clear that both cannot be so; and why is one so 
 more than the other 1 Here we have pope against pope ; 
 and one being fallible, the claim of the other to infalli- 
 bility is an indigestible conceit, and a proud and vain 
 pretension. 
 
 Pope Gelasius was formally and officially against both 
 Transubstantiation and Half Communion. He has been 
 opposed by a crowd of popes; particularly by Innocent 
 III and Pius IV on Transubstantiation, and by Martin 
 V and Pious IV on Half Communion. Was Gelasius in- 
 fallible 1 As he w r as not, so were not they. 
 
 When John, the bishop of Constantinople, obtained 
 the title of Universal Bishop, Gregory I, the bishop of 
 Rome, very strongly and hotly condemned it, declaring 
 and maintaining that w r hoever will take or accept that 
 
116 POPERY IN SFECIAL. 
 
 heretical, blasphemous, and infernal title, Universal Bish- 
 op ! is vain- glorious, proud, profane, impious, execrable, 
 antic hristian, heretical, blasphemous, diabolical, the fol- 
 lower of Lucifer, and the forerunner and herald of An- 
 tichrist ! and that the title neither does nor can belong to 
 any bishop whatever f* But when Boniface III obtained 
 the very same title, Universal Bishop, from the eastern 
 emperor Phocas, in A. D. 606, he was of a different 
 opinion from his predecessor Gregory I. Boniface III 
 and all succeeding popes, either condemn Gregory, 
 or condemn themselves ; either declare that he was 
 uncommonly erring and mistaking, or declare that 
 they are uncommonly wicked and abominable, even in- 
 fernal and diabolical. If they do not utterly condemn 
 their own selves, and believe in their own antichristian, 
 infernal, and diabolical character, they must deem Gre- 
 gory to have greatly erred, and therefore to have been 
 quite fallible. And Gregory being fallible, how can they 
 prove that they are infallible 1 Not at all. Therefore 
 all popes are fallible, or liable to err. N. B. Though 
 Gregory was fallible, he was mainly right in his fore- 
 going opinion ; though he could, he did not greatly err 
 in describing the character of the universal bishop. 
 
 Pope Honorius, after his death, was, by the sixth gene- 
 ral or third Constantinoplan council held in A. D. 680, 
 condemned as a heretic ! and an organ of the devil ! for 
 having held the Monothelite heresy. The condemna- 
 tory decision of the council had the consent and appro- 
 bation of the reigning pope Agatho, and of Agatho's 
 successor Leo II, Agatho and Leo contradicting and 
 condemning Honorius. 
 
 Pope John XXII directly contradicted his predeces- 
 sor Nicholas IV, in relation to Franciscan friars having 
 
 * I quote the words of Gregory, from Campbell's Lectures on 
 Ecclesiastical Historv, Lecture XVI. 
 
INFALLIBILITY. 117 
 
 property ; and termed the doctrine or opinion of Nico- 
 las, heretical and blasphemous doctrine ! 
 
 Pope Benedict XII contradicted and condemned the 
 doctrine that his predecessor John XXII had held (and 
 afterward recanted) concerning the beatific vision. 
 
 Sixtus V declared ex cathedra, officially, infallibly, the 
 Sixtine edition of the Vulgate to be authentic and true 5 
 and afterward Clement VIII declared, ex cathedra, offici- 
 ally, infallibly, the Clementine edition to be the only 
 authentic and true one \ the two editions differing 
 greatly one from the other, and being often opposite 
 and contradictory ! Now how can the two contradic- 
 tory editions be severally authentic, true, or correct 1 
 And how can the two opposing popes be severally infal- 
 lible % And if one be fallible, how is the other infallible 1 
 See James' " Bellum Papale, Papal War" 
 
 Argument fifth. No pope can perform a miracle, a 
 genuine or true miracle, to prove that God has made 
 him infallible. And when we contemplate the great im- 
 port of the doctrine, and remember that Prophets and 
 Apostles performed miracles to prove their infallibility, 
 we cannot be deemed exorbitant or unreasonable in re- 
 quiring the pope to favor us with a miracle, afore we 
 believe in his infallibility. 
 
 Argument sixth. The popes have not proved their 
 possession of infallibility, to the conviction of the world 
 at large ; for the world at large do not believe that 
 popes are free from error, more than other men. More- 
 over, the popes have not proved themselves to be infal- 
 lible, to the conviction even of their own kirk, even of 
 the papal world ; for real and true unity of opinion does 
 not exist, and has not existed in the papal kirk. The 
 want of unity of opinion among papal folk, is a conclu- 
 sive proof that they themselves do not believe, do not 
 credit, do not really and sincerely allow the pope's infal- 
 libility. Now when both the papal kirk and the world 
 
118 POPES? IN SPECIAL. 
 
 at laro-e shall have swallowed enormous the doctrine, we, 
 my readers and myself, will view and examine the doc- 
 trine again, to know if the size of it will allow it a pas- 
 sage through our intellectual throat. 
 
 Argument seventh. Popes have given decisions, and 
 promulgated opinions, in philosophy and even in religion? 
 that are opposite to Reason. Now we can less easily 
 prove the infallibility of the pope, than the infallibility of 
 Reason ; therefore we do wisely to hurl the former to the 
 wind, and to cling to the latter with might and main. 
 Surely we do well to maintain the suprematy of the rea- 
 son of mankind in general, rather than to maintain that 
 of the reason or whimsicality of an old priest in Rome. 
 
 One pope or more affirmed, officially and infallibly, 
 that the Pythagorean or Copernican system of astrono- 
 my was wrong, and poor Galileo was immured in prison 
 for declaring it true ; whereas all the world know that 
 the system is right, and that the papal pretender to in- 
 fallibility was altogether wrong. 
 
 Pope Innocent III, under whom the fourth Lateran 
 council was held, officially and infallibly affirmed the 
 truth of Transubstantiation, a doctrinal monster well 
 known to be wholly opposed to the plain and palpable 
 dictate of reason. Moreover, other popes have officially 
 affirmed the truth of the doctrine, Pius IV for example. 
 
 Argument eighth. Popes have given decisions, and 
 promulged opinions that are hostile and contrary to 
 Scripture, thereby contradicting the word of God. Now 
 as we know Scripture, God's own book, to be infallible, 
 we are bound to set down the contradicting pope as 
 fallible, erring, and vain, and every other pope as falli- 
 ble, or liable to err. " All Scripture is given by inspi- 
 ration of God. 2 Tim. 3 : 16. For the prophecy came not 
 in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake 
 as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 2 Pet. 1 : 21. 
 
 Pope Liberius gave his open sanction to the Arian 
 
INFALLIBILITY. 119 
 
 heresy, and formally declared himself an Arian. Pope 
 Honorius was a Monothelite, and therefore deemed he- 
 retical even by the kirk of Rome. Pope John XXII pub- 
 licly and officially maintained an antiscriptural opinion 
 relative to the beatific vision. Pope Paul V formally 
 approved the doctrine of Suarez the Jesuit, in defence 
 of the murder of kings ! 
 
 Subsectio?i II. Does Infallibility reside in a General 
 Council, the general council being viewed collectively, 
 the members individually being fallible 1 No. To prove 
 a general council not infallible, but fallible, I will give 
 eight arguments. 
 
 Argument first. Firstly. What is a General Council 1 
 1st. How many men must come together to form one 1 
 2nd. What clerical rank must they severally have 1 
 3rd. From how many nations must they come 1 4th. 
 By whose authority must they meet 1 5th. When and 
 where must they meet 1 6th. How must they proceed 
 when met 1 7th. Must they determine by unanimity ^ 
 or may they determine by a given large majority, 
 or by a mere majority of one 1 8th. What degree of 
 probability must they require a proposition to have %. 
 Probability can be great, can be middle, can be small ; 
 can ascend to certainty, can descend to doubt. How 
 probable must a proposition be 1 Now afore we can 
 decide if a given council be what many papal folk are 
 pleased to call a general one, we must answer the fore- 
 going eight questions, and others that might be men- 
 tioned. This would be found no trifling task, the an- 
 swering of all the questions being a very puzzling and 
 perplexing affair. A general council is a very vague and 
 indefinite thing, for what is the criterion or standard of 
 this generality 1 Of four people, two might consider a 
 given council general, and two might deem it special, 
 the generality and speciality being perhap equally pro- 
 bable. This kind of generality is a thing whereabout A 
 
120 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 may believe, B may disbelieve, and C may doubt. Can 
 papal writers lay down rules that will enable reasonable 
 people clearly to know the exact essence or real nature 
 of generality and speciality in relation to councils; to 
 know always when a council is general, and when it is 
 special 1 I trow not, I opine that they cannot. The gene- 
 rality of a council depends on no immutable criterion, is 
 determined by no indisputable or indubitable rule, but 
 varies with the various opinion of various people, alter- 
 ing the shape like a Proteus, and changing the color as a 
 chameleon. Moreover, mankind are far from being 
 agreed in relation to the number of general councils 
 that have been held. Some will have six councils to be 
 general, others will have seven, others eight / others 
 eighteen, and others more. The main body of papal 
 folk affirm eighteen to be general; — eight eastern called 
 by the emperors, and ten western called by the popes. 
 But if all these are to be deemed general, why are that 
 of Constance and the like to be deemed special 1 
 
 Secondly, Now is it probable that infallibility is 
 joined to so indefinite and indeterminate a thing as 
 a general council, a thing with difficulty recognized, a 
 thing that can hardly be known ; is joined to some kind 
 of council, we hardly know what 1 Would God put infal- 
 libility in a place where we should have great toil and 
 trouble in finding it, and where many would never find 
 it at all, would never believe it to be 1 Would He annex 
 it to mere indefinitude 1 If infallibility be given to the 
 world, it is given for the world's good. What the bet- 
 ter are we, however, by knowing that infallibility is 
 somewhere ; but where, we do not know 1 That it be- 
 longs to something, to a general council ; but to what 
 thing, to what council, we cannot tell 1 We may as well 
 doubt or disbelieve that infallibility pertains to a gene- 
 ral council, as, believing it, doubt or disbelieve that a 
 council is general. We are as far from infallibility in 
 
INFALLIBILITY. 121 
 
 the latter way, as in the former. And God will not send 
 infallibility in a form invisible to very many people ; 
 he will not make her dwell with a personage whose 
 dwelling can hardly be discovered, can scarcely be 
 known by a large portion of mankind. God will not 
 give infallibility to some councils, and omit to tell man 
 what councils they are, telling him that they are gene- 
 ral ones, and leaving him in doubt and darkness as to 
 what councils ought to be deemed general. It follows 
 that papites greatly err, and leave the probable far be- 
 hind them, in making infallibility depend on general 
 councils. 
 
 Argument second. Let us now, for the sake of argu- 
 ment, take for granted that the quality of councils as to 
 generality and speciality, is easily knowable, or ascer- 
 tainable without difficulty or doubt. The point of spe- 
 ciality and the point of generality that are nearest to 
 each other, are so near ; the highest limit of a special 
 council verges so closely on the lowest limit of a gene- 
 ral one ; the top of the former differs so little from the 
 bottom of the latter ; the proximate extremes of the 
 two are divided by so little an interval ; — that it is ex- 
 traordinary and wonderful how high councils special 
 are the subject of fallibility, and low councils general 
 of infallibility! The speciality and generality nearly 
 meet, the line separating the one from the other being 
 barely perceptible ; whence then the mighty change, in 
 passing the narrow boundary line, or in going from a 
 special council to a general one, that we leave fallibility 
 behind, and find infallibility before. 
 
 Firstly. Natural, intrinsical, inherent infallibility. 
 
 Case 1st. Assume that a general council must have 
 300 members. Now in relation to mere number, with 
 300, we find infallibility. But 299 are about as good as 
 300, the difference between the two numbers being tri- 
 fling and inconsiderable ) yet 299 are fallible. 299 are 
 
 6 
 
122 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 fallible, errable, liable to mistake $ but add one, and you 
 add infallibility I This is wonderful. 300 are very lit- 
 tle above 299, while infallibility is a very long way from 
 fallibility, no proportion being observed between the 
 jump in number, and the jump in wisdom, jumping an 
 inch in the former case, and a mile in the latter. 299 
 being fallible, 300 may be deemed a very little less fal- 
 lible, 300 being a very little more than 299 ; but to deem 
 the 300 infallible, is uncommonly extravagant and ab- 
 surdly disproportional. The leap from the fallibility of 
 299, to the infallibility of 300, is an enormously long one, 
 and will perhap land the leaper in Milton's Limbo of 
 Vanity, the Paradise of Fools. See Paradise Lost, book 
 third. 
 
 Case 2nd. Assume that a general council must have 
 bishops. Now in relation to mere clerical rank,, with 
 bishops, we find infallibility. But 299 bishops and a dean 
 are about as good as 300 bishops, the difference between 
 a bishop and a dean being not over weighty and awful ; 
 yet 299 bishops and a dean are fallible. Imagine 299 
 papal bishops assembled seeking the blessing of infalli- 
 bility. Alas \ they find it not ; yea, though they tumble 
 their brain over and over, they find it not there ; though 
 they shake their lawn sleeve, they shake it not out I 
 though they dub themselves the only successors of the 
 Apostles, they find themselves without infallible nod 
 dies! What can be done 1 Throw in a dean. — Alas! 
 A dean will not do. There is not enough specific gra- 
 vity in the dean. The dean's belly, though large and 
 round, and duly catholic or universal in regard to the 
 variety of solids and fluids wherewith it is lined, is yet, 
 as in duty bound, less ample in dimension and less fatly 
 lined than the bishop's, having less absolution-money, 
 indulgence-fees, purgatory-pay, and fewer devotee of- 
 ferings, relic-proceeds, superstition-supplies, and other 
 holy or unholy things ) therefore the belly of the dean 
 
INFALLIBILITY. 123 
 
 is not heavy enough to turn the scale to the side of 
 infallibility. But now clap an additional bishop in the 
 assembly, and behold the happy result. The 299 falli- 
 bles being reinforced by a brother bishop, and they 
 being now 300 strong of episcopal worth, are more than 
 a match for error ; far away fly all mistake, and all 
 wrong opinion ,• off scamper all heresy, folly, and doc- 
 trine unsound ; and up jumps, to the admiring gaze of 
 papal gulls, the goddess Infallibility, having sprung from 
 the 300 prelatical brains, like Minerva from the head of 
 Jove, or like Sin from that of Satan. Par. Lost, B. II. 
 What wonders are in papal skulls episcopal ! Now we 
 see that one dean may spoil infallibility. That the dean 
 will spoil many a thing, I knew \ but I hardly deemed 
 infallibility to be one of them. A papal dean treads 
 nearly on the heel of a papal bishop, in many a point ; 
 in opposing a Constitution, in reviling political reforma- 
 tion, in aiding Miguel, Carlos, and other tyrants, in up- 
 holding illiberals and Inquisitionals, in loving slavery 
 on the Continent, in hating liberty in Great Britain, in 
 cursing the schismatical Greek, in roasting the hereti- 
 cal Protestant, in eating up papal tithe, in longing to 
 eat up Protestant too, swallowing fine loaves and fishes, 
 standing up for sinecures, and the like. In these points, 
 the dean has great merit, and is very effective ; indeed 
 herein, he may often pass muster for the bishop. But 
 the dean has no hand at infallibility. His sleeves are 
 not lawned like the bishop's, and his cranium is not 
 equally endowed with infallible matter. The dean is 
 good at an anti-liberal or anti-toleration exploit ,* but 
 try him on infallibility, and he goes to the wall. As 
 Ithuriel's spear tested the property of the toad at the 
 ear of Eve, so infallibility will put to proof the value 
 of the dean. None but episcopal wisdom will be able 
 to guard man from error ! Why the dean is so infe- 
 rior to the bishop, I am unable to explain. Both will 
 
124 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 boast of Apostolical descent, and will claim the power 
 of the Keys ; but maybe the Apostolic character flows 
 less freely and easily under the sleeve of the dean, and 
 absolution from sin is performed by him with somewhat 
 more trouble. Both are single, are without an equal in 
 the clerical dignity of the cathedral ; but the dean is 
 not enthroned. I have heard of the enthronization of 
 the bishop, but do not imagine that of the dean. Who 
 knows what the latter loses, in point of infallibility, 
 through not being enthroned 1 Could we enthrone a 
 very reverend, I would back him, for infallibility, against 
 the right reverend of Leon, or the mosi reverend of Co- 
 logne.* One thing more. Our dean may be wise and 
 worthy, and our additional bishop, the three hundredth, 
 may be foolish and unworthy. Now is not a wise and 
 worthy dean equal, in playing the game of infallibility, 
 to an unwise and unworthy bishop X 299 bishops and a 
 wise and worthy dean are fallible, but the same 299 
 bishops and an additional ignorant and worthless bishop 
 are infallible I Oh foolery, nonsense, absurdity I Oh 
 foolish Romanites, who hath bewitched you, that ye 
 should not obey the truth % GaL 3. Moreover, 1 desire 
 papal oracles to inform one why 400, or 500, or 600 
 deans are not infallible equally with 300 bishops. Truly 
 one bishop is not better, in finding truth, than two deans, 
 is not better, and not so good ; therefore if 300 bishops 
 be infallible, we are bound to believe in the infallibility 
 of 600 deans. I should have less difficulty in believing 
 infallibility in two battalions of papal deans, than in one 
 battalion of papal bishops. Now a council having not 
 300 bishops, but 600 deans, and being therefore special, 
 
 * The bishop of Leon was an agent in England, for the Cruel 
 and Inquisitional Don. Carlos, a very unenviable agency ; and the 
 arch-bishop of Cologne has acquired, through his opposition to the 
 Prussian government, a political notoriety of a somewhat unen- 
 viable kind. 
 
INFALLIBILITY. 125 
 
 has, according to reason and logic, not at all less claim 
 to be thought infallible, than a council general ; and the 
 special one being fallible, the general one is fallible too. 
 
 Case 3c/. Assume that a general council must have 
 either unanimity or a majority of at least 200. Now in 
 relation to mere majority, with 200, we find infallibility. 
 But a majority of 199 is about as good as one of 200, 
 the difference between the two being unworthy of re- 
 gard 5 yet the smaller majority is fallible. According to 
 the assumption here made, (and we must assume some- 
 thing,) 199 are fallible, but 200 are infallible. Is this 
 reasonable 1 is it agreeable to common sense 1 is it ac- 
 cording to the intellectual procedure of rational people 
 when proceeding rationally 1 It is not. No one indued 
 with ordinary wit and honesty, will affirm that the addi- 
 tion of on^e to 199, turns fallibility to infallibility ; that 
 199 boing fallible, 200 are incapable of erring, and above 
 mistake. The majority of 200 may be, in a very small 
 degree, less liable to err than that of 199 ; but that it 
 differs from it not only in degree, but even in kind, be- 
 ing not only less fallible, but even infallible, is neither 
 more nor less than a piece of foolery. What ! Is 
 any man silly enough to believe that the difference be- 
 tween fallible and infallible, a difference in kind and a 
 very great one, is no greater than that between 199 
 and 200, a mere difference in degree, and an extremely 
 small one too 1 Whoever believes it, is really a kind 
 of simpleton. 
 
 Case ith. Assume that a general council must have 
 probability to number seven. Now in relation to mere 
 probability, with number 7, we find infallibility. But 
 probability to number 6, or 6^, or 6f, is not far below 
 that to number 7, the difference being slender ; yet the 
 lower probability allows men to be fallible. If the pro- 
 position be probable to 6f , the men are fallible ; but if 
 it be probable to 7, they are infallible. Strange and mi- 
 
126 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 raculous ! Oh papal swallow, how great is your diame- 
 ter, to take in the like enorm monstrosity ! Moreover, 
 let papal wiseacres inform the world why a majority of 
 250 having probability less than 7, say 6J, are not infal- 
 lible equally with a majority of 200 having probability 7. 
 If the increase in majority be not inferior to the de- 
 crease in probability, infallibility is not put in danger by 
 the decrease. 250 minds with very little smaller pro- 
 bability, are quite as likely to find truth, to be infallible, 
 as 200 minds with the greater probability of 7. Now a 
 council having not a majority of 200 and probability 
 seven, but a majority of 250 and probability less than 
 seven, and being therefore special, has, according to 
 reason and logic, not at all less claim to be thought in- 
 fallible, than a council general ; and the special one 
 being fallible the general one is fallible too. 
 
 Case 3d. in relation to case 4th. The minority o£ 
 100 may have probability, subjective probability, pro- 
 bable conviction, evidence, appearance, to number 14, 
 while the majority of 200 have it to number 7. Now 
 why are the minority less likely to be infallible than 
 the majority 1 If the minority be half in point of num- 
 ber, they are double in point of probability ; why then 
 are they inferior to the majority 1 Why are not both 
 fallible, or both infallible 1 Moreover, a majority of 199 
 may have probability greater than to number 7, having 
 it to number 8, or even to number 14. Now certainly 
 if a majority of 200 having probability to 7, be infallible, 
 a majority of 199 having probability to 8 or even 14, 
 ought to be, if reason and logic are to guide, I do not 
 say more than infallible, infallible and quarter, infallible 
 and half, infallible and two-thirds, or the like; but I do 
 say infallible ought to be infallible. Now a council hav- 
 ing neither unanimity nor a majority of at least 200, and 
 being therefore special, has, according to reason and lo- 
 gic, not at all less claim to be thought infallible than a 
 
INFALLIBILITY. 127 
 
 council general ; and the special one being fallible, the 
 general one is fallible too. 
 
 Secondly, Supernatural and extrinsecal infallibility. 
 1st. Can papal folk prove that God, not giving infalli- 
 bility to a council having little fewer than 300 members, 
 gives it to one having 300 ! They cannot. 2nd. Can 
 they prove that God, not giving infallibility to a council 
 not altogether episcopal, gives it to one composed en- 
 tirely of bishops 1 They cannot. 3rd. Can they prove 
 that God, not giving infallibility to a council not having 
 either unanimity or a majority of at least 200, gives it 
 to one having one of the two % They cannot. 4th. Can 
 they prove that God, not giving infallibility to a council 
 not having probability coming up to number 7, gives it 
 to one having the 7 probability 1 They cannot. Papal 
 advocates cannot prove any one point of the four, nor 
 any point like them, unless they prove by the argument 
 of persecution, of brute force, of the sword, the fagot, 
 or the infernal inquisition. As God witholds infallibili- 
 ty from the former kind of council, he does not give it 
 to the latter. He disregards and contemns the papal 
 minute distinction between a special council and a gene- 
 ral one. Two councils differing in their nature to the 
 breadth of half a hair, are not made so different super- 
 naturally as to be, the one fallible, and the other infalli- 
 ble. Divine wisdom does not conform to our petty plan- 
 ning. N. B. Throughout the present argument, the 
 general council is viewed collectively, the members 
 singly being fallible. 
 
 Argument third. How can a general council, whereof 
 eve^ member is fallible, be infallible % How can any 
 given number of fallible singles, form an infallible com- 
 pound 1 How can infallibility be found in the whole, 
 while it is not found in the parts 1 Can that exist in uni- 
 versal, that exists not in particulars ! Would a collection 
 of fools constitute a wise man] Would a company of 
 
128 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 beggars, each having an empty pocket, form a fund of 
 wealth] Would five hundred goats driven together in 
 a fold, become a flock of sheep ! Twenty men, each ha- 
 ving a portion of wisdom, may form here of a larger por- 
 tion 3 one hundred people having severally some money, 
 may make together a considerable sum : for one portion 
 of wisdom differs from another portion, and one sum 
 of money differs from another sum, only in degree, 
 wisdom and money existing in quantities smaller or 
 greater. But infallibility differs from fallibility not 
 only in degree, but even in kind ; they being not 
 different measures of one homogeneal thing, but dif- 
 ferent natures or things ; not variations in quantity, 
 but separate qualities. It follows that several fallibili- 
 ties, none whereof is a small infallibility, cannot com- 
 pose an infallibility either great or small ; many people, 
 every one of whom is fallible, none of whom is infallible, 
 more or less, cannot become one great infallible j ten 
 men, or tenfold ten men cannot be one infallible mon- 
 ster. Whatever is in the genus, must be in the species 5 
 and infallibility being not in the species, not in the mem- 
 bers, it is not in the genus, not in the general council. 
 Infallibility not being in ten members, nor in two, nor in 
 one, cannot be in the council ; not existing in the men 
 taken singly or individually, cannot exist in them taken 
 collectively or aggregately. The prophets were in- 
 spired, and so infallible singly ; therefore they were so 
 collectively. The Apostles were inspired, and so infal- 
 lible as individuals; therefore they were so as a body. 
 And when the members of a general council shall be 
 severally infallible, then we will allow infallibility in the 
 council, — and not afore. 
 
 Some may object that though this reasoning is true 
 in relation to infallibility natural, intrinsecal, inherent, 
 it is erroneous in relation to infallibility supernatural 
 and extrinsecal. But the objection, even if plausible, is 
 
INFALLIBILITY, 129 
 
 futile and empty. The reasoning is not more applicable 
 to the former kind of infallibility, than to the latter, ap- 
 plying fairly and fully to both kinds. As God gives not 
 infallibility to the men whereof the council is composed, 
 he gives it not to the council. Not giving it to the 
 singles, he does not give it to the compound; not con- 
 ferring it on the parts, he does not confer it on the 
 whole. The species being fallible, how can the genus 
 be infallible either naturally or supernaturally 1 The 
 men not being infallible singly, none of them being infal- 
 lible, how can they be so collectively 1 It would puzzle 
 a wiser man than Locke or Newton to declare how. 
 
 Argument fourth. Councils having as good right as any 
 to be considered general, have opposed and contradicted 
 one another, the latter unsaying what the former said, the 
 following denying what the foregoing affirmed. I quote 
 the following period from Fletcher's Lectures on the Ro- 
 man Catholic Religion, Appendix, Note H. " General 
 councils have enacted and decreed in direct opposition 
 to the enactments and decrees of prior general councils.'*' 
 
 Argument fifth. No council, special or general, can 
 perform a miracle, a real or true miracle, to prove that 
 God has made it infallible. And when we contemplate 
 the magnitude of the thing claimed by or for the coun- 
 cil, namely, exemption from error, we surely are not un- 
 reasonable in requiring the claim to be substantiated by 
 miraculous proof. 
 
 Argument sixth. The councils special or general, call 
 them whether you like, have not proved their possession 
 o( infallibility, to the conviction of the world at large ; 
 for the world at large do not believe that councils are 
 free from error, are superior to mistake. Moreover, the 
 councils have not proved themselves to be infallible, to 
 the conviction even of the papal world ] for real and true 
 unity of opinion does not exist, and has not existed in 
 the papal kirk. The notorious plurality of opinion among 
 
 6* 
 
130 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 papal folk, is a conclusive proof that they themselves do 
 not really and sincerely allow the council's infallibility. 
 
 Argument seventh. Councils as general as any, have 
 given decisions and sanctioned things that are opposite 
 to Reason. Now when a council and reason collide, we 
 do well to side with the latter. 
 
 The fourth council Lateran positively decided for the 
 truth of the irrational and absurd doctrine of Transub- 
 stantiation. Moreover, the council of Trent very deci- 
 dedly maintained the same monster doctrine, and with 
 perhap additional absurdity. 
 
 Argument eighth. Councils as general as any, have 
 given decisions and sanctioned things that are hostile 
 and contrary to Scripture. Now as we know what Holy 
 Scripture is, and from whom it came, we view councils 
 that wander therefrom, as wandering from truth, and as 
 being a wrong and misleading guide. 
 
 The second Nicene council sanctioned and confirmed 
 the worship of images, a very antiscriptural thing. 
 
 The third and fourth Lateran councils warranted or 
 sanctioned the deposing and dispensing power, the 
 power claimed by the pope of deposing kings ! and of 
 dispensing with the allegiance of their people ! 
 
 The councils of Constance and Trent, though fully 
 and formally allowing that eucharistal communication 
 in both kinds, in bread and wine, was the institution of 
 Christ, and was long the practice of the christian world, 
 yet antiscripturally presume to decide for communica- 
 tion in one kind only, in bread, daringly denying the 
 wine to the laity. The council of Constance had even 
 the daring presumption to call the laical use of the cup 
 an error] to call the acknowledged institution of our 
 Lord, in relation to present time, if not to past, an error ! 
 It follows that the two councils are self-condemned ; that 
 they determined in opposition to Holy Scripture, by 
 their own confession. 
 
INFALLIBILITY. . 131 
 
 Subsection HI. Article 1. From the foregoing two 
 parts of the present section, we clearly see that infalli- 
 bility resides neither in the pope, nor in the general 
 council taken collectively, the members individually 
 being fallible. We proceed to ask our opponent where 
 it does, where it can reside ; or what men are or can be 
 infallible ; the infallibility being either natural and intrin- 
 secal, or supernatural and extrinsecaL 
 
 Article 2. Does Infallibility reside in one or few 
 members of the general council, and in no more % No. 
 If one or few be infallible, he or they are either known 
 or unknown. Firstly. If he or they be known, he or they 
 can be pointed out, can be mentioned by name, can be 
 distinguished particularly from the less favored brethren. 
 And as no papite does or can point out the infallible or 
 infallibles, we clearly infer that no infallible one or few 
 are known ; as no papite can name the gifted man or 
 men, we are very sure that no infallible man or men 
 can be specially or individually found. Secondly. As- 
 sume the infallible one or few to be unknown. The gene- 
 ral council will decide either by majority or by unani- 
 mity. First by majority. 1st. The council will perhap 
 decide in opposition to the judgment of the one or few, 
 not knowing him or them. Being ignorant who is or 
 are the infallible one or few, the council may decide 
 wrongly, or against the infallible opinion. Not knowing 
 in whom infallibility resides, they know not whom to 
 follow; and therefore may follow the fallible, instead 
 of the infallible. Ignoring the oracular man or men, the 
 council, in effect, have no oracle to follow, deriving 
 little good from infallibility unknown ; therefore they 
 will possibly go wrong, throwing away truth, and adopt- 
 ing error. Being in the dark, the members of the coun- 
 cil may mistake their way, as chance may lead, or as it 
 may happen. Their decision is mere chance-work. 2nd. 
 Even if the council decide aright, they do not know it $ 
 
132 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 even if they finally concur with the infallible dictate 
 or opinion, they are ignorant of their good luck, ignor- 
 ing what opinion is infallible. They happen to be in 
 the right ; but for aught they know, they are in the 
 wrong. If they have determined on the side of infalli- 
 bility, they have made a lucky hit ; but the lucky hit is 
 one whereof they have no knowledge, and wherefrom 
 they derive no consolation. So far 1st. and 2nd. Now 
 assuming general councils to decide by majority, is it a 
 likely thing to have infallibility in the unknown way ? 
 No. Is it probable that infallible wisdom is lodged in 
 one or few unknown 1 Far otherwise. Can we reason- 
 ably deem one or few members of a general council to 
 be infallible in such a manner, that the council may in- 
 nocently decide against his or their judgment, or may 
 decide conformably hereto, without knowing the con- 
 formity 1 We cannot. Second. By unanimity. If gene- 
 ral councils decide by unanimity, the foregoing invin- 
 cible objections to an infallible one or few unknown^ 
 namely, the objections arising from deciding by majo- 
 rity, would not apply or hold good. But unanimity 
 in general or great councils, would be nearly a miracle. 
 The like unanimity hardly ever has been known, and 
 hardly ever will be. In a great council having hun- 
 dreds of members, we shall possibly find tens of opin- 
 ions ; the opinions being to the members, as ten to a 
 hundred, or as one to ten. What general council can 
 be named, whereof all the members held exactly one and 
 the same opinion or view, not differing in a jot, tittle, 
 or iota ! Real and sincere unity of opinion in general or 
 great councils, is opposite to both theory and experi- 
 ence, and is a mere idle dream or vain imagination. 
 Many men, many minds. 
 
 I have tried to prove that no infallible one or few can 
 anyhow be found, or do really exist among the members 
 of a general council. And I hope I shall be deemed to 
 

 INFALLIBILITY. 133 
 
 have proved the point effectively. But even assuming 
 that I have not fully proved my point, can any papite 
 prove his point, namely, that an infallible one or few can 
 somehow be found among them 1 No. A papite can- 
 not prove the point. We may defy all the papites un- 
 der the broad heaven, to prove the existence of one in- 
 fallible or few infallibles in a general council. Papal wri- 
 ters may twist and turn, writhe and wriggle, and write 
 till their paper be filled, their hand tired, their brain 
 muddled, and their patience gone ; yet they will not 
 prove the infallibility of one or few. They cannot prove 
 it, even if we cannot disprove 5 and I deem the forego- 
 ing remarks to be a tolerable disproof. Let the wise 
 and worthy determine. 
 
 Many of the eight arguments in opposition to the in- 
 fallibility of the general council, that were employed in 
 Subsection II or last, might be given here, being appli- 
 cable here as well as there. I do not however bring the 
 arguments before the reader again, deeming it inutile to 
 go over the same ground a second time. Therefore I 
 merely refer the reader to them, in order that he may, 
 if he like, turn back, and let them again go under his 
 eye, and through his mind. 
 
 Article 3. Does Infallibility reside in every single 
 member of the general council, or in all the members \ 
 No. The notion is too extravagant, preposterous, and 
 absurd to require a formal refutation. Of all the wild 
 whims that can enter the head of man, hardly one is 
 wilder than the present. 
 
 Article 4. Does Infallibility reside in the pope and 
 general council taken together"? No. How can it re- 
 side here 1 As it is not in the pope, and not in the 
 general council, the council being taken in any way, it 
 cannot be in the pope and council combined. Not being 
 either in the pope or in the general council taken se- 
 parately or alone, it cannot be in them taken jointly or 
 
134« POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 together ; not being in the singles, it cannot be in the 
 double or compound. Can two ciphers make an inte- 
 ger 1 can two curve lines be a straight one 1 can two 
 nothings make a something 1 can two fallibles form an 
 infallible 1 By no rule of logic. Let the reader remem- 
 ber that infallibility differs from fallibility, not in mere 
 quantity or degree, but in quality or kind. In fine, the 
 pope being fallible, and the general council being falli- 
 ble, if infallibility be found in their union, it must be 
 like a rivulet or stream without a fountain or spring, or 
 like a second without a first, or a superstructure with- 
 out a foundation, or a superfices without a line, or an 
 effect without a cause. " Who can bring a clean thing 
 out of an unclean 1 Not one." Job, 14 : 4. See Sub- 
 section II or last, argument third. 
 
 It may possibly be objected that, as a corporation, the 
 mayor and town council together, may be competent to 
 do what neither alone can properly perform, so the pope 
 and general council together may be infallible, though 
 apart they are fallible. Reply. The mayor and town 
 council separately have a quantity of power, though not 
 a quantity large enough for the object in view 5 but the 
 two quantities taken together, form one large enough 
 for the purpose. This civil power, however, is a thing 
 differing in mere quantity or degree, being less or more ; 
 and though the separate amount of the mayor or of the 
 town council is too small, the joint amount of the cor- 
 poration is large enough. But fallibility and infallibility 
 differ not in mere quantity or degree, but in quality or 
 kind; and as the junction or juxtaposition of two falli- 
 bilities will not form an infallibility, will not alter their 
 quality or kind, so the fallible pope and fallible general 
 council together will not form one infallible combination 
 or body. Two threes will make a six, but will not 
 make a straight line. 
 
 Article 5. Does infallibility reside in any other set of 
 
INFALLIBILITY. 135 
 
 papal clergymen ! No. The notion is about as ample 
 and abundant in folly as any of the former, being one of 
 the most wild, ridiculous, or monstrous notions that can 
 well be imagined. 
 
 Article 6. Thus infallibility resides nowhere — on 
 earth. 1st. It is not in the pope. 2nd. It is not in the 
 general council taken collectively, the members indivi- 
 dually being fallible. 3rd. It is not in an exclusive one 
 or few members of the general council. 4th. It is not 
 in every single member hereof. 5th. It is not in the 
 pope and general council taken together. 6th. It is 
 not in any other set of papal clergymen. It follows 
 that papal pretension to infallibility is hollow, empty, 
 and vain. 
 
 Subsection IV. Firstly. How far does infallibility ex- 
 tend 1 on what is it employed 1 wKat is the range or 
 scope of its application! Does it include doctrine only, 
 or practice too ! Does it apply to both discipline and 
 government 1 Does it encircle revealed religion only, 
 or natural as welll Does it refer to opinion exclu- 
 sively, or even relate to fact! 
 
 Secondly. If infallibility take in all, it has a very wide 
 field of operation, and quite enough to do. Doctrine, 
 practice, discipline, government, revealed religion, na- 
 tural religion, opinion, fact, &c. &c. &c. &c. Poor infal- 
 libility ! she has no sinecure. If she be compelled to 
 settle and determine all of them, she will soon die 
 through exhaustion and fatigue, overworking, and fall- 
 ing into premature old age. 
 
 Thirdly. If infallibility take in not all of them, but 
 some, I beg to put two questions. 1st. What things are 
 taken in 1 Several things are mentioned here ; how 
 many of them are within the domain of infallibility ! 
 Please to answer the question. 2nd. Who can draw the 
 line of demarcation between all of them, pointing out the 
 definite and exact boundary of every one, telling clearly 
 
136 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 where one ends, and where another begins 1 Who can 
 show the determinate line between doctrine and practice 1 
 Who can declare the definite limit of discipline and go- 
 vernment 1 Who can tell, accurately and precisely, where 
 is the bottom of revealed religion, and where the top of 
 natural 1 Who can decide, within the breadth of half a 
 hair, between the contending claims of opinion and fact 1 
 
 Fourthly. Even if we could determine that all are 
 within the sacred enclosure of infallibility, or that this, 
 that, and t'other are so, neither more nor less, we know- 
 ing correctly their several boundaries, w T e should have 
 to inquire farther about the measure or quantity of each 
 thing. Assume doctrine to be within. Do our papal 
 friends mean all doctrines, or only some 1 Assume 
 practice to be within. Do they mean every part of prac- 
 tice, or only few parts 1 Assume opinion and fact to 
 be within. How many opinions ! how many facts ] 
 
 Subsection V. If we were to allow infallibility in the 
 kirk papal, we should be logically bound to allow it in 
 the kirk patriarchal, and in kirks protestant ; for the 
 papal kirk can show no better title, can prove no better 
 right to the high privilege, than the other kirks. They 
 are all on a par relative to the point, all being fallible, 
 or all being infallible. What rational proof, I desire to 
 know, can a papite give for papal infallibility, that is not 
 equally proof for the infallibility of patriarchite and pro- 
 testant ] If infallibility has been in Rome, it has been 
 equally in Constantinople, in London, and elsewhere. 
 If the papal kirk be of great antiquity, so is the patri- 
 archal one ; these two, under the names of western 
 and eastern, long existing in rivalry, either as open foes 
 or as jealous friends. If one be infallible, so are both $ 
 and we have the very curious spectacle presented for 
 our edification, of two infallible kirks differing directly, 
 point blank, front to front, on several points of import, 
 particularly on the Procession of the Holy Ghost. 
 
INFALLIBILITY. 137 
 
 Subsection VI. Infallibility is not according to ana- 
 logy, to philosophical analogy. We have no infallibility 
 in other matters, in what may be called natural know- 
 ledge. There is no infallible authority in metaphysic, 
 none in mechanic, none in astronomy, none in chymistry, 
 none in aerology, none in geology, none in geography, 
 none in zoology, none in botany, none in medicine, none 
 in surgery, none in jurisprudence, none in political eco- 
 nomy, none in history, none in chronology, none in 
 grammar, none in lingual learning, none in optical and 
 acoustical science, and none in any other like depart- 
 ment of knowledge. Now the God of creation and 
 providence is the God of redemption ; He who ordered 
 the system of nature, framed the scheme of Christianity 5 
 He who speaks by the still small voice of reason, de- 
 clares his almighty will in the volume of revelation. 
 He who created and rules the world, with the worlds 
 above, below, and around, sent the Bible into the world. 
 
 The voice that rolls the stars along, 
 Spoke all the promises. 
 
 Watts, B. 2. H. 69. 
 
 Moreover, God is consistent with himself; what he does 
 in one part of his wide domain, he leaves not undone, 
 other things being equal, in another part ; his plan of 
 operation in the kingdom of nature corresponds with 
 his doing in the kingdom of grace. And having given 
 no infallible human interpreter in creation and provi- 
 dence, for nature, for the various field of philosophy, he 
 Las given none in redemption, for the Bible, for the 
 whole or for part of Christianity. 
 
 Subsection VII. Infallibility is not according to Holy 
 Scripture, to the Bible. Firstly. From the first word in 
 Genesis, to the last in Kevelation, no proof can be drawn 
 for the monster doctrine of infallibility. Examine the 
 Bible through and through, turn it in every mode, weigh 
 the several passages in the most accurate scales of 
 
138 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 critical and logical exactitude, and you will find that it 
 does not maintain this great pillar doctrine of popery. 
 Twist and torture the Bible, pinch and squeeze it, use 
 critical, grammatical, lingual violence and force, and 
 you will have hard work, great labor, and Herculean 
 toil to make God's word declare and pronounce for this 
 Cyclopean invention of man. 
 
 Secondly, The Bible is even against infallibility ; not 
 only not for, but even against. Many passages of Holy 
 Writ, particularly of the New Testament, run strongly 
 counter to the wild reverie. The passages are of two 
 kinds. Kind first. They that are unfavorable directly 
 or immediately. " Because of unbelief, they w r ere broken 
 off; and thou standest by faith. Be not high-minded, 
 but fear : for if God spared not the natural branches, 
 take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold there- 
 fore the goodness and severity of God : on them which 
 fell, severity ; but toward thee, goodness, if thou con- 
 tinue in his goodness ; otherwise, thou also shalt be cut 
 off." Rom. 11:20-22. N. B. We have to remember 
 that the foregoing passage was written to the Romans, 
 or the Roman kirk. " Be not ye called Rabbi ; for one 
 is your master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren. 
 And call no man your father upon earth ; for one is 
 your Father, who is in heaven. Neither be ye called 
 masters ; for one is your Master, even Christ. Matt. 23 : 
 8, 9, 10. Not for that we have dominion over your faith, 
 but are helpers of your joy; for by faith ye stand* 
 2 Cor. 1 : 24-. Not as being lords over God's heritage 
 or clergy, but being ensamples to the flock. 1 Pet. 5 : 3. 
 Beloved, believe not every spirit ; but try the spirits, 
 whether they are of God ; because many false prophets 
 are gone out into the world. 1 John, 5:1. To the law 
 and to the testimony ; if they speak not according to 
 this word, it is because there is no light in them. Isa e 
 8:20. The Bereans were more noble than those in 
 
INFALLIBILITY. 1 39 
 
 Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all 
 readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, 
 whether those things were so. Acts, 17: 11. Prove all 
 things; hold fast that which is good. 1 Thess. 5:21. 
 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 scripture 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 fur- 
 nished unto all good works. 2 Tim. 3: 15, 16, 17. Search 
 the Scriptures. John, 5 : 39. If any of you lack wisdom, 
 ask of God." James, 1 : 5. Kind second. Passages that 
 are unfavorable indirectly or mediately, leaning against 
 infallibility, by condemning popery. For as the Bible 
 often pointedly and strongly condemns popery, we may 
 fairly infer that it rnndemns, by implication, this great 
 leading doctrine thereof. See chapter first, section 
 ninth or last. 
 
 Subsection VIII. I have supposed, while making the 
 foregoing remarks on infallibility, that the word is 
 meant to be taken correctly, literally, with logical ex- 
 actitude, or in the sense of inerrability. In this, the 
 literal meaning of the term, the assumption of infalli- 
 bility, either is a piece of impudent imposture and 
 abominable fraud, or is mere adoption of error, a gulp- 
 ing of farcical and laughable conceit. 
 
 Subsection IX. If by Infallibility be meant merely 
 this, that when all agree in opinion, they have probably 
 the right one ; that many are more likely to find truth, 
 than few or one ; that common consent carries high pro- 
 bability ; that in the multitude of counsellors, are safety 
 and wisdom ; (Prov. 11 : 14 ;) if this be all that is meant, 
 the meaning may be well enough, but the language is 
 incorrect and improper. The word infallibility is then 
 a wrong word to be employed. Such infallibility is a 
 
140 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 species of fallibility ; and people so infallible, are more 
 or less fallible. This infallibility is not real but nomi- 
 nal ; being not the thing-, but the name. Why use a 
 term tending to mislead, if not to deceive 1 If fair play 
 be in the thought, why have foul play in the word 1 
 
 According to Vincentius Lyrin, that is to be held, that 
 hath been believed semper, ubique, et ab omnibus, always, 
 everywhere, and by all. I add two remarks. 1st. A 
 doctrine so believed, implies a very great likelihood of 
 being true, or a very small amount of fallibility, but not 
 infallibility ; is very highly probable, but not infallibly 
 certain. 2nd. Lyrin's universal belief relates to the 
 whole of the christian world, and not exclusively to a 
 part ; refers to the kirk universal, and not particularly 
 to the kirk of Rome. It is therefore beyond the range 
 of the present inquiry, one confined to the claiming of 
 infallibility by tho kirk papal, by one kirk of many. 
 
 Subsection X. The infallibility pretenders may be 
 divided into three kinds. First. They who employ an 
 erroneous and misleading term, and do not maintain the 
 thing. Second. They who are chargeable with folly, 
 who are led in ignorance, who maintain the thing 
 through want of knowing better. Third. They who 
 are guilty of fraud, who beguile the simple by uttering 
 a lie, who maintain the thing while really disbelieving 
 it. The main body of that portion of the papal world 
 who maintain infallibility, belong, we presume, to divi- 
 sions first and second. N. B. I do not mean that all of 
 division or kind second, are either natural fools, or a set 
 of knownoihings* Some of them may have great talent 
 and great knowledge ; but on the point of infallibility, 
 they appear weak or ignorant to a degree quite pitiable. 
 
 Subsection XL Taking the word infallibility in the 
 meaning given in subsection IX, namely, "that when 
 
 * Kriowiiothing appears a desirable word to signify one very 
 ignorant. 
 
INFALLIBILITY. 141 
 
 all agree in opinion, they have probably the right one/' 
 other kirks or communions are infallible like the papal 
 one, such infallibility belonging, more or less, to every 
 christian community. In that incorrect and improper 
 signification of the term, infallibility may be affirmed of 
 the kirk patriarchal, of the kirk of England and Ireland, 
 of the kirk of Scotland, of the kirks Independent, Wes- 
 leyan, Baptist, Quaker, and other. 
 
 Subsection XII. Firstly. In Subsection I, argument 
 sixth, we have seen that papal folk themselves do not 
 really allow the pope's infallibility ; and, in Subsection 
 II, argument sixth, we have seen that they do not really 
 allow the infallibility of the general council. The want 
 of unity of opinion in the papal kirk amply proves that 
 both pope and general council are really deemed fallible 
 by the papal thinker. 
 
 Secondly. I proceed now to remark, that the same 
 want of unity, the same plurality of opinion, amply 
 proves that very many papites do not really allow proper 
 or literal infallibility in any person or persons of their 
 kirk; do not really allow it anywhere; do not really 
 allow it at all. If the majority of wise and well-in- 
 formed papites did really and sincerely think any party 
 among them to be really and properly infallible, they 
 would have no variety of opinion, no diversity of creed, 
 no doctrinal debate ; therefore the palpable fact that they 
 have such variety, diversity, debate, is a convincing 
 proof that they do not really and sincerely think any 
 party in their kirk to be endowed with real and proper 
 infallibility. 
 
 Thirdly. I am of opinion that some members of the 
 papal kirk allow no kind of infallibility, neither real and 
 proper, nor unreal and improper, rejecting it altogether, 
 disclaiming at once both the thing and the name. I 
 opine that some enlightened papal thinkers not only 
 view the doctrine of real infallibility with contempt, and 
 
142 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 rightly judge that no human being or beings upon earth 
 form an infallible authority, that no man or men on the 
 globe compose a tribunal from whose inerrable decision 
 we may not appeal ; but even go so far as to avoid and 
 condemn the use of the word infallibility as leading to 
 error and as partaking of guile. 
 
 Fourthly. In concluding this long section, I take leave 
 to counsel my readers, if they want infallibility, to go 
 to the Bible and to God. " Search the Scriptures." John, 
 5 : 39. " If any of you lack wisdom, ask of God." James, 
 1 : 5. In the word and wisdom of God we have firmi- 
 tude, plenitude, and perfection. 
 
 SECTION IV. 
 
 VULGATE, APOCRYPHA, TRADITION. 
 
 Subsection I. The council of Trent had the peculiar 
 presumption, the extreme hardihood, the profane auda- 
 city, and even the blasphemy to pronounce the Vulgate, 
 the Apocrypha, and the Traditions to have Divine autho- 
 rity ; affirming the Latin version, called the Vulgate, to 
 be equal to the Hebrew and Greek originals, and the 
 Apocrypha and Tradition to be co-equals of the Bible. 
 
 Subsection II. Vulgate. I deem it right to tell the 
 reader here, that I wrote the paragraph foregoing, and 
 the six points following, between two and three years 
 ago, when, in common with some people, protestant and 
 papal, I entertained the opinion that the council of 
 Trent attributed to the Vulgate a kind of Divine autho- 
 rity, attributing it really and in idea, though not nomi- 
 nally and in word, intending and expecting their lan- 
 guage characterizing the Vulgate, to be taken by the 
 people in the sense of Divine authority, and that I wrote 
 
VULGATE, APOCRYPHA, TRADITION. . 143 
 
 the paragraph and six points accordingly. Further con- 
 sideration, however, leads me to think it not quite fair 
 to take for granted that the council attributed Divine 
 authority to the Vulgate, or meant and desired the peo- 
 ple to deem that version divinely authorized. The coun- 
 cil literally attributed to the Vulgate authenticity, term- 
 ing the version authentic. Now authenticity is not quite 
 equivalent to Divine authority, and authentic is not ex- 
 actly equal to divinely authorized. Authenticity may 
 mean Divine authority, and may mean other things ; and 
 authentic may signify divinely authorized, and may have 
 other significations. What the council meant and intend- 
 ed the world to mean by authentic and authenticity, I do 
 not pretend to know fully and exactly. Perhaps they did 
 mean, and did intend the world to mean, divinely autho- 
 rized and Divine authority ; but even if they did not, pos- 
 sibly many and probably or certainly some have thought, 
 do think, and will think that they did ; and therefore have 
 thought, and do and will think, the Vulgate to be di- 
 vinely authorized, or to have Divine authority, confiding 
 in the supposed judgment of the council. Consequently 
 I retain the foregoing paragraph and following six points 
 exactly as originally written, warning the reader that I 
 write there hypothetically or conditionally, on condition 
 that the meaning be divinely authorized, or if the mean- 
 ing be Divine authority. I write there against a possible 
 opinion, namely, that the Vulgate has Divine authority ; 
 and all who hold the opinion, and only they may regard 
 me there as arguing with them. 
 
 Point first. The sacred writers wrote the Hebrew and 
 Greek originals, and not the Latin translation termed 
 the Vulgate. This translation was the work of Jerome, 
 and was made in the fourth century. Therefore the 
 sanction of the inspired penmen cannot be claimed for 
 Jerome's version of the Bible, a version made hundreds 
 of years after they were in their grave. If Jerome were 
 
144 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 inspired, his version would be inspired too ; but as none 
 will presume to claim inspiration for Jerome, the most 
 learned of the Latin fathers,* so none ought to deny 
 that his Vulgate version is to be treated like another 
 uninspired work, tried and tested by works that are 
 inspired. 
 
 Point second. The Vulgate varies, in many a thing, 
 from the original, the Latin differing, in a considerable 
 number of places, if not in a point or two of import, 
 from the Hebrew and Greek. Now how peculiar and 
 extraordinary is the folly or falsehood in asserting that 
 the Vulgate has Divine authority even where wrongly 
 translating! Can the Vulgate be true, infallible, Divine 
 even in its error, even where deviating from truth] 
 The Hebrew and Greek original being the work of in- 
 spired and therefore infallible prophet and apostle, and 
 the Latin version being the work of uninspired and 
 therefore fallible Jerome, we are bound by reason, com- 
 mon sense, and logic, to make the latter turn aside and 
 give way to the former, to make the Latin yield to the 
 Hebrew and Greek, and not the Hebrew and Greek to 
 the Latin. 
 
 Point third. After the time of the council of Trent, 
 pope Sextus V made some thousands of corrections in 
 the Vulgate ; and after him, pope Clement VIII made 
 herein some thousands more.f Thus two popes seve- 
 rally corrected thousands of errors in a version that 
 
 * In calling Jerome the most learned of the Latin Fathers, I do 
 not mean to put him above them all in point of mind. On the 
 whole, he was perhap equalled by more than one leading Latin 
 Father, and he was certainly not superior to Augustine. Jerome 
 had more learning, Augustine had more logic; the former being 
 the greater memorizer, and the latter the greater reasoner ; the one 
 being fitter for erudition, and the other for philosophy. Campbell, in 
 his fifteenth Lecture on Ecclesiastical History, declares that " the 
 two great lights of the Latin churcfc, were Jerome and Augustm." 
 
 t See Infallibility of the pope, argument fourth. 
 
VULGATE, APOCRYPHA, TRADITION. 145 
 
 their kirk had officially affirmed to have Divine autho- 
 rity ! Moreover, Isidorus Clarius pretends to have rec- 
 tified nearly one thousand faulty passages in that won- 
 derful translation. Moreover, Bellarmine, a mighty and 
 renowned papal champion, declares the Vulgate to re- 
 quire many an alteration and emendation. What now 
 can be said of the Divine Vulgate, and of the decree of 
 the council of Trent % We may truly say this, that the 
 decree was not Divine, nor the council wherefrom it 
 sprang. 
 
 Point fourth. The Vulgate perhap is not the best an- 
 tient version of the Bible, being perhap somewhat infe- 
 rior to the Peschito or Old Syriac. Three antient ver- 
 sions of the Old Testament are nearly equal, or not 
 very unequal in point of fidelity and general merit, 
 namely, the Peschito or Old Syriac, the Vulgate, and 
 the Septuagint ; and two antient versions of the New 
 Testament are nearly on a par in general merit, namelj^ 
 the Peschito and the Vulgate. And many or some Bib- 
 lical critics deem the whole Peschito, or the Peschito 
 version of the Bible, to be better than the whole Vul- 
 gate. The Peschito version of the New Testament is 
 very admirable, being perhap the first antient version 
 hereof both in merit and in time, being the best and the 
 earliest, superior and anterior to every other. I affirm 
 nothing of any other antique version of God's word, 
 either in whole or in part, as compared with the favo- 
 rite of popery. Now how could the council of Trent be 
 so presuming as to attribute Divine authority to the 
 Vulgate, when no one attributes it to the Septuagint, 
 and when no one attributes it even to the Peschito, a 
 translation perhap superior to the Vulgate I How could 
 the council dare to affirm the Vulgate to be divinely 
 authorized, while neither they nor any other would 
 dare to affirm so highly of the Peschito, though perhap 
 the best of all the antique versions of the Bible 1 
 
 7 
 
H6 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 Point fifth. The Vulgate is by no mean superior to 
 our authorized English translation, to the Dutch trans- 
 lation made by order of the Synod of Dort, or to some mo- 
 dern translations in other tongues ; indeed it is inferior 
 to them. Now suppose a protestant council, in London, 
 Amsterdam, or elsewhere, to pronounce our English, 
 the Dutch, or any other translation to have Divine autho- 
 rity 5 affirming it to be equal to the Hebrew and Greek 
 original? — what would the papal world say and do! 
 Would not their outcry, complaint, denunciation, and 
 imprecation be both loud and long! Would they not 
 expose and promulgate the folly and criminality of the 
 protestant council and protestant world! They would. 
 But can the thing that would be wrong if done by the 
 protestant, be right and becoming when done by the pa- 
 pite 1 If protectants are bound to tell truth and main- 
 tain verity, are papites free to propagate error ! and at 
 liberty to proclaim an official lie! 
 
 Point sixth. The Vulgate, I know, has Divine autho- 
 rity, either if inspired or heaven-born, and therefore in- 
 fallible, or if true and correct, if it agree fully with the 
 sacred and inspired original, if it give the real, exact, or 
 accurate meaning of the Hebrew and Greek* That how- 
 ever was not the sum total of what the council of Trent 
 had in view, was not the full amount of meaning of its 
 formal decree, as may be shown by two reasons. 1st. 
 That Divine authority is conditional, contingent, built 
 on the slippery word if. 2nd* That Divine authority is 
 common, every other translation of Holy Writ having 
 Divine authority of that kind, in that manner, on like 
 terms, equally with the Vulgate ; therefore in that mean- 
 ing of the phrase Divine authority, the Vulgate is by 
 no mean superior to any other Biblical version, all the 
 versions being Divinely authorized. So far the two rea- 
 sons. Now surely the council of Trent did not mean the 
 foregoing conditional and common Divine authority. 
 
VULGATE APOCRYPHA, TRADITION. 147 
 
 What did it mean 1 what kind of Divine authority 
 did it really affirm 1 It might possibly mean four things. 
 1st. That the Vulgate gives the main feature, the gene- 
 ral outline, the leading particulars of revealed truth, of 
 the sacred original. But every translation of the Bible 
 then existing gave the same thing, so gives every one 
 now existing, and so probably has given every one that 
 ever has been existing. This meaning is quite true and 
 undeniable, and one that none will gainsay. 2nd. That 
 the Vulgate gives the inspired meaning of the Divine re- 
 cord, better than any other version, being superior to eve- 
 ry other version of the Bible, being the best, the least im- 
 perfect of all Biblical translations, being a kind of incom- 
 parabilis. This meaning is opposed to truth and fact, as 
 Biblical critics know. See points fourth and fifth. 3rd. 
 That the Vulgate gives the precise, exact, determinate 
 signification of the Hebrew and Greek, neither more nor 
 less ; gives the meaning, the whole meaning, and nothing 
 but the meaning ; gives the sacred, sense word for word, 
 and idea for idea ; being a version complete, perfect, 
 and unimprovable. This meaning, this broad and sweep- 
 ing import is not true, is very far from true ; and its un- 
 truth could not be unknown to the council of Trent. 
 This high character indeed is not true of any version 
 in the world, far less of the Vulgate. See points second 
 and third. 4th. That the Vulgate was so peculiarly, pro- 
 videntially, miraculously guarded and protected by God, 
 while being made, as to be supernaturally kept free from 
 all error, and filled with pure truth. That it is rather an 
 original than a copy, having a co-ordinate authority with 
 the Hebrew and Greek, depending not on them, but ha- 
 ving a distinct and independent authority of its own. 
 That it is true not only in fact, but even through a kind 
 of necessity ; that it must be true, that it cannot be er- 
 roneous, that it is inspired. This meaning is even far- 
 ther from truth than the last, and flies in the face of rea- 
 
1-18 POPERY IN SPECIAL, 
 
 son, insulting and outraging plain common sense. See 
 point first. Thus it appears to me that the council of 
 Trent might possibly mean the foregoing four things. 
 
 What thing or things however did it really mean 1 
 What meaning or meanings of the four, did it actually 
 hold? Thing first is altogether out of the question. 
 Meaning first, though true, implies not Divine autho- 
 rity ; for though the Vulgate gives the main feature and 
 outline of the sacred original, it is not therefore Divine- 
 ly authorized. Moreover, the council of Trent would 
 hardly be so foolish as to affirm, with all the sanction 
 of its official character, a proposition that no one pro- 
 bably ever denied. To pronounce formally and offi- 
 cially of the Vulgate, what is true of every version of 
 the Bible, and what indeed is quite undeniable, would be 
 an act of solemn trifling, a display of weakness and mock 
 gravity quite unworthy of a great council met for great 
 affairs. Thing second, too, is out of the question. Mean- 
 ing second, even if true, would not imply Divine au- 
 thority ; for even if the Vulgate gave the inspired 
 meaning of the Divine record, better than any other 
 version, it would r.ot be therefore Divinely authorized. 
 Now giving the council of Trent credit for common 
 sense, I conclude that it meant neither the first thing 
 nor the second. It follows that it meant the third, or 
 the fourth, or both. 
 
 Subsection III. Apocrypha. To prove the Apocry- 
 phal books to be wholly without Divine authority, I offer 
 eleven reasons, not as all, but as enow. 
 
 1st. They are nowhere mentioned, nowhere alluded 
 to in the New Testament, receiving no notice whatever 
 from Jesus Christ, or the apostles, or the other inspired 
 people. 
 
 2d. They were not received into the sacred canon, 
 by the Jewish kirk, to whom, in old time, were com- 
 mitted the oracles of God. Eom. 3 : 2. Were the books 
 

 VULGATE, APOCRYPHA, TRADITION. 149 
 
 inspired, their inspiration would be known to the Jews, 
 and would be allowed and proclaimed by the Jewish 
 people. 
 
 3d. They were not received into the sacred canon, 
 the canon of Scripture, by the early christian kirk ; all 
 the first christians either knowing nothing at all of the 
 books, or knowing them to be merely human. 
 
 4-th. They were never viewed as declaredly inspired, 
 as professedly a part of God's holy word, as forming a 
 part of the christian sacred canon, by the early enemies 
 of Christianity, Celsus, Porphyry, Julian, and the like. 
 
 5th. The authors of many or most of the books are 
 utterly unknown. 
 
 6th. The authors who are known, were not inspired; 
 none being a prophet or apostle, none being a man en- 
 dowed with miraculous power, and none being even a 
 friend, and companion, and colleague of inspired people. 
 
 7th. Not one book of the whole was written in He- 
 brew, the language of the Old Testament, all of them 
 being in Greek, excepting Esdras second that is in La* 
 tin. N. B. What are commonly called Esdras first and 
 second, are called, in the sixth Article of the kirk of 
 England, Esdras third and fourth, Ezra and Nehemiah 
 being here called Esdras first and second. 
 
 8th. Firstly. The Apocryphal writers, with per- 
 hap one exception or two, do not claim inspiration. 
 Secondly. Some of them actually and virtually dis- 
 claim it. 
 
 9th. The Apocrypha really contains folly and error, 
 weak things and wrong ones. 
 
 10th. In many a point, some of moment, the apocry- 
 pha is even anti-scriptural, opposing and contradicting 
 the Bible. 
 
 11th. No other external or internal proof of inspira- 
 tion, that belongs to the Bible, belongs to the apocry- 
 pha; the other proof that the Bible has of being in- 
 
150 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 spired, not being enjoyed by its contemptible competi- 
 tor, if one may be allowed to mention the Bible and 
 spocrypha as competing. 
 
 Reader, I have here offered to thee my eleven rea- 
 sons, and hope they will content thy mind, as they con- 
 tent my own. In fine, going from the special to the 
 general, from the particular to the universal, I remark 
 that the circle of argument showing the Divine autho- 
 rity of the Bible, does not exist for the apocrypha ; the 
 evidence applying to the former book not applying to 
 the latter. 
 
 Subsection IV. Article 1. Tradition. We no sooner 
 turn our thought to the subject of tradition, than we 
 think of the Talmudical trash of the Jews. One might 
 have hoped that the example of the Jews, annoyed and 
 wearied in body, enfeebled and crippled in mind, preju- 
 diced and hardened against Christianity, and render- 
 ed ridiculous and contemptible to others, by their huge 
 and unwieldy colection of traditional trifles and foole- 
 ry, would ever be an effectual warning to christians, 
 to build their christian fabric not partly with the clay 
 and mud of oral tradition, but wholly with the solid 
 stone of the written word. Alas ! The hope has not 
 been realized. We find an ample store of traditionary, 
 if not Talmudic christians in the kirk of Rome. 
 
 •Article 2. A word or two about the Talmud, as more 
 than one reader may not be aware of its nature and cha- 
 racter. The Jews have two Talmuds, the Jerusalem 
 and the Babylon. Each contains two parts, Mishna and 
 Gemara, Mishna meaning second law, and Gemara mean- 
 ing perfection. The Mishna or second law is imagin- 
 ed to be the oral law of Moses, or the interpretation 
 of the written law of the Pentateuch. It is a large pile 
 of traditions on many points, and by many people. The 
 work was composed, or the traditions were collected 
 and arranged, about A. D. 200, by Rabbi Judah or Jehu- 
 
VULGATE, APOCRYPHA, TRADITION. 151 
 
 dah, who termed his work the Mishna. About A. D. 
 300, or perhap later, Rabbi Jochanan took it into his 
 head to perfectionate the good work of Rabbi Judah, 
 and therefore wrote thereon a commentary that he 
 termed the Gemara. (Perfection.) This Gemara deal- 
 ing mainly in the traditions known and current in 
 Canaan, is named the Gemara of Jerusalem. Sometime 
 after, Rabbi Ashe, thinking the perfection of Jochanan 
 to be imperfect, wrote another commentary on the 
 Mishna, terming his work, like Jochanan, the Gemara. 
 This Gemara dealing copiously in the traditions known 
 and current in the countries eastward of Canaan, is 
 named the Gemara of Babylon. Now the Mishna and 
 Jerusalem Gemara form the Jerusalem Talmud, and the 
 Mishna and Babylon Gemara form the Babylon Talmud. 
 The Babylon Talmud is, by the Jews, deemed the bet- 
 ter of the two, the Babylon Gemara excelling the Jeru- 
 salem. Thus there are one Mishna and two Gemaras, 
 and therefore two Talmuds. I may remark that the 
 Mishna is a kind of comment on the Pentateuch, and 
 that the Gemaras are comments on the Mishna. 
 
 Article 3. Concerning the character, tendency, effect, 
 the good or evil of the Hebrew tradition, we find by the 
 words of our Lord himself, that " the tradition of the 
 elders" did great harm, putting aside or obscurino- the 
 written word. tT The tradition of the elders" was pre- 
 ferred to the revelation of Jehovah ; the fallible words 
 of men being substituted for the infallible words of God. 
 t<f Ye have made the word o[ God of none effect by your 
 tradition." Matt. 15 : 6 ; Mark, 7 : 13. 
 
 Article 4. The Romanites, disregarding the obnox- 
 iety to the ridicule and blame of man, and to that far 
 more awful thing, the anger of Jehovah, have taken care 
 not to allow the Jews to have the miserable monopoly 
 of the manifold evil of tradition. Accordingly they have 
 tradition upon tradition, obtained through the channel 
 
152 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 of priestly guile, resting on no authority but priestal un- 
 supported assertion, and being impotent enough for any- 
 thing good, though largely potent for evil Papites pre- 
 tend to derive their tradition from Christ and the apos- 
 tles, as Jews pretend to derive theirs from Moses and the 
 prophets 5 but the pretence, in both, is impudent and 
 absurd. Papites however, I may remark, pretend to 
 have two kinds of tradition, apostolical and ecclesiastical. 
 The latter kind they do not pretend to derive from Christ 
 and the apostles, but avow to derive from their mere 
 priestal authority. In truth, however, the pretended two 
 kinds are but one ; for the traditions termed apostolical, 
 are merely ecclesiastical or priestal. Or if some few 
 really be apostolical, they are few indeed, not more per- 
 hap than one in one hundred. Papal traditions are said 
 to be about as bad as the Jewish. If all the papal tra- 
 ditions were fairly and fully written, they would perhap 
 rival the Jewish ones in number, in nonsense, and in 
 nonscripturality. 
 
 Article. 5. Having made the foregoing remarks on 
 Tradition, I might perhap leave the subject as one not 
 requiring to be handled more fully or minutely in a work 
 of so general a kind as mine, a work going little into 
 minute and dry detail. Eegarding the question of Tra- 
 dition, however, to be one of superior and vital moment ; 
 and tradition to be a thing of great repute in Eome, and 
 of growing repute in Oxford; to be one that the Pope 
 and company have long upheld as their firm upholder, 
 and one that Pusey and company now try to uphold as 
 an upholder of their more papal than protestant plan ; I 
 deem it right to go more fully or particularly into the 
 character and groundwork of tradition, and to show that 
 though a powerful engine for evil, it is weak in proof, 
 or even contravened by holy Scripture and good reason- 
 ing. I will endeavor to prove tradition or oral tradition 
 .to be a thing contrary to the Bible, and opposite to right 
 
VULGATE, 
 
 TRADITION. 153 
 
 reason, or to be a thing having neither a scriptural nor 
 a rational leg to stand upon. I will give nine arguments. 
 
 Argument first. We may fairly infer from the lan- 
 guage of the New Testament, and even of the Old, that 
 oral traditions of Divine origin did not exist under the 
 Law or the Old Testament dispensation, Therefore we 
 may fairly infer from analogy, that oral traditions, de- 
 rived from God, do not exist under the Gospel, or the 
 New Testament reign. It is very highly probable, or 
 even certain from the words of our Lord and the apos- 
 tles, and even of the Hebrew prophets, that divine oral 
 traditions were not given to the Jews; and therefore it 
 is highly probable, analogically, that divine oral tradi- 
 tions have not been given to the christian world. 
 
 Argument second. This argument is a kind of a 
 priori or theoretical one, and one wherein we argue in 
 a kind of analogical way. As Q»od enabled men infalli- 
 bly to write a part, He probably enabled them so to 
 write the whole. The written form being required for 
 one part of Revelation, it was required for the other 
 part ; to be written being needful for some, it was need- 
 ful for all. Why commit a part of God's revealed will 
 to the firm hold of writing, and leave a part to the frail 
 keeping of the mere memory or mere morality of a long 
 line of clergymen] Therefore probably no apostolical 
 traditions were given to the kirk. 
 
 Argument third. Setting up oral tradition as a rule 
 of faith, is lowering and degrading the Bible, and leads 
 to practical disregard to the written word. I may how- 
 ever be told that if there be apostolical tradition or 
 unwritten revelation, the Bible ought not to have the 
 whole of our reverential homage or religious regard, 
 but that the written and unwritten revelation ought to 
 share the homage or regard between them. And I may 
 be told that if there were apostolical tradition, the Bible 
 would receive its proportional and due share of our at- 
 
154 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 tention. I however affirm, that if there were the unwrit- 
 ten word, the w T ritten one would not be proportionally 
 and duly attended to, but would be comparatively ne- 
 glected and thrown aside. Tradition would then be re- 
 garded too much, and Scripture too little. The fore- 
 going would be the effect on two accounts. Account 
 1st. The bare doubt or mere uncertainty about what 
 traditions ought to be deemed apostolical, would keep 
 the mind in a condition of painful solicitude and fever- 
 ish anxiety, and therefore would hold it disproportion- 
 ally and unduly to tradition, and from Scripture. If 
 apostolical or oral traditions did exist, they would cause 
 so great an amount of doubting, disbelieving, and de- 
 bating, of questioning and answering, denying and af- 
 firming, as to occupy the far greater part of time on 
 oral tradition, and to leave but very little time for the 
 written word ; the dubious and difficult matter of tra- 
 dition absorbing our time and thought to the compara- 
 tive exclusion of the sure and plain realities of the 
 Bible. If people had ground for deeming portions, of 
 divine revelation to be dwelling in the memory of men, 
 or floating down the tide of time in the form of oral tra- 
 ditions, they would be led, by piety and curiosity, to try 
 to find them out ; and in hunting after unwritten and 
 changing tradition, would neglect the written and un- 
 changing volume. Account 2d. The clergy, assuming 
 to be the guardians of oral tradition, and the medium of 
 transmitting it from age to age, would naturally, in 
 order to augment their dignity and importance, and to 
 maintain and extend their pow r er over the laity or peo- 
 ple, lay too great stress on tradition, and too little on 
 Scripture ; would naturally, in order to exalt themselves, 
 magnify that whereby they would be magnified, namely, 
 tradition, and undervalue that whereby they would be 
 rendered less important, namely, the Divine Scripture. 
 The priesthood, as the channel or conveyer of oral tradi- 
 
VULGATE, APOCRYPHA, TRADITION. 155 
 
 tion, would be tempted and drawn to honor and uphold 
 the unwritten at the expense of the written word, and 
 therefore to become more wanted and influential, un- 
 duly crying up the value of the former, in order unduly 
 to cry up their own value. This reasoning accords with 
 what we know of human nature, and what we have seen 
 in the papal priesthood. Now as, on the two accounts 
 foregoing, tradition would deprive Scripture of its due 
 part of attention, we may infer that probably no apos- 
 tolical traditions were given to the kirk. 
 
 Argument fourth. No real hint can be found in Scrip- 
 ture, of oral tradition being permanently, or after the 
 completion o( the canon of Scripture, a concurrent 
 rule of faith, the authoritative colleague of the Bible. 
 Not a single passage of Holy Writ can be brought for- 
 ward fairly showing the written word to be only a part 
 of the christian rule of faith, and the unwritten tradition 
 to be the other part. According to what we read, the 
 rule of faith is the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing 
 but the Bible. 
 
 Argument fifth. The Primitive Christian Fathers do 
 not allow, or do even disallow tradition as a rule of 
 faith, and appeal not to an oral standard of authority, 
 but only to the written w r ord. The early Fathers looked 
 up to the Bible, and not to an indefinite thing floating 
 unprotectedly through the memory of a line of men, 
 and being liable to adulteration by every one of the line. 
 Therefore probably no apostolical traditions were given 
 to the kirk. 
 
 Argument sixth. Apostolical tradition more than the 
 written word, would tend to magnify and exalt the 
 clergy at the expense of the laity, or would afford room 
 for the undue, unholy, and unhappy assumption and 
 dominion of the priesthood over the mind, body, and 
 estate of the people. Unwritten tradition being con- 
 veyed down the stream of time by the clergy, and there- 
 
156 POPERY IN -Sr'ECIAL. ' 
 
 fore depending somewhat on them, would, more than 
 written, occasion clerical presumption and arrogant 
 bearing, and give ground for their growth, not in grace, 
 but in pride, power, plenty, pomp, and the like. Look 
 at the papal priesthood in every age and country ; and 
 you will find that when and where Tradition has been 
 more regarded, they have been more corrupt ; the 
 honor of tradition and the dishonor of the priesthood 
 having, other things being equal, been in proportion, or 
 gone hand in hand. Apostolical oral tradition more 
 than apostolical writing, would afford a handle for ec- 
 clesiastical corruption, or for priestly pride, power, and 
 the like ; and therefore, probably, Divine revelation was 
 committed not partly to memorial or oral tradition, but 
 wholly to the Bible, to the firm hold and safe keeping 
 of the written word. 
 
 Argument seventh. How utterly improbable the pure 
 descent of tradition ! How nearly impossible that the 
 unwritten word or oral traditions would be transmitted 
 or handed down from Christ and the apostles to us, 
 quite uncorruptedly, or quite free from alteration, ad- 
 dition, or subtraction! Regard two points. 1st. How 
 could we depend on the memory of thousands or mil- 
 lions of men in a great multitude of particulars 1 We 
 could not depend thereon. 2d. How could we depend 
 on the honesty of so many men in so many matters % 
 We could not depend thereon. Now from the foregoing 
 two points, we learn that the very great number of in- 
 dividuals forming the long line of the priesthood, might 
 easily corrupt oral tradition, corrupting in a twofold way, 
 through want of memory and want of honesty, being 
 defective in power and inclination, being both unable 
 and unwilling. Hardly two men relate one and the same 
 particular alike, or tell one and the same tale or anecdote 
 without considerable variation. We may perhap be told 
 that no tradition ought to be received but what would 
 
VULGATE, APOCRYPHA, TRADITION. 157 
 
 agree with the rule of Vincent of Lerins, but what 
 would have been held semper, ubique, et ab omnibus, al- 
 ways, every where, and by all. Many a papite often de- 
 sire to appear fond of the rule, quod semper, quod 
 ubique, quod ab omnibus. Alas for them ! May we not 
 infer a priori, or with a kind of anterior probability, that 
 by the real application of the rule, the whole or very 
 nearly the whole of papal traditions would be quite 
 swept away 1 How many or rather how few papal tra- 
 ditions would fully come up to the foregoing rule ! 
 Now God foreknowing the result, that oral tradition 
 would become corrupt, corrupted by men through weak 
 memory, or weak morality, or both, did not commit a 
 part of his revealed truth to the unsafe conveyance of 
 oral tradition. 
 
 Argument eighth. Many papal traditions are confess- 
 edly and avowedly not apostolical, but merely ecclesi- 
 astical or priestal. Now from the confession and avow- 
 al, I go on to infer three things. 1st. Very few (if any) 
 apostolical traditions are existing. If many apostolical 
 traditions existed, few ecclesiastical or priestal ones 
 would be really required and would exist, there being 
 no need of many of both kinds $ therefore as there are 
 many of the latter, there are few of the former. The 
 Bible and many apostolical traditions together would, 
 even, according to papal view, meet nearly every want 
 that can occur, and serve for nearly every case that can 
 be found, and so leave room for but few traditions ec- 
 clesiastical ; therefore the ecclesiastical being many, 
 the apostolical are no more than few. The many tra- 
 ditions ecclesiastical doing so great a part, leave no 
 more than a very little part to be done by traditions 
 apostolical ; and as the very little part can be done by 
 very few of the latter, very few merely can be found 
 existing. Now no more than very few apostolical tra- 
 ditions existing, it is probable that no apostolical tradi- 
 
158 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 tions exist or were given to the kirk, it being probable 
 that no new and separate mode of divine revelation was 
 employed to meet a single cause or two. 2d. Ecclesi- 
 astical traditions would often be put forward under the 
 cloak of apostolical ones, or as being apostolical, if the 
 latter existed. This inference I take to be clear. There- 
 fore probably no apostolical traditions exist or were 
 given to the kirk. 3rd. It would sometime or often be 
 difficult to distinguish an apostolical tradition from an 
 ecclesiastical one, or to point out the former from the 
 latter. How could we clearly ascertain what would be 
 really apostolical, and what would not '( We may be 
 told that the foregoing rule of Vincent of Lerins would 
 keep all right. (See argument seventh.) That rule 
 however would not alway clearly determine the point, 
 would not alway guide one aright. Therefore probably 
 no apostolical traditions are existing or were given to 
 mankind. 
 
 Argument ninth. Viewing the matter not as ante- 
 riorly probable, or viewing it not in the theoretical way, 
 but in the way of fact and actuality, what do we find \ 
 What are the papal traditions \ how are they charac- 
 terized 1 whether we regard all papal traditions, or 
 more particularly those that are not confessedly or not 
 avowedly ecclesiastical, those that are pretendedly apos- 
 tolical. How many or rather how few can for a moment 
 be deemed apostolic ! Hardly one may claim the apos- 
 tolic character. Can two papal traditions be fully or 
 clearly proved to be apostolical 1 First prove it of one, 
 then go on to two, then to three, and so on. I opine 
 that the prover will not have to go on far, or will not 
 have a long journey. How many or rather how few are 
 according to the rule of Vincent of Lerins, or have been 
 held semper, ubique, et ab omnibus, always, every where, 
 and by all ! How small a number will that rule sanc- 
 tion \ one in one hundred 1 one in one thousand \ or 
 
VULGATE, ArOCRYPIIA, TRADITION. 159 
 
 even any one at all] A full or bona fide application of 
 the rule, will leave so very few apostolical traditions, (if 
 it leave any,) and so very many ecclesiastical ones, as 
 to render apostolical tradition a thing not worth being 
 contended for merely on its own account, or merely in 
 relation to itself alone. Apostolical tradition is cried 
 up by the Roman clergy, not on account of its real 
 worth or intrinsic value, but because it is a medium of 
 promoting their own power, forwarding their own inte- 
 rest, and gaining their carnal end ; because it is a con- 
 venient inlet for whatever crafty invention an ambitious 
 clergy can desire to impose on the conscience of the 
 laity. The papal priesthood try to make tradition com- 
 pete with Scripture, that they may the more easily con- 
 trol the people. They employ tradition as a stepping- 
 stone to their papal tyranny. I wind up or conclude my 
 remarks on tradition, by desiring the reader to weigh 
 and remember the following four things. 1st. Some 
 traditions contradict others. 2d. Some traditions are 
 either directly or indirectly contrary to Scripture. 3d. 
 Some traditions are either directly or indirectly op- 
 posed and condemned by the early Fathers. 4th. Some 
 traditions are unsupported and unmentioned by, and 
 therefore were unknown to the early or primitive 
 Fathers. 
 
 Subsection V. Firstly. The Bible, the written word, 
 was and is held up before the world by the papal priest- 
 hood generally, and was so by the council of Trent spe- 
 cially, as an imperfect or inadequate guide in religion, 
 or as a partial rule of faith. The Bible indeed is inade- 
 quate, and so is Reason, and so are both combined, to 
 guide people to popery, to lead them to the goal that 
 the priests pointed out to them, to render men and 
 women the mere property of a proud, pampered, and 
 carnal priesthood, or to prove the monstrous conglome- 
 ration of papal foolery and papal fraud. And the inade- 
 
160 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 quation of the Bible in popery, not in religion, was the 
 reason why the pope and his satellites laid their unholy 
 hand on the Vulgate, Apocrypha, and Tradition, by the 
 combined operation of which three things, any thing 
 may be proved, and any thing disproved ; pure religion 
 be thrown down, and the papal image be set up in the 
 province of Babylon. Dan. 3; Rev. 14 : 8 ; and 17:5; 
 and 18. Popery is not in the Bible, and could not be 
 upheld by the weak prop of infallibility ; therefore it 
 was found expedient and unavoidable to look around for 
 other aid. The recourse to the Vulgate, Apocrypha, 
 and Tradition, was the last expedient, the dernier re- 
 sort, the forlorn hope of falling popery , it was the des- 
 perate measure of desperate men. The proverb tells, 
 " Any port in a storm." 
 
 Secondly, Though the Divine authority of the Vul- 
 gate, Apocrypha, and Tradition had been advanced par- 
 tially, cautiously, stealthily afore the time of the council 
 of Trent, it w r as first proclaimed, formally and officially, 
 by that notorious council. Why was not the formal and 
 official proclamation afore that time 1 Because of the 
 reason following. Ere the Reformation people were 
 content to take things for true on priestal assertion 
 only, to believe on trust, to credit without proof; but 
 after that grand event, they would have sufficient, ground, 
 would require ample evidence from some real or suppo- 
 sed fountain of authority beside the priesthood. And 
 as neither Holy Scripture nor Reason afforded good 
 ground for papal invention and imposition, the pope and 
 papal priesthood were obliged to have formal and open 
 recourse to the Vulgate, Apocrypha, and Tradition. 
 The three things were taken to do what the Bible and 
 Reason leave undone. 
 
 Thirdly. We run a fearful risk in profanely tamper- 
 ing with the sacred record, we incur a solemn and awful 
 responsibility in presuming to make Divine revelation 
 

 KNOWLEDGE PROSCRIBED BIBLE FORBIDDEN. 161 
 
 appear an uncertain and unsafe directory to heaven, we 
 encounter a terrible hazard and dreadful danger in false- 
 ly attributing the Vulgate, Apocrypha, and Tradition to 
 God, with a view of protecting, by their spurious or 
 adulterine aid, things that God's word and will refuse to 
 sanction, or even clearly condemn. " If any man shall 
 add unto these things, God shall add unto him the 
 plagues that are written in this book. And if any man 
 shall take away from the words of the book of this pro- 
 phecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, 
 and out of the holy city, and from the things which are 
 written in this book. Rev. 22. If any preach any other 
 gospel unto you than what ye have received, let him 
 be accursed. Gal. 1 : 9. Add thou not unto God's words, 
 lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Prov. 
 30:6. What thing soever I command you, observe to 
 do it ; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish there- 
 from." Deut. 12 : 32. 
 
 SECTION V. 
 
 KNOWLEDGE A PROSCRIBED THING, AND THE BIBLE A 
 FORBIDDEN BOOK. 
 
 Subsection I. Knowledge a proscribed thing. Popu- 
 lar ignorance is the papal favorite. Popery will have 
 the people to be ignorant of the Bible, and of all other 
 books that tend to enlighten and improve the public 
 mind \ ignorant of theology, and of all parts of knowledge 
 that are fitted to inform and expand the soul, to make it 
 more intellectual, more free, and more elevate is the 
 scale of being. Popery promotes popular ignorance of 
 
162 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 all kind; of revealed religion, and of natural ; of Chris- 
 tianity, and of philosophy; of the Bible, and of books 
 on natural knowledge ; of the hope and consolation of 
 Divine revelation, and of the broad and beneficial power 
 of human reason. Popery fears knowledge, and encou- 
 rages ignorance degrading and brutal. 
 
 Popery fears and proscribes philosophy in general, 
 but not every kind of philosophy alike. It does more 
 particularly hate and interdict moral and political philo- 
 sophy, whereby we become acquainted with the nature 
 of liberty ecclesiastical and political, and learn the reci- 
 procal duty and right of men. Knowledge and philoso- 
 phy, particularly moral and political philosophy, lead 
 to liberty and popular right; therefore they are feared 
 and forbidden by the pope and priesthood of Rome. 
 
 Ignorance is the mother of devotion, according to 
 the kirk of Rome. Agreeably to that vile, stupid, and 
 wicked maxim, this unchristian kirk favors ignorance as 
 her natural element, as a friend and ally in the work, 
 less of saving people than of enslaving them. And by 
 keeping the popular mind dark and degraded, popery is 
 an instrument not of guiding men through wisdom's way 
 to glory, but of leading them blindfold to destruction. 
 Instead of saying that ignorance is the mother of devo- 
 tion, we may say that ignorance is the mother of popery, 
 ay, and the daughter too ; ignorance being of popery, 
 both mother and daughter, both cause and effect. If 
 ignorance be the mother of devotion, where can be the 
 " reasonable service " enjoined by Paul 1 Rom. 12 : 1. 
 
 Subsection II. Article 1. The Bible a forbidden 
 book. That papal folk in general have been forbidden 
 to read the Bible, hindered from searching the Scrip- 
 ture, kept from consulting the blessed book of God, is 
 too well known to require formal proof. Popery pros- 
 pers far better in darkness than in light ; and therefore 
 loves the former, and hates the latter. Popery came 
 
KNOWLEDGE PROSCRIBED — BIBLE FORBIDDEN. 163 
 
 from the dark, from darkness thicker than Egyptian, 
 and so retains an affection for its native element. Papal 
 priests are well aware that their papal interest requires 
 them to keep the people ignorant of God's word, as God's 
 word condemns popery; therefore they vigorously exert 
 themselves to keep their people about as ignorant of the 
 Bible, as of the Koran. Of course, I write here of the 
 priesthood in general, of the body at large, and not of 
 the good minority. The pope and priesthood of Rome, or 
 a great majority of them, do what they can to keep the 
 great charter of Salvation from the hand, the head, the 
 heart of the people, knowing that if the people become 
 generally owners of the Bible, and generally acquainted 
 with its contents, they will learn the real nature of 
 popery, the unchristian character and fatal effect, will 
 break through the galling and degrading restriction and 
 shackle laid on them by their priesthood, and will take 
 their departure from the mystical Babylon. 
 
 I here quote the remarkable counsel given to the 
 pope, by the papal bishops assembled at Bononia, some- 
 time after the Reformation had begun, in order to con- 
 sult about the upholding and confirming of popery ; 
 where and when, among other things, they gave the 
 following as their last advice, and as the greatest and 
 weightiest of all. " That by all means, as little of the 
 Gospel as might be, especially in the vulgar tongue, 
 should be read to the people ; and that that little which 
 is in the Mass, ought to be sufficient : neither should it 
 be permitted to any mortal to read more. For so long 
 as men were contented with that little, all things went 
 well with them ; but quite otherwise, since more was 
 commonly read. That in short the Scripture is that 
 book which, above all others, hath raised those tempests 
 and whirlwinds with which we were almost carried 
 away. And in truth, if any one diligently considers it, 
 and compares it with what is done in our church, he 
 
364, 
 
 POPERY tfj SPECIAL. 
 
 will find them very contrary to each other, and our doc- 
 trine to be not only very different from it, but repug- 
 nant to it." See Tillotson, Sermon xxx. 
 
 The council of Trent declared as follows, according 
 to the translation of the learned Hartwell Home's Pro-" 
 testant Memorial. " Inasmuch as it is manifest from 
 experience that if the Holy Bible, translated into the 
 vulgar tongue, be indiscriminately allowed to every 
 one the temerity of men will cause more evil than 
 good to arise from it ; it is on this point referred to the 
 judgment of the bishops or inquisitors, who may, by 
 the advice of the priest or the confessor, permit the 
 reading of the Bible, translated into the vulgar tongue 
 by Catholic authors, to those persons whose faith and 
 piety, they apprehend, will be augmented and not in- 
 jured by it; and this permission they must have in 
 writing. But if any one shall have the presumption to 
 read or possess them without such written permission, 
 he shall not receive absolution until he have first de- 
 livered up such Bible to the ordinary !" 
 
 The doctrine or practice of the Roman kirk, of ma- 
 king the Bible a sealed book, a dead letter, a perfect 
 prisoner, an inoperative thing, is utterly opposed to 
 reason and revelation. Firstly. Unreasonable. I will 
 give Slx reasons. 1st. We are bound to know God's 
 Will as revealed in his word, therefore we ought to read 
 what he has caused to be written. 2d. We are bound 
 to use our own reason in judging of the Divine word 
 and Wli]) therefore we ought to read for ourselves. 3d 
 We are the more bound so to do, because of the variety 
 of theological opinion in the world. 4th. Better S o to 
 the clear and pure original spring or fountain-head, than 
 dunk from puddled streams, from the water rendered 
 muddy by running over the impure ground of human 
 error and folly. 5th. Reading the holy Bible may 
 qntcken our affection for holy life, may warm our 
 
KNOWLEDGE PROSCRIBED — BIBLE FORBIDDEN. 165 
 
 nobler feeling, and may lead us to tend from bad to 
 good, and from good to better. 6th. The Spirit acts 
 through and by the written word j therefore in duly and 
 fitly reading the sacred oracle, we may expect to re- 
 ceive the sanctifying and comforting operations of the 
 Holy Ghost, the sanctifier and comforter. Secondly. 
 Unscriptural. " These words which I' command thee 
 this day, shall be in thine heart ; and thou shalt teach 
 them diligently unto thy children, &c. Deut. 6 : 6-9, 
 To the law, and to the testimony. Isa. 8 : 20. Seek ye 
 out of the book of the Lord, and read. Isa. 34 : 16. Ye 
 do err, not knowing the Scriptures. Matt. 22 : 29. What 
 is written in the law] how readest thou 1 Luke, 10: 26, 
 Search the Scriptures. John, 5 : 39. The Bereans were 
 more noble, in that they searched the Scriptures daily. 
 Acts, 17:11. Whatsoever things were written afore- 
 time, were written for our learning, that we, through 
 patience and comfort of the Scriptures, might have 
 hope. Rom. 15:4. I speak as to wise men; judge ye 
 what I say. 1 Cor. 10 : 15. If any preach any other gos- 
 pel — let him be accursed. Gal. 1 : 9. Take the sword 
 of the Spirit, the word of God. Eph. 6 : 17. And this 
 I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more 
 in knowledge and in all judgment; that ye may ap- 
 prove things that are excellent. Phil. 1 : 9, 10. Let the 
 word of Christ dwell in you richly, in all wisdom. Col. 
 3 : 16. Prove all things ; hold fast that which is good. 
 I charge you, by the Lord, that this epistle be read unto 
 all the holy brethren. 1 Thess. 5 : 21, 27. 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 Scripture is given by inspiration of 
 God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for cor- 
 rection, for instruction in righteousness ; that the man 
 of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all 
 good works. 2 Tim. 3 : 15, 16, 17. Be ready alway to 
 
166 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason 
 of the hope that is in you. 1 Pet. 3 : 15. We have also 
 a more sure word of prophecy, whereunto ye do well 
 that ye take heed. 2 Pet. .1 : 19. Beloved, believe not 
 every spirit 3 but try the spirits, whether they are of 
 God 5 because many false prophets are gone out into 
 the world. 1 John 4:1. Blessed is he that readeth, and 
 they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep the 
 things that are written therein ; for the time is at hand. 
 Rev. 1 : 3. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the 
 Spirit saith unto the churches." Rev. 2 and 3. Paul's 
 Epistles, excepting those to Timothy, Titus, and Phile- 
 mon, are addressed to the kirk members in general, to 
 the kirk at large ; and not to the priestal part merely. 
 James writes " to the twelve tribes that are scattered 
 abroad." Peter writes the first epistle " to the strangers 
 scattered throughout Pontus, &c." and writes the se- 
 cond " to all that have obtained like precious faith with 
 us." John writes the first epistle " to children, fathers, 
 and young men." 1 John, 2 : 1, 12, 13, 14. Jude writes 
 u to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and 
 preserved in Jesus Christ, and called." 
 
 Article 2. Firstly, The kirk of Rome is well known 
 to oppose the Bible Society \ to regard with fear, to 
 watch with jealous caution, and to contravene, with 
 ready zeal, the beneficent operation of that godlike in- 
 stitution. What is the Bible Society ? Simply a grand 
 institution, a magnificent engine, a powerful union for 
 translating into every language, and sending to every 
 nation, people, and family on the globe, the Bible, the 
 pure Bible, the Bible without note or comment, without 
 human exposition or human creed. Now what is here to 
 excite the anger, and call out the opposition of chris- 
 tian men! The Bible Society causes no anger or oppo- 
 sition in heaven. Indeed, the birth of the noble Society 
 caused joy in heaven among the saints, among the angels, 
 
 
KNOWLEDGE PROSCRIBED BIBLE FORBIDDEN. 167 
 
 of God, and even to God himself ; but spread disappoint- 
 ment, chagrin, and alarm through all the variety of dia- 
 bolic powers. Popery, well knowing its anti-biblic origin 
 and character, refuses to be tried and tested by the sacred 
 standard, and therefore opposes the Bible Society. If 
 Popery be according to the Bible, why is it afraid of 
 the Bible and of the Society for promoting Biblical 
 diffusion and control 1 If Popery were in the Bible, the 
 fear would be ungrounded and irrational. If Popery came 
 whence the Bible came, and go whither the Bible goes ; 
 if it be a friend, ally, and coadjutor of the Bible, why is 
 it a foe of a Society that, by enabling the Bible to travel 
 over the world, would enable Popery to travel with it 
 hand in hand and cheek by jole 1 
 
 Secondly. The comical fancy of the Bible and Popery 
 travelling together in co-operative union, reminds one 
 of Lafontaine's fable of the two pots, the iron and the 
 earthen pot, le pot de fer et le pot de terre, who took it 
 into their head to agree to travel together to see the 
 world, to study men and manners, to observe many a 
 climate and constitution, 
 
 To talk of sciences and arts, 
 
 And knowledge gained in foreign parts. — Unknown. 
 
 All things being ready, off started our travellers, the 
 two pots, on the grand tour clopin- clop ant comme Us 
 peuvent, hobbling, waddling, tumbling along as well as 
 they were able. They had not gone far, however, when, 
 by jostling and knocking against each other, the pot of 
 iron, being the harder and heavier of the two, broke the 
 pot of earth, shivered its fragile companion to pieces, 
 and strewed its unlucky fellow-traveller in the dust, 
 where it lies, ill-starred wight, a monument of fallen 
 greatness, a memorial of prostrate ambition, an example 
 of high hope laid low in ruin ! 
 
168 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 Ruin seize thee, ruthless iron pot ! 
 Confusion on thy lonely travel wait ! 
 
 Gray, altered. 
 
 Now I humbly opine that the earthen pot of popery 
 would not have gone far with the iron pot of the Bible, 
 when by Biblical knocking and thumping, it would be 
 brought to the level, and be compelled to share the me- 
 lancholy fate of its renowned forerunner and prototype 
 described by Lafontaine. Then the pope, the cardinals, 
 the other papal priests both secular and regular, the 
 monks and nuns, the eremites and friars " white, black, 
 and gray, with all their trumpery," the contents of the 
 popery pot, would be whirled about and aloft, the sport 
 of every wind, as if not bigger nor more important than 
 so many Lilliputians or Tom Thumbs; or perhap would 
 be broken down to a crowd of little atoms wandering 
 about at random, and calling on their blind god Chance to 
 unite them into some other system of folly and of fraud. 
 Popery appears to have a strong instinctive feeling that 
 it is an earthen pot, being hugely afraid of confiding in 
 the travelling attention of the iron pot Bible. The pope 
 and priesthood of Rome know better than to commit 
 their brittle earthy papal pot to a concussion with the 
 hard and ferrean texture of Holy Writ ; being well 
 aware that their frail vehicle would be broken by the 
 contact, and they, its contents, spilled upon the ground. 
 
 Hence, vain deluding joys, 
 
 The brood of Folly, without father bred ! 
 
 How little you bested, 
 
 Or fill the fixed mind with all your toys ! 
 
 Dwell in some idle brain, 
 
 And fancies fond with gaudy shapes possess, 
 
 As thick and numberless 
 As the gay motes that people the sun beams, 
 
 Or likest hovering dreams, 
 The fickle pensioners of Morpheus' train. 
 
 Il Penseroso. 
 
KNOWLEDGE PROSCRIBED BIBLE FORBIDDEN. 169 
 
 Thirdly. Demetrius and the craftsmen, in opposing 
 Paul and his companions, exemplify the papal priest- 
 hood in opposing the Bible Society. Acts, 19. " Our 
 craft is in danger," said Demetrius and his colleagues ; 
 " therefore down Paul and Christianity ! and up Diana of 
 the Ephesians, and the accompanying rites of idolatry !" 
 M Our craft is in danger," say the pope and the priest- 
 hood j " therefore death, a speedy death to the Bible So- 
 ciety ! and life, long life to popery, to the multiform gain 
 of imposture, to the loaves and fishes of corruption !" 
 The Bible Society is indirectly and mediately against 
 the kirk of Rome, and therefore the kirk of Rome is 
 decidedly and obstinately against the Bible Society. 
 
 Fourthly. For edification of the christian reader, I 
 here quote a part of the Bull of his holiness, or unholi- 
 ness, pope Leo XII against the Bible Society. " You 
 are aware, venerable brethren, that a certain Society, 
 called the Bible Society, strolls with effrontery through- 
 out the world ; which Society, contemning the tradi- 
 tions of the Holy Fathers, and contrary to the well 
 known decree of the Council of Trent, labors with all 
 its might, and by every means, to translate, or rather to 
 pervert, the Holy Bible into the vulgar languages of 
 every nation ; from which proceeding it is greatly to be 
 feared, that what is ascertained to have happened as to 
 some passages, may also occur with regard to others ; 
 to wit, " that by a perverse interpretation, the Gospel 
 of Christ be turned into a human Gospel, or what is 
 still worse, into the Gospel of the Devil." To avert this 
 plague, our predecessors published many ordinances j 
 and in his latter days, Pius VII of blessed memory, sent 
 two briefs * * * to show how noxious this most wicked 
 novelty is to both faith and morals. We also, venerable 
 brethren, in conformity with our apostolic duty, exhort 
 you to turn away your flock by all means from these 
 poisonous pastures ." 
 
 S 
 
170 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 To the above quotation I append a part of the ad- 
 dress from the Irish papal bishops to their clergy and 
 people, on account of the Bull of Leo. r< Qn receiving 
 this letter, replete with truth and wisdom, * * * we ex- 
 claimed, Peter has spoken by Leo. * # * As to the books 
 which are distributed by the Bible Society, under the 
 names of Bibles or Testaments, as they treat of reli- 
 gion, and are not sanctioned by us, or by any compe- 
 tent authority in the Catholic Church, the use, the pe- 
 rusal, the reading, or retaining of them, is entirely and 
 without any exception, prohibited to you."* 
 
 Article 3. The Unknown Tongue, or the public use 
 of the Latin language in the papal kirk, might, accord- 
 ing to natural and logical order, be taken into consider- 
 ation here, the unknown tongue being a very effective 
 mean of keeping the Bible from the people, and of 
 keeping them ignorant of its holy light. Being how- 
 ever a very important point, and one whereon I have a 
 pretty deal to write, it cannot conveniently be handled 
 here, therefore it will form an independent section. 
 
 Article 4. Implicit faith. Implicit faith of the people 
 in the priesthood, of the popular many in the priestal 
 few, is a regular consequence of making the Bible a 
 forbidden book. When the people are universally igno- 
 rant of God's word, when they are hindered from read- 
 ing the holy page of divine wisdom, and from acquiring 
 the most utile and ennobling knowledge, they must de- 
 pend on the wisdom and knowledge of other folk, and 
 take their opinion wholly from the priesthood. They 
 are also papally commanded so to do. Popery requires 
 one to believe the bare assertion, to credit the mere 
 ipse dixit of a priest ; to see with the eye, to hear with 
 
 * The above two quotations are taken from Groser's " Six Lec- 
 tures on Popery," a valuable work, and one that may be read with 
 advantage. 
 
KNOWLEDGE PROSCRIBED — BIBLE FORBIDDEN. 171 
 
 the ear, to think with the understanding of the priest- 
 hood ; to read the Bible, and employ one's reason me- 
 diately, by deputy, through the priestly few, they read- 
 ing and reasoning for one! Kind and obliging men! 
 The people, we are told, are to believe the Church. But 
 believing the church, is believing the pope and papal 
 priesthood ; for the pope and priesthood, quite indepen- I 
 dently on the people, determine the doctrine of the 
 church. Papal priests are to lay down the law; and 
 we are to gape, and to swallow all their affirmation, scrip- 
 tural or unscriptural, reasonable or unreasonable, right 
 or wrong ! To read the Bible for one's self, or think 
 for one's self, is deemed heresy, or a thing nearly as 
 bad, by the kirk of Rome, the great whore, Rev. 17: I, 
 the corrupter of Christianity, and the incubus of Chris- 
 tendom. The pope and Roman priesthood virtually say 
 to the soul or mind of the people, " Bow down, that we 
 may go over." Isa. 51 : 23. 
 
 What papal folk term implicit faith, appears to be of 
 a twofold kind. 1st. When the implicit believer ig- 
 nores the proof or evidence of the doctrine he believes. 
 2d. When he ignores the doctrine itself, even the very 
 name, being ignorant of the nature, names, and number 
 of his doctrines! The second kind perhap is the more 
 perfect of the two, being the more implicit. Now of 
 course, their implicit faith is a mere nominal or imputa- 
 tive (rather imputable) faith, is no more than believing 
 by proxy, is no real faith or belief at all. According to 
 them, one can believe every thing, and yet know no- 
 thing ! one can believe every truth revealed in the 
 Bible, without knowing any thing of any one truth 
 there ! Implicit faith has been comically termed fides 
 carbonaria or coaly faith, from being the faith of an ig- 
 norant collier. Some one, whom I will call Inquirer, 
 desired to examine a collier concerning his creed or 
 doctrinal belief, when the following conversation occur- 
 
• 172 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 red. Inquirer. " What do you believe 1" Collier. " I 
 believe what the church believes." I. " What does the 
 church believe 1" C. " The church believes what I 
 believe.'' I. " What do you and the church both be- 
 lieve T" C, " The church and I both believe — the same 
 thing !" 
 
 Now, reader, what think you of the pretty scrap of 
 Popery, implicit faith 1 Can you avoid exclaiming, with 
 strong and virtuous indignation, " What abominable 
 . folly and fraud are here !" The wise man declares, 
 "That the soul be without knowledge it is not good." 
 Prov. 19 : 2. The papal priesthood virtually declare, 
 that the soul be without knowledge is good, very good, 
 not indeed for his salvation, but for our carnal elevation, 
 for our corrupt loaves and fishes, for our usurped domi- 
 nion over the soul, body and estate of the popular many. 
 "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge." Hos. 
 4 : 6. And the papal priesthood have been wholesale 
 destroyers, having had little knowledge themselves, and 
 having allowed less or none to the people. "My people 
 are gone into captivity, because they have no know- 
 ledge." Isa. 5:13. And they were driven thither by the 
 knowledge-hating priesthood of Kome. According to 
 Popery, the people are to have not a reasonable and 
 lively faith in the Lord, but an implicit faith in the 
 priesthood ; not a faith purifying the heart, Acts, 15 : 
 9, working by love, Gal. 5 : 6, and overcoming the 
 world, 1 John, 5 : 4, but a faith perverting the princi- 
 ple, operating by ignorance, and overturning the ration- 
 ally religious connection between man and his Maker. 
 They are to have a faith consisting with ignorance and 
 immorality, depriving God of an intelligent, rational, 
 scriptural, and holy worshipper ; and making the laic an 
 ignoble and miserable slave, and the cleric a guilty and 
 unprincipled tyrant. May the Lord deliver and comfort 
 the injured, and humble and forgive the injurer, and save 
 
KNOWLEDGE PROSCRIBED — BIBLE FORBIDDEN. 173 
 
 them both with an everlasting salvation! But in order 
 to be saved, or to find pardon, the papal and priestal de- 
 luder must repent, or turn from his deceptive and cruel 
 doing 5 be kind and loving to man, lowly and penitent 
 before God, good in himself, and an example of good- 
 ness to his neighbor. 
 
 Subsection IIL Prohibition of books and Index Expur- 
 gatorius. Who has not heard of the index expur gator ius, 
 that vile, tyrannical, and dark engine of papal Rome for 
 prohibiting books, keeping off knowledge and light, and 
 upholding the empire of ignorance and darkness, of 
 mental and moral night \ Books of a utile and instruc- 
 tive kind are not to be read by the people ; are carefully 
 kept from the head and hand of the laity, in order that 
 they may not learn the bad doing of Jhe priesthood ; 
 may not become aware and informed of the unreason* 
 able, unscriptural, immoral, despotical speaking and act- 
 ing of the clergy. Any book tending to open the eyes 
 of the public, and to expose the corrupt conduct and un- 
 just domineering of the papal and priestal lords, was 
 rabidly forbidden ; and then wo to the wight with whom 
 it was found ! All books giving right information, and 
 tending to form correct opinion on ecclesiastical and po- 
 litical affairs, were not allowed to be read 5 all that would 
 feed the intellect, illumine and enlarge the soul, and 
 enable mankind to know their right, and the proper way 
 of acquiring and retaining it, were doomed to the gloomy 
 ban of the index. 
 
 But though Popery prohibits books, it prohibits not 
 all. It puts the ban or a formal stigma on the good or 
 utile one, but allows the popular perusal of the inutile 
 and hurtful. Works that tend to rivet their chain, the 
 people may read ; books adapted to make them more 
 passive in slavery, and more obedient to the pope or 
 priest, they may read, mark, and learn. They are to 
 read lying legends, and fabulous lives of real or pre- 
 
174 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 tended saints. They may pore over stupid tales of mon- 
 kery, feigned and false account of monks and nuns, men 
 and women who are often idle, ignorant, and immoral. 
 They may read what will not make them wiser, but per- 
 hap confirm them in folly ; what will not make them 
 better, but may make them worse. In fine, the people 
 ask for bread, and the priesthood gave them a stone ; 
 the former begged a fish, and the latter gave a serpent. 
 Matthew, 7. 
 
 Subsection IV. Persecution has been largely employed 
 as a papal medium for preserving the purity of the faith, 
 and for guarding the people from the inroad of heresy ! 
 The continual liability to be burnt, or otherwise judi- 
 cially murdered for heterodoxy, is a wonderful expe- 
 dient for keeping people orthodox ! Torturing the body 
 will enlighten the soul ! Inflicting cruel blows on the 
 material part will inject correct opinions into the mind! 
 By wounding without, you put wisdom within ! Oh no- 
 table discovery of the persecutor and inquisitor ! Oh 
 marvellous invention of the pope and the devil ! Out- 
 ward and cruel coercion cannot cause either conviction 
 in the head or conversion in the heart. But yet papal 
 persecution and the infernal inquisition have been ready 
 at hand to oppose the beneficent reign, and even the 
 very being of knowledge, and to maintain the dreary 
 dominion of ignorance or mental night. If people would 
 know, would read the Bible or other utile books, they 
 were soon reminded of their heresy, and were speedily 
 handed over to the diabolical dealing of persecution and 
 the inquisitorial arm. See CampbelVs Lectures on Eccle- 
 siastical History f , an admirable work, and one well wor- 
 thy to be read by all. 
 
 Persecution, however, is a subject whereinto I do not 
 formally and fully enter here, not entering, on a two-fold 
 account. 1st. Persecution is not confined in its applica- 
 tion, to the support of ignorance, of the forbidding of 
 
UNKNOWN TONGUE. 175 
 
 the Bible, and of the prohibiting of other utile books, 
 but has a wider range, supporting the other papal doc- 
 trines, or aiding Popery in general. Persecution has been 
 an ever-present argument for proving the orthodoxy of 
 the whole papal system. 2d. Persecution belongs strictly 
 and properly not to popery, as taken or viewed in the 
 present chapter, but to popery as lording over the state, 
 and wielding the civil sword 5 for it belongs less to po- 
 pery doctrinal than to popery political. Persecution 
 appertains, in a mode proper and peculiar, to the pecu- 
 liar and overgrown politikirkality * of popery, to its 
 invasion of the right of the civil magistrate, to its ab- 
 sorption of the political into the ecclesiastical, making 
 the state to depend on the kirk, and to be the kirk's ser- 
 vant, slave, and executioner ; or compelling the king or 
 magistrate to carry into effect its cruel decision, and to 
 perform all its wicked will. Therefore persecution ap- 
 pertains fully to popery when the word popery is taken 
 in a meaning very long and very broad ; in a meaning 
 implying all the politikirkal, the sword, the fire, and the 
 infernal inquisition ; the pope being the politikirkalian 
 immoderate and intolerant. N. B. For the meaning here 
 given to popery, see chapter second, section I. 
 
 SECTION VI. 
 
 UNKNOWN TONGUE, OR LATIN THE GENERAL LANGUAGE 
 OF POPERY. 
 
 Subsection I. Article 1. With little inquiry we shall 
 find that the papal use of the unknown tongue, or unin- 
 
 * The word politikirkality comes from political and kirk, and 
 means political churchism or kirkism. Moreover, the words politi- 
 kirkal } politikir kalian, and the like, come from the same original. 
 
176 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 telligible medium, is in complete opposition to reason, 
 to the Bible, to the conduct of the writers of the New 
 Testament, to that of the pure and early christian kirk, 
 and to that of the old Hebrew kirk or system. 
 
 Firstly. Using the unknown tongue is in complete 
 opposition to reason. 1st. Mediately. The reasons prov- 
 ing that the Bible ought to be read, do mediately and 
 consequentially prove that it ought to be in the known 
 or vulgar tongue ; for it cannot be read if it be not in a 
 known tongue. In order to be read it must be in a 
 tongue known to the reader. See section last, S. II. 
 article 1, where six reasons are given for reading the 
 Bible. 2nd. Immediately. To the question, What good 
 grounds are found in reason or philosophical propriety, 
 for conducting the worship of God in a tongue unknown 
 to the people ; in a tongue that is to the hearer " as 
 sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal!" 1 Cor. 13 : 1, 
 one may answer, None at all, no good ground at all. 
 Only think of British protestants conducting their reli- 
 gious service in Chinese ! Imagine the British House 
 of Commons carrying on their debate in Hebrew or Ara- 
 bic ! Fancy the lawyers in London pleading in the lan- 
 guage of Iceland or Japan, in a language unknown to 
 the judge, the jury, and the spectators ! Conceit a pub- 
 lic meeting in London, Paris, or Rome, held to take 
 measures for preventing cholera, or for guarding from 
 fire, debating the point in Sanscrit or Coptic! Scripture, 
 prayer, and sermon, in an unknown tongue, are about as 
 unsatisfactory to the intellect, as meat and drink merely 
 drawn on paper, merely painted or pencilled, are to the 
 stomach. The former are sound without sense, and the 
 latter are color without substance. Can one remove 
 hunger by a paper pie or a painted plum-pudding \ No. 
 How then can one content, feed, and improve the soul 
 by a word without an idea ; by a sign signifying nothing; 
 by language that stops in the ear, entering not the mind 1 
 

 UNKNOWN TONGUE. 177 
 
 If man were a mere material machine, he might be ad- 
 dressed in any manner ; in Latin or Greek, Teutonic or 
 Sclavonic, Patagonian or Hottentotonian ; by the bark- 
 ing of a hound, the chattering of an ape, the bleating 
 of a sheep, or the braying of a donkey. Man, however, 
 having a soul, a mind, a something that will think and 
 feel, he requires better treatment, demanding to have 
 his understanding illumined, and his reason employed, 
 claiming to be viewed, not as a low sort of brute, but as 
 an inferior kind of angel. 
 
 Secondly. Using the unknown tongue, is in com- 
 plete opposition to the Bible. 1st. Mediately. The 
 Biblic passages proving that the Bible ought to be read, 
 do mediately and consequentially prove that it ought to 
 be in the known or vulgar tongue. See under Firstly. 
 2nd, Immediately. The apostle Paul appears, in Cor. 14, 
 to have had a prophetic eye on the preposterous plan of 
 the kirk of Rome, the custom of reading the Bible and 
 praying, if not preaching, in an unknown tongue : and 
 gives an anticipatory condemnation thereof. Read the 
 whole chapter. Moreover, the gift of tongues by the 
 Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost Acts 2, is a clear 
 indication of the Divine will that people shall be ad- 
 dressed in a language that they understand ; and there- 
 fore is a clear condemnation of the papal scheme. More- 
 over, a remarkable passage of the Old Testament is in 
 direct opposition to the plan of the kirk of Rome. ?t They 
 read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave 
 the sense, and caused them to understand the reading." 
 Nehemiah, 8 : 8. 
 
 Thirdly. Using the unknown tongue, is in complete 
 opposition to the conduct of the writers of the New Tes- 
 tament. The writers of the New Testament employed 
 the Greek tongue, writing in the language then more 
 known than any other in the civilized world. Now the 
 adoption by the inspired penmen, of the Greek, the lan- 
 
 8* 
 
178 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 guage then most widely spread and most commonly un- 
 derstood, is a very strong argument in opposition to the 
 papal plan of shutting up the Bible and Prayers in an 
 unknown tongue. 
 
 Fourthly. Using the unknown tongue, is in complete 
 opposition to the conduct of the pure and early christian 
 kirk. 1st. Early kirk of Rome. The conduct of the cor- 
 rupt kirk of Rome, during many centuries, has been in 
 direct and palpable opposition to that of the pure and 
 early kirk of Rome. Soon after the christian era the 
 Roman kirk adopted a Latin version of Scripture, using 
 it in public and in private, in the temple and the dwell- 
 ing. And it preferred the Latin translation to the in- 
 spired original, because Latin was the language of the 
 Italian people, and well understood by Italian christians, 
 and Greek and Hebrew were not. The pure and early 
 Roman christians thought it better to employ a fallible 
 version that they knew or understood, than to use the 
 infallible original, whereof they were ignorant, prefer- 
 ring a tongue known to a tongue unknown. And they 
 judged well and wisely. Modern Rome however pre- 
 fers a tongue unknown to a tongue known ; preferring 
 Latin, a dead language now, to Italian in Italy, to French 
 in France, to Spanish in Spain, and the like. The an- 
 tient kirk of Rome used Latin, because the living lan- 
 guage then; the modern kirk, acting contrarily to the 
 antient, will not use Italian and the like, though the 
 living languages now. The former took intelligible 
 Latin, and herein did right ; the latter w 7 ill not take 
 intelligible Italian, and herein does wrong. The former 
 preferred the uninspired Latin to the inspired Greek 
 and Hebrew, and was right ; the latter will not prefer 
 the uninspired Italian to the uninspired Latin, and must 
 be very and extremely wrong. For the former had 
 more reason for keeping to the Greek and Hebrew 
 original, that being inspired and therefore infallible 3 
 
UNKNOWN TONGUE. 179 
 
 than the latter has for keeping to the Latin version, that 
 being uninspired and therefore fallible. Now bearing in 
 mind that the antient kirk of Rome rejected the public 
 use of the infallible original, because unintelligible to 
 the people, for that of a fallible version that was intelli- 
 gible to them, and that the modern kirk of Rome will 
 not reject the public use of one fallible version that is 
 become unintelligible for that of another not more falli- 
 ble, that is understood by all, we find the two kirks pull- 
 ing in a contrary direction, not indeed in relation to the 
 dead letter, but in relation to the spirit, the vitality, the 
 main and essential part of religion. In regard to the 
 soul or substance, to the head and the heart, the modern 
 Roman kirk acts in a way directly opposite to that of 
 the antient; the antient having spoken to the mind, and 
 tried to subject man to the government of God; and the 
 modern speaking to the ear, and trying to bring man un- 
 der the rule of the priesthood. The one would have 
 christians in nature, the other will have them in name ; 
 the one desired a christian freeman, the other longs for 
 a papal slave. Therefore the one used a tongue known, 
 and the other employs a tongue unknown and inutile. 
 *2nd. Other early kirks. All other early or primitive chris- 
 tian kirks took good care to have the Bible translated in- 
 to the known or popular tongue, the language of the peo- 
 ple. East and west, north and south, the early christians 
 had and read the holy volume in their own well known 
 tongue. They were utterly opposed to locking up the 
 word of God in a dead and barren language, or to keep- 
 ing the Bible concealed from the people at large. 
 
 Fiflhltj. Using the unknown tongue, is in complete 
 opposition to the conduct of the old Hebrew kirk or 
 system. The practice of the old Hebrew kirk was di- 
 rectly opposed to that of the kirk of Rome. First. The 
 Holy Scripture was in Hebrew, the known and vernacu- 
 lar tongue of the people. Second. After the return 
 
180 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 from Babylon, when the pure Hebrew language was not 
 known to all, care was taken to make the revealed will 
 of God known to all, by translating from the pure He- 
 brew, into the language more popularly known. Means 
 were employed to enable the people to know the mean- 
 ing of the Divine record, and to understand the words 
 of eternal life. See Nehem. 8 : 8. 
 
 Article 2. It is worth while to inquire the corrupt 
 motive the papal kirk has for being in love with the sin- 
 gularly absurd and cruel custom of speaking only to the 
 outward ear, by using the Latin language, a custom at 
 war with common sense and good feeling. Without pre- 
 tending to mention all the motives, I will mention five. 
 
 1st. To keep the people ignorant, and therefore de- 
 pendent on the priesthood. " Ignorance is the mother 
 of popery, ay, and the daughter too; ignorance being of 
 popery, both mother and daughter, cause and effect." 
 See section last. 
 
 2d. To have a bond of union between the many 
 priests, binding all the members of the priesthood in one 
 huge confederation, in one great alliance, one mighty 
 league, in one body wieldy, tractable, governable ; a 
 body separate and apart from the people, alien to the 
 laity in language and interest, and opposite and hostile 
 to popular right, and the spread and dominion of liberty. 
 
 3d. To bind the different sees to the see of Rome. 
 Latin being the antient language of Rome, the adoption 
 of Latin as the general and official language of a kirk, 
 marks the kirk with an implicit subjection to the kirk 
 of Rome, making it a part and parcel of the kingdom 
 of the Beast. 
 
 4th. To enable the priesthood to be ignorant of 
 living languages. 
 
 5th. To cause the Vulgate version of the Bible, the 
 favorite translation of the kirk of Rome, and that is in 
 Latin, to be more authoritative in the eye of the Bible 
 
UNKNOWN TONGUE. 181 
 
 reader, and more exclusively entitled to veneration and 
 regard. 
 
 Subsection II. If religious improvement and general 
 utility, instead of corruption, carnality, and special in- 
 terest, were the grand object pursued by the papal kirk 
 or papal court, it would adopt the Greek for its official 
 language, in preference to the Latin. To prove that the 
 Greek deserved to be taken rather than the Latin, I will 
 give six reasons. 
 
 Reason first. Greek is the original language of the 
 New Testament, the more important of the two grand 
 divisions of the Bible. Therefore making Greek the 
 general language of the kirk, would tend directly to 
 make the New Testament generally known, and so lead 
 to the diffusion and well-being of Christianity. Real or 
 pure Christianity, however, was not the great end that 
 the papal kirk had in view. 
 
 Reason second. Greek gives access to a very good 
 antient version of the Old Testament, the Greek ver- 
 sion of the Seventy, called the Septuagint. This is a 
 leading antique version of the Old Testament, both in 
 time and in truth. See Section III, Subsection II, point 
 fourth. 
 
 Reason third. Greek literature in general is decid- 
 edly superior to the Latin, the intellectual treasure of 
 Greece preponderating that of Rome. Greek philoso- 
 phy and Greek poetry are superior to their rivals in the 
 old Latin tongue ; and in other particulars, the Greek 
 remains are not inferior to the Latin. 
 
 Reason fourth. Greek has never ceased or failed to 
 be a living language. 1st. It was the language, more 
 or less, of the Lower, Eastern, Constantinoplan empire. 
 2d. It has ever been the language of Greece proper. 
 I know that modern Greek differs somedeal from an- 
 tient 5 but even if it differ very much, if it differ in par- 
 ticulars very many and very great, it is yet fundamen- 
 
182 POPERY IN SPECIAL 
 
 tally and essentially the same language. And do I hope 
 that the literary public, and the government of modern 
 Greece, will take good care to reject the modern inno- 
 vation and barbarism, and to recur to the noble Greek 
 of antiquity. If they can make antient Greek better, 
 let them do so ; but let them neither make it worse, 
 nor alter it for the sake of mere alteration. 
 
 Reason fifth. Greek is a better language than Latin. 
 It may not have the pomp, the majesty of the Latin ; it 
 may be in this point inferior to its rival ; but it is supe- 
 rior in at least four other points. 1st. It is more musical. 
 2nd. It is more copious. 3rd. It is more flexible. 4-th. It 
 is more precise. In what point beside melody, fertility, 
 flexibility, and precision, it goes beyond the Latin, I do 
 not presume to affirm. But I do affirm (what indeed is 
 very well known) that it clearly outdoes the Latin on 
 the whole. 
 
 Reason sixth. Greek is more original than Latin in 
 three ways. 1st. The Greek tongue lends largely to the 
 Latin, and borrows very little in return, being one of 
 the main fountains of the Latin tongue, and deriving 
 herefrom few Greek words. 2nd. The Greek tongue 
 being earlier than the Latin, having been formed afore 
 it, goes farther back into antiquity, lying nearer the 
 grand original, the primal or radical language of all, the 
 language of Adam and Eve, the Hebrew, if Hebrew be 
 what I presume it to be, the great original, the fountain- 
 head, the parent of the numerous lingual family. 3rd. 
 The Greek tongue, I apprehend, owes less to other 
 tongues, is less derivative, more primitive, more fully 
 formed from things in nature, from external and inter- 
 nal phenomena than the Latin. 
 
 Subsection HI. Why was not the Greek taken, instead 
 of the Latin, for the medium of communication between 
 literary men, for the common language of the learned 
 world 1 That it ought to have been so taken, appears 
 
UNKNOWN TONGUE. 183 
 
 tolerably clear from the six reasons given in the last 
 subsection. Unless reasons equally strong can be found 
 on the side of the Latin, I shall think the Greek deserv- 
 ed to be chosen as the lingual organ of the republic 
 of letters. Why then was Greek disregarded in favor 
 of Latin 1 
 
 A leading reason on behalf of Latin was, unques- 
 tionably, the following : Latin having been the leading 
 language of the Roman empire, became, by natural con- 
 sequence, by the operation of political and geographi- 
 cal event, the grand original of the language of many 
 of the nations whereinto the empire became divided. 
 On the invasion and dissolution of the empire by the 
 northern barbarian, the Latin, the language of the con- 
 quered, was mingled with the language of the con- 
 queror ; and being altered and corrupted by the north- 
 ern hordes, served for the foundation of the language of 
 Italy, Spain, France, and the like. Latin corrupted by 
 the Heruli, the Goth, the Lombard, and others, went to 
 form Italian. Latin corrupted by the Goth, the Moor, 
 and others, went to form Spanish. Latin corrupted by 
 the Goth, the Frank, and others, went to form French. 
 Thus in Italian, Spanish, and French, the grand essen- 
 tial, the principal ingredient, the main body, is Latin. 
 Now Latin being the great fountain of several modem 
 European tongues, had some claim to be taken for the 
 learned language of Europe. N. B. I am aware that 
 some critics do not deem Latin to be the grand essen- 
 tial or main body of Italian and the like. They deem 
 Latin to be not the major part, but the minor one, judg- 
 ing Gothic or the like to be the main fountain or the 
 foundation. Without pretending to be a good authority 
 on the lingual point, I incline to the opinion that I have 
 given, namely, that Latin is the major part, and not the 
 minor one. Perhap, however, the two opposing opinions 
 may meet half-way, the Latin being taken for half of 
 
184 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 the Italian, being neither a superior nor an inferior foun- 
 tain to the Gothic, but an equal one. 
 
 I have omitted to mention Portuguese, though Portu- 
 guese, too, comes from the Latin. My reason for the 
 omission is, that Portuguese nearly resembles Spanish, 
 the two being dialects of one and the same tongue, 
 rather than two and different tongues. 
 
 An additional reason in favor of the Latin claim to 
 the high honor of being the literary language, is deriv- 
 ed from the part taken by the Latin in the formation of 
 the language of England. We Britons have drawn 
 largely from the Latin spring ; so largely as to make 
 Latin one of the two main fountains, the second original 
 of our language ; the two great originals of our noble 
 tongue being Saxon and Latin. Two grand political 
 events tended jointly to make the Latin contribute 
 abundantly toward the composition of the English. 1st. 
 The Roman conquest. The Romans, however, appear 
 not to have been able to make their language take root 
 in our isle so widely and deeply as in Hispania and Gaul ; 
 therefore the retirement of the Roman legions was fol- 
 lowed by the departure, politically, nationally, generally, 
 of the Roman language. 2nd. The French conquest 
 under William of Normandy. This great event brought 
 the Latin to our shore a second time, though in a man- 
 ner circuitous, indirect, or mediate. Now Latin being 
 perhap the second original of our tongue, French maybe 
 is the third. It follows that the first, second, and third 
 fountain of our fine language, taken in the order of im- 
 portance or quantity, are, maybe, Saxon, Latin, French. 
 
 Nations, that in forming their own tongue, borrowed 
 from the Latin because it had been taken as the learned 
 language, might, in like manner, borrow from the Greek, 
 had Greek been taken as the language of the learned 
 public. Therefore borrowing from the Latin merely be- 
 cause it had been taken as the tongue of the learned, is 
 
TRANSUB5TANTIATI0N. 185 
 
 no natural or original reason in favor of the claim of the 
 Latin to be so taken ] for if the Greek had been taken 
 instead, Greek would be, so far, the lingual bank whence 
 Ave should borrow. Whatever tongue is taken as the 
 learned one, becomes hereby a fountain wherefrom other 
 tongues draw. 
 
 I am wandering, however, from Popery, and am be- 
 ginning to meddle with matters that lie somewhat aloof 
 from my proper and natural path of mental exertion. 
 Therefore I quit the consideration of lingual affairs, 
 leaving them to the discussion and decision of a Crich- 
 ton, a Bentley, a Selden, and other names of like renown. 
 
 SECTION VII. 
 
 TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 
 
 Subsection I. We have here a huge and overgrown 
 monster, a mere bulk of deformity in the eye of reason. 
 Papal folk pretend that, in the Lord's Supper, the bread 
 and wine are really and truly changed, by the act of 
 consecration, into the flesh and blood, the human body 
 of Jesus Christ ! Reasonable and Scriptural reader, do 
 I commit a wrong in calling the doctrine a monster ! 
 Hear a learned and leading cardinal. Drelincourt re- 
 lates that cardinal Perron, being asked by some of his 
 friends, in his last sickness, what he thought of Tran- 
 substantiation, replied, ff It is a Monster." 
 
 I opine that papites hardly mean that the bread and 
 wine are turned, in consecration, not only into our 
 Lord's Body, but even into His Body, Soul, and Divi- 
 nity ! I take their theory to be, that the bread and wine 
 
186 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 become converted into the mere body, and by the con- 
 version, become peculiarly joined to the soul and divi- 
 nity. As I understood their incredible whim, the soul 
 and divinity become present in the eucharist, not be- 
 cause they are made from the bread and wine, but be- 
 cause they are inseparably connected with the body 
 that is made therefrom. 
 
 According to popery, the Soul of our Lord, in the 
 eucharist, is present to the body, there being both body 
 and soul. In holding the soul to be present, papites are 
 right on several accounts, whereof I will mention two. 
 1st. The body and soul ought to be together. Where 
 should the body be, but about and around the soul ] 
 And where should the soul be, but in the body 1 The 
 body and soul are proper and natural companions. 2d. 
 Any bread and wine body does not become a body of 
 our Lord, without or afore a junction to his soul, a 
 junction made after consecration. Without being then 
 joined to his soul, the body is not properly his body. A 
 number of particles of matter, however put together, 
 however framed and figured, that had never been joined 
 to my soul, could not well be called my body. Whatever 
 the shape or figure, the body can hardly be termed my 
 body till it is joined to my soul. A set of material par- 
 ticles do not rightly constitute a body of any one, be- 
 cause of a mere special arrangement or organization, 
 for there ought to be a connection with the soul or 
 mind. It follows that any given bread and wine that 
 have never been our Lord's body, cannot well become 
 so, without becoming formally and finally joined to his 
 soul. Therefore in order that the sacramental elements 
 may become a proper body of our Lord, his soul must be 
 there, and be peculiarly joined to them after consecra- 
 tion. The bread and wine being turned not into the old 
 body of our Lord, but into a new body, the soul must 
 become newly present to it, ere it can become his body 
 
 
TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 187 
 
 properly and fully. N. B. I here presume that the bo- 
 dies of our Lord are different bodies, and not the same 
 body ; and that, at the time of consecration, they have 
 not been joined to the soul. The point will be proved 
 in Subsection II, Argument third. 
 
 According to popery, the Divinity of our Lord, in 
 the eucharist, is present to the body and soul, there 
 being body, soul, and divinity. 
 
 Subsection II. In opposition to the extravagant, pue- 
 rile, barbarian conceit, the preposterous and absurd 
 vagary of Transubstantiation, I offer the following 
 eighteen arguments. 
 
 Argument first. The doctrine is opposed to every one 
 of the five senses; not to one or two only, but to all. 
 It is opposite and contradictory to seeing, feeling, tast- 
 ing, smelling, hearing ; is at irreconcilable enmity with 
 eyes, hands, palate, nose, ears. Moreover, it has oppo- 
 sed and contradicted the senses not only once, or 
 twice, or few times, but millions, billions, trillions of 
 times, even during the very long term of eighteen hun- 
 dred years, and throughout the whole extent of the 
 christian world, every when and everywhere , or not 
 merely of A, B, or C, or of one man, woman, or child, 
 but of the whole alphabet, or of every man, woman, and 
 child who have been connected with the eucharist. 
 The doctrine has contravened the five senses in all 
 christian time, and in all Christendom ; or in other 
 words, of all people concerned. Heaven help one to 
 escape from the doctrinal monster. Had we no eye to 
 see, no hand to feel, no mouth to taste, no nose to 
 smell, no ear to hear, I know not what reception we 
 might give to transubstantiation ! but having the five 
 senses all complete, we are bound either to disallow the 
 hideous papal phantasma, or to throw aside the common 
 sense, hurling rationality to Eolus and the wind. If the 
 five senses deceive and mislead in one case, they de- 
 
188 rOPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 serve no credit in any other case ; if they tell one that 
 flesh and blood are bread and wine, they are liars, im- 
 postors, and knaves, and merit no belief in their testi- 
 mony. Behold us, then, at open war with our five sen- 
 ses, our five natural guides, our five leaders in relation 
 to external things, to the material world without and 
 around ! What are we then to do 1 I will tell you, if 
 you will tell me what a ship is to do in the open ocean, 
 without sail, ballast, helm, compass, sun, moon, or star. 
 All hail to the happy day of scepticism, Pyrrhonism, 
 universal doubt ! All hail to Berkeley who would have 
 no matter, and to Hume who would have no mind; to 
 the Idealism of the former, and to the Impressionism of 
 the latter!* All hail to ignorance, to folly, to chaos, to 
 confusion ! Moreover, all thank to the pope and priest- 
 hood of Rome, for by them we learn that we need not 
 believe the evidence of our senses when they give un- 
 favorable testimony. Do a man's senses tell him that 
 he is exposed, on an open down and in a dark night, to 
 cold, and wind, and rain X Let him instanter become a 
 papite, and lo, he may instanter find himself laid in a 
 warm bed, snugly wrapped in pillow, sheet, and quilt ! 
 Man, tell thy senses they are fools or false reporters. 
 Is a poor child crying through nakedness and hunger 1 
 Popery will say that the back is well clad, and the belly 
 well crammed. Many think, according to the senses, the 
 fallacious five, that they live on poor fare; while, ac- 
 cording to papal wisdom, they may be faring sumptu- 
 ously every day. A poor Hibernian's palate says the 
 dinner is potatoes, a priest will tell him 'tis a rich plum 
 pudding. A miserable starveling using all the five sen- 
 ses, the false five, can find nothing on the table but 
 
 * I remark, in passing, that I am an enemy to the peculiar meta- 
 physical theory of both metaphysicians here named, of the bright 
 and benevolent soul of Berkeley, and of the dark and dire spirit of 
 Hume. 
 
TRANSUE8TANTIATI0N. 189 
 
 sorry soupe maigre; the pope can tell him that he is 
 really feasting and luxuriating on a fat sirloin. But 
 how knows the priest better than the Irishman] and 
 how is the pope wiser than the starveling ? Their re- 
 verend selves are hand in hand, and cheek by jole 
 with infallibility ! Wonderful arrangement of the papal 
 kirk ! She takes away the five senses, and gives, in re- 
 turn, infallibility. Admirable casuistry ! happy compen- 
 sation ! beautiful exchange ! 
 
 -Exchange 
 
 Is held no robbery. 
 
 Unknown. 
 
 I deem it right to remark that our blessed Lord plainly 
 and directly taught men to rely on the certainty of sense, 
 to depend on the testimony of sight, feeling and the 
 like, and thereby condemned, indirectly, and consequen- 
 tially, the monster transubstantiation which requires 
 men to reject the testimony of sense as an uncertain or 
 deceptive thing. "Behold my hands and my feet, that 
 it is I myself: handle me and see ; for a spirit hath not 
 flesh and bones, as ye see me have." Luke, 24:39. 
 Now only submit the doctrine of Transubstantiation to 
 our Lord's own test : we ask no more. 
 
 Argument second. According to transubstantiation, 
 Christ's one body is at once in many places, in ten, or in 
 a million, or in ten million ! or else he has at once many 
 bodies, ten, or a million, or ten million ! For accord- 
 ing to the consummate piece of foolery, his human na- 
 ture can be, at one and same time, in every nation, 
 province, county, hundred, parish, town, and village upon 
 the globe ; as in all the places can be a priest perform- 
 ing, at one and same time, the miracle of changing 
 bread and wine into flesh and blood. Oh egregious igno- 
 rance ! Oh exquisite folly ! 
 
 Argument third. According to the gross and stupid 
 
190 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 scheme, our Lord's one body has been made, and then 
 destroyed, eaten and drunk, millions or billions of times, 
 and in many places at one time ! or else he has had 
 millions, or billions, or trillions of bodies made, and then 
 destroyed, eaten and drunk! The Eucharist has been 
 performed millions or billions of times, and in many 
 places at one time, or in one, few, or many places at 
 every time, since the christian era ; and at every time, 
 the same body of our Saviour, in one, few, or many pla- 
 ces, or else one, few, or many new bodies of him, have 
 been made, and then destroyed, eaten and drunk ! 
 
 I here presume that, if one body be not held sufficient 
 for all cases, it is not held so for more than one case ; 
 and therefore that a separate body is found for every 
 separate case, whether it be place or time, one body not 
 serving either for two places or for two times. Possibly 
 however a papal wiseacre may hold that, though differ- 
 ent places require different bodies, different times re- 
 quire but one body, one body sufficing for only one 
 place, but for all times. Whatever (or whether) mode 
 of folly be held, the scope, marrow, and spirit of the 
 argument remain in full power. 
 
 Our Lord has had millions, or billions, or trillions of 
 bodies made, and then destroyed, eaten and drunk ! 
 The bodies must all be different, every host being 
 different from every other, and from the Son of Mary, 
 from him who was born of the virgin, and who died 
 on the cross, and who is now glorified at the right 
 hand of Jehovah. That the bodies are different bodies, 
 and not the same body, will be clear from the following 
 two reasons. 1st. One and same body cannot be in 
 two or more places, at one and same time. 2nd. The 
 bodies are made of different particles of matter, or from 
 different portions of bread and wine. The particles of 
 matter constituting any eucharistal bread and wine, are 
 different from the particles constituting any other; and 
 
 
 
TRAtfSTTBSTANTIATION. 191 
 
 the two sets of particles being different, and not same, 
 the two breads and two wines are different, and not 
 same. Therefore the host or body made of one set of 
 particles, or one bread and wine, is different from the 
 host or body made of another set of particles, or 
 another bread and wine. And any host or body differs 
 radically both from every other host or body, and from 
 the Son of the Virgin Mary. A host or bread and wine 
 body, not being born of Mary, cannot be her son. Diffe- 
 rent cannot be same, therefore many different bodies 
 cannot be one and same body. 
 
 Argument fourth. At the supper directly afore the 
 crucifixion, Jesus Christ had two bodies; one that was 
 perceptible and plain to the senses of the apostles, and 
 wherein his human soul was lodged, and that he had 
 had from his birth, and another that he held in his 
 hand, between his thumb and forefinger perhap ! The 
 second body of his, he ate and drank ! that is, he ate 
 and drank his own body ! and killed himself ! though 
 remaining alive ! Either he killed himself, or he ate 
 and drank both his body and his soul ! Indeed, accord- 
 ing to papal orthodoxy, our Lord ate and drank his 
 body, his soul, and his Divinity ! Moreover, our Saviour 
 with his own hands, gave away himself, body, soul, and 
 divinity, to every one of his disciples, to be eaten and 
 drunk! and yet kept himself to himself! Oh con- 
 temptible, monstrous, and abominable absurdity and 
 profanity ! 
 
 Argument fifth. If the bread and wine be really flesh 
 and blood, the flesh and blood are often asunder, many 
 feet or yards apart, one being on a plate, and the other 
 in a cup ! Indeed the two parts of the live body, the 
 flesh and blood, can be in two rooms, or in two build- 
 ings, or even half a mile one from the other! The 
 same living body can be partly here, and partly there ; 
 the flesh and blood of one and same living man being, 
 
192 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 at one and same moment, one in St. Paul's and the 
 other in Westminster Abbey ! The body can be divi- 
 ded into two parts, the solid and the fluid, and the solid 
 can be carried to Dublin, while the fluid is left in Lon- 
 don, and yet the man continue alive and well! Seven 
 Wonders of the world, hide your diminished heads ! 
 for ye are wonders no longer ! 
 
 Argument sixth. To avoid many and great objec- 
 tions, papal folk affirm that, in offering Christ, the flesh 
 is not broken or torn, and the blood is not spilled. 
 They give the following reason : " There is whole and 
 entire Christ under the element of bread, and under 
 every particle of it ; and under the element of wine, 
 and under every drop of it." According to my view of 
 the reason they give, the body of Christ is not divided, 
 broken, spilled by the dividing, breaking, spilling of the 
 bread and wine, because every particle of one, and 
 every drop of the other, either is or becomes separate- 
 ly a whole and entire Christ ! Now on their affirmation 
 and reason taken together, I proceed to make two 
 comments. 
 
 Comment 1st. There are, sooner or latter, as many 
 whole Christs as there are particles of bread and drops 
 of wine. A man of plain wit would deem two whole 
 Christs, one for the bread and one for the wine, to be 
 one too many. But he would be a mere bungler or ig- 
 naro, if not a heretic ; for there is a whole and entire 
 Christ for every particle of bread, and for every drop of 
 wine ! Now supposing the bread to be divided into one 
 thousand particles, and the wine into one thousand 
 drops, we shall have not only one whole and entire 
 Christ, but exactly 2000 ! And by more dividing and 
 subdividing, we may have more Christs — ad infantum ! 
 Papites may not like my inference about the plurality 
 and multitude of Christs ; but how will they prove it 
 illogical, or unfairly drawn 1 
 
TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 193 
 
 Comment 2d. Is the plurality of Christs afore the 
 division of the bread and wine, or only after 1 If afore, 
 transubstantiation made not only one Christ, but perhap 
 two thousand, or double, or treble the number, or even 
 many more. If not afore, but only after, we have four 
 wonders. 1st. A far smaller miracle was done by tran- 
 substantiating, than is done by dividing ; the former 
 having made but one Christ, and the latter making an 
 innumerable number. 2d. Moreover, the bread and 
 wine may be divided, broken, spilled by a mere heretic 
 or iniidel, and with a mere jerk of the hand or blow 
 of the foot ; and therefore a heretic or infidel, with a 
 jerk or blow, may make a multitude of Christs ! 3d. 
 The many or after-Christs are made, not from the bread 
 and wine, but from the one original Christ. The bread 
 and wine having been made, by transubstantiation, into 
 one Christ, the many subsequent Christs cannot be 
 made from them, but must be made from that Christ 
 whereinto they had been made. 4th. Either the one 
 primitive Christ was unmade or destroyed in the making 
 of the many derivative ones, or he remains with them, 
 he and they existing together or co-existing. Assuming 
 the former, we have the destruction of Christ, or of a 
 Christ ! Assuming the latter, we find that the one 
 primal Christ, though continuing one, has become, by 
 division, many, perhap one million, being at once one 
 whole and entire Christ, and yet one million whole and 
 entire Christs ! And the whole being equal to the parts, 
 the one primitive Christ ought to be equal to the one 
 million derivative ones ! 
 
 Argument seventh. If the monster doctrine be true," 
 every papal priest often works a miracle, namely, that 
 of turning bread and wine into flesh and blood. Every 
 papal priest, however ignorant and stupid, however 
 wicked and immoral, however covered with crime, 
 guilt, and infamy, however remote and far from holi- 
 
 9 
 
194* POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 ness and God, every such man is a real miracle-monger, 
 and may perform a miracle when and where he likes, 
 having a kind of carte blanche from God in his pocket 
 to make a Lord Jesus Christ ! 
 
 Argument eighth. A bread and wine man, or rather 
 a bread and wine something, not being born of a woman, 
 is nonhuman, — not of woman born, not properly of hu- 
 mankind. To be born of woman is a characteristic of 
 the whole human family, excepting him who is imagined 
 to be made from bread and wine ; therefore he is quite 
 different from the whole human family, or is nonhuman. 
 N. B. Adam and Eve were unavoidable exceptions to 
 the rule of being born of woman. Being the first man 
 and woman, the two human originals, the primal pair, 
 they could not possibly come into the world in the ordi- 
 nary way of natural birth ; therefore they came from 
 the creative hand of Jehovah, directly and immediately. 
 
 The primary couple excepted, whoever comes not 
 from or through Eve or her female posterity, is to be 
 deemed nonnatural and nonhuman, as coming in a way 
 not necessary, not required by nature, and not accord- 
 ing to the law of human propagation. 
 
 Argument ninth. Papites, according to the nonsen- 
 sical notion, the ridiculous whim of Transubstantiation, 
 are man-eaters, cannibals, anthropophagi ; for they feed 
 on human body, eat and drink human flesh and blood! 
 
 Argument tenth. The Soul. Firstly. In the fore- 
 going nine arguments we have examined transubstan- 
 tiation in relation to the body of our Lord ; we have 
 now to view the doctrine in relation to the soul. And 
 'having found absurdity where we have gone, we may 
 count upon finding it where we have to go. 
 
 Folly upon folly piled 
 Wisdom being thrown aside. 
 
TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 195 
 
 1st. According to argument first, there is the soul 
 of our Lord, where our five senses can find nothing but 
 bread and wine. 
 
 2d. According to argument second, our Lord's one 
 soul is at once in many places, in ten, or in a million, 
 or in ten million ! or else he has at once many souls, 
 ten, or a million, or ten million ! 
 
 3d. According to argument third, our Lord's one 
 soul has left his body millions or billions of times, and 
 in many places at one time ! or else he has had mil- 
 lions, or billions, or trillions of souls leaving his body ! 
 Either the soul or souls have left the body, or it or 
 they have been eaten and drunk with the body ! body 
 and soul having been eaten and drunk together ! Jesus 
 Christ having been eaten and drunk alive! If the soul 
 leave the body, our Lord is killed or put to death, the 
 soul being disjoined from the body, and driven away to 
 heaven, or to another body of bread and wine. More- 
 over, he is killed by his friends, his friends and follow- 
 ers being his foes, and inflicting on him the pain of 
 death, or murdering him ! Every priest is a kind of 
 Pilate, and christian priesthood and people resemble 
 the crucifying Jews and Romans ! If the soul leave not 
 the body, they are eaten and drunk together ! our Lord 
 being swallowed up alive ! 
 
 4th. According to argument fourth, at the supper 
 directly afore the crucifixion, Jesus Christ had two 
 souls, or one soul in two bodies! 
 
 5th. According to argument fifth, we shall have no 
 little trouble in finding the soul. Where shall we seek 
 it 1 Is the soul on the plate, with the bread or flesh % 
 or is it in the cup, with the wine or blood \ or is it with 
 neither, but half way between both ! Is the soul in St. 
 Paul's, in Westminster Abbey, or at Temple Bar 1 in 
 Dublin, in London, or swimming about in the inter- 
 vening channel! Descartes thought to find the soul 
 
196 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 snugly sitting on the Pineal gland. Poor Descartes! 
 he did not learn theology at Rome. 
 
 6th. According to argument sixth, the souls of our 
 Lord may be a very great multitude ! Remember, there 
 is a soul of Christ with every body of him, body and 
 soul being together. If, therefore, by dividing the bread 
 and wine, a priest, or a heretic, or an infidel, or even a 
 devil make 2000 particles and drops together, he makes 
 or brings, or shows that the transubstantiater had made 
 or brought 2000 souls of Christ ! And the more crumb- 
 ling of bread, and the more spilling of wine, the more 
 souls of our Lord ! ! 
 
 7th. According to argument seventh, the papal priest- 
 hood, however ignorant and vicious, may make the soul 
 of our Lord go where and when they like. Having a 
 kind of carte blanche from God in their pocket to make 
 a Lord Jesus Christ ! they can draw his soul to any 
 papal spot on the globe, in any day of the year, order- 
 ing it here or there, now or then, having the command 
 of its place and time. 
 
 8th. According to argument eighth, the soul of our 
 Lord, being joined to a nonhuman body, is a nonhuman 
 soul. 
 
 9th. According to argument ninth, the soul of our 
 Lord is joined to a body that is under the power of man- 
 eaters, cannibals, anthropophagi. 
 
 Secondly. According to popery, our Lord does not 
 die when eaten and drunk. Then he is eaten and drunk 
 alive ! body and soul being eaten and drunk or swal- 
 lowed together I body and soul going into the stomach 
 and gastric juice ! If Jesus Christ do not die when 
 taken by the communicant in the eucharist, the body 
 and soul continue together and go together, the body 
 being inseparably accompanied by the soul ; and the 
 former being eaten and drunk, so is the latter, and there- 
 fore so is the whole living man. Jesus Christ is eaten 
 
TRAN SUBSTANTIATION. 197 
 
 and drunk alive, or in his whole and entire humanity, 
 or body and soul ! 
 
 Some may affirm that the body and soul of our Lord 
 go not into our body, but into our soul. I will give two 
 replies. 1st. Our Lord's body and soul go into our 
 body or stomach. It is a matter of fact that the bread 
 and wine, the apparent bread and wine, (the papally pre- 
 tended real body of Christ,) go into the body or stomach 
 of the communicant. This cannot be denied, without 
 denying evidence and truth. Therefore the soul of 
 Christ, inseparably accompanying his body, must go 
 there too. 2nd. The other theory, namely, that the bo- 
 dy and soul of our Lord go into our soul, is equally or 
 even more absurd. How can his soul go into our soul] 
 and even if it could, how, — in the name of common rea- 
 son, how can his body go into our soul ] That a soul 
 can enter a body, we know ; but that a body can enter a 
 soul, is far, very far beyond and above our knowledge. 
 The two theories are greatly absurd, namely, that our 
 Lord^s body and soul go into our body, and that they 
 go into our soul. Either way is folly. 
 
 We have seen in argument eighth, and in the former 
 part of the present argument, that a eucharistal Jesus 
 Christ has a nonhuman body and a nonhuman soul. We 
 see here that he does not die, but that he is eaten 
 and drunk alive. Moreover, we are told that he does 
 not suffer, that he is free from pain, being impassible. 
 What more 1 
 
 Argument eleventh. The Divinity. Firstly. I shall 
 write little on this argument, the Divinity being too sa- 
 cred and awful a theme to be brought forward in debate, 
 without unavoidable necessity. " Thou shalt not take 
 the name of the Lord thy God in vain." 
 
 According to argument first, there is the Divinity of 
 our Lord, where our five senses can find nothing but 
 bread and wine. 
 
198 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 If the reader like, he may follow the order of argu- 
 ment tenth or last, and learn how far the method ap- 
 plied there to the soul is appliable here to the Divinity. 
 
 Secondly. According to popery, our Lord does not 
 die when eaten and drunk. Then he is eaten and drunk 
 alive ! body, soul, and divinity being eaten and drunk or 
 swallowed together ! body, soul, and divinity going into 
 the stomach and gastric juice ! But how can our Lord 
 whole and entire, his body, soul, and divinity, go into 
 our body or stomach % Can his whole and entire Divi- 
 nity be contained in our finite and little body % No. 
 
 Some may affirm that the body, soul, and divinity of 
 our Lord go not into our body, but into our soul. 1st. 
 They go into our body or stomach. 2nd. That they go 
 into our soul is equally or even more absurd. How can 
 our Lord whole and entire, his body, soul and divinity, 
 go into our soul 1 Can his whole and entire Divinity be 
 contained in our finite and little soul 1 No. See argu- 
 ment tenth or last. 
 
 Thirdly. I exclaim, in passing, what an amazing ex- 
 ample of folly and profanity do we find in the monster 
 transubstantiation ! what a frightful compound of absur- 
 dity and blasphemy ! 
 
 •Argument twelfth. Firstly. The monster doctrine 
 cannot be received, because it leads to the ruin of ra- 
 tional Christianity, because it goes indirectly to under- 
 mine and destroy the logical foundation of the Bible. 
 For it is a weighty and awful truth, that more evidence 
 exists against transubstantiation than for Christianity 5 
 that stronger argument disproves the former than proves 
 the latter. Therefore sooner than believe that enorm 
 crudity, we are compelled, by reason and logic, to dis- 
 believe the Bible. The grand, the leading argument for 
 Christianity, is probably the argument from history ; and 
 the grand, the leading argument against transubstantia- 
 tion, is perhap the one derived from the opposition of 
 
TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 199 
 
 the five senses. Now the historical argument is less 
 powerful and conclusive than the other ; the testimony 
 of historians being less satisfactory than the quintuple 
 testimony of our senses, our five reporting friends. 
 Christianity, I know, does not depend on the evidence 
 of history alone, but has ample collateral proof; and 
 transubstantiation is not opposed by the evidential power 
 of the five senses exclusively, but meets the hostile ar- 
 ray of many a concurrent argument. And the collateral 
 proofs for the former are less convincing and effective 
 than the concurrent arguments against the latter. There- 
 fore the combined proof for the entire christian scheme 
 is inferior to the combined proof against the huge papal 
 fiction. Moreover, transubstantiation has no proper evi- 
 dence of its own, has no real proof independently on 
 Christianity ; but is strong in her sole and exclusive 
 strength, depending wholly on her evidential power, 
 and living no longer than she lives herself. If Chris- 
 tianity fall and die, transubstantiation falls and dies with 
 her. It follows that transubstantiation, having no evi- 
 dence of its own, and being opposed by evidence greater 
 than what upholds Christianity, brings her to destruc- 
 tion, bowing her to the earth, and crushing her to death 
 by its own dead weight. Thus it appears that, if the un- 
 wise and unholy papal league between Christianity and 
 transubstantiation be not dissolved ; if the latter be not 
 disjoined from the former, and thrown aside as an evil 
 thing; i[ we be driven to the bitter and dreadful alter- 
 native either of admitting a doctrine that overturns rea- 
 son and common sense, plucking them up by the root, or 
 of rejecting Christianity in whole, as a system built on 
 sand, and wrongly pretending to come from God ; we 
 are bound to reject her. The doctrine being opposed by 
 greater proof than what upholds the christian scheme, 
 and relying wholly on the scheme for support, we are 
 bound, logically bound rather to reject the christian 
 
200 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 scheme, than to admit the monster doctrine. The evi- 
 dence for Christianity, though great, manifold, mighty, 
 wonderful, is unable to countervail the greater evidence 
 against transubstantiation ; but being the lighter, kicks 
 the beam ; being the weaker, flies from the face of its 
 opponent. So Homer makes Hector, the great, heroic, 
 and noble defender of Troy, fly from the favored Achilles. 
 
 The mighty fled, by greater might pursued. 
 
 Iliad. 
 
 Secondly. The kirk of Rome presumes to derive tran- 
 substantiation from Christianity ; pretends to find the 
 monster hid in a kind of cave formed of the literal 
 meaning of some very few passages of the New Testa- 
 ment. Thus, according to papal presumption and folly, 
 Christianity and transubstantiation are related to each 
 other as parent and child, mother and son. The son 
 however reminds one of some deformed or misshapen 
 monster who, in coming into the world, causes the death 
 of his mother, and then dies himself through want of 
 maternal nourishment and care. Transubstantiation is a 
 worse son than Death. Death did nofmurder his mo- 
 ther Sin, but only subjected her to rape ; whereas tran- 
 substantiation actually murders his mother Christianity, 
 though in murdering her, he murders himself, being 
 guilty at once of matricide and suicide. Now matricide 
 and suicide being worse than rape, the papal son is worse 
 than the Miltonian. — Par. Lost, Book II. Transubstan- 
 tiation christians are, like Samson, self-destroyers; for 
 by adopting transubstantiation, they occasion the de- 
 struction of Christianity, and therefore destroy them- 
 selves as christians. They are not, however, like Sam- 
 son, destroyers of their enemies. Samson, in killing 
 himself, took care to kill the Philistines. But they, in 
 killing their own christian character, do not kill their 
 foes, namely, sin, the devil, sorrow and death \ on the 
 
TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 201 
 
 contrary, they enable their four dire foes to live and 
 prosper more actively and vigorously than afore. These 
 people differ from the Hebrew Hercules (who possibly 
 was the real and original Hercules) in another point, 
 namely, in killing one of their best friends, — Reason. 
 Christianity and Reason are sisters, allies, partners, and 
 stand or fall together. Therefore transubstantiators, 
 in bringing death to Christianity, take away life from 
 Reason. Oh lunacy, insanity, madness! What Bedlam 
 in the wide world contains madmen madder than the 
 mad transubstantiationite 1 Oh papal errant, how great 
 is your error! how amazing your credulity, how ridicu- 
 lous your creed ! 
 
 Argument thirteenth. Allowing transubstantiation, 
 not only we cannot believe, but even they who lived 
 1800 years ago, and were living witnesses of the mira- 
 cles, could not fully believe Christianity, as they could 
 not believe the miracles. The proof against transub- 
 stantiation, is equal or superior to the proof for the 
 miracles ; therefore if men can believe the former, they 
 can disbelieve the latter ; if they can deem the former 
 to be true, they can deem the latter to be false- Mira- 
 cles appeal to the senses, and presuppose their certain- 
 ty. If we believe the miracles, we must disbelieve 
 transubstantiation ; if we believe it, we must disbe- 
 lieve them. We cannot logically believe the two to- 
 gether. With transubstantiation, no miracles ; and 
 without miracles, where would be the main external 
 evidence of Christianity \ Transubstantiation, by over- 
 turning the testimony of sense, overturns the evidence 
 of miracles for the truth of Christianity, and hereby 
 deprives her of her grand external proof and prop. 
 
 V Is it reasonable to imagine that God should make 
 that a part of the christian religion, which shakes the 
 main external evidence and confirmation of the whole 1 
 I mean the miracles which were wrought by our Sa- 
 
 9* 
 
202 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 viour and his apostles, the assurance whereof did at 
 first depend upon the certainty of sense. For if the 
 senses of those who say they saw them were deceived, 
 then there might be no miracles wrought ; and conse- 
 quently it may justly be doubted whether that kind of 
 confirmation which God hath given to the christian re- 
 ligion would be strong enough to prove it, supposing 
 Transubstantiation to be a part of it : because every man 
 hath as great evidence that Transubstantiation is false, as 
 he hath that the christian religion is true. Suppose then 
 Transubstantiation to be part of the christian doctrine, it 
 must have the same confirmation as the whole, and that 
 is miracles : but of all doctrines in the world, it is pe- 
 culiarly incapable of being proved by a miracle. For if a 
 miracle were wrought for the proof of it, the very same 
 assurance which any man hath of the truth of the 
 miracle, he hath of the falsehood of the doctrine, that 
 is, the clear evidence of his senses. For that there 
 is a miracle wrought to prove, " that what he sees in 
 the sacrament is not bread .but the body of Christ," 
 there is only the evidence of sense ; and there is the 
 very same evidence to prove, " that what he sees in 
 the sacrament is not the body of Christ, but bread." 
 So that here would arise a new controversy, whether a 
 man should rather believe his senses giving testimony 
 against the doctrine of Transubstantiation, or bearing wit- 
 ness to a miracle wrought to confirm that doctrine ; there 
 being the very same evidence against the truth of the doc- 
 trine which there is for the truth of the miracle ; and then 
 the argument for Transubstantiation, and the objection 
 against it, would just balance one another ; and con- 
 sequently Transubstantiation is not to be proved by a 
 miracle, because that would be to prove to a man by 
 something that he sees, that he doth not see what he 
 sees, And if there were no other evidence that Tran- 
 substantiation is no part of the christian doctrine, this 
 
TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 203 
 
 would be sufficient, that what proves the one, doth as 
 much overthrow the other ; and that miracles which are 
 certainly the best and highest external proof of Christi- 
 anity, are the worst proof in the world of Transubstan- 
 tiation, unless a man can renounce his senses at the 
 same time that he relies upon them. For a man cannot 
 believe a miracle without relying upon sense, nor Tran- 
 substantiation without renouncing it. So that never 
 were any two things so ill coupled together as the doc- 
 trine of Christianity and that of Transubstantiation, 
 because they draw several ways, and are ready to 
 strangle one another : for the main evidence of the 
 christian doctrine, which is miracles, is resolved into 
 the certainty of sense, but this evidence is clear and 
 point-blank against Transubstantiation." See Tillot- 
 son. Sermon 26. 
 
 Argument fourteenth. Even if Transubstantiation 
 were true, it would be incapable of proof in any known 
 way of proving, or in other words, it could not well 
 be shown to be a truth. 
 
 Firstly. The passages in the New Testament, brought 
 to prove the doctrine, are known to be there by the 
 sense of seeing only ; while the doctrine itself is oppo- 
 sed by every sense. Supposing one sense to tell that 
 a pro-transubstantiation passage is in the Bible ; all the 
 five senses tell that the doctrine is untrue. Whether 
 ought to carry the day, the one or the five 1 Undoubt- 
 edly the five. 
 
 Secondly. Indeed if we heard an apostle or even an 
 ancrel affirm the doctrine to be true, we should know 
 its truth by the sense of hearing only \ while we should 
 know its falsity by all the five, five senses opposing one. 
 
 Thirdly. A miracle would not prove the monster 
 doctrine. The senses that would prove the miracle, 
 would disprove the doctrine ; for if they be trustworthy, 
 and the miracle true, the doctrine must be erroneous, 
 
204 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 opposing them. The certainty of sense being supposed, 
 we believe the miracle ; but the certainty of sense 
 being supposed; we disbelieve the doctrine. See argu- 
 ment thirteenth or last. 
 
 Argument fifteenth. We have seen enow of follies 
 physical and metaphysical. We go on to notice a folly 
 theological. For while the human nature of our Lord 
 is doing upon earth the wonders mentioned in several 
 of the foregoing arguments, it is according to Scrip- 
 ture, not on earth at all, but really and truly in heaven, 
 at the right hand of God. "Whom the heaven must 
 receive until the times of restitution of all things. Acts, 
 3 : 21. But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up 
 steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and 
 Jesus standing on the right hand of God. Acts, 7:55. 
 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, 
 for ever sat down on the right hand of God." Heb. 10 : 12. 
 
 Argument sixteenth. Transubstantiation is opposed 
 to our Lord's own account of the nature and design of 
 the eucharist. According to him, the best explainer of 
 his own institution, it was ordained for the purpose of 
 solemn commemoration. " This do in remembrance of 
 me. For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this 
 cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come." Luke, 
 22:19. 1 Cor. 11:24,25,26. From the foregoing, it 
 appears that, in the eucharistal rite, we are to comme- 
 morate our Lord, or remember him. But how com- 
 memorate him, if he be then there 1 if he be then 
 present whole and entire \ We commemorate an ab- 
 sent person, but not a present one; therefore if Jesus 
 Christ whole and entire, body, soul, and divinity, be 
 present in the eucharist, commemoration has no room. 
 Commmemorate our Lord ! How can we 1 We are 
 with him; we handle him ; yea, we eat and drink him ! 
 It is idle to talk of remembering our Lord, if he be 
 wholly and entirely present, present corporally, present 
 
TRANS INSTANTIATION. 205 
 
 mentally, and present divinely, or present in body, soul, 
 and divinity. 
 
 Argument seventeenth. I propound a query to the 
 holders of transubstantiation. Are any of them ready 
 and willing to go before the Royal Society in London, 
 and there and then to eat and drink poisoned bread and 
 wine, after having changed the bread and wine, accord- 
 ing to their pretension, into flesh and blood % The bread 
 and wine shall be carefully chosen by the Royal So- 
 ciety, and be by them carefully, really, truly poisoned, 
 mingled with poison, mixed with arsenic, Prussic acid, 
 or some other real and effective poison, at the discre- 
 tion of the chymical members. The poison might be 
 sufficient to injure, to harm life ; but not enough to kill, 
 to take life away. The poisoning operation being per- 
 formed, let the transubstantiating marvel follow. Let 
 any papal priest, the pope's nuncio, or the pope himself, 
 go through the regular incantation and manipulation, 
 and perform the whole affair of miracle-making, of 
 turning a bit of bread and a drop of wine into the body 
 of a man, into human flesh and blood ! It would be 
 worth the pope's while to visit London for the purpose, 
 in order to convince the British protestant. Now surely 
 if transubstantiation would change the bread and wine, 
 it would change the poison ; if it would leave behind 
 no bready or farinaceous, and no winy or vinous, it 
 would leave behind no poisonous or venene particle of 
 matter. A real believer in the doctrine would believe 
 that the poison had shared the fate of the bread and 
 wine, that all three had gone one way, or had acquired a 
 new nature. Are transubstantiationites sincere 1 This 
 formal exhibition would try and prove their sincerity. 
 
 Argument eighteenth. Even according to papal folk 
 themselves, transubstantiation is conditional and uncer- 
 tain, being built on the slippery word if, or on at least 
 four conditions, any one, two, or three whereof, or even 
 
206 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 all four whereof may fail. We are told that there is 
 consecration, and therefore transubstantiation, if there 
 be four requisites, or if all be right in four things, — if 
 there be no defect in the priestly character, no defect in 
 the intention, no defect in the matter, no defect in the 
 form. But if there be a defect in any one of the four,- — 
 in the priestly character, or in the intention, or in the 
 matter, or in the form, there is no consecration, and 
 therefore no transubstantiation. A defect in priestly 
 character, intention, matter, or form, will confessedly 
 and avowedly render the consecration and transubstan- 
 tiation null and void. Now no man or woman alive 
 can tell that all the defects are avoided, or are absent ; 
 therefore no one, laic or cleric, can tell or know that 
 there are real consecration and real transubstantiation. 
 1st. Perhap the officiating priest is not a real priest, 
 has not the real priestly character. According to the 
 doctrine of Priestal Intention, * nobody on earth can be 
 certain that a supposed priest is a real one ; that he 
 was really ordaineS, really confirmed, or really bap- 
 tized, as we shall find when we come to that doc- 
 trine. He might be ordained, confirmed, baptized by 
 one who, through want of the right intention in a prior 
 priest, was not a real priest, or who had not the right 
 intention ; and therefore he might not be rightly and 
 really ordained, confirmed, baptized. He might be or- 
 dained, confirmed, baptized by a wrong man, or in a 
 wrong manner, the man or the manner, or both, being 
 defective ; and therefore his ordination, confirmation, 
 baptism, might be defective and null. Moreover, he 
 might not be rightly and really ordained on some other 
 ground beside the want of right intention in another. 
 
 * The very priestrulive and Jesuitical doctrine of Priestal Inten- 
 tion here referred to. will be fully developed in a following section, 
 the seventeenth. And the reader will find the reesoning here drawn 
 therefrom to be not at all overwrought. 
 
TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 207 
 
 His ordination might be defective and null through an 
 outward and visible defect or flaw therein, through a 
 failure perceptible externally, and knowable by other 
 men ; or through the similarly defective and null ordi- 
 nation of his ordainer. He might be ordained in a wrong 
 manner, or by a wrong man. 2nd. Perhap the priest, 
 even if a real one, has not the right intention, does not 
 intend to consecrate. 3rd. Perhap there is not the right 
 or due matter. 4th. Perhap there is not the right or due 
 form. Reader, here are four grounds for doubting. And 
 from the doubt, or more than doubt, as to priestly cha- 
 racter, intention, matter, or form, as to one or more, or 
 all four, transubstantiation is doubtful even to the mind 
 of the transubstantiator. 
 
 Subsection III. Article 1. The only argument brought 
 by the kirk of Rome to prove the horrible conceit of 
 transubstantiation, is the presumed literal meaning of 
 some few passages in the New Testament, where our 
 Lord speaks of bread being his body, and of wine being 
 his blood ; and of eating his flesh, and of drinking his 
 blood. Transubstantiation stands on the pretended lite- 
 ral meaning of perhap half a dozen passages, and has 
 no other leg to stand upon. 
 
 Article 2. Reply first. The following examples, how- 
 ever, taken from a very large number, clearly prove 
 that the literal meaning is not everywhere the real and 
 true meaning of the inspired penmen, amply show that 
 the verbal signification is not universally upheld by the 
 analogy of Scripture. The following specimens, few 
 selected from many, enable one to see that scriptural 
 analogy is not wholly opposed to the figurative mean- 
 ing, many passages being taken figuratively, typically, 
 or metaphorically even by transubstantiators themselves. 
 
 " This cup is the new testament in my blood." Luke, 
 2:20. 1 Cor. 11:25. How is a cup a testament ? In 
 John, 10, Christ calls himself the door; not some pieces 
 
 o 
 
208 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 of wood nailed together. He calls himself the good 
 shepherd ; not a man following a flock of sheep, with a 
 crook in his hand, and a dog at his heel. In John, 14*, 
 Christ calls himself the way y not a road for walking on 
 formed of stone and gravel. He calls himself the truth ; 
 not an assemblage of propositions. In John, 15, our 
 Lord calls himself the vine, and his father the husband- 
 man ; not a tree that bears grapes, and a man that 
 keeps a vineyard, a vine-dresser or an agricultor. In 
 Rev. 22:16, our Lord calls himself the morning star. 
 In Matt. 16 : 18, Christ calls the apostle a stone or piece 
 of rock. " Thou art Peter," that is, a stone or piece of 
 rock. But will any papite take the words literally 1 — 
 See Rev. 1 : 20, where the seven stars are called the 
 angels, and the seven candlesticks the seven churches. 
 See Matt. 13, where the figurative style is employed 
 over and over. In Psalm 18, God is called a rock, for- 
 tress, buckler, horn of salvation, high tower ; not a huge 
 lump of stone, not a kind of Pendennis castle, not a de- 
 fensive weapon buckled to the left arm, not a hard sub- 
 stance that grew on the head of a quadruped, not a high 
 building of stone, brick, and mortar. In Psalm 84, the 
 Lord God is called a sun and shield ; not an astrono- 
 mical luminary, the centre of a system of heavenly bo- 
 dies ; not a mere composition of metal and bull-hides, 
 to be held upon the arm in war. u Thy word is a lamp 
 to my feet, and a light to my path." Ps. 119 : 105. 
 
 Reply second. I go on to show that even transubstan- 
 tiators do not keep to the literal meaning. The papite, 
 as well as the protestant, is unable to take the eucha- 
 ristal words literally, and is compelled to explain them 
 in a figurative way. I quote the following, nearly and 
 substantially, from the Encyclopedia Britannica, article 
 Supper of the Lord. *' There is not, in the whole New 
 Testament, a single word or a single phrase that, if in- 
 terpreted literally, gives the slightest countenance to the 
 
TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 209 
 
 wonderful doctrine of transubstantiation. The reader 
 will remember that transubstantiation consists in a 
 change of the matter, imperceptible substance, substratum 
 of the bread and wine, into the matter, imperceptible sub- 
 stance, substratum of our Lord's flesh and blood ; for 
 even Eomanites allow that the form, appearance, sensi- 
 ble qualities, properties of the bread and wine, remain, 
 being, after consecration, either supported by the matter 
 of Christ's flesh and blood, or hung upon nothing. But 
 the phrase, This is my body, if taken in the literal sense, 
 cannot possible denote the consequence of such a 
 change as this ; for every person at all acquainted with 
 the Greek language, especially the language of the 
 Peripatetic school, knows that to o-upApw, my body, sig- 
 nify not the matter or substratum of my body divested 
 of its sensible qualities, but the body of me in its natu- 
 ral state, consisting of matter and qualities, or matter 
 and form united. Therefore, unless the sensible quali- 
 ties as well as the matter of the bread and wine, give 
 place to the sensible qualities as well as the matter of 
 our Saviour's body and blood, and unless he appear 
 glorified on the altar, as he appeared on the mount at 
 his transfiguration, the words my body, must be taken 
 figuratively. Had the apostles understood their Mas- 
 ter's words in the sense in which they are understood 
 by the church of Rome, they would have rendered 
 them, not — This is my body, but — This is the matter of 
 my body. In like manner, when John relates that Jesus 
 said; ' Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, 
 hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last 
 day,' had he understood his adorable Master to speak 
 of his flesh and blood in the eucharist, in the sense 
 in which they are taught to be there by the church 
 of Rome, he would have represented him as saying, 
 T Whoso eateth the matter of my flesh, and drinketh the 
 matter of my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise 
 him ud at the last day.' John, 6 : 54." 
 
210 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 SECTION VIII. 
 
 THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 
 
 Subsection I. The sacrifice of the Mass, or Christ 
 offered sacrificially for sin, appears now to claim our 
 grave and careful attention. Papal folk pretend that, in 
 the performing of the mass, the bread and wine are tran- 
 substantiated or turned into the flesh and blood, the real 
 body of our Lord ; and are then offered up to God as a 
 true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the sin of 
 quick and dead ! for people on earth, and souls in pur- 
 gatory ! They pretend that the bread and wine are made 
 into Christ's body ; and that his body, when made, is offer- 
 ed sacrificially for the sin of the world ! The bread and 
 wine being transubstantiated into a Jesus Christ or Host ! 
 are offered as an atonement or expiatory sacrifice for 
 sin ! Both operations are implied in the mass. What a 
 monster twofold scheme ! N. B. The Host rightly means 
 the consecrated bread or wafer and wine. Sometime it 
 means, perhap less correctly, the consecrated bread or 
 wafer alone. 
 
 According to popery, the soul of our Lord, in the 
 sacrifice of the mass, is present, being joined to the body, 
 there being both body and souL Firstly. See section 
 sixth or last, where I have given two reasons why the 
 soul of our Lord, in the eucharist, is present to the body. 
 The first reason holds good in the sacrifice of the mass, 
 if not the second. Secondly. Here I will give two other 
 reasons, both appliable to the mass sacrifice. 1st. The 
 mere body, mere inanimate matter, cannot either die or 
 suffer, being incapable either of death or of suffering, 
 two things required in a real and proper sacrifice. 2nd. 
 It could not be whole Christ offered up, if a part of him, 
 and the main or better part, were wanting. What kind of 
 
THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 211 
 
 Christ would that be, having a part only, and the in- 
 ferior part, or the body ,• the superior and nobler part, 
 or the soul, being absent 1 
 
 According to popery, the Divinity of our Lord, in the 
 sacrifice of the mass, is present, being joined to the 
 body and soul, there being body, soul, and divinity. 
 
 Having disproved transubstantiation, we go on to dis- 
 prove the sacrifice of the mass. Having, in section last, 
 considered and confuted the papal vagary in relation to 
 the former doing, we proceed now to consider and con- 
 fute their unfounded whim relating to the latter opera* 
 tion. Having shown the first part to be unsound and un- 
 tenable, we undertake to show the second part to be 
 equally void of solidity, equally incredible, equally bad. 
 
 In handling the latter point, the sacrifice of the mass, 
 and in disproving the consummately irrational and un- 
 biblical scheme, we will treat the thing in two ways, in- 
 directly or mediately, and directly or immediately. 
 
 Subsection II. Indirectly or mediately. Having shown 
 transubstantiation to be erroneous, I have mediately and 
 consequentially proved the sacrifice of the mass to be 
 an error. Transubstantiation is implied and presupposed 
 by the sacrifice of the mass. If transubstantiation were 
 real, the sacrifice of the mass might be real or might 
 be unreal ; but the former being unreal, the latter must 
 be unreal too. Transubstantiation could be without the 
 other, but the other cannot be without transubstantiation. 
 In fine, transubstantiation being wrong, the sacrifice of 
 the mass depending thereon cannot be right, but must 
 be wrong too. 
 
 Subsection III. Article 1. Directly or immediately. 
 The papal doctrine of the sacrifice of the mass, is both 
 unreasonable and unscriptural. 
 
 Article 2. Unreasonable. I will give two reasons in 
 opposition to the doctrine, showing the sacrifice to be 
 both inutile and incomplete. 
 
212 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 Reason first. Inutile. One sacrifice, that completed 
 on the cross, having removed the obstacle from between 
 man and God, there is no need of more. One sacrifice 
 having opened up the way to the mercy of God, while 
 he is just; to save the sinner, without sparing sin; to 
 exert his darling attribute of love, without weakening 
 the claim and authority of holiness, in the view of the 
 rational creation ; another sacrifice is a mere superfluity, 
 an idle display, a thing in vain. A second sacrifice is 
 going about to do either what is already done, or what 
 is not required to be done. Now how can the sacrifice 
 of the mass be utile 1 Not at all. 
 
 Papites affirm that the sacrifice of the cross, and that 
 of the mass, are not two and different, but one and same. 
 We however affirm, and shall prove that they are not 
 one and same, but two and different, differing radically 
 one from the other. I will give five reasons. 1st. A dif- 
 ferent sacrifice or victim, another Christ. (See transub- 
 stantiation, subsection II. argument third.) 2nd. A dif- 
 ferent sacrificer, the sacrificer in the mass being not the 
 Lord, but a mere man, a priest. 3rd. A different time. 
 4th. A different place, unless the mass be performed on 
 Calvary. 5th. A different manner, the mass sacrifice 
 being undying, unsuffering, unbloody, and the like. 
 
 Even if the sacrifice of the cross and that of the mass 
 were one and same, it need not be offered more than 
 once. Why offer up one sacrifice in two or many times, 
 in two or many places, and in two modes 1 
 
 I remark, in passing, that the sacrifice of the mass is 
 not one and same, but many and different, every mass 
 sacrifice being different from every other. I am not re- 
 quired, however, to prove the point formally here, hav- 
 ing merely to refer the reader to the last paragraph but 
 one, where he will find the plan of proving laid down 
 pretty fully, whereby he may prove for himself. 
 
 Reason second. Incomplete. A real and proper sacri- 
 
 
THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 213 
 
 fice implies the suffering and death of the victim ; and a 
 realand proper sacrifice for men, implies the suffering and 
 death of a real and proper man, of one who is of the seed 
 of woman. But a eucharistal or bread-and-wine Christ, not 
 being born of a woman, is not a real and proper man, or not 
 fully human, having a nonhuman body and a nonhuman 
 soul. Moreover, he does not die, being eaten and drunk 
 alive. Moreover, he does not suffer, being impassible. 
 (See Transubstantiation, subsection II. argument tenth.) 
 Moreover, he cannot suffer, living here not long enough, 
 being on earth not perhap half an hour. And neither suf- 
 fering nor doing, he is neither passive nor active. Now, 
 from the foregoing four things, namely, that a eucharis- 
 tal Christ is not a real and proper man, that he dies not, 
 that he suffers not, and that he does not, how can the 
 sacrifice of the mass be complete 1 Not at all. 
 
 Article 3. Unscriptural. Firstly. The silence of Scrip- 
 ture. I have here to remark two things. Thing first. The 
 ministers or preachers under the Gospel of christian dis- 
 pensation are nowhere in Scripture called sacrijicers or 
 sacrificing priests. They are called by many a name — 
 overseer, elder, minister, preacher, shepherd, steward, 
 and the like ; but are never called by the name sacrificer. 
 Now if real and proper sacrifices be offered under the 
 Gospel, it is utterly unaccountable, and quite a marvel, 
 that the men who offer them, are nowhere, not even in 
 a single passage, called sacrificers. Surely if the chris- 
 tian ministry offered sacrifices, they would have at least 
 one name once given them, indicating so important a 
 part of their employ. If the papal pretended sacrifice 
 were real and true, the christian minister would, in one 
 passage at least, be named a sacrificer, or the like. See 
 the Introduction, article III. 
 
 Thing second. Scripture nowhere makes mention of 
 the sacrifice of the mass, nowhere even alludes thereto. 
 The word sacrifice, taken in a meaning vague and figura- 
 
214 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 tive, is employed in the New Testament, in Rom. 12 : 1 ; 
 Phil. 4 : 18 ; Heb. 13 : 15, 16 ] and perhap a passage or 
 two more. But taken in the strict, proper, literal mean- 
 ing, the word sacrifice is nowhere used in relation to 
 the christian scheme or the gospel kingdom, excepting 
 the one great sacrifice of Christ completed on the cross. 
 Any other real and proper sacrifice belonging to Chris- 
 tianity is nowhere alluded to in the word of God. No 
 real mention or allusion is found, in the New Testament 
 or the Old, to the sacrifice of the mass. The account of 
 ministerial duties under the Gospel economy contains 
 nothing at all about sacrificing. Now if the mass sacri- 
 fice were real and proper, if the papal pretension were 
 true, the Bible undoubtedly would not be silent on the 
 point, a point of so great weight. # 
 
 Secondly. The language of Scripture. > This he 
 did once, when he offered up himself. Heb. 7 : 27. By 
 his own blood, he entered in once into the holy place, 
 having obtained eternal redemption for us. Christ is 
 not entered into the holy places made with hands, 
 which are the figures of the true ; but into heaven it- 
 self, now to appear in the presence of God for us. Nor 
 yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest 
 entereth into the holy place every year with blood of 
 others ; for then must he often have suffered since the 
 foundation of the world : but now once in the end of 
 the world, hath he appeared, to put away sin by the 
 sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men 
 once to die, but after this the judgment ; so Christ was 
 once offered to bear the sins of many \ and unto them 
 that look for him, shall he appear the second time with- 
 out sin unto salvation. Heb. 9 : 12, 24-28. By the 
 
 * See Fletcher's Lectures on the Principles and Institutions of the 
 Roman Catholic Religion : a very able work, one written in the spirit 
 of piety, and one that, though very far from wanting a recommen- 
 dation from me, I do cordially recommend. 
 
THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 215 
 
 which will we are sanctified through the offering of the 
 body of Jesus Christ once for all. But this man, after 
 he had offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down 
 on the right hand of God. By one offering, he hath per- 
 fected for ever them that are sanctified. Where remis- 
 sion of sin is, there is no more offering for sin. There 
 remaineth no more sacrifice for sins. Heb. 10 : 10, 12, 
 14, 18, 26. Christ hath once suffered for sin, the just for 
 the unjust, that he might bring us to God." 1 Pet. 3 : 18. 
 
 In affirming a propitiatory sacrifice and remission, but 
 denying the shedding oi blood \ in maintaining the mass 
 sacrifice to be a real and proper one, but calling it un- 
 bloody, papal folk contradict the apostle Paul. " With- 
 out shedding of blood is no remission." Heb. 9 : 22. 
 Without shedding the blood of the victim or sacrifice 
 through whom the sin is remitted, is no remission. 
 Any other victim is not to the point. 
 
 Subsection IV. From the foregoing consideration of the 
 character of the papal doctrine now under review, what 
 opinion do you, reasonable and scriptural reader, enter- 
 tain of the doctrine % Do you not deem it insulting to 
 right reason, and decidedly opposed to the word of God 1 
 Bightly does the kirk of England, in her 31st Article, 
 term it a " blasphemous fable and dangerous deceit." 
 
 Subsection V. The Sacrifice of the Mass, and the im- 
 plied or presupposed doctrine of Transubstantiation, are 
 maintained to magnify the pope and priesthood. How 
 it must augment their pride, power, wealth, and the 
 like, to work the eucharistal miracle, to be miracle- 
 mongers and Christ-creators , to have, in every conse- 
 crated bread and wine, Jesus Christ, body, soul, and di- 
 vinity ! Some of the haughty hierarchs have declared, 
 "Priests do create their Creator!"* Moreover, how it 
 
 * A French Roman catholic writer says, — " This honour have the 
 priests, that they create their Creator !" See Edgar's Variations of 
 Popery, second edition, on the pope's supremacy — W. C. B. 
 
216 POPERT IN SPECIAL. 
 
 must pamper their pride, power, plenty, and the like, 
 to be, like the Jewish priesthood, sacrificing priests, 
 and to be, in the view of the laity, able to offer up a 
 sacrifice or atonement for the living and the dead, for 
 people on earth, and souls in purgatory ! They protect 
 their usurped dominion over the soul, body, and estate 
 of the people, and save themselves from all popular 
 control, by appearing to the people in the light of pro- 
 tectors and saviours ! protecting them from punishment, 
 and saving them from sin, and having the power, by 
 offering or sacrificing a Christ, to obtain the favor of 
 God, and open the gate of heaven ! 
 
 SECTION IX. 
 
 THE WORSHIP OF THE HOST. 
 
 Subsection I. The host (or consecrated bread and 
 wine) is really made the object of worship or adoration, 
 papites falling down prostrate before it, as before the 
 Divine Being ! To bread and wine, or to either of them 
 separately, they give what they call Latvia, or the high- 
 est or divine worship, that exclusively due to God ! 
 endeavoring to justify their idolatrous conduct, by 
 vainly pretending that the host is not bread and wine, 
 but whole and entire Christ, body, soul, and divinity ! 
 
 Subsection II. Indirectly or mediately. Having 
 shown transubstantiation to be erroneous, I have me- 
 diately and consequentially proved the worship of the 
 host to be an error.* Transubstantiation being wrong, 
 
 * If Transubstantiation be an error, then is it a falsehood to say 
 that the wafer is li really and truly Christ's body and blood; soul 
 
 
THE WORSHIP OF THE HOST. 217 
 
 the worship of the host, depending thereon, cannot be 
 right, but must be wrong too. See section seventh or last. 
 
 A defect in priestly character, intention, matter, or 
 form, will confessedly and avowedly render the conse- 
 cration and transubstantiation null and void, or hinder 
 them from being real and true \ and consequently will, 
 even according to papal view, make host-worship to be 
 foul idolatry, the worship of mere bread and wine ! of 
 mere inanimate matter ! of a breaden or a wine-made 
 god! 
 
 See the other seventeen arguments given in opposi- 
 tion to the transubstantiation monster, arguments that I 
 am not required to bring forward here, but whereto I 
 desire to refer the reader. If the arguments be real or 
 good, transubstantiation is unreal or bad ; and there- 
 fore host-worship is no better than real and rank idola- 
 try, than adoring as the Lord of all, a bit of bread and 
 a drop of wine ! 
 
 Subsection III. Directly or immediately. We find 
 nothing at all like host worship or the worship of the 
 elements, at the Supper directly afore the Crucifixion, 
 by Christ or the apostles. None there gave divine wor- 
 ship to the consecrated bread and wine. The worship 
 of the host is quite unscriptural, having in the Bible 
 neither command nor example. 
 
 Papites, in worshipping the host, do not and cannot 
 know that they worship the Lord. It appears that 
 pope Adrian VI. judged that when people worship the 
 host, they ought to say in their own mind, " / worship 
 thee, if thou be Christ"* What a comment on host- 
 
 and divinity. And if so, then the worship paid to it is not merely 
 an error, it is idolatry of the worst kind. It is homage paid to a 
 piece of inanimate matter. — W. C. B. 
 
 * Even the best informed Roman Catholic can go no farther than 
 to say this. No one can know whether the holy priest had the in- 
 tention, really and truly to make the wafer a real Christ, soul and 
 
 10 
 
218 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 worship ! " / worship thee, if thou be Christ. 11 Papites, 
 " Ye worship ye know not what : we know what we 
 worship." John, 4 : 22. 
 
 SECTION X. 
 
 HALF COMMUNION, OR NO CUP TO THE LAITY. 
 
 Subsection I. This papal doctrine or practice required 
 but few words. It is a papal innovation tending un- 
 fairly to pull down the laity below the level of the 
 clergy ; to squeeze the former to the ground, and to 
 exalt the latter over them ; to make the many laicles 
 nothing, and the few clericals everything. It would be 
 hard to find a more glaring, palpable, arrogant, impu- 
 dent plan on the part of the Roman clergy, to lower 
 and degrade the laity, than the refusal of the Cup in 
 the Eucharist. 
 
 Subsection II. The tendency and aptitude of the de- 
 nial of the cup to the laity, to degrade and dishonor 
 them, and to elevate and dignify the clergy, are the 
 grand recommendation of the denial to clerical favor, 
 are the leading reason, the main cause why the cup has 
 been denied. Holy Scripture and good reason are utter- 
 ly opposed to withholding the cup ; not a single passage 
 
 divinity. But if he had not the intention to do so, it is, in fact, 
 not Christ. Hence to worship the host, not made a Christ by the 
 intention, is to worship a piece of matter, instead of God ! But 
 no one who takes the mass* can be certain that it is really consecra- 
 ted, and made truly Christ. Hence, not one soul who takes the 
 mass has any security, even in the least degree, that he is not guilty 
 of the mortal sin of idolatry. Hence no mass-partakers can ever 
 have the comfort of the true christian. They can never say, " I be- 
 lieve, and I am sure !" — W. C. B. 
 
HALF-COMMUNION. 219 
 
 of the New Testament really favoring the invidious and 
 insolent distinction, and five directly opposing it, and 
 good reason crying shame ! shame ! shame ! to the 
 clergy !* In denying the cup to the laity, the kirk of 
 Rome opposes not only Scripture and reason, but also 
 the primitive kirk, the pure and primitive kirk confessed- 
 ly having allowed both bread and wine to clergy and 
 laity. Both kinds were allowed till the eleventh cen- 
 tury. The clergy have no better reason for denying the 
 wine, than for denying the bread, wine and bread being 
 equally mentioned in Scripture, by Matthew, Mark, Luke, 
 and Paul in 1 Cor. 10 and 11. Moreover, the clergy 
 have no better reason for denying to the laity, than for 
 denying to their own selves, laity and clergy being 
 equally entitled and authorised. Moreover, the clergy 
 have no better reason for denying to the laity, than the 
 laity have for denying to the clergy, clerical denial to 
 the laity being not less bad and wrongful than laical 
 denial to the clergy. It follows that the priesthood, hav- 
 ing no good ground, no good reason for their denial, deny 
 the cup to the people, to lessen and degrade them, to 
 pamper their own pride, to indulge their own presump- 
 tion, and to confirm their own power. They deprive the 
 people of the cup at the table of the Lord, in order to 
 deprive them of liberty every where else ! they insult 
 them as christians, that they may injure them as men ! 
 See section second, subsection II. argument 8, about 
 the councils of Constance and Trent. 
 
 * And one of the Roman popes condemned the impious encroach- 
 ment. It was pope Gelasius, who, in the year 492, pronounced, ex- 
 cathedra, from his chair, that the abstraction of the cup, as some 
 then proposed it, was an impious sacrilege I — See Corp. Juris Canon, 
 Par. % Dist. 3. 
 
£20 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 SECTION XL 
 
 IDOLATRY. 
 
 Subsection L The papal kirk appears liable to the 
 charge of idolatry, in the following two ways : 1st. 
 Worshipping or adoring glorified saints and angels. 
 2nd. Worshipping God by an idol or image, by a cross 
 and crucifix, or the like. It has not fallen so low as the 
 natives of Greece, Rome, India, China, and the like ; it 
 has not been guilty of an idolatry so foul and degrading 
 as that whereby they are unfavorably known. But in a 
 more limited, modified, or refined meaning of the term 
 idolatry, the followers of that kirk are idolaters. They 
 are not idolaters of the lower order, but are idolaters of 
 the foregoing twofold species or kind. Papal idolaters, 
 do hear and heed the following command given through 
 Paul : " Flee from Idolatry:' 1 Cor. 10 : 14. 
 
 The worship of the Host may be called idolatry, be- 
 ing the worship of bread and wine, of a breaden and a 
 wine-made god ! But the worship is given on the hol- 
 low and weak presumption that the host is no longer 
 bread and wine, but whole and entire Christ, body, soul, 
 and divinity ! Papites pretend that they find in the wafer 
 and cup, or in either of them, our redeeming Lord, man- 
 hood and Godhead ! and that they adore him shining 
 through the covering or envelope of superficial, formal, 
 apparent bread and wine. Pretension puerile and pro- 
 fane ! See Section VUL* 
 
 * They worship the Host, because l - Christ is there in it, present 
 in it and with it;" and "shines out through it I" If this be correct, 
 then I ought to bow down, and worship any object where God is pre- 
 sent and shines out from it. Now, a great mountain, a beautiful tree, 
 a iovely human being may, on this same principle, be worshipped. 
 God is there : God shines there ! — W. C. B. 
 
IDOLATRY. 221 
 
 Subsection I. Article I. Worship, adoration, invoca- 
 tion of a glorified saint and angel, may be of a twofold 
 kind. 1st. Direct and immediate. 2nd. Indirect and 
 mediate, by the medium of an idol or image, or of a 
 relic, even relics being largely employed in the unholy 
 work. The second is the worse, grosser, more debasing 
 kind of the two ; and will sink its votary more deeply in 
 moral and mental degradation, spreading a darker hue, 
 a more dismal ruin over the originally noble nature of 
 the soul. Both kinds are carried on by the kirk of Eome, 
 the second kind more fully, may be, than the first. 
 
 Under the dark and dreary cloud of popery, a very 
 woful amount of worship is given to the creature. Til- 
 lotson, in sermon 11, declared that for one Paternoster 
 there are commonly said ten Ave Marias ! for one 
 prayer made to Almighty God, ten are made to the Vir- 
 gin Mary ! And Joseph Fletcher, in Lecture 6, re- 
 marks that, by consulting papal books of devotion, one 
 might imagine four persons to be in the Godhead, the 
 Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost, and the Virgin ! 
 
 Article 2. A glorified saint and angel may be invo- 
 ked under three characters. 1st. As an inferior god or 
 secondary deity. 2d. As a mediator between man 
 and God. 3rd. As a mediator between man and Jesus 
 Christ. I will briefly review the three theories in the 
 foregoing order. 
 
 Article 3. As an inferior god or secondary deity, 
 invocation of a glorified saint and angel, indirectly and 
 mediately, or directly and immediately, being worship 
 or adoration, is both unscriptural and unreasonable. 
 
 Firstly. Unscriptural. " I am the Lord thy God ; 
 thou shalt have no God but me. 55 See the first com- 
 mandment. Exodus, 20. " Thou shalt worship the Lord 
 thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." Matt. 4 : 10. 
 Luke, 4 : 8. The apostles Paul and Barnabas would not 
 be worshipped. Acts, 14: 14. The apostle John was 
 
222 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 not allowed to worship the angel or maybe glorified 
 saint. " See thou do it not — worship God." Rev. 19 : 
 10, and 22 : 9. The apostle Peter would not be worship- 
 ed. Acts, 10 : 26. " Let no man beguile you of your 
 reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of 
 angels, intruding into those things t'hat he hath not 
 seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind ; and not hold- 
 ing the Head." Col. 2 : 18, 19. 
 
 Secondly. Unreasonable. Reason 1st. A glorified 
 saint and angel, though incomparably superior to a saint 
 on earth, are not omniscient ; therefore they may not 
 know when we pray to them. 1st. They are not 
 omnipresent ; therefore they may not be near, they may 
 be far, very far when we pray. And if one million 
 people in one million places, pray in one moment, to 
 one creature, the creature prayed to must be absent 
 from all but one, and may be absent from all. When 
 the Virgin Mary, Paul, Peter, John, Michael, Gabriel, 
 and the like, are prayed to by us, they may be millions, 
 billions, trillions of miles off; may be surrounding the 
 throne of God in heaven, adoring Father, Son, and 
 Holy Ghost ; or may be at the farthest or remotest 
 point of the whole creation, at creation's opposite ex- 
 treme. How then can they hear our prayer 1 how can 
 they know that we pray to them ? Being so far from 
 them, we may as well pray to the wind as to them. As 
 they have not omnipresence or ubiquity, there is pro- 
 bably not one chance in a million that they hear our 
 prayer ; and therefore our prayer is absurd, or is labor 
 in vain. Our praying to creatures who cannot hear is an 
 act of unchristian folly. 2d. Probably a glorified saint 
 and angel are not heart-searching, soul-seeing, mind- 
 conning ; therefore even if near us when w r e pray, they 
 may not know our thought and prayer. Our prayer 
 may be a mental one, and we are not certain that they 
 know and understand our secret thought or private 
 
IDOLATRY. 223 
 
 idea. Who can prove that a saint and angel read our 
 heart, penetrate the interior of our mind, dive to the 
 bottom of our soul, see and know our privy notion, no- 
 tion hidden from outward view, and fully comprehend 
 all our inner and retired feeling ^ No man. Conse- 
 quently we must pray to them audibly, with vocal sound, 
 in oral language, or we may not be heard by them even 
 when they are near, even when close to our elbow. In 
 praying to a saint and angel, we must not depend on 
 mental prayer. " I the Lord search the heart. Jer. 17 : 
 10. God only, knoweth the hearts of the children of 
 men." 2 Chron. 6 : 30. 
 
 Reason 2d. A glorified saint and angel are not omni- 
 potent ; therefore they may not be able to grant what 
 we pray for, even if they know that we pray. Indeed 
 they have no power at all, none whatever, independently 
 of Jehovah ; hence their power will be as inadequate as 
 their knowledge, and peradventure much more. They 
 must therefore go to God, and beg him to answer our 
 prayer. Then why not go to God ourselves % If we 
 must apply to the Lord in the end, indirectly, mediate- 
 ly through a saint or angel, why not apply to him in 
 the beginning, directly, immediately % 
 
 Article 4. As a mediator between man and God, in- 
 vocation of a glorified saint and angel, being a kind of 
 worship or adoration, is both unscriptural and unreason- 
 able, and therefore unpleasing to God. 
 
 Firstly. Unscriptural. " No man cometh unto the 
 Father, but by me. John, 14 : 6. There is one God, 
 and one mediator between G"od and men, the man Christ 
 Jesus." 1 Tim. 2 : 5. John was not allowed to worship 
 the angel. Peter would not be worshipped. See Col. 
 2 : 18. See paragraph in Article 3. 
 
 Secondly. Unreasonable. Reason 1st. A glorified 
 saint and angel are not omniscient. See Article 3, 
 Reason 1st. 
 
224 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 Reason 2d. In relation to beings in glory, the sup- 
 posed mediation is all on one side, they interceding 
 for us, but we not for them. Now this inequality will 
 perhap promote a feeling of inferiority and dependence 
 on our part, and lead us to p^y them too great honor, 
 honor amounting to very fearful idolatry, and to take 
 them for beings somewhat divine. 
 
 Reason 3d. One mediator being enough, why have 
 more 1 1st. One is enough. Whence came the need 
 of a mediator 1 A mediator was required to remove the 
 obstacle to our salvation, arising from Divine justice, to 
 maintain the honor of God's universal government, or 
 to uphold the integrity and inviolability of the awful 
 sanction supporting the Divine law. By mean of the 
 mediator, God has magnified the law, and made it 
 honorable $ Isa. 42 : 21. God can be just, and the 
 justifier of them who believe in Jesus. Rom. 3 : 26 
 
 The sinner's friend, but sin's eternal foe. 
 
 Unknown. 
 
 Die man, or justice must ; unless for him, 
 Some other able and as willing pay 
 The rigid satisfaction, death for death. 
 
 Milton. 
 
 Our Lord partaking of both divinity and humanity, is 
 properly the mediator between God and man, the one 
 mediator; and he has done all that the mediator was 
 required to do. 2d. Now why have more 1 To have 
 two, or two dozen, or two hundred, or two thousand 
 mediators when one is enough, is in complete opposi- 
 tion to the unity and simplicity observable in the doing 
 of the Deity, of the great Lord of all, being opposite to 
 analogy. If one will do, wherefore have two 1 One 
 God, and one Mediator. 
 
 Reason Uh. The multitude of mediators intercept our 
 view of God. They stand in the way between us and 
 the Deity \ and instead of making our coming to him 
 
IDOLATRY. 225 
 
 more easy, make it more difficult, by distracting our 
 thought, and dividing our attention among themselves. 
 We have to regard not one, but maybe one hundred ; 
 and are compelled to look to a crowd of feeble media- 
 tors, instead of looking to Almighty God. 
 
 Reason 5th. The theory of many mediators involves 
 a slander or blasphemy on God. It impeaches his good- 
 will and love, by representing him as stern, cruel, unre- 
 lenting, unforgiving ; by exhibiting him as originally 
 unwilling to do us good, and as agreeing to do it then 
 only when importuned by a multitude of mediators, and 
 tired out by a very great amount of intercession. 
 
 Reason 6th. The theory involves a kind of slander or 
 blasphemy on the Redeemer, our Lord Jesus Christ. It 
 represents him as an incomplete, an imperfect media- 
 tor; as if his mediation were inadequate, as if his inter- 
 cession were not enough. 
 
 Reason 1th. Saints and angels compared with Jesus 
 Christ, are unimportant, insignificant, and empty. To join 
 a few of them with him, in order to help him in his me- 
 diatorial work, is like holding up a few candles in order 
 to help the sun to enlighten the solar system. Now is 
 it probable that beings so unequal in dignity and gran- 
 dity, have been joined together as partners and coadju- 
 tors in one and same office and work 1 Verily not. 
 
 Article 5. Objection. A papite may object, that more 
 mediators than Jesus Christ mediate more with God ; 
 that the more interceders, the more interceding. I will 
 give two replies. 1st. However that may be, we may 
 not oppose Holy Writ and the preponderating evidence 
 of reason, both whereof are hostile to the plan of invo- 
 king any glorified saint or angel to mediate between 
 man and God. 2d. God regards not the quantity, but 
 the quality ; not the number, but the value. Great and 
 small, many and few, are alike to the Infinite Jehovah. 
 If the thing requested be proper to be given, our Se- 
 
 10* 
 
226 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 deemer's only intercession is enough, and as good as 
 more ; if the thing be improper, the intercession of 
 thousands of saints and angels will be too little, and of 
 no avail. No cruelty, no ill-will can be found in God. 
 " God is love. God is love." 1 John, 4: 8, 16. More- 
 over, no weak side, no favoritism, no partiality can be 
 found with Jehovah. " Great and marvellous are thy 
 works, Lord God Almighty ; just and true are thy 
 ways, thou King of saints." Rev. 15. 
 
 In the corrupted currents of this world, 
 Offence's gilded hand may shove by Justice ; 
 And oft 'tis seen, the wicked prize itself 
 Buys out the law. But 'tis not so above. 
 
 Shakspeare. 
 
 Article 6. As a mediator between man and Jesus 
 Christ, invocation of a glorified saint and angel is both 
 unscriptural and unreasonable. 
 
 Firstly. Unscriptural. We read nothing in Holy 
 Scripture about the sub-mediation or the under-media- 
 tors, and we do not find the scheme recognized and 
 allowed by the holy inspired people therein mentioned. 
 The plan of secondary mediators and mediation is not 
 of Divine appointment, and did not originate with the 
 Divine founder of Christianity. John was not allowed 
 to worship the angel. Peter would not be worshipped. 
 See Col. 2 : 18. 
 
 Secondly. Unreasonable. Reason 1st. A glorified saint 
 and angel are not omniscient. See Article 4, Reason 1st. 
 
 Reason 2d. tr In relation to beings in glory, the sup- 
 posed mediation is all on one side." See Article 4, 
 Reason 2d. 
 
 Reason 3d. The under-mediators are not required, 
 have nothing properly to do, no peculiar duty to per- 
 form ; but are an unprofitable or inutile set of beings, 
 sitting down and looking at each other through want 
 of other occupation. We can do better without their 
 
IDOLATRY. 227 
 
 mediation than with it, and may go to Jesus Christ 
 directly and immediately ; for between him and us we 
 find no obstacle requiring to be removed by mean of a 
 mediator. Now to have inferior mediators when none 
 is really required, is in complete opposition to the unity 
 and simplicity observable in the doing of the Deity, of 
 the great Lord of all, being opposite to analogy. Why 
 have an officer when you have no office to be filled] 
 
 Reason teh. The under-mediators intercept our view 
 of Jesus Christ, 'standing in the way between us and the 
 Saviour. We have to regard not one, but maybe one 
 hundred ; and are compelled to look to a crowd of 
 saints and angels, instead of (as Paul commands) " look- 
 ing unto Jesus." Heb. 12:2. 
 
 Reason bth. The theory of under-mediators involves 
 a slander of blasphemy on Jesus Christ. It impeaches 
 his good-will and love, by representing him as a luke- 
 warm and unfeeling kind of mediator; by exhibiting 
 him as unkind and unwilling to benefit if not urged 
 on by a set of under-mediators. Certainly this charac- 
 ter of our blessed Lord is a false and abominable calum- 
 ny, a monstrous defamation, a libel black as hell. Veri- 
 ly, verily the Redeemer of mankind needs not the 
 persuasion and intercession that the theory implies ; for 
 he loves the world with a love stronger than life, more 
 attractive than heaven, and durable like eternity. 
 
 Reason 6tk. The plan destroys the unity, the beauti- 
 ful simplicity, the ready practicability, the easy remem- 
 berability of the Bible system ; and brings in their room 
 plurality, complexity, difficulty, and confusion. Chris- 
 tianity commands, M Go to God ; and go to Jesus Christ, 
 as the way to God." Popery commands, " Go to God ; 
 and go to Jesus Christ, as the way to God ; and go to 
 the Virgin, to Peter, to Paul, to John, to Michael, to 
 Gabriel, and to many more, as the way to Jesus Christ." 
 Alas ! what a falling off is here ! Many poor, ignorant, 
 
228 POPERY IN SPECIAL, 
 
 weak-minded people might be unable to remember the 
 whole, might be puzzled to think of all the mediatorial 
 names, might find it hard to recollect the threefold gra- 
 dation, might forget to go step by step along the regu- 
 lar progression, might often not know to whom to pray, 
 and therefore might often not pray at all. But the poor, 
 ignorant, weak-minded people can well carry in their 
 memory, can easily recal to their mind, the two ideas, — 
 God and Jesus Christ — one God and one Mediator. 
 
 Reason 1th. The next effort in the way of improving 
 Christianity, will perhap be the appointment of a set of 
 tertiary mediators to mediate or intercede for one with 
 the secundaries. We may hear of going to some real 
 or pretended saint of the Roman calendar, to Cecilia, 
 Ursula, Francis, and Dominic, to this, that, and t'other, 
 as the way to the Virgin, Peter, Paul, and John. What 
 then 1 where go to find the fourth or quartery set of me- 
 diators, they who will carry one to the tertiaries 1 I opine 
 that the quartaries are the pope and the priesthood for 
 the time being. In fine, the mediatorial scheme when 
 perfected according to papal ideas of perfection, will 
 possibly contain the four degrees : Primary — Secon- 
 daries— Tertiaries — Quartaries. Bible christian, you 
 have not so learned Christ. Eph. 4 : 20. 
 
 Article. 7. Objection. A papite may object that the 
 theory of invoking saintly and angelical mediators be- 
 tween man and God, or between man and Jesus Christ, 
 or both, is analogal to the moral order of the present 
 world, where men and women often act, by reciprocal 
 entreaty, as mediators one for another. I will give 
 six replies. 
 
 1st. However men and women act here below, we 
 may not oppose God's own word, his revealed will, and 
 the preponderating weight of reason, both whereof are 
 hostile to the plan of invoking any glorified saint or 
 angel to mediate either between man and God, or be- 
 tween man and Jesus Christ. 
 
IDOLATRY. 229 
 
 2d. Omnipresence or ubiquity, requisite for media- 
 tors in heaven, is not required for mediators on earth; 
 for the latter are among and around us, meet us yearly, 
 daily, and hourJy, and go along with us in the walk of 
 life. The disadvantage is confined to mediation in 
 heaven. 
 
 3d. The imagined saintly and angelical mediation is 
 all on one side, glorified saints and angels interceding 
 for us, but we not for them. Now this inequality has 
 very woful tendency and result, leading to very fearful 
 idolatry, and bringing on effect of a melancholy kind. 
 Papites do not only ask or entreat a glorified saint or 
 angel to intercede for them, but pray to him to do so, 
 praying on their knees with a kind of religious or irre- 
 ligious homage, with a sort of worship or adoration. 
 (See Article 4, reason 2d.) But human mediation on 
 earth is mutual, A interceding for B, and B for A. And 
 this reciprocation, or interchange of benefit, keeps all 
 parties in mediatorial equality, and prevents the bad 
 effect mentioned before. The disadvantage is confined 
 to mediation in heaven. 
 
 4th. Human mediation on earth by reciprocal re- 
 quest may promote reciprocal love and mutual good 
 acting among the imperfect inhabitants of our globe, 
 hereby leading to great good and producing a happy 
 result. But glorified saints and angels being perfect, 
 require no plan of mediation, require not to be invoked 
 in order to love us and to do us all the good they can. 
 And what can be said about our love and good acting 
 toward beings in heaven 1 The advantage is confined 
 to mediation on earth. 
 
 5th. Power to act as mediators, to intercede effec- 
 tively for other people, may promote piety here below, 
 may lead people to fear and love God; and therefore 
 the power is divinely allowed here on earth; and there- 
 fore human mediation may allowably and even bene- 
 
230 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 ficially be asked for upon earth, where holiness and sin 
 contend for mastery, where virtue and vice wage war 
 for dominion. But beings in heaven having piety in 
 perfection, are in need of no like stimulant, require no 
 similar incitement in relation to virtue and moral pu- 
 rity; and therefore they probably are not, like people 
 here below, employed in mediation ; and therefore they 
 ought not to be invoked to mediate. The advantage is 
 confined to mediation on earth. 
 
 6th. We have Biblical example, authority, and com- 
 mand for entreating men and women on earth to pray 
 to God on our behalf; therefore the entreaty is agree- 
 able to God, harmonizing with the declaration of his 
 word, and hereby concurring with his will. 
 
 Subsection III, Article I. Worship of God by an 
 idol or image, by a cross and crucifix, or the like, can 
 easily be shown to be strongly condemned in Holy 
 Writ. I might quote passage after passage, and verse 
 after verse to set forth the unscripturality of its cha- 
 racter; but I rather like the readers to read the Bible 
 for themselves, and to see with their own eyes how the 
 worship is viewed by the wisdom of God. I will give 
 five quotations. " Thou shalt not make unto thee any 
 graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in 
 heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is 
 in the water under the earth : thou shalt not bow down 
 thyself to them, nor serve them," &c. &c. &c. See the 
 second commandment. Exod. 20. N. B. Papal folk com- 
 monly either leave the second commandment altogether 
 out of their prayer-books, catechisms, and the like, or 
 put it in them partially and imperfectly ; therefore they 
 tacitly condemn their own conduct, and virtually de- 
 clare that their papal doings are in opposition to the 
 second command of the decalogue. " Take ye there- 
 fore good heed unto yourselves ; for ye saw no manner 
 of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you 
 
IDOLATRY. 231 
 
 in Horeb out of the midst of the fire : lest ye corrupt 
 yourselves, and make you a graven image, the simili- 
 tude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, &c. 
 &c. Deut. 4 : 15, 16. Cursed be the man that maketh 
 any graven or molten image, an abomination unto the 
 Lord, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and put- 
 teth it in a secret place. Deut. 27 : 15. Forasmuch 
 then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to 
 think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or 
 stone, graven by art and man's device. Acts, 17 : 29. Lit- 
 tle children, keep yourselves from idols." 1 John, 5:21. 
 
 Article 2. This manner of worshipping the Deity, 
 namely, by an idol or image, clearly appears to be 
 opposite to reason, right reason , and hereon I hope to 
 convince the reader by the following threefold argument : 
 
 1st. It tends to narrow our devotional duty, to limit 
 our approach to our heavenly Father, to confine our 
 prayer in place and time ; for we shall pray only there 
 and then where and when we shall have the idol or 
 image. But we may pray to God, The Good Being, in 
 all place and in all time, everywhere and everywhen. 
 
 2d. It tends to give one low and degrading thoughts 
 of God, to make one regard him as bound to place and 
 time, to make one view him as material. But we have 
 to consider the Divinity, the Almighty, Jehovah, God, 
 as an immaterial being, filling heaven and earth, past, 
 present, and future, from and to all eternity ; existing 
 in all expansion, and in all duration. " God is a spirit ; 
 and they that worship him must worship him in spirit 
 and in truth." John, 4> : 24. 
 
 3d. It tends to make one take the idol or image for 
 God, deem the idol and the Supreme Being one and 
 same, confound the image, a block of wood or piece of 
 stone, with the Deity, the incomprehensible Infinite, 
 the Lord of life and glory. Maybe no dark idolater, no 
 polytheistic heathen, no worshipper of wood and stone, 
 
232 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 who once held a creed of pure theism, began his very 
 degrading and revolting progress of idolatry, by view- 
 ing his idol or image as God. He began his miserable 
 career by viewing the idol or image as God's repre- 
 sentative, as Jehovah's deputy. In the course of time, 
 however, he came to confound the representative with 
 the Being represented, to mingle the deputy with the 
 principal, to make no distinction between an inanimate 
 creature and the Creator, and to worship the corporeal 
 or pictorial representation of God, as God himself. The 
 foul idolater begins by worshipping God through a ma- 
 terial medium, and ends by erecting the material me- 
 dium into a god. 
 
 Article 3. A papite and a heathen too are ready with 
 the following plausible and showy argument : We find 
 it somewhat hard to worship God directly or immedi- 
 ately, and find it comparatively easy to worship him by 
 material mediums ; therefore we use them to aid our 
 devotion, worshipping less in the immediate way, and 
 more in the mediate. I will give three replies. 
 
 1st. It is not very hard, not very difficult to worship 
 God immediately, if people think and employ their 
 reason. The less ignorant or the more knowing and 
 intellectual we are, the more easy and agreeable we find 
 immediate worship. Moreover, it is not easier to wor- 
 ship mediately, than immediately ; with material me- 
 diums, than without them. It is not so easy. It is not 
 easier, and not so easy, according to reason, as we 
 learn by the foregoing three arguments, and by others 
 that might be given. As the rule, or as to the great 
 majority of mankind, material mediums, as an idol or 
 image, or the like, lead not to devotion, but to idolatry ; 
 tending to make man not a rational saint, but a super- 
 stitious dishonorer of the one God, and even a mise- 
 rable polytheist. It is not easier, and not so easy, ac- 
 cording to Scripture. If it were easier, it would be re- 
 
IDOLATRY. • 233 
 
 commended or even commanded by the page of inspira- 
 tion j whereas it is condemned hereby, and therefore is 
 not so easy. God, who perfectly knows whereof we 
 are made, and what we are, would undoubtedly require 
 us to worship him in the mediate way, if that way were 
 the easier and better, — the more effective for our growth 
 in grace and for his own glory. Instead, however, of 
 requiring the mediate kind of adoration, the Lord 
 strongly forbids it, rejecting it throughout the Bible 
 as an evil thing. 
 
 2d. However the former part of the argument may 
 be, even supposing it were somewhat hard, somewhat 
 difficult to worship God immediately or without a ma- 
 terial medium, we are not to disobey the obvious mean- 
 ing of the Bible, and to contravene the preponderating 
 dictate of reason, both whereof are hostile to the plan 
 of worshipping God by an idol or image, or the like. 
 
 3d. We have a created, a human medium of God's 
 own appointing, the man Jesus Christ, through whom 
 we are invited and commanded to draw near to God. 
 Therefore they who cannot easily raise up their thought 
 to an Infinite Spirit taken essentially, can easily behold 
 him as veiled in the meek and placid glory of the 
 Saviour, in the mild and gentle radiance of the incar- 
 nate Word. 
 
 In whose conspicuous count'nance, without cloud 
 Made visible, th' almighty Father shines. 
 
 Milton. 
 
 Article 4. I will here mention two great reasons that 
 existed for the incarnation of the second person of the 
 Trinity. 
 
 1st. To be our mediator, to atone for our sin, to re- 
 concile us to Jehovah, to bring us back to holiness, and 
 happiness, and heaven. r? God was in Christ, recon- 
 ciling the world unto himself. 2 Cor. 5 : 19. Herein is 
 
234* POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and 
 sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 1 John, 
 4 : 10. God so loved the world, that he gave his only- 
 begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should 
 not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not 
 his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the 
 world through him might be saved." John, 3 : 16, 17. 
 2d. To afford man a divinely authorized human me- 
 dium whereby to approach or appropinquate the Deity. 
 " The glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 2 Cor. 
 4: 6. The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, 
 full of grace and truth." John, 1 : 14. 
 
 SECTION XII. 
 
 MERIT. 
 
 Subsection L So far as I understand the papal doc- 
 trine of merit, as exhibited in the prosperous and palmy 
 days of popery, or as grown to the full, I take it to im- 
 ply the following three things : 
 
 1st. That we may have merit enough for ourselves; 
 may have moral merit enough to supply our own want ; 
 may have merit as great as we require for private pur- 
 pose, for self-security, for home consumption. 
 
 2d. That we can perform works of supererogation; 
 can do more than duty requires ; can be better than we 
 are personally bound to be ; can superabound in merit ; 
 can have more merit than we need for our ownselves ; 
 and, therefore, that we can have merit to spare for other 
 folk; can have a surplus for the good of our needy 
 neighbor ; can have an overplus for the benefit of 
 people who have too little merit of their own. 
 
MERIT. 235 
 
 3d. That the surplus or overplus, the portion re- 
 maining after self-supply, goes to a common stock, to a 
 general fund, to a kind of merit-bank, whence men and 
 women defective in merit, who are not meritorious 
 enough, may draw whatever quantity of merit they re- 
 quire ; and that the pope and the priesthood are the 
 bankers, and hand out what amount of merit, to what 
 persons, and on what terms they like, using their own 
 discretion, being, like more than one other body, ac- 
 countable to none but God. 
 
 Subsedio?i II. As by idolatry papal folk dishonor 
 God, so by merit they glorify man. They humble and 
 degrade the Creator ; and exalt, pamper the pride of, 
 and deify the creature. Verily, verily the like is not the 
 way to love, serve, and glorify God ; nor the way truly 
 to love, faithfully to serve, and really to benefit man- 
 kind. To declare the merit doctrine altogether unscrip- 
 tural and unreasonable, is nearly a superfluity ; to pro- 
 claim it utterly repugnant to revelation and reason, is 
 well nigh a work of supererogation. 
 
 The papal doctrine of merit, even when not carried 
 out to the full extent mentioned here, has naturally an 
 unfavorable and fatal effect on personal piety or real 
 religion, and on final salvation. The deceitful whim 
 of human merit accords little with the humility of the 
 Gospel and the revealed method of salvation, but it 
 falls in exactly with the pride of the corrupt or unre- 
 newed human heart. The deceitful whim will hide from 
 men the deep moral evil of their heart, or the sinful 
 condition of their soul ; will hinder them from knowing 
 their full need of the Saviour, their extreme want of 
 pardon through Christ, and of purity by the Spirit ; and 
 will lead them to go before the judgment-seat, the 
 great white throne, Rev. 20: 11. j the holy tribunal of 
 heaven, more or less clad in the filthy rags of their own 
 fancied merit, Isa 64* : 6 ) rather than wholly clothed 
 
236 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 in the pare and perfect robje of righteousness provided 
 and offered by the San of God. 
 
 Subsection III. It is quite impracticable, quite im- 
 possible that we can have more moral merit than we 
 want for ourselves, that we can have any moral merit 
 to spare for another. 
 
 1st. Generally or universally. Creatures are bound 
 to practise all virtue, are under obligation to do every- 
 thing that virtue requires, every thing demanded by the 
 will of God, or by the Antecedent Fitness of Things. 
 They are bound so to practise, are under obligation so 
 to do, on their own account, for their own sake, in re- 
 lation to their own good. If they practise not all vir- 
 tue, in all time, and in all place ; if they perform not 
 every jot, tittle, and iota morally required of them; 
 they are vicious and immoral, are become morally bad, 
 defective, and wanting in moral merit. Now as they 
 are bound to be perfectly virtuous, as they are required 
 to do everything morally right and proper, with refer- 
 ence even to their own selves, in order to uphold their 
 own good, they cannot thereby, by so being and by so 
 doing, have greater moral merit than they need for 
 themselves ; cannot thereby be more meritorious than 
 they are obliged to be ; therefore they cannot thereby 
 have any surplus of moral merit to give away to any 
 other creature, cannot have enough and to spare. If 
 they do what they are not bound to do, not bound per- 
 sonally or privately, not bound in relation to their own 
 well-being ; if they go out of the way to perform things 
 that duty does not demand, does not demand in regard 
 to their own character and fortune as rational and 
 moral beings ; they do and perform what is not virtue, 
 what has no moral merit, and what cannot make morally 
 meritorious even themselves, far less any other crea- 
 ture. Whatever is virtue, they are bound to do on their 
 own account, or to maintain their own morality ; there- 
 
MERIT. 237 
 
 fore they cannot thereby have any moral merit to spare 
 for another. Whatever they are not bound to do on 
 their own account, or to maintain their own morality, 
 is not virtue, and cannot partake of moral merit. It is 
 possible for creatures to be as good, virtuous, holy as 
 they ought to be, or to have as great moral merit as 
 they ought to have ; but it is impossible for them to be 
 more good, more virtuous, more holy than they ought 
 to be, or to have greater moral merit than they ought 
 to have. All their goodness and virtue they need for 
 themselves ; all their moral merit they require for 
 their own, their private, their individual necessitude. 
 How, therefore, is it possible that any mere creature can 
 have any moral merit to bestow on any other creature 1 
 Supposing a creature to act with perfect virtue or to 
 live quite free from sin during every moment of its life, 
 from the beginning to the end of its whole duration, it 
 cannot possibly have one particle of moral merit more 
 than it requires for itself, cannot possibly have one par- 
 ticle thereof to hand over to any other beings 
 
 2d. Specially or particularly. Men are .bound to 
 love God, The Good Being, with all their heart, with 
 all their soul, with all their mind, with all their strength ; 
 to love their neighbor as themselves ; to promote the 
 greatest good of all other creatures \ and to prosecute 
 to the full their own happiness, temporal and eternal. 
 Men are obliged and required to do all the triple thing 
 on their own account, for their own sake, with a view 
 to their own good. Now if men do the trinal duty, 
 perform the threefold work completely and perfectly 
 throughout their whole career, in every moment of 
 their life, they do their whole duty, perform all they 
 are bound to perform, and so have perfect virtue, are 
 consummate, complete, unblamable in point of moral 
 merit. But what then % Have they any moral merit 
 more than they require for themselves % have they any 
 
238 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 overplus to convey to another 1 have they enough for 
 their own selves, and a part for other men too 1 By no 
 mean. All they do, they were bound to do for their 
 own good 5 all their virtues and holy exertion they 
 were obliged to make to maintain their own best inte- 
 rest or welfare. If they do anything apart from loving 
 and glorifying God, and apart from loving and benefit- 
 ing others, and apart from loving and bettering their 
 own selves, they do what is not virtue, what has no 
 moral merit, what is not morality in any man whatever. 
 It follows, that even if men were altogether free from 
 sin, were perfect in virtue, were complete in morality, 
 they could not have more moral merit than they w T ould 
 need for themselves, could not have any one particle to 
 spare for any other man. " When ye shall have done 
 all those things that are commanded you, say, We are 
 unprofitable servants ; we have done that which was our 
 duty to do." Luke, 17 : 10. 
 
 Subsection IV. We have to remember that men are 
 sinners ; that all mankind have fallen from goodness and 
 from God; that the whole world has become guilty and 
 corrupt in the eye of Jehovah ; that sin and vice have 
 triumphantly gone over the length and the breadth of 
 our globe. Consequently, so far from having more 
 moral merit than we want for ourselves, we have in- 
 comparable less ; instead of having too great goodness 
 and virtue, we have immeasurably too little ; and in- 
 stead of having merit to spare to another, we have to 
 depend on the Lord Jesus Christ to transfer his media- 
 torial merit unto us, that we die not eternally. Now 
 how sinful, preposterous, and vain to boast of human 
 merit ! how wicked and absurd to pretend that our own 
 merit is enough for our own selves ! how additionally 
 wicked, how consummately absurd to presume that our 
 minute and miserable merit, our contemptible virtue, 
 our despicable moral worth, will suffice not only for our- 
 
PURGATORY, AND PRAYING FOR THE DEAD. 239 
 
 selves, but even wholly or partly for other people ! 
 Oh Popery ! Popery ! Abandon your peculiar and pes- 
 tilent doctrine of merit, magnify God, lessen man, exalt 
 the Saviour, humble the sinner, and return to Scriptural 
 truth, to the veritable doctrine of God's own veritable 
 word. Then, Popery, you will appear more nearly meri- 
 torious to all men and women, truly scriptural and 
 reasonable. f< Can a man be profitable unto God, as he 
 that is wise may be profitable unto himself 1 If thou be 
 righteous, what givest thou him 1 or what receiveth he 
 of thine hand I" Job, 22 : 2, and 35 : 7. 
 
 SECTION XIII. 
 
 PURGATORY, AND PRAYING FOR THE DEAD. 
 
 Subsection I. The papal conceit of purgatory, a place 
 whither many souls in a state of grace, departed in 
 Christ, dead in the Lord, go, on leaving the body, in 
 order to have a moral purgation, to be freed from their 
 sinful impurity, to be fully prepared for heaven, tends 
 to maintain the unscriptural and dangerous distinction 
 between venial and mortal sin, and tends to lower and 
 degrade the atonement of our Lord, and tends to limit 
 and narrow the purifying operation of the Holy Ghost, 
 and tends to encourage and aid sin and vice, and tends 
 to promote priestrule, to bring power and importance 
 to the pope and the priesthood. Moreover, we may 
 feel quite sure that the tendency and aptitude of the 
 doctrine to promote priestrule, to magnify and glorify 
 the priesthood, are a leading reason, the leading reason, 
 the main motive of the papal kirk for upholding the 
 
240 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 doctrine, a doctrine so delicious to the Roman priestly- 
 palate. Purgatory is protected to protect priestrule.* 
 
 Subsection II. The notion of purgatory tends to 
 maintain the distinction between venial and mortal sin, 
 a distinction unscriptural and dangerous. 
 
 Firstly. The notion tends to maintain the distinc- 
 tion. According to my view of the purgatorial plan, 
 souls are sent to purgatory to be purged and purified 
 from two things. 1st. Venial sin. 2d. The remainder 
 of mortal sin, or the part left unforgiven by the Lord. 
 As to the former, or venial sin, the removal of it forms 
 so great a part of the work fabled to be done in purga- 
 tory, that its difference from mortal sin is important to 
 be upheld by the rigid purgatorian. Without venial 
 sin, papal folk would hardly know what to do with 
 purgatory. 
 
 Secondly. The distinction is unscriptural and dan- 
 gerous. 1st. The distinction between venial and mortal 
 sin, is unscriptural. This view we shall continue to hold 
 till Scripture be pointed out clearly and amply making 
 or showing the distinction. Where in the Bible do we 
 read of venial and mortal sin 1 No where. 2d. The dis- 
 tinction between venial and mortal sin is dangerous. 
 Men will be apt to imagine nearly all their sins to be 
 venial, or nearly none to be mortal ; not only of small 
 ones, but even of great. Moreover, men will be liable 
 to fancy that they have no great sins 5 for having 
 deemed them venial, they will quickly deem them small. 
 Moreover, men will be too prone to go on from judging 
 their sins to be venial and small, to judge them to be 
 few, and so will get to think that they have but few sins 
 in the whole ; for if great can be squeezed into small, 
 many can be squeezed into few. Venial — Small — Few. 
 
 * The word Priestrule is formed of priest and rule, and means the 
 rule or domineering of the priesthood. Moreover, the words priest- 
 rulive, priestrulian, and the like, come from priestrule. 
 
PtrRGATORY, AND PRAYING FOR THE DEAD. 241 
 
 Behold the purgatorian's estimate of sin ! To him sin 
 will no longer appear exceeding sinful. Rom. 7:13. 
 
 Subsection HI. The notion of purgatory tends to lower 
 and degrade the atonement of our Lord, and to make 
 his satisfaction for sin appear unsatisfactory. According 
 to the purgatory whim, our Lord is an incomplete or 
 partial Saviour, saving merely in part ; for he works 
 out one part of our salvation, a third, a half, two-thirds, 
 or less or more, and we ourselves by undergoing purga- 
 torial pain, or the pope and priesthood by delivering us 
 from purgatory, work out the other part. Christ has 
 not done enough, having left a great deal for purgatory 
 to do. He merely began the work of redemption ; the 
 sinner himself, or the priest for him, the sinner by suf- 
 fering, or the priest by succoring, ending the work, or 
 making it complete and available. Purgatory doctrine 
 puts merit in the creature, the sinner largely saving 
 himself by being in purgatory, or the priest largely 
 saving him by bringing him hereout. And by putting 
 merit in man, and making him greatly help the Saviour 
 in saving the soul, the purgatory whim throws Christ 
 into the shade, makes him appear an imperfect re- 
 deemer, and leads man to depend not wholly on Di- 
 vine mercy, but partly and greatly on human merit and 
 priestly power. Christ does much, the sinner does 
 more ! the priest does most of all ! ! Now according to 
 the Bible, Jesus Christ is the only Saviour 5 but accord- 
 ing to purgatory, he is not the only one : therefore pur- 
 gatory is wrong and unreal, or a mere priestly fable. 
 
 " By him (Christ) all that believe are justified from 
 all things. Acts, 13 : 39. Ye are complete in him. Col. 
 2 : 10. He is able to save them to the uttermost, that 
 come unto God by him. Heb. 7 : 25. The blood of Jesus 
 Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." 1 John, 1 : 7. 
 
 Subsection IV. The notion of purgatory tends to 
 limit and narrow the purifying operation of the Holy 
 
 11 
 
242 popery m SPECIAL. 
 
 Ghost, and to make him a partial purifier, purifying the 
 sinner in part only. Who imagine that the Spirit acts 
 in the way of sanctification in purgatory 1 that he sanc- 
 tifies the souls when they are confined there, and pre- 
 pares them for the sanctity and purity of heaven 1 
 Surely none so imagine. We read in Scripture that the 
 Holy Spirit makes holy or purifies people on earth, but 
 read there not a word about his purifying work in pur- 
 gatory. The Holy Ghost not purifying the souls con- 
 fined there, who or what does purify them 1 Are they 
 purified by purgatorial pain, or by their own power, or 
 by the power of the priesthood in granting an in- 
 dulgence or indulging, or by another thing 1 Alas ! 
 What bad purifiers ! But in whatever way they become 
 purified or sanctified, they become so not by the direct 
 and immediate acting of the Holy Ghost ; and therefore 
 he must appear, in relation to them, to be no more than 
 a partial purifier or special sanctifier, acting not wholly 
 or generally. In relation to purgatory, we find suffer- 
 ing, or the sinner, or the priesthood, or another thing 
 interfering with what Scripture declares to be the pe- 
 culiar operation of the Holy Ghost, and doing his pro- 
 per work, by more or less imparting the new nature 
 and the the holy heart. In fine, according to the Bible, 
 the Spirit is the only sanctifier ) but according to purga- 
 tory, he is not the only one : therefore purgatory is 
 wrong and unreal, or a mere priestly fable. 
 
 Subsection V, Article L The scheme of purgatory 
 tends to encourage and aid sin and immorality. And 
 the kirk of Kome, by maintaining the doctrine of pur- 
 gatory, gives encouragement and aid to sin, vice, and 
 crime. 
 
 Firstly, If people are made to believe that a place 
 will take them after death, where they may be purged 
 from their sinful propensity and immoral habit, will 
 they be very careful to overcome the propensity and 
 
PURGATORY, AND PRAYING FOR THE DEAD. 243 
 
 habit during life 1 No. If people are led to think that, 
 maugre a sinful and immoral career on earth, they may 
 be made meet for heaven in purgatory, will they not be 
 tempted, and effectively tempted to put off what they 
 wrongly deem an evil day, the day of leaving their sin 
 and immorality, to delay repentance and conversion to 
 the last hour, and to resolve on becoming virtuous and 
 holy after death, rather than afore 1 They will. If 
 people are taught that they may choose between taking 
 up the cross, crucifying their evil doing, and following 
 the Saviour, while they are on earth, and suffering 
 somewhat, more or less, in purgatory, will they not 
 choose the latter, and instead of being renewed by the 
 Holy Ghost, prefer being purified by purgatorial pain, 
 pain that, they flatter themselves, will not be very pain- 
 ful 1 They will. Will not men and women cleave to 
 the flesh, the world, and the devil, to anything rather 
 than the holy God, if they may yet get to heaven after 
 undergoing a kind of penance in a place called Purga- 
 tory 5 a penance that, owing to the intervention of the 
 pope and the priesthood, they hope will be neither very 
 long nor very severe 1 They will so cleave. The pre- 
 sent, continual, and strong attraction of sin and vice, 
 will overcome the fear of the future, the absent, the 
 dimly seen, the vague and indefinite, the somewhat un- 
 certain and doubtful evil of purgatory fire. 
 
 Secondly. With the great majority of people who 
 believe in purgatory, hell is out of the question, and 
 the fear of hell is hurled far away behind the back ; for 
 excepting the uncommonly sinful, the enormly wicked 
 and immoral, the prodigiously and outrageously crimi- 
 nal, purgatory people turn away their eyes from hell, 
 and &x them on purgatory. As to moral power and 
 holy restraining effect on the doing and behavior of 
 the main body of purgatory people, purgatory deplaces 
 hell, pushing it out of the thought, occupying its room, 
 
244 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 and usurping its employ. Now hell differs from purga- 
 tory in two main points. 1st. Hell is a far more horri- 
 ble and fearful state and place. 2d. The evidence for 
 hell is clear, conclusive, and convincing ; while the 
 evidence for purgatory is nothing, is no evidence at 
 all, the mere unsupported affirmation of the priesthood. 
 Therefore even the ignorant papal laity do not, will 
 not, cannot believe in the reality of purgatory with 
 anything like the degree of strength and energy where- 
 with they believe in the reality of hell. From the fore- 
 going two main points of difference, it follows that the 
 fear of hell has far greater influence than the fear of 
 purgatory ; and that if the power of hell in preventing 
 sin and vice, be lamentably small, the power of purga- 
 tory therein is incomparably smaller. If the love of 
 sin be hardly subduable by the fear of hell, how can it 
 be subdued by the fear of hell's puny rival ? The sin- 
 subduing power of hell is great, extremely great viewed 
 as relative, viewed in relation to that of purgatory $ 
 therefore the papal substitution of purgatory for hell is 
 a very great gain to sin, vice, and crime. 
 
 Article 2. What is the absolute sin-subduing power 
 of hell! Hell — so horrible and fearful, and so credible 
 and indubitable, even hell has little practical operation 
 absolutely on the life and conduct of very many who 
 firmly and fully believe therein, and keep it in their 
 view; of very many from whose mind it is not driven 
 by the shallow and unfounded whim of purgatory. And 
 as hell can do no more, what can purgatory do, helPs 
 feeble substitute 1 The fear of hell being found little 
 enough, and even too little to bind and restringe the 
 bad inclination of the great majority of those who have 
 not purgatorial pain in their creed or in their view, 
 what can be said of the far smaller, far less influential 
 fear of purgatory \ The fear of hell does too little, the 
 fear of purgatory does far less. 
 
PURGATORY, AND PRAYING FOR THE DEAD 245 
 
 Subsection VI. The scheme of purgatory tends to 
 promote priestrule. Who can keep a soul out of pur- 
 gatory 1 The pope and the priesthood ! Who can make 
 the purgatorial proceeding of short duration 1 The 
 pope and the priesthood ! Who can make purgatorial 
 pains to be few and small, the purifying penance to be 
 trifling and easy — to be nothing more than mildly put- 
 ting the soul to right by a kind of gentle purgative 1 
 The pope and the priesthood ! The people, the laity 
 are taught that the papal priesthood have power over 
 purgatory ; power to deliver hereto, and i;o deliver 
 herefrom, whom they will ; power to make the time 
 long or short, and to make the pain great or small, as 
 they like. It follows that the people must believe what 
 the priesthood affirm, and do what the priesthood com- 
 mand, and pay what the priesthood require, or wo be to 
 them in purgatory ! The clergy hold purgatory in ter- 
 rorem over the head of the laity to alarm and frighten, 
 in order hereby to rule and enslave them, to turn them 
 how and where they like, to bend their body and soul 
 to the imperious clerical will, and to render them meanly 
 subservient to the power, the profit, the pleasure of the 
 priesthood. That the people may not go to purgatory, 
 or may get on well herein, and get well hereout, they 
 enable the priesthood to get on well in the present 
 world ; that their poor laic soul may not bake, or boil, 
 or broil on hot purgatorial fire, and during many a long 
 year, they allow the pope and the priesthood to cram 
 themselves with dainty loaves and fishes, to fatten on 
 the peculiar good things of time and sense^ and to 
 revel in the secular advantage of a world that they pro- 
 fess to trample under foot through their extreme self- 
 mortification ! Can a plan be devised more likely to 
 render the priesthood everything, and the people no- 
 thing, than the purgatorial one \ Purgatory is a fable, 
 I know; but it is a "cunningly devised fable." 2 Pet. 
 
246 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 1 : 16. The result of the plan has corresponded to the 
 tendency ; for by mean of getting purgatory for the 
 people, the priesthood have gotten earth for themselves. 
 The peculiar merit of the purgatory plan in the eye of 
 the papal priesthood may be inferred from the follow- 
 ing phrase of their own : " When the money jingles in 
 the chest, the soul ascends to heaven." 
 
 Subsection VII. The tendency and aptitude of the 
 scheme of purgatory to promote priestrule, are the 
 main, the grand recommendation of the scheme to the 
 favor and support of the pope and the priesthood. Ac- 
 cording to the common principle of human nature, as 
 the purgatory plan will greatly promote and augment 
 the temporal advantage and pleasure of the priesthood, 
 it does greatly incline and allure the priesthood to help 
 and uphold it with all their might. Purgatory favors 
 the priesthood, therefore the priesthood favor purga- 
 tory. In beholding the pope and the priesthood argu- 
 ing for purgatory, Shakspeare would say, n that the 
 wish is father to the thought." They desire it to be 
 true, and then try to prove it so. Their defence and 
 ready help evidently originate in low and sordid inte- 
 rest. Thus it appears that the priestrulive character, and 
 aptitude of the papal purgatory plan, do naturally form 
 a leading reason, a main cause why it is upheld by the 
 kirk of Rome. And as I do not find for the plan any 
 solid ground either in the Bible or in good sense, I in- 
 fer that its priestrulive character and aptitude form the 
 leading reason, the main cause why it is upheld. Sup- 
 posing the papal priesthood to abjure priestrule, to cast 
 far away all priestal domination, to give up usurping 
 the right of the people, they would very soon throw 
 their purgatory overboard, and let it sink into a place 
 worse than itself. Purgatory is protected to protect 
 priestrule, — and the pope is the leading priestrulian. 
 
 Subsection VIII. There being no such place or even 
 
PURGATORY, AND PRAYING FOR THE DEAD. 24-7 
 
 state as purgatory, praying God to release a human 
 soul from purgatorial pain is mocking our Maker, fling- 
 ing insult in the face of Jehovah, and indeed blasphem- 
 ing ! No such place or state as purgatory existing, 
 praying God to deliver herefrom is praying him to de- 
 liver from nowhere, from nothing, — is entreating him to 
 do what is not to be done. The prayer and entreaty 
 originate in folly or in impiety, and terminate in vanity 
 or in something worse. Instead of irrationally asking 
 the Lord to transfer from purgatory to heaven, depart- 
 ed souls who are already either in heaven or in hell, 
 let us faithfully ask him to prepare ourselves for his 
 heavenly beatitude, to justify us through Jesus Christ, 
 to sanctify us by the Holy Ghost, and hereby to hinder 
 us from descending to everlasting night, to the gloomy 
 world of wo ! 
 
 Subsection IX. Praying for the dead, for the souls 
 pretendedly confined in purgatory, is the offspring of 
 priestly cunning, a mere invention of the priesthood, 
 intended to promote their professional power and the 
 like, to make them more important in the eyes of the 
 people, and to forward their plans of carnal good. 
 Praying for the dead is an unscriptural thing, having 
 not a shadow of authority in any part of the word of 
 God. " The dead know not anything, neither have 
 they any more a reward. Neither have they any more 
 a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the 
 sun." Eccles. 9 : 5, 6. 
 
248 POPERY IN SFECIAL. 
 
 SECTION XIV. 
 
 PRIESTAL ABSOLUTION AND EXCOMMUNICATION. 
 
 Subsection I. This doctrine appears to imply an 
 ample amount of ignorance, presumption, pride, and 
 blasphemy. What does the doctrine mean when fully 
 carried out, when taken in its whole extent, in its 
 length, breadth, and depth 1 It means that the papal 
 priesthood may absolve from sin whom they like ; may 
 pardon the transgression, forgive the iniquity, remove 
 the condemnation of any number of people, or leave it 
 undone, as they may happen to prefer ; may admit men 
 and woman to heaven, to eternal joy, or retain them 
 under the load of guilt, under the curse of the broken 
 law, under the dreadful anger of Jehovah, according to 
 their own priestly discretion ! It means that the papal 
 priesthood, for any reason that they may deem adequate, 
 may excommunicate any number of people to any de- 
 gree they like, even from glory and God, even to 
 everlasting wo, shutting them up in the never-ending 
 misery of hell ! It means that the pope and the priest- 
 hood keep and control the two great states of the 
 future world ; that they hold the keys of heaven and 
 hell, opening and shutting to whom they will, when 
 they will, and how they will ; that they are the arbiters 
 or deciders of salvation and damnation, saving all whom 
 they choose to save, and damning all whom they choose 
 to damn ! 
 
 Who are the men that claim the awful and fearful 
 power, the power to save and damn 1 What are they ! 
 The pope and the priesthood, are they a company of 
 angels living on earth in the character of God's pleni- 
 potentiaries, of our Redeemer's viceroys, of secondary 
 gods % Or are they people inspired, people extraordi- 
 
BRIESTAL ABSOLUTION AND EXCOMMUNICATION. 249 
 
 narily, miraculously, prophetically guided by the Holy 
 Ghost ; people directly and immediately superintended 
 and controlled by the Divine Being 1 Or are they men 
 full of knowledge, and full of virtue ; men perfect in 
 wisdom, and perfect in piety ; men in whom intellect 
 and holiness appear to be embodied, and to be living 
 visibly, and acting directly ,• men who stand at the top 
 of humanity, being saints in perfection, and fully ripe 
 for the joy and glory of heaven \ Alas ! In general, 
 in relation to the main body, to the majority, the pope 
 and the priesthood have been men of quite another 
 kind, men as different from the foregoing as darkness 
 is from light, sin from holiness, evil from good. Many, 
 very many of them have been men without holiness, 
 and with no great intellect ; men of no piety, and of 
 little wisdom 5 men with virtue below par, and with 
 knowledge not above $ vicious and ignorant, wicked and 
 weak, having crime and folly. Many a pope, and many, 
 very many a priest have been utterly void of holiness 
 or piety ; and been full of irreiigion, immorality, guilt, 
 and corruption ; and been grovelling in ignorance or 
 mental night. In fine, a great majority of the papal 
 priesthood have had small sense, and smaller sanctity, 
 or no sanctity at a*ll. A great majority have been 
 wholly destitute and empty of genuine godliness, per- 
 sonal piety, real religion, converting grace ; and a great 
 minority have abounded in sin, run riot in immorality, 
 and taken their fill of crime, wallowing in wickedness, 
 and actively serving the flesh, the world, and the devil.* 
 Bernard wrote the following pithy period : * The bish- 
 ops, to whom the church of God is now committed, are 
 not teachers, but seducers ; not pastors, but imposters ; 
 not prelates, but Pilates." An odd character (given by 
 a leading papal writer) of the ecclesiastical head of the 
 
 * See the character of the popes, section II } argument first. 
 11* 
 
250 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 papal kirk. Seducers — Impostors — Pilates ! And Brid- 
 get, I think, called the pope and priesthood murderers of 
 souls; and affirmed that they turned the ten command- 
 ments into two words, Da Pecuniam, Give money ! 
 
 Verily, verily we are bound to inquire if the awfu. 
 and fearful power claimed by the papal priesthood be 
 claimed on solid and sufficient ground 5 we are inte- 
 rested in knowing what authority they have either from 
 revelation or from reason. We have a right to see and 
 examine their credential, to make them produce their 
 voucher, and to require a full statement of the argument 
 and proof they pretend to have for their priestly demand. 
 We are concerned to know by whom they are sent, and 
 what they are sent to do. We may claim to be con- 
 vinced that they have God's plenipotent commission, 
 afore we regard them as armed with God's power, and 
 sitting on the judgment-seat of the world, determining 
 the future doom, the everlasting weal or wo of millions 
 of immortal beings ! 
 
 Subsection II. Article I. Priestal Absolution. I re- 
 member to have read or heard of a little girl who went 
 to a priest to be absolved, when the following dialogue 
 occurred. As I quote from memory, I undertake only 
 to be substantially correct, or correct in the main. 
 
 G. " Good Father, can you absolve me from my sin % 
 P. Yes. G. How do you know that you can 1 P. The 
 Holy Church and the Bible tell me so. G. What must 
 you do to absolve me 1 P. Read over to you the proper 
 passages of Scripture. G. What passages are they 1 
 P. This, and that, and t'other, and the like. G. Is the 
 reading of the passages the whole that you would do in 
 absolving me ^ P. It is, and it would be quite enough. 
 G. What would you charge for your absolution] P. 
 The sum of * * * G. Good father, I shall save my 
 money, for I shall go home and absolve myself. You 
 tell me that reading over particular passages of the 
 
PRIESTAL ABSOLUTION AND EXCOMMUNICATION. 251 
 
 Bible is enough to absolve me ; and I am sure that I 
 may as well read them myself, as trouble your reve- 
 rence to read them. Therefore I shall go home, get a 
 Bible, read the passages, and save my money. Your 
 servant, good father." 
 
 Article 2. The little girl was right. The little girl 
 could absolve as well as the priest. Any man, woman, 
 or child can absolve as well as the pope of Rome ; and 
 certainly the patriarch of Constantinople, the archbishop 
 q[ Canterbury, the moderator of the General Assembly 
 of the kirk of Scotland, or other ministers, could absolve 
 as well as the proud pontiff of the Italian city. What 
 can any priestal personage do 1 Nothing more than 
 declare the following truth : " If you really return to 
 God, God will absolve you ; if you truly repent of your 
 sins, he will pardon them." Now is the priest the only 
 one who can so declare] the only one who can make 
 the delightful announcement! No. Any other person 
 can make it equally with the priest. Indeed any old 
 woman or little girl can absolve as well as any papal 
 priest in Christendom. Priestal absolution, that daring 
 invention of Rome, is a farce and a fable ; is a piece of 
 humbug, and a solemn exhibition of hypocrisy ; is a 
 thing of quackery and quixotism ,* is an example o[ ar- 
 rogance and impudence ; is a mark of professional vani- 
 ty, professional folly, and professional fraud. The pa- 
 pal pretension to absolve, is presumption, pride, and 
 blasphemy. N. B. Of course, I here take the word ab- 
 solution to mean absolution not conditional or declara- 
 tive only, but absolute or judicial ; the absolution that 
 has been a mighty and fearful engine of papal Rome.* 
 
 * Priests in Protestant lands affect to deny, and do deny obstinate- 
 ly, that they profess to pardon sin as judges ; they say they merely 
 pronounce absolution and pardon in God's name, upon the penitence 
 of the sinner. To expose this imposition I shall quote the decree 
 of the Council of Trent on this point, " Si quis dixerit, &c. If any 
 
252 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 Article 3. Priestal absolution is not according to 
 Holy Scripture — to the Bible. 
 
 Firstly. We read not a word in the Bible, read no- 
 thing in either Testament for the doctrine, in favor of 
 absolution by people not inspired, by people not extra- 
 ordinarily, miraculously, prophetically guided by the 
 Holy Ghost. Absolution from sin by people not directly 
 and immediately superintended and controlled by the 
 Divine Being, has not one particle of authority, has not 
 one jot, tittle, or iota of support, or even shadow of sup- 
 port, in Holy Scripture. 
 
 Secondly. The Bible is even against priestal absolu- 
 tion i not only not for, but even against. Many pas- 
 sages of Holy Writ are strongly counter to the pre- 
 sumptuous, proud, and blasphemous doctrine. The whole 
 current of Scripture, the genius and spirit, the practice, 
 and the words are all arrayed in opposition to the plan 
 of people having their sin forgiven by an uninspired 
 priest, and one who is, perhap, far more sinful than 
 themselves. On this part of the subject, however, I 
 have no time to enlarge ; so I refer the reader either to 
 the Bible itself, or to writers who formally handle the 
 point. 
 
 Article 4. Priestal absolution is not according to 
 reason, to good sense, to pure logical wisdom. 
 
 Firstly. What papal priest can bring a solid argu- 
 ment from reason in favor of the scheme 1 Not one. 
 Reason is by no mean for the doctrine, giving no coun- 
 
 one shall say that the sacramental absolution of the priest is not a 
 judicial act, but a naked pronunciation and declaring that sins are 
 remitted to the person confessing, provided only that he believes, 
 &c. let him be anathema." Hence it is a formal and judicial 
 act of the ^/viest, sitting as judges, in Christ's stead, uttering the 
 sentence of pardon ! See Council, Trid. Sess. 14, Can. 9. This is 
 the Roman genuine doctrine as enacted and promulged " by the in- 
 spiration of the Holy Ghost," who, they say, guided that council. 
 
 W. C. B. 
 
PRIESTAL ABSOLUTION AND EXCOMMUNICATION. 253 
 
 tenance at all to the wild revery, utterly refusing to 
 sanction, in any manner or form, the bold and baneful 
 blasphemy. 
 
 Secondly. Reason is even against the doctrine 5 not 
 only not for, but even against. I will give three solid 
 arguments from reason in opposition to the doctrinal 
 monster. 
 
 1st. People not inspired, not extraordinarily, miracu- 
 lously, prophetically guided by God, cannot know who 
 really return to him, cannot understand who truly repent 
 of their sin 5 therefore they cannot know whom to ab- 
 solve, cannot understand whom to forgive. Through 
 their natural ignorance, uninspired people may absolve 
 those who have not repented, and refuse absolution to 
 those who have 5 may admit sinners into heaven, and 
 keep saints out. 
 
 2nd. Uninspired people, people not directly and im- 
 mediately superintended and controlled by the Divine 
 Being, are quite unworthy to be trusted with so awful a 
 charge, so fearful a power as that of absolving, of par- 
 doning sin ; for their passion might master their reason, 
 and lead them to hold the scale of justice unequally, 
 wrongfully, unjustly. Such people are liable to pre- 
 judice and party feeling ; are moved and turned by like 
 of one, and by dislike of another ; have their favorite, 
 their friend, and their foe ; those to whom their affections 
 incline, and those from whom their affections recede. 
 Now, truly, the like people are altogether unfit to hold 
 the balance of Divine Justice, to weigh the moral good 
 and evil of mankind, and to decide who may, and who 
 may not enter the kingdom of heaven, and live with God 
 for ever. 
 
 3rd. When we speak of the papal priesthood, we 
 speak not of one, but of many ; not of one man, but of 
 many hundreds of thousands of men. Now these men 
 not being inspired, not being illumined and led by the 
 
254 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 Holy Ghost, may not agree about absolution, some say- 
 ing yea, and others saying nay. One may say a mau 
 shall be absolved, another may say he shall not ; one 
 may -absolve him to-day, another may unabsolve him to- 
 morrow: one is pushing him into heaven, another is 
 pulling him back to earth. Many men, many minds. 
 Many a priest, many a plan. 
 
 Article 5. Firstly. As to the uncommon powers given 
 to the apostles and other inspired people, I do not pre- 
 tend to know their full measure and extent. That the 
 apostles and other like people were empowered to ab- 
 solve, to forgive sin, is very far more than I clearly and 
 certainly know. I am very doubtful of their power to 
 absolve. There is something mysterial and darkly de- 
 clared, or something prophetically figurative and sa- 
 credly symbolical in the words of Christ given in the 
 three passages that appear to relate* to the point. "He 
 breathed on them, and saith unto them, Eeceive ye the 
 Holy Ghost. Whose soever sins ye remit, they are re- 
 mitted unto them ; and whose soever sins ye retain, they 
 are retained. John, 20. Whatsoever ye shall bind on 
 earth, shall be bound in heaven ; and whatsoever ye 
 shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven. Matt. 
 18 : 18. I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom 
 of heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, 
 shall be bound in heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt 
 loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven." Matt. 16 : 19. 
 Finding some difficulty in determining the strict and 
 accurate meaning of the three passages from the word- 
 ing, we may review the practice of the apostles and 
 other inspired people, as giving us a key to the meaning. 
 Now where do we find any apostle or any other inspired 
 person undertaking to absolve % No where. Where in 
 Scripture do we read of any man or woman pardoning 
 sin, forgiving iniquity, and removing, directly and im- 
 mediately, the burden of guilt .1 No where. People are 
 
PRIESTAL ABSOLUTION AND EXCOMMUNICATION. 255 
 
 directed to the Lord for absolution, are sent to God or 
 to Christ for pardon and for peace. " Who can forgive 
 sins, but God only 1" Mark, 2:7; Luke, 5 : 21. 
 
 Secondly. But even if apostles, and other inspired 
 people, men or women extraordinarily, miraculously, 
 prophetically guided by the Holy Ghost, men or women 
 directly and immediately superintended and controlled 
 by the Divine Being, did absolve ; even if they did par- 
 don sin, and free the soul from the curse of the broken 
 law ; they were not in this point examples for us, where 
 not herein patterns for priests in our day, who are not 
 endowed with their superhuman power. A modern 
 priest is uninspired ; therefore let him not presume to 
 equal an apostle. What an apostle and other like man 
 or woman did in prosecution of their formal, official, 
 inspirational, miraculous duty, the Holy Ghost himself 
 ma}- be said to have done, the Holy Ghost acting indi- 
 rectly and mediately, acting through him or her as a 
 medium or instrument. 
 
 Thirdly. I deem it right to remark that the former 
 two of the foregoing three passages were spoken not 
 to the apostles only, but to the disciples, to the kirk ; 
 not to the priestal part merely, but to the popular or 
 laical too ; to the whole, to the general body of kirk- 
 members. And in 1 Tim. 3 : 15, Paul declares the kirk, 
 not the priesthood only, but the kirk, — whereof the 
 people or laity are far the greater or more numerous 
 part, — Paul declares the kirk to be " the pillar and 
 ground of the truth." 
 
 Article 6. Indulgence may be taken for a species of 
 absolution. Absolution from sin future, may be indul- 
 gence ; absolving from sin to be committed in time to 
 come, may be indulging. Speaking in the language of 
 logic, the specific difference is futurity. Absolution from 
 sin, is the genus ; absolution from sin future, is the spe- 
 cies termed indulgence. Indulgence, however, has often 
 
256 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 a meaning different from the foregoing, its meaning be- 
 ing various and vague. 
 
 In the dictionary of Dr. Ash, indulgence is defined to 
 be, "A grant from the Church of Rome to be exempt 
 from rigorous virtue." What a grant ! A grant to in- 
 dulge in sin and vice ! a grant to disobey and offend 
 God ! a grant to do what tends to damn, and what may 
 damn the miserable doer ! a grant to go to hell ! Could 
 hell itself, could all the devils combined contrive a grant 
 more infernal and diabolical 1 
 
 Maybe a papite will tell me that the grant of ex- 
 emption from being rigorously virtuous, or doing ri- 
 gorous virtue, keeps one from having vice, or renders 
 one innocent in not so being or not so doing. Not to 
 be or do according to rigorous virtue, if we have not 
 the grant of exemption, is immoral, but if we have the 
 grant, is moral. We are vicious or virtuous accordingly 
 as we have not or have the grant of exemption. So far 
 a papite. But I desire to put a query. Has the Lord 
 authorized the kirk of Rome to make the grant of ex- 
 emption, and hereby to render moral what afore was 
 immoral! No. He has not. God has not allowed any 
 man or men to alter the nature of vice or virtue, or to 
 make what is vice to-day, to be virtue to-morrow. The 
 papal pretended grant is mere presumption and pro- 
 fanity, a thing utterly invalid, a thing without power or 
 effect in the court of heaven and the pure eye of Jeho- 
 vah. " A grant to be exempt from rigorous virtue." — 
 Alas ! It would require all the power of God himself to 
 make the grant, even if he could make it. It follows 
 that " a grant from the kirk of Rome to be exempt from 
 rigorous virtue," is nothing better than a grant to live 
 in vice, and to go to hell ! 
 
 Article 7. The main field, however, for the operation 
 of indulgence, is purgatory. Remitting the sin of a soul 
 in purgatory, and enabling it to go from purgatory to 
 
PRIESTAL ABSOLUTION AND EXCOMMUNICATION. 257 
 
 heaven, is termed not absolution, but indulgence. On 
 earth, people are absolved 5 in purgatory, they are in- 
 dulged. If you have a relative or friend, dead in the 
 Lord, departed in Christ, in a state of grace, now suffer- 
 ing torment in purgatory, in a place existing nowhere, 
 and if you are willing liberally to pay the pope and 
 priesthood, they will indulge him by letting him out, — 
 out of nowhere ! But remember, to save your relative, 
 you have to sacrifice your pocket ; for the pope and 
 priesthood do not perform purgatory-work for nothing. 
 Some quack doctors proclaim, No cure, no pay ! The 
 pope and priesthood proclaim the reverse, JVo pay, no 
 cure ! no money, no mercy ! no gold, silver or copper, 
 no heaven ! no hard coin, or good bank notes payable on 
 demand, no release from purgatorial pain t Gideon Ouse- 
 ley, in his telling letters to John Thayer, declares that 
 the pope and priesthood have less regard and pity for a 
 human soul than people have for an ot or an ace ! For 
 if the latter find an ox or ass in a pit, they help it out 
 instanter ; whereas the former will not help a soul out 
 of purgatory till they are well paid for their help ! We 
 ought to bear in mind, however, that people are quite 
 certain in relation to the pit, and that the pope and 
 priesthood of Eome have pretty strong internal convic- 
 tion that purgatory is a fable. For while the former 
 hasten to rescue the poor animal from the real evil of 
 the ditch or pit, the latter are not over ready and active 
 in delivering the human soul from the unreal and ima- 
 ginary evil of the prison or dungeon of purgatory. To 
 do a possibility gratis or for nothing is beyond the com- 
 mon virtue of our wicked world ; but to do an impos- 
 sibility without pay or fee, by unrewardedly bringing 
 souls from purgatory, from a place that has not existed 
 and does not exist, is quite above the range of popan 
 and priestal philanthropy, and would be deemed charity 
 gone mad. 
 
258 POPERY IN SPECIAL, 
 
 Article 8. We have to remember that the papal 
 priesthood often do not give absolution and indulgence, 
 but sell them, getting money or the like for them di- 
 rectly or indirectly. It appears that Babylon, Roman 
 Babylon, traded in bodies and souls of men. Bev. 18 : 13. 
 Now the sale of absolution and indulgence by the great 
 whore, The Mother of Harlots, Rev. 17, affords a wo- 
 ful exemplification of the traffic in human souls. By 
 daring to absolve from sin, when God does not absolve, 
 and to indulge to sin, though God does never so in- 
 dulge, the papal whore leads mankind blindfold to ever- 
 lasting ruin, in return for their confidence and their 
 money ! By directly and immediately selling her abo- 
 minable absolution and infamous indulgence to the 
 people, she indirectly and mediately sells their poor 
 soul to sin, Satan and hell ! In this tremendous trade 
 her exports are human souls and bodies too, her place 
 of debarkation is hell, and her dealers are the devils ! 
 What are her imports'? Her proximate imports are 
 sums of money and the like ; her ultimate ones are — 
 let the reader conceive ! I hope, sincerely hope, that 
 real repentance and Divine absolution, absolution by 
 God, will timely intervene for these papal promoters of 
 damnation, saving their souls from the never-dying 
 worm, and their bodies from unquenchable fire ! Mark, 
 9 : 44, 46, 48 j Isa. 66 : 24. 
 
 Subsection III. Article 1. Priestal Excommunication. 
 This is a two-headed, two-bellied monster ; in other 
 words, two kinds of priestal excommunication have been 
 claimed by the papal priesthood, or one kind having two 
 degrees ; or one excommunication referring to two 
 worlds, to time and eternity, or to earth and hell. 1st. 
 Excommunication or expulsion from the visible kirk, 
 from kirk privilege, from the outward communion of 
 saints. 2nd, Excommunication to hell. N. B. If the 
 reader desire special and formal proof in this matter, 
 
PRIESTAL ABSOLUTION AND EXCOMMUNICATION. 259 
 
 he may consult the noted form termed " Cursing by 
 bell^ book and candle" 
 
 Though popery treats the foregoing two excommu- 
 nications as one, or as joined together ; or though the 
 kirk of Rome views a man when excommunicated or 
 expelled from her visible or exterior pale, as virtually 
 or consequentially excommunicated or doomed to infer- 
 nal ruin, going on the plan of exclusive salvation, or 
 salvation confined to her own pale, (aloof from popery, 
 aloof from Christianity ! or unjoined to the pope, un- 
 joined to Christ !) yet I handle excommunication as a 
 two-fold thing, because there are two essentially or 
 abstractedly, and because there undoubtedly were at 
 first held to be two according to theory or abstract or- 
 der, expelling from the visible kirk having been origi- 
 nally deemed separate and distinct from delivering to 
 damnation. Putting from the visible kirk, and sending 
 to hell, are here mentioned as two and different, tk© 
 rormer not implying the latter, and not being originally 
 deemed to imply it. 
 
 Article 2. We might, perhap, speak of excommuni- 
 cation to purgatory, power to send there having, per- 
 hap, been claimed by the papal priesthood. If, however, 
 an objector be inclined to cavil about the precise or 
 exact when, where, and how the power has been claimed, 
 I cannot go into detail at present, and therefore reply, 
 in brief and in general, somewhen, somewhere, and 
 somehow. Indeed it would be difficult to bring the charge 
 home by formal proof derived from official documents ; 
 for the pope and Roman priesthood presume rather to 
 keep in, and to deliver from purgatory, than to send 
 thither, as the great majority of good people are affirm- 
 ed to go to purgatory afore going to heaven. It being, 
 however, probable that the papal priesthood have as- 
 sumed the power of sending people to purgatory, even 
 those who otherwise would not be pronounced likely to 
 
260 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 go thither, we may, on account of accuracy and order, 
 speak of excommunication to purgatory. 
 
 Excommunication to purgatory is a point that will 
 not detain us long. Purgatory being a " cunningly de- 
 vised fable," 2 Peter, 1 : 16, excommunication to purga- 
 tory would be a mere solemn foolery and humbug, and 
 therefore deserves no farther attention, and will not 
 again be brought into view. I merely say here, in pass- 
 ing, that even if there were such a place as purgatory, 
 the pretence of the pope and the priesthood of being 
 able to excommunicate thereto of their own accord, of 
 their own will and pleasure, would be nothing less than 
 presumption, pride, and blasphemy. 
 
 Article, 3. Excommunication or expulsion from the 
 visible kirk is an act that may be done by the kirk when 
 the kirk has good ground for doing so. Every kirk must 
 have power and authority to perform this part of disci- 
 pline, as well as to perform two other like parts hereof, 
 the three like parts of discipline being admission, cor- 
 rection, expulsion. Every kirk has naturally the power 
 to admit, correct, expel all who ought to be admitted, 
 corrected, expelled. Not only every kirk, however, but 
 every other voluntary society must be viewed as having 
 within itself the trinal power of admitting, correcting, 
 expelling members. Where, however, or in whom (in 
 the kirk) the trinal power fairly resides, in one, or in a 
 few, or in the many, is a point that I am not called here 
 to examine. It is a nice point, and one whereon all pro- 
 testants do not agree, and one, therefore, that I, as a pro- 
 testant advocate, do well to waive. But I may remark, 
 that whatever power properly belongs to the clergy, 
 they ought not altogether to disregard the laity, to 
 throw their judgment and feeling quite in the back- 
 ground or on one side, to deem them void of all claim 
 to attention, and to treat them little better than so many 
 beasts of burden. Now this is what popery has done. 
 
TRIESTAL ABSOLUTION AND EXCOMMUNICATION. 261 
 
 It has allowed nothing to the people, but given every- 
 thing to the priesthood; making the former feeble, 
 powerless, and fearful ; and the latter absolute, omnipo- 
 tent, and daring. The papal priesthood have expelled, 
 corrected, and the like, with about as entire a disregard 
 and contempt for the popular judgment, feeling, and de- 
 sire, as if the people were a set of mere nonentities, or 
 things fit to be trodden on, or fit for blindly obeying, 
 and for nothing better. Now truly this is wrong, and 
 lamentably wrong, being opposed to fair dealing, to 
 kind feeling, to man's judgment, to God's will, and to 
 God's word. It follows that the peculiarly, pre-eminently, 
 and offensively exclusive priestly pretension of Rome to 
 excommunicate or expel from the visible kirk, or her 
 plan of proceeding herein, is presumption and pride. 
 "What can be said for papal excommunication of kings, 
 princes, and the like ? Surely there is presumption and 
 pride. And it is said that popes have punished sovereign 
 princes with excommunication sixty times or oftener. 
 Gregory VII. or Hildebrand excommunicated the empe- 
 ror Henry IV. Pius V. excommunicated queen Elizabeth. 
 Innocent III. excommunicated king John of England. 
 And a papal Bull declared the great Charter to be null 
 and void, and excommunicated the barons who signed 
 it i and the Bull has never been repealed.* Often has 
 popery "turned religion into rebellion, and faith into 
 faction." 
 
 Article 4. Excommunication to hell is a graver affair. 
 The papal fancy of priestal excommunication to hell, 
 differs from, and is worse than the papal fancy of 
 
 * Yet the priests and advocates of Rome quote this bold spirit of 
 civil liberty on the part of the barons as a proof that the Roman ca- 
 tholic religion breathes the true spirit of liberty. These " Catholic 
 barons achieved the Magna Charta !" Yes, but their pope, — the in- 
 fallible head, — excommunicated the barons, and declared Magna 
 Charta to be null and void ! — W. C. B. 
 
262 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 priestal non-absolution, in two main points. 1st. Non- 
 absolution is not saving ; excommunication to hell is 
 damning. By the former, the priesthood let people die : 
 by the latter, they kill them; In the one way, they do 
 them no good ; in the other way, they do them positive 
 harm. 2nd. If the priesthood do merely not absolve, 
 they leave people a chance of absolution from the Lord 
 himself, leave them the benefit of application to heaven ; 
 but if they excommunicate to hell, they make people's 
 damnation certain and irrevocable, they exclude them 
 from hope, they unite them w T ith eternal despair ! 
 
 A little girl can excommunicate to hell, as well as a 
 priest. Any man, woman, or child can excommunicate 
 as well as the pope of Rome ; and certainly the patriarch 
 of Constantinople, the archbishop of Canterbury, the 
 moderator of the General Assembly of the kirk of Scot- 
 land, or other ministers, could excommunicate as well 
 as the proud pontiff of the Italian city. Any old wo- 
 man or little girl can excommunicate as well as any 
 papal priest in Christendom. The papal pretension to 
 excommunicate to hell, is presumption, pride and blas- 
 phemy. See last subsection. 
 
 Priestal excommunication to hell, is not according to 
 Holy Scripture. Firstly. We read not a word in the 
 Bible, read nothing in either Testament, for the doc- 
 trine, in favor of excommunication to hell by people 
 not inspired. Secondly. The Bible is even against 
 priestal excommunication to hell ) not only not for, but 
 even against. I cannot stay, however, to handle the 
 point fully and at large ; so I refer the reader either 
 to the Bible itself, or to writers who formally handle 
 the point. See last subsection. 
 
 Priestal excommunication to hell is not according to 
 reason, to good sense, to clear wisdom and logic. 
 Firstly. What priest can bring a solid argument from 
 reason in favor of the scheme 1 Not one. Reason is 
 
PRIESTAL ABSOLUTION AND EXCOMMUNICATION. 263 
 
 by no mean for the doctrine. Secondly. Reason is 
 even against the doctrine ; not only not for,- but even 
 against. I will give three arguments. 1st. People 
 uninspired cannot know the real state of individuals, 
 cannot search the heart, cannot see through the soul, 
 cannot be acquainted with the secret thought and 
 inward feeling; therefore they cannot know who ought, 
 and who ought not to be excommunicated to hell. 2nd. 
 People uninspired are utterly unworthy to be trusted 
 with the awful and fearful power of deciding on damna- 
 tion ; for their passion might master their reason, and 
 lead them to hold the scale of justice unequally, wrong- 
 fully, unjustly. 3rd. The papal priesthood being many, 
 and being uninspired, may not agree about excommuni- 
 cation to hell ; some saying yea, and others saying nay; 
 some pushing people in, and others pulling them out. 
 Many men, many minds. Many a priest, many a plan. 
 See last subsection. 
 
 Firstly. I do not pretend fully to know if the Apos- 
 tles and other inspired people could excommunicate to 
 hell. That they were empowered so to do, is very far 
 more than I clearly and certainly know. I am very 
 doubtful of their power to damn. Where do we find any 
 apostle or other inspired person undertaking to excom- 
 municate to hell 1 Nowhere. Where in Scripture do we 
 read of any inspired man or woman sending people to 
 final perdition 1 Nowhere. The Lord only is represent- 
 ed as " able to destroy both soul and body in hell." 
 Matt. 10 : 28 ; Luke, 12 : 5. Paul indeed speaks of deli- 
 vering unto Satan. " To deliver such a one unto Satan 
 for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be 
 saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 1 Cor. 5:5. Of 
 whom is Hymeneus and Alexander ; whom I have deliv- 
 ered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme. ,, 
 1 Tim. 1 : 20. Now I do not pretend to know the full, 
 exact and unquestionable meaning of the words — Deli- 
 
264 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 vering unto Satan It is however quite clear and certain 
 that the apostle does not mean delivering to damnation, 
 excommunicating to hell, in the former passage ; and it 
 is very highly probable that he does not mean it in the 
 latter * Secondly. But even if apostles and other 
 inspired people did excommunicate to hell, even if they 
 did damn, they were not in this point examples for us, 
 were not herein patterns for priests in our day, who 
 are not endowed with their superhuman power. Priests 
 nowaday are not apostles, are not inspired ; and there- 
 fore ought not to presume to act as if they were. What 
 the apostles, the prophets, and other like people did in 
 prosecution of their formal, official, inspirational, mira- 
 culous duty, the Holy Ghost himself may be said to have 
 done, he acting through them as his appointed me- 
 diums. See last subsection. 
 
 Subsection IV. Priestal Absolution and Excommuni- 
 cation directly and immediately tend to promote priest- 
 rule or priestcraft, priestrulive power ; they lead to the 
 aggrandizement of the priesthood ; enable the pope and 
 the priest to gratify their ambition, and thirst of power, 
 and control, to forward their monetary interest, to sati- 
 ate their worldly and sensual desire, to indulge their 
 carnal appetite, and to pamper their flesh to the full. 
 What power, both private and public, has not this dread- 
 ful doctrine enabled the priesthood to acquire and re- 
 tain 1 The doctrine has enabled the papal priesthood to 
 be lordly, tyrannical, and cruel ; to abound in worldly 
 wealth, shaking hands and sitting down with Mammon ; 
 and to satiate all their sensual and carnal propensity. 
 Who thaj know human nature, and the private life of 
 
 * There being no such place or even state as purgatory, the words, 
 "Delivering unto Satan," cannot mean delivering to purgatory, or 
 excommunicating to purgatorial pain. Purgatory being a fable, we 
 cannot understand the apostle to mean that he sent three men there- 
 to, sent them to nowhere, to nothing. 
 
PRIESTAL ABSOLUTION AND EXCOMMUNICATION. 265 
 
 popery, do not believe that a priest has often absolved a 
 man in return for the man's giving him a sum of money, 
 or for some like thing 1 Who do not believe that a 
 priest has often absolved a woman, in return for her 
 giving him a sum of money, or for some like thing ; or 
 in return for her lending of herself to the work of pros- 
 titution, submitting to all the impure will of her priestly 
 absolver ? See section XII, subsection VI. 
 
 The direct and immediate tendency and aptitude of 
 the arrogant and impudent, of the presumptuous, proud, 
 and blasphemous doctrine now under review, to pro- 
 mote priestrule, to admove the secular prosperity, and 
 confirm the temporal advantage of the Roman clergy at 
 the expense of the laity, are the grand recommendation 
 of the doctrine to the favor of the priesthood ; are the 
 leading reason, the main cause why the doctrine has 
 been so fiercely and hotly maintained. The doctrine is 
 upheld, not because it is true, for it is untrue, but be- 
 cause it is priestrulive. In battling for the prerogative 
 of absolving and excommunicating, papal priests have 
 battled for the privilege of abounding in power and of 
 extracting from the purse ; and they have battled for 
 the former, for the sake of the latter ; for the former in 
 name, for the latter in reality* The battle has been 
 long, destructive and bloody. If they could domineer 
 and rule with absolute mastery, as well without as with 
 absolution, absolution might go to the wind. If they 
 could nestle in the honey-pots of earth, could attain an 
 exclusive familiarity with the good cheer of the flesh, 
 the world and the devil, without the trouble of excom- 
 municating, excommunication might away to the mole 
 and the bat. Their infallible and sacred selves desire, 
 and long, and pant to be not absolvers, but absolutes , 
 not excommunicators, but exclusives ; absolutes in rule, 
 exclusives in exemption. The papal priesthood view 
 and value absolution and excommunication as the mere 
 
 12 
 
266 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 means to a carnal end ; they dare to invade both heaven 
 and hell, in order to complete their possession of earth. 
 See section 12, subsection 7. 
 
 SECTION XV. 
 
 AURICULAR CONFESSION, 
 
 Subsection L " Confess your faults one to another," 
 wrote James, chapter 5 verse 16. But how 1 How are 
 we to confess 1 In the following fourfold way : Laical 
 to laical, — laical to clerical, — clerical to laical, — cleri- 
 cal to clerical, — as the case may demand. In mention- 
 ing 1 clerical to laical, I hope I do not infringe on what 
 rightly belongs to the clergy. I say nothing in opposi- 
 tion to what fairly pertains to them ) but only say that 
 cases may occur wherein a clerical will find good in con- 
 fessing to a laical. And surely the wise and worthy of 
 laity and clergy will agree with me herein, and will admit 
 that a clergyman may derive benefit from opening his 
 mind or confessing to an older, wiser, holier layman. 
 What wise and pious clergyman would think himself 
 above laying open his mind to laics like Boyle, Hale, 
 Wilberforce, or Hannah More % Truly not Fletcher, Bax- 
 ter, Leighton, or Usher. Moreover, confess not alway 
 covertly, closely, privately, but sometime overtly, open- 
 ly, publicly, as the thing may require. Moreover, em- 
 ploy the confession as a thing utile and desirable, but 
 not indispensable to salvation. Deem it a help in the 
 way to heaven, but a help that you can do without. 
 
 Now mark the guile and wile of the papal priesthood, 
 the " cunning craftiness whereby they lie in wait to de- 
 
AURICULAR CONFESSION. 267 
 
 ceive." Eph. 4 : 14. Note three things. 1st. Instead 
 of the foregoing quadruple way, the way of common 
 reason and fair doing, papal cunning and double-dealing 
 have contrived to narrow the practice to the single way 
 of laical to clerical. I must allow that popery does, to a 
 degree, practise the confession of clerical to clerical ; but 
 this kind is a matter of inferior note, is thought little of, 
 and is soon hurried over. The confessional doing is 
 mainly or nearly confined to the one way of laical to 
 clerical. 2d. Moreover, instead of doing the thing with 
 due and opportune publicity, and in the well-timed pre- 
 sence of a friend, of one or more, the priesthood have 
 managed for the priest and the person confessing to be 
 commonly in private, they two shut up together in dual 
 secrecy, in a retired room, aloof from observation and 
 control by a third party, by other people ; no matter who 
 or what the priest, old or young, good or bad \ no matter 
 who or what the confitent, a weak-minded man, a person 
 near death and about to make a will, an innocent young 
 girl, or a married woman ! 3d. Moreover, the priest- 
 hood pretend that confession made secretly to the priest 
 alone, is indispensable to salvation ! pretend that we 
 must either confess to the priest, and in private, or be 
 damned ! They pretend that people cannot be saved 
 without confessing to a priest. For the pope and priest- 
 hood really have gone so far in the way of pride and 
 presumption, as to affirm that confession to a priest is 
 indispensable to salvation ; that without going to the 
 confessional, either in act or in desire, we cannot go to 
 heaven. According to their pretending, no priest, no 
 pardon ! no confession to a clerical, no compassion 
 from God ! Their pretension, however, is mere profane 
 folly. A multitude are in heaven who never confessed 
 to any clerical. Query. To what priest have Quakers 
 gone to confess, or desired to go 1 To none but our 
 great High Priest — Jesus the Son of God. Heb. 4 : 14. 
 
268 POPERY IN SPECIAL 
 
 And what priest having reason, Scripture, and candor, 
 will dare to affirm that all Quakers are damned 1 With- 
 out confessing to God, indeed, we may not hope for 
 heaven ; but the omniscient, omnipotent, and holy God 
 is infinitely different from an ignorant, feeble, and sin- 
 ful priest. Furthermore, the priesthood pretend that 
 people cannot be saved without confessing to a priest 
 secretly or in private. They tell that we must not only 
 confess to the priest, but confess to him when alone ; 
 confessing not only to a man peccable and fallible, sin- 
 ning and erring, but even to his private ear, in secret, 
 under cover, in the moral dark of retired situation and 
 unnatural and corrupting concealment. 
 
 Reader, remember the three things in Auricular Con- 
 fession as papally carried on. 1st. People to priest- 
 hood. 2nd. Confessor and confitent, or rather confessee 
 and confesser commonly in private. 3rd. Confession 
 pretendedly indispensable to salvation. Now in the 
 foregoing three things we find that the priesthood have 
 put the single way in the room of the quadruple one — 
 that they have put the covert for the overt — that they 
 have put unavoidable for utile. 
 
 Subsection II. Auricular Confession, as it has been 
 carried on, namely, people to priesthood, and priest and 
 confitent commonly in private, and the thing made a ne- 
 cessary condition or a sine qua non, has been a practice 
 leading to far more evil than good, to very great evil 
 and to very small good, and therefore to great evil on 
 the whole. To be at once both brief and clear, I affirm 
 that the practice or custom has given ground to the fol- 
 lowing five evils, with many more. 
 
 1st. It has lowered the people, and heightened the 
 priesthood. It has directly put the stamp of inferiority 
 on the laical many, and of superiority on the clerical 
 few, hereby filling the former with degradation, and the 
 latter with pride. It has greatly augmented priestal 
 
AURICULAR CONFESSION. 269 
 
 pride, the pride of the pope and priesthood of Rome. 
 
 2nd. By making the priesthood acquainted with the 
 secrets of the people, with all secrets o( all, it has mag- 
 nified their power at the expense of the people ; it has 
 made them strong, and the people weak ; it has made 
 the priesthood threatening and tyrannical lords, and the 
 people fearful and trembling slaves. The pope and very 
 many a papal priest erect a heavy throne on the bodies 
 and souls of the people, and crush them beneath the 
 weight of their dreadful despotism. 
 
 3rd. By making the priests acquainted with the af- 
 fairs and the property of people, and with their inten- 
 tion in regard to bequeathing their property, it has en- 
 abled them to bias the mind of the will-maker, to in- 
 fluence the making of the will, and to turn a portion of 
 the property to the kirk, that is, to the priesthood, the 
 kirk and the priesthood being, in papally priestal eyes, 
 one and same thing. By enabling the priesthood to get 
 many a bequest and legacy made in their favor, it has 
 brought them money and land at the cost of compara- 
 tive poverty to the wife and children, having made them 
 opulent, and the wife and children indigent. It has 
 pauperated many a lawful heir, to enrich a greedy priest- 
 hood ; it has often rendered the natural claimant a beg- 
 gar, to cram the coffer Gf the papal kirk, to add to the 
 well-filled purse of the Roman clergy, to enable the self- 
 termed sole successors of the poor apostles to wallow 
 in worldly wealth. 
 
 4th. By giving the priesthood an opportunity of poi- 
 soning the moral principle, corrupting the mind, and 
 working on the passion of women, it has enabled them 
 to indulge in sensuality, to play the lewdster with their 
 female confitents, and to seduce many a girl and woman 
 who came to confess and to be absolved. A large 
 amount of seduction, fornication, and adultery, has come 
 
270 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 from the confessional. By mean of going to the priest 
 in private to confess their sin, many females have been 
 led to vice and whoredom, and been utterly undone. 
 Instead of being improved from sinful to holy, they 
 have been made immoral, abandoned, lewd, and lost. 
 Their confessor has been theii' corrupter 5 and instead 
 of taking away their sin, has robbed them of their vir- 
 tue, plundered them of their chastity, and made them 
 twofold more children of hell than they were afore. 
 Matt. 23 : 15. 
 
 I quote the following from William Howitfs popular 
 History of Priestcraft, chapter 14 ; " Father Anthony 
 Joseph has remained there eight years past, continually 
 plunged in the abominable practice of sinning with 
 women at the time they come to confess, and even in 
 the place where he confessed them ; after which he gave 
 them absolution, and administered the Sacrament to 
 them ! He told them that these actions need not give 
 them any concern, since all their Fathers, the Bishops, 
 and the Pope himself, observed the same practice !" 
 
 5th. By giving the priesthood great and undue in- 
 fluence with kings and ministers of state, it has enabled 
 the former to wield an unhappy power over the latter in 
 political doing, to the great and lasting evil of nations. 
 The priestly confessor of the politician, particularly if 
 a Jesuit, (the Jesuit confessors being the worst of all,) 
 has often planned and promoted political intrigue, and 
 brought about change and confusion, to the ruin of many 
 an individual and family, to the misery of the state, and 
 to the grave dishonor of religion. Auricular confession 
 has been a national evil, a public calamity, a dark and 
 threatening spirit or ill-intending demon hovering over 
 the length and the breadth of the land. What made the 
 king or the queen, the minister or the general do this or 
 that bad thing 1 The cursed counsel of the confessor ! 
 
AURICULAR CONFESSION. 271 
 
 poisoning the ear, hardening the heart, and urging the 
 hand to persecution, tyranny and blood !* 
 
 Subsection HI. Firstly. We have to take care so to 
 confess to man as not to postpone confessing to God. 
 Confession to man, if properly done, is good 5 confession 
 to God is infinitely better. The opinion, counsel, and 
 experience of wise and holy people may avail us much ,• 
 their faithful, fervent, persevering prayer may avail us 
 more. But we may not stop there ; we may not imagine 
 that confessing to man is all w r e have to do. It is in- 
 deed but a small part, a desirable mean to a far more 
 weighty end. We may confess to man, in order to learn 
 more fully how to confess to God, God only knows 
 all our sin, and God only can absolve us herefrom; 
 to him, therefore, let all confess, and from him let all 
 obtain absolution. Our Father in heaven is the best 
 father confessor ; the foot of the cross is the best con- 
 fessional ; and humbly and truly confessing to God 
 through Christ is the best way of being freed from the 
 burden of sin, and of procuring pardon, purity, peace 
 and joy. 
 
 Secondly. Has auricular confession been carried on 
 according to the spirit of these remarks, and in the 
 manner here pointed out \ Alas ! Without referring to 
 the five evils mentioned in last subsection, we have too 
 great reason to infer that it has not been so carried on. 
 We have too great reason to conclude that, in the papal 
 kirk, confession to man has been all in all ; has been 
 taken not for a mean to a greater end, but for the end 
 itself 5 has been viewed as an adequate substitute for 
 
 * The Jesuit confessor of Louis XIV, king of France, was the 
 cause of that priest-ruled tyrant's revoking the Edict of Nantz, and 
 shedding the blood of unnumbered thousands ; and of his urging the 
 duke of Savoy to massacre the Waldenses, and of the last two kings 
 of the Stuart line of England persecuting the puritans and Scottish 
 covenanters. — W. C. B. 
 
272 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 confession to God, and as serving in its room. With 
 the majority of the followers of the deluded and delud- 
 ing kirk of Rome, confessing to a priest, with perhap 
 being absolved by him, has been viewed as a kind of 
 moral whitewashing that, by having set them free from 
 former sin, enabled them to sin again without great fear 
 of having too much sin at one time, of being overstocked 
 with sin, of causing a glut in the moral or immoral mar- 
 ket. Having paid, as they have fancied, their old debt 
 due to God, they have held themselves entitled to run 
 into a new one ; having cleared off the old score with- 
 out great trouble, they have been hardened and induced 
 to go and sin anew. The confessional has not been the 
 way to the Shekinah and the Mercy-seat ; auricular con- 
 fession in the chamber of a priest has not helped the 
 confitent to become a real scriptural penitent before the 
 throne of God. The priest confessee has not led the 
 confesser to Jesus Christ and God, but has thrown them 
 into the shade ; for he has acted as their plenipotentia- 
 ry representative, or rather as their rival. And, hence, 
 by the confessional, and by priestly absolution, innu- 
 merable souls are annually and daily ruined for ever ! 
 They confess to the priest, and not to God. They seek 
 pardon from a priest, and not through the Lord Jesus 
 Christ. For the canon of the Council of Trent, session 
 14, canon 9, declares that a priest pardons sin " by a 
 judicial act," as a judge occupying the place of Christ ; 
 and it utters the church's anathema on all those who 
 deny it to be a "judicial ad" and make it a mere de- 
 clarative act of pardon. 
 
CELIBATE OF THE CLERGY, 273 
 
 SECTION XVI. 
 
 CELIBATE OF THE CLERGY. 
 
 Subsection I. If I were asked what solid argument is 
 found either in the Holy Scriptures, or in right reason, 
 for this papal practice, I would reply that I do not know, 
 that I cannot tell. The only solid arguments opposing 
 the marriage of the priesthood, that I can find, are the 
 two following — two arguments drawn not from sacred 
 Scripture, nor from right reason, nor from both together, 
 but from Roman carnal polity : 
 
 i Argument fird. The unscriptural and unreasonable 
 custom was brought in as general and indispensable, or 
 made universal and compulsory, by the court of Rome, 
 to bind the clergy to Rome, to unite them with Roman 
 Babylon, by hindering them from having national, local, 
 family ties ; by keeping them aloof, as far as practicable, 
 from the honorable and generous love of family, kin- 
 dred, home, and country. The Roman court, the heads 
 of the Roman kirk, the pope, cardinals, and the like de- 
 sired to have one immense clerical tree growing up out 
 of Rome, and extending over Christendom, the trunk 
 being where the Beast is enthroned, and the branches 
 being everywhere ; a tree that may derive sap, nutri- 
 ment, and firmity directly from the city on seven hills, 
 and spread a dreary shade over all the nations, and wrap 
 the whole world in papal deadly night. The practice 
 was forcibly and cruelly brought about by the Roman 
 court, in order to bind and unite, as it tends to bind and 
 unite all the members of the priesthood in one huge 
 confederation, in one great aliianee, one mighty league, 
 in one body wieldy, tractable, governable 5 a body sepa- 
 rate and apart from the people, unconnected with the 
 laity in affection and interest, unbound and unjoined to 
 
 12* 
 
274 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 their country by patriotic feeling; unattracted and un- 
 softened by the dear and tender ties of wife, children, 
 and home; and opposite and hostile to popular right, and 
 the spread and dominion of liberty. (See section 5, 
 subsection 1, article 2.) By the operation of the cruel 
 and barbarian law, the unsocial and unnatural practice, 
 the inhuman and infernal custom, the papal priesthood 
 are scattered throughout the papal world, as a huge, 
 disciplined, active army, not of martyrs, but of masters ; 
 not of sin-opposers, but of slave-makers ; not to raise 
 people up to heaven, but to crush and trample them 
 down to earth, while their priestly persons walk rough- 
 shod over them. The priestal few say to the popular 
 many, " Bow down, that we may go over." Isa. 51 : 23. 
 Rome is the centre, the strong-hold, the head-quarter of 
 this army militant, not con sin, but con liberty ; from 
 Rome the foul streams of slavery flow, and to Rome the 
 extorted tribute of millions of enslaved people winds 
 a way through a thousand channels. The papal priest- 
 hood may not marry, that the Roman court may tyran- 
 nize over the nations ! and may have fit, able, and will- 
 ing agents to carry slavery throughout the world ! Celi- 
 bate tends to make the clergy the tyrannical tools of the 
 court of Rome ; and the tendency and aptitude of celi- 
 bate to do so are the leading reason, the main cause 
 why it is upheld. Celibate is a mean to slavery as the 
 end ; and it is valued only because it is such a mean. 
 In fine, the reason for having celibate, is to make the 
 priesthood tyrannical tools ; and to carry out slavery at 
 large, the desired end ; or in other words, is the ten- 
 dency and aptitude of celibate to .do so, its being a de- 
 sired mean to the desired end. 
 
 Argument second. Celibate of the clergy is upheld in 
 order to attract into the coffer of the Roman kirk, of 
 rather clergy, whatever property individual priests may 
 acquire. On the plan of celibate, a priest will probably 
 
CELIBATE OF THE CLERGY. 275 
 
 1'eave a part, if not the whole of his real and personal 
 property to the priesthood; whereas, if he were married 
 he would naturally bequeath the property to his wife 
 and children. The pope and priesthood are the heir of 
 the unmarried clergy, therefore the wily court of Eome 
 hinders clerical marriage. 
 
 Subsection IL Five other arguments may possibly be 
 given for papally priestal abstaining from marriage \ 
 the first derived from Roman priestal vanity, the second 
 drawn from papal phantasy, the third imagined from 
 Paul's authority, the fourth taken from a ground of 
 plausibility, and the fifth obtained from ecclesiastical 
 history. 
 
 Argument first. Papal clergymen, taken as men, re- 
 garded individually, and viewed apart from their employ 
 and professional character, are too pure, too holy, too 
 angelical a set of beings to meddle with marriage! 
 Heaven help one ! What more 1 So great are the purity, 
 the holiness, the angelicality of the papal priesthood, as 
 to hinder them from marrying ! Capital ! Who first dis- 
 covered this wonderful property of the Roman hierarchy, 
 and first employed this cogent and convincing argu- 
 ment, is unknown to me. But peace to his inventive 
 shade ! He or she has been canonized of course, or 
 shame to the court and kirk of Rome ! What could the 
 Devil's Advocate* find to oppose to the canonization of 
 so notable a character 1 Surely, surely on the day that 
 saw the personage canonized, or declared to be a saint, 
 the Devil's Advocate and the Devil himself were dumb 
 with admiration, were mute through amazement, were 
 tongue-tied in spite of themselves. But to be serious. 
 Will any one really and coolly bring forward this argu- 
 
 * The " DeviVs Advocate " is an officer of the Roman court whose 
 office it is to rake and collect together all that can be said or charged 
 against one that is about to he made a saint of the papal calendar X 
 
276 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 ment, and employ it with a grave countenance! I have 
 doubts on the point. If, however, I were to meet the 
 argument, I would reply somewhat as follows : What 
 hypocrisy! what hyper-hypocrisy! what consummate 
 cant ! what laughable humbug ! The claim to superior 
 sanctity would be a display of inferior modesty, and 
 would call for indignation, contempt, and pity, from all 
 honest men and women ! 
 
 Argument second. The priestal confession is too 
 pure, the clerical office too holy, the sacerdotal function 
 too angelical to allow the priesthood to marry. I reply 
 in a twofold way. 1st. Celibate of the clergy is quite 
 opposed to reason and good sense, reason requiring the 
 marriage of a priest, as well as of other men. 2nd. Ce- 
 libate of the clergy is altogether contrary to the whole 
 current of Holy Scripture, to the palpable meaning of 
 both the Old and the New Testament. This papal doc- 
 trine or practice has no authority or warranty in the 
 command and direction given throughout the Bible ; and 
 has no sanction, no justification in the practice of pa- 
 triarch, prophet, apostle, priest, pastor, or other officially 
 or really sacred and holy people. I will bring but two 
 passages, two out of perhap two dozen or even two 
 score. l% Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed un- 
 defined." Heb. 13 : 4. Peter, the favorite of popery, 
 even Peter was married. Matt. 8 : 14 ; 1 Cor. 9 : 5. N. B. 
 It is said that all or nearly all the apostles were marri- 
 ed. One passage more. . w Now the Spirit speaketh ex- 
 pressly that, in the latter times, some shall depart from 
 the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines 
 of demons $ speaking lies in hypocrisy ; having their 
 conscience seared with a hot iron ,• forbidding to marry ; 
 and commanding to abstain from meats." 1 Tim. 4. Oh 
 papite ! " Eead, mark, learn, and inwardly digest this !" 
 
 Argument third. The apostle Paul appears, in 1 Cor. 
 7, to recommend abstaining from marriage, or to prefer 
 
CELIBATE OF THE CLERGY. 277 
 
 the single life ; and therefore the papal scheme of cleri- 
 cal celibate may boast of scriptural and apostolical au- 
 thority. Reply 1st. The recommendation or caution 
 was meant to be not perpetual, but temporary 5 was 
 given in relation not to time in general, but only to the 
 particular time when the apostle wrote. Paul counselled 
 for the time then present, and for no more. " This is 
 good for the present distress." Verse 26. Reply 2d. 
 Paul's words referred not to celibate of mere clergy, but 
 to that of clergy and laity 5 not specially or to the few, 
 but generally or to the many or all. Paul here wrote 
 not of the clergy alone, but of the kirk, of christian 
 people generally. " I would that all men were even as L" 
 Verse 7. Reader, look the chapter carefully through. 
 It had a reference to times of persecution. 
 
 Jlrgument fourth. Celibate gives to the clergy more 
 time for their official duty, by keeping them free from 
 family care. I will give two replies. Reply 1st. If un- 
 married clergy gain time in one way, they lose time in 
 another, and the loss perhap nearly countervailing the 
 gain. Celibate may gain little even in point of time ; 
 for that the gain as to time is material, is by no mean 
 clear. Reply 2d. But eyen if the gain in regard to 
 time were great, the loss in regard to other things is 
 greater, the gain in the former line being far inferior to 
 the loss in the latter. Therefore the result on the whole 
 is a preponderating evil. Celibate leads to evils many 
 and great, and therefore does far more harm than good. 
 
 Argument fifth. Maybe a papite will argue in the 
 following way : Even if celibate be wrong, even taking 
 for proved that the anti-marriage scheme is unreason- 
 able and unscriptural, and therefore an evil, you pro- 
 testant ought to blame not the papal kirk, but the 
 pristine, the pristine setting the example, and the papal 
 following it. Even if the pristine kirk did wrong in 
 adopting celibate, the papal did and does right in 
 
278 POPERY IN SPECIAL* 
 
 having it, copying the pristine pattern. The papal kirk 
 has done well in retaining the custom that it found 
 existing. Whether the early kirk did well, or ill in 
 beginning the custom, the papal did well in continuing 
 it when begun. I will give two replies. Reply 1st. 
 The papal kirk ought to have known that the conduct 
 of the pristine in regard to abstaining from marriage 
 was unreasonable and unscriptural, and therefore ought 
 to have acted in opposition thereto. If the kirk papal 
 would not open its eyes to see the wrong of the kirk 
 pristine, it was very blamable ; and if it saw the wrong, 
 and yet made it a part and parcel of its own ecclesias- 
 tical economy, it was very blamable. The papal kirk 
 acted badly in following a bad example. Reply 2nd. 
 The papal kirk made what had been frequent and 
 optional, to be universal and compulsory. In the pristine 
 kirk a part of the clergy followed celibate, and did it 
 voluntarily ; but in the papal kirk the whole do it, and 
 do it by the hard and stern guiding of compulsion.* 
 
 Subsection III. Of course, I write here in opposition 
 to celibacy by compulsion, or of compulsory celibate, 
 or of abstaining from marriage through exterior dicta- 
 tion and control. If the priesthood individually incline 
 to celibate, let them be celibatairs or bachelors ; if they 
 voluntarily prefer the single life, let them be free to 
 choose it. If any priest think he has good ground for 
 abstaining from matrimony, let him abstain. Let cler- 
 gymen have matrimonial freedom, like other men ; and 
 in deciding for or against a wife, let them be at liberty 
 to follow their own choice, consulting their conscience, 
 
 * The priest has no liberty of conscience in this matter. He has 
 no free volition : he is a perfect slave of the pope and of Satan, who 
 tempts him thence to incontinence. God, and his human constitution, 
 and nature, demand marriage. The pope and the tempter to un- 
 cleanness prevail over conscience, and duty, and purity ! 
 
CELIBATE OF THE CLERGY. 279 
 
 using their reason, and examining the word of God. 
 Subsedio?i IV. While the kirk of Rome has taken 
 care of the Celibate of the clergy, it has left the Chastity 
 of the clergy to take care of itself, as a thing of minor 
 note and import. Celibate has been required far more 
 rigorously than chastity. For, while to marry has been 
 strictly prohibited, and severely punished, to be unchaste 
 has been deemed a very venial offence, a mere pecca- 
 dillo. One might be tempted to imagine the court and 
 kirk of Rome as addressing the priesthood somewhat as 
 follows : " Avoid marriage, for the good of popery, for 
 the good of Rome ; indulge more or less in whoredom, 
 for the good of yourselves. Have not a wife, though 
 God allows a wife ; repel not a harlot, though God 
 forbids a harlot." In fact, many papal families have 
 preferred a priest who avowedly and regularly kept 
 a concubine, to a priest who did not, they deeming 
 the former paragon of purity less likely to attempt the 
 seduction of their female members.* This fact tells 
 ill for popery, telling more than would a volume. In- 
 deed a dreadful quantum of seduction, fornication, and 
 adultery, is chargeable on the papal priesthood, and 
 is put to their account in the book of God's remem- 
 brance. In fine, a great number of the priesthood have 
 greatly neglected the following question of inspired 
 Paul : " Thou that sayest a man should not commit 
 adultery, dost thou commit adultery '(" Rom. 2 : 22. 
 
 Subsection V. Nepotism, (fondness for nephews and 
 niees, or love and care of them,) nepotism has been a 
 remarkable quality in popes, cardinals, and other papal 
 clergymen These men of God, though made so by 
 man ! have had of course no son or daughter ; but they 
 have been surrounded with a great number of nephews 
 
 * In the Catholic Swiss cantons the priests were enjoined to have 
 concubines, to preserve the purity of the wives and daughters of the 
 citizens. 
 
280 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 and nieces^ for whom they have taken care to provide as 
 other men provide for their own offspring. It is rather 
 strange that brothers and sisters of popes, cardinals, 
 and other clergymen, are so peculiarly productive as 
 very often to have more children than they can rear, 
 educate and settle ; and that they find their reverend 
 bachelor brothers so kind to their little ones ! What a 
 comfort to them to be fraternally and sororially* con- 
 nected with, and to have their young ones snugly set- 
 tled by pure, holy, evangelical men, who are total stran- 
 gers to the flesh ! entire aliens from carnality ! and 
 wholly weaned from sensual predilection ! and who 
 iove the little creatures with a warmth and a zeal trans- 
 cendently admirable in uncles who are so wrapped up in 
 spiritual contemplation ! so swallowed up and lost in 
 heavenly designing and doing ! In kirks where clergy- 
 men are allowed to marry, they have children like other 
 men, and have no more than the common number of 
 nephews and nieces, for whom they take no more than 
 common care. In the kirk of Rome, however, where 
 clergymen do not marry, their nephews and nieces are 
 uncommonly and extraordinarily numerous, and are 
 treated by these spiritual and ethereal men with uncom- 
 mon and extraordinary care and affection. Now how 
 can we account for the notable fact, the zoological 
 phenomenon 1 May we infer that, — the reverend and 
 sacred men of the papal priesthood having bid farewell 
 to earthly affection, to Cupid and Hymen, and having 
 left population to take care of itself, — nature, fruitful in 
 contriving and providing, has given additional power of 
 prolification to their brothers and sisters, and additional 
 uncle-love to themselves, in order that population may 
 suffer no damage, that the burden of supporting a fair 
 
 * Sororial, meaning sisterly, comes from the Latin soror, and is 
 the proper correlative to fraternal, meaning brotherly. 
 
CELIBATE OF THE CLERGY. 281 
 
 proportion of the young may indirectly and circuitously 
 fall on the shoulders of the reverend men, and that the 
 burden may be borne by them willingly and agreeably % 
 Or, may not we rather infer that the pure personages 
 are apt to go astray, that the clerical celibatairs are 
 prone to be unchaste, that they often leave heavenly 
 and spiritual matters for earthly and fleshly ones, that 
 they frequently abandon the concern of the soul, to 
 mingle with the doing of carnality \ If the former 
 inference or theory be the judgment of charity, the 
 latter is the judgment of common reason, of history, and 
 of truth. I end with a query — Did not the word nepo- 
 tism originate in the love and care of nephews and 
 nieces, peculiarly observable in the papal priesthood % 
 Was not the term nepotism unknown ere the pope and 
 clergy were surrounded with nephews and nieces, alias, 
 bastard children 1 Or did the word nepotism originate 
 priorly ! Had the term been known and employed 
 afore, and therefore was it merely appropriated or 
 peculiarly applied to the conduct of the pope and 
 priesthood of Rome 1 
 
 Subsection VI. A pope or more, many of the cardi- 
 nals, and very many of the clergy, while abusing and 
 excommunicating poor Luther and the like, fulminating 
 anathemas and hurling the thunder of the Vatican at 
 the German Reformer and others, truly men of God, for 
 having honorably, virtuously, and scripturally married 
 an honorable, virtuous, and holy woman, have been 
 themselves, in Rome and elsewhere, indulging in un- 
 lawful amour and debauchery, lewdly living and revel- 
 ing with concubines and whores ! cursing Luther, and 
 cursed by God ! In viewing their intentional barbarity 
 and cruelty, their volitive despotism and oppression, 
 their willed persecution, torture, and murder in refer- 
 ence to Luther and the like ; in viewing their actual 
 lewd life and sensuality, their seduction, fornication, 
 
282 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 and adultery ; in viewing their consummate hypocrisy, 
 their abominable Jesuitism, their infamous guile and 
 fraud $ we are powerfully reminded of the words of our 
 Lord, used in relation to members of the Jewish priest- 
 hood : " Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can 
 ye escape the damnation of hell 1" Matt. 23 : 33. 
 
 SECTION XVII. 
 
 THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS. 
 
 Subsection 7. Of Baptism and Eucharist I now affirm 
 nothing. Of the other five, Confirmation, Penance, Or- 
 ders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, I affirm that 
 they are no sacraments at all, that they are utterly 
 without the sacramental character. 
 
 1st. Confirmation. I do not find the confirmation 
 sacrament in the Bible. Whether or not anything is 
 said there about confirmation as a mere rite or cere- 
 mony, (a point whereon I here give no opinion,) I can- 
 not find it there as a sacrament. Where in Holy Writ 
 do we read of the sacrament of confirmation, of being 
 sacramentally confirmed, of a bishop performing a real 
 and proper sacrament by putting his hand on our head, 
 praying for us, and the like \ Nowhere. Imposition of 
 hands, the laying on of hands, is mentioned in Scrip- 
 ture ; but nowhere as a sacrament. Whether the ceremo- 
 ny of the imposition is taken as not being, or being obli- 
 gatory on us, and whether it is obligatory little or much, 
 it is not obligatory on account of any sacramental pro- 
 perty or character. We Protestants may not all agree 
 about the rite, but we all agree in defying the papal 
 
THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS. 283 
 
 advocate to prove the sacrament. Moreover, confirma- 
 tion differs largely from imposition of hands, including 
 it and a very great deal more ; and building the modern 
 papal sacrament of confirmation on the antique and un- 
 pretending ceremony, is like building a large and regu- 
 lar mansion on the foundation of a mere small cot. 
 " Oh, but Jesus Christ instituted the sacrament of con- 
 firmation !" Did he indeed] When, where and how ] 
 The papite will have to bring proof from pretended oral 
 tradition, for he will not find any in the written word, 
 Scripture being silent on the matter. Sacramental con- 
 firmation partakes greatly of papally prelatical and of 
 pontifical pride. Thus it appears that confirmation is 
 not a sacrament ; that whatever other claim it has, it 
 has not the sacTamental one. 
 
 2d. Penance. Penance is no sacrament. What is 
 penance 1 Speaking generally, penance is punishment, 
 ecclesiastical punishment. Speaking specially, penance 
 is one of two parts of kirk discipline, either correction 
 or expulsion, and commonly correction. Correction by 
 the kirk is penance ; expulsion from the kirk may be 
 penance. (See section 13, subsection 3, article 3.) 
 Correction is multiform, expulsion is uniform ; there 
 being a dozen, a score, a hundred kinds of correction, 
 but only one general kind of expulsion. Now is cor- 
 rection taken in general, taken as the genus, a sacra- 
 ment 1 or is every species of correction a sacrament] 
 If every species be a sacrament, we shall have not se- 
 ven sacraments only, but seven score of them. More- 
 over, is expulsion a sacrament 1 Calling correction 
 by a kirk, or expulsion from a kirk, a sacrament, is 
 quite nonsensical and ridiculous. If penance be taken 
 to mean penitence, it is no sacrament ; being a good 
 thing, but no sacramental one. If penance or penitence 
 be a sacrament, piety and virtue are sacraments. Being 
 penitent is no more sacramental or a sacrament, than 
 
284 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 being holy, being moral, and the like are sacramental. 
 Query. What is the symbol, the outward and visible 
 sign in penance % There is none, no symbol or sign. 
 Calling contrition or the like the outward sign, terming 
 it, as the council of Trent did, the quasi materia, the 
 matter after a sort, matter as it were, is mere idle trifling, 
 or mere quibbling, unworthy of a candid man. It follows 
 that penance is not a sacrament. 
 
 3d. Orders, Whatever else Orders may be, it is not 
 a sacrament. The Eoman clergy make a great hubbub 
 and ado about Sacramental Orders or Holy Orders. 
 What is the nature of Orders % for when we know that, 
 we may know that it has little claim or no claim to be 
 deemed sacramental. Several opinions about Orders 
 are abroad in the world ; and without attempting to 
 show what is the right one, (an attempt that would be 
 out of place here,) I count to prove that whatever tole- 
 rable opinion we adopt, whatever moderate theory we 
 hold, we cannot find the sacrament. One view of Or- 
 ders is the following : Being Divinely called, being con- 
 scientiously called to preach the Gospel ; and serving 
 some people in quality of preacher, pastor, minister, 
 &c. with scriptural satisfaction to him and them. To 
 this view or definition, some would add the being call- 
 ed by a presbytery, and others would add the being 
 called or authorized by a bishop. If we take the papal 
 view, the being called or authorized by the pope or a 
 popeling, we have four theories on Orders ; and maybe 
 four are not all. Now what theory of the whole im- 
 plies a sacrament 1 Not one. Where among them all 
 do we find the sacramental! Nowhere. Surely the first- 
 mentioned theory involves no sacrament ; and truly 
 there is no sacrament in being called by a presbytery ; 
 and the being called or authorized by a bishop is not 
 sacramental. And I would fain know how a sacrament 
 is wrapped up in being called, or authorized, or dubbed 
 
THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS. 285 
 
 by the pope or a popeling. By what rule of reason or 
 Holy Writ is ordination by the bishop of Rome a sacra- 
 ment more than ordination by the bishop of any other 
 place 1 By no rule. Ordination from Constantinople or 
 Canterbury, is quite as sacramental as that from Rome, 
 the patriarch and the archbishop being ordainers quite 
 as good as the pope, and mayhap far better. Therefore 
 there is not the sacramental character ; or in any mo- 
 derate meaning of the term, Orders is not a sacrament. 
 Indeed in the full priestly meaning of the term, Orders 
 cannot be proved to be a sacrament without quibbling, 
 and misapplication of language. 
 
 Properly and accurately speaking, the sacrament 
 ought to be affirmed not of Orders, but of Ordination, 
 or entering into orders. By Orders I understand the 
 clerical state of life ; and by Ordination, I understand 
 entering into that state. Therefore instead of saying 
 the sacrament of orders, papal folk ought to say the sa- 
 crament of ordination. What are the several meanings 
 of ordination \ I will give four. One meaning is the 
 following : Reception by a man of the spiritual call to 
 preach the Gospel ; and agreement between him and 
 some people to minister and. to be ministered unto in 
 holy things. This may be called the theory Independent. 
 Next we have the theory Presbyterian, implying, in ad- 
 dition to the above, the call of a presbytery. Then 
 comes the theory Episcopal, a theory upheld by many 
 learned pens, implying the call or authorization of a 
 bishop. Lastly we find the theory Papal, one upheld by 
 the pens and power of Rome, implying the call or autho- 
 rization of the pope or a popeling. Now how, or by 
 what mean can ordination, taken in any meaning of the 
 four, be proved to be a sacrament % Not at all, by no 
 mean. Whatever else it may contain, it contains no 
 sacrament ; it may be more simple or more complex, 
 but is not sacramental. 
 
286 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 4th. Matrimony. It is quite puerile to call matrimony, 
 or entering into matrimony, a sacrament. Matrimony is 
 a mode of life allowed by Scripture and reason, but has 
 no sacramental character. In this pretended sacrament 
 we find neither the outward and visible sign, nor the in- 
 ward and spiritual grace ; neither the sign, nor the thing 
 signified. How is grace exhibited, or how is it conferred 
 by marrying 1 And where in Scripture do we find the 
 institution of this papal sacrament 1 No where. We 
 find it in the unholy council of Trent, but not in the 
 Holy Bible. If people talk at random, they may call 
 not only marriage or marrying, but engaging in our law- 
 ful worldly profession a sacrament ; then becoming a 
 merchant, becoming a surgeon, becoming a farmer, are 
 three sacraments. 
 
 5th. Extreme Unction. Extreme unction is extreme 
 presumption, but no sacrament. Extreme unction, or 
 anointing people when about to die, and to prepare 
 them for death, is an unscriptural invention, a pre- 
 sumptuous plan of presuming man. Mark and James 
 write of anointing with oil. "They anointed with oil 
 many that were sick, and healed them. Mark, 6:13. Is 
 any sick among you ? Let him call for the elders of 
 the church ; and let them pray over him, anointing him 
 with oil in the name of the Lord : and the prayer of 
 faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him 
 up." James, 5. Now the anointing here mentioned was 
 in order to recovery, was done that the sick person 
 might live, was done to heal the sick, to save him and 
 raise him up. But the anointing of popery or extreme 
 unction is in order to death, or rather to preparation 
 for death, is done that the sick person may die com- 
 fortably, is done (one may fancy) to enable the dying 
 person to glide smoothly out of our world, and to slip 
 swiftly and unobservedly into heaven ! The very name 
 Extreme Unction was given to the papal unction, be- 
 
THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS. 287 
 
 cause it is employed in the extreme moment of life, in 
 the last extremity, when the soul is leaving the body, 
 when death is certain and near at hand. It follows that 
 papal anointing or extreme unction is not in Scripture, 
 and of course is not a sacrament. Moreover, the kind 
 of anointing or unction mentioned in Scripture, is by no 
 mean a sacrament. 
 
 Subsection II. In opposition to the notion of seven 
 sacraments, or of any number above two, an argument 
 that I do not remember to have read in any book, or to 
 have heard from any speaker, has occurred to me while 
 writing my work ; and as it appears to me to have con- 
 siderable weight, it will be given here. It will be stated 
 briefly 5 therefore if it shall not please the reader, it 
 will not detain him long. 
 
 The inward or spiritual blessings needed by man 
 while on earth, are reducible to two, namely, justifica- 
 tion and sanctification, or pardon and purity ; therefore 
 only two outward and visible signs are required, name- 
 ly, eucharist and baptism, the former signifying justifi- 
 cation or pardon, and the latter signifying sanctification 
 or purity. I here take holy joy or love to be implied in 
 sanctification or purity. The things signified being 
 two, the signs need not be seven nor even three, need 
 not be more than two. Can any one prove that our in- 
 ward or spiritual goods are radically seven or even three, 
 that they are not fairly resolvible into two \ Or can any 
 one prove that either spiritual good requires more than 
 one visible type % If the goods be but two, and if nei- 
 ther require more than one visible type, two types are 
 enough, and more than two are inutile and unreasonable. 
 There being but two things signified, pardon and pu- 
 rity, let there be but two signs or sacraments, eucharist 
 and baptism. Therefore we want not seven sacraments 
 nor even three, but only two. Two spirituals — two sa- 
 craments. If the five pretended papal sacraments mean 
 
288 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 not pardon and purity, they are either unmeaning or ill- 
 meaning ; if they mean pardon and purity, they are su- 
 perfluous, eucharist and baptism meaning the same two 
 things. Two spirituals — two sacraments. 
 
 Subsection III. Making the foregoing five things ap- 
 pear to the people, and be regarded by them as five sa- 
 craments, tends to dignify and magnify the papal priest- 
 hood, to increase their pride, to augment and confirm 
 their power, and to indue them with sovereign control. 
 Granting hypothetically that they are sacraments, the 
 priesthood claim to convey greater advantage or good 
 to the people, and appear to stand toward the latter in 
 a more imposing and awful relation. And of course, the 
 papal notion tends to fill the people with vain hope, to 
 make them lean on a broken reed, and to make them 
 think that they have received a spiritual and sacra- 
 mental blessing, by merely having gone through a pom- 
 pous ceremonial form. The Roman priesthood may be 
 imagined to address the people somewhat as follows : 
 M If the five things were mere ceremonies or rites, we 
 should convey to you, through them, common and or- 
 dinary benefit ; but the five being sacraments, we con- 
 vey to you, by their mediation, benefit uncommon and 
 extraordinary, privileges many and great, blessing and 
 grace sacramental and divine. 5 ' 
 
 1st. If Confirmation be taken for a sacrament, how 
 great are the confirmers ! and how greatly exalted is the 
 pride of papal Eome ! Whatever else sacramental con- 
 firmation does, it confirms the pride and power of the 
 Roman priesthood. Bishops only, I am aware, perform 
 the act of confirmation, or confirm. But other clergymen, 
 as members of the clerical body, partake of the dignity 
 and power that bishops bring to the body ; and other 
 clergymen hope to be, in time, exalted to the order 
 prelatical if not pontifical. Therefore the whole Roman 
 priesthood become lifted up and magnified. Moreover, 
 
THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS. 289 
 
 the priesthood claim to convey greater good to the 
 people confirmed. What the greater good is, I am un- 
 able to explain, because unable to conceive. One thing 
 I know : if papites can prove their pretendedly sacra- 
 mental confirmation to confer more real or solid good 
 than the confessedly ritual one, they will greatly uncon- 
 firm me in my opposition to Rome. 
 
 2nd. If Penance be taken for a sacrament, the priest- 
 hood derive the greater importance from being the 
 inflicters. How important the clergy who can measure 
 out sacramental penance to the laity ! In knowing when 
 people deserve correction, when they merit expulsion, 
 and when they ought not to suffer either kind of eccle- 
 siastical punishment : in deciding, in reference to cor- 
 rection and expulsion, the following three things, the 
 fact, the guilty the punishment ; in determining if the 
 action really occurred, if it have the character of guilt, 
 and what the punishment ought to be — how intense and 
 how durable : — the Roman priesthood know, decide, and 
 determine in relation to something beyond the common, 
 something bordering on the marvellous, or something 
 above the grasp of our plain protestant wit. They soar 
 far above us, far away into the clouds, the clouds of 
 mist ; and there they probably discover their penance 
 sacrament, for they cannot find it on solid ground. 
 Otherwise they have a clearer insight into sacramental 
 matters ; and, backed by their infallibility, their acute- 
 ness can penetrate where our obtusity cannot enter. 
 Comparing the most knowing of the protestant clergy 
 with the most ignorant of the papal, on a point of kirk 
 discipline viewed sacramentally, is like comparing a 
 mole with an eagle,— a papal being the judge ! As a 
 result of having and not having the sacramental conceit, 
 the papal clergy become exalted and magnified, — while 
 the protestant clergy are bound to be humble. In 
 punishing a man in the kirk, or in punishing him by 
 
 13 
 
290 rOPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 turning him hereout, we indeed see punishment, but we 
 see nothino- more, we see not the sacrament ; our dim 
 or dull eyes cannot discern the sacramental mystery 
 contained in correction and expulsion : the eagle eye 
 of popery is needed here. Nor have we brain enough 
 to know how a sacrament is wrapped up in penitence, 
 any more than in another moral state of mind. It may 
 be a pity that we are so dim or short-sighted ; but to 
 have the perspicacity of Rome, to see a sacrament 
 where none is to be seen, is not within the scope of 
 our will. By our want of it we may lose something, but 
 hardly humility ; and by their greater wisdom our papal 
 friends may gain something, and the thing may be 
 pride, or more particularly, the papal priesthood may 
 be rendered proud, overbearingly powerful, presump- 
 tuous and the like ; and the people be bewildered and 
 befooled, and led to think that they have a substance 
 when they have but the shadow. For on the sacra- 
 mental plan, how much greater are the blessings (of a 
 spiritual kind I ween) that the clerical imposters of 
 penance convey to the laical sufferers hereof? Indeed 
 the number and magnitude of the benefits accruing to 
 the people from penance laid on them by the priesthood, 
 are quite above my comprehension, and mayhap are 
 equally above that of the poor penance-doing people 
 themselves ! 
 
 3rd. If orders, or rather ordination, be taken for a 
 sacrament, the papal priesthood are quite at home, are 
 in their own element, and carry the matter with a high 
 hand and an outspread arm. They contend more strong- 
 ly for the length, and breadth, and depth of the privilege 
 conferred by Ordering or Ordaining — that indescribable 
 something concealed in the sacramental character of 
 Orders. Oh what many great and good things are im- 
 parted by sacramental Orders to the happy recipient, to 
 the blissful donee ! Here I am lost in an ocean of won- 
 
THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS. 291 
 
 der ! and here the Roman priesthood are directly and 
 immediately, innumerably and immensurably magnified, 
 glorified, and even deified! The blessings and graces 
 of the papal sacrament of Holy Orders or Unholy Orders, 
 as the thing may be, are so many and so great as to be 
 incomprehensible and inconceivable by my plain com- 
 mon wit j indeed they are fully numberable and measura- 
 able by none but papally priestal penetration. According 
 to the little peep, however, that I, in my humble way, 
 have been able to take into the orders or ordination, 
 mystery or sacrament, I opine, I ween that their ordina- 
 tion conveys to the papal priesthood, or rather that 
 thereby the priesthood convey to themselves, power 
 and authority over the soul, the body, and the estate of 
 the people, the laity ; power and authority to send up 
 to heaven all who please, and to send down to hell all 
 who displease them ; power and authority to take God's 
 own power out of God's own hands, removing Jesus 
 Christ from the governmental throne of the world, and 
 either sending the Almighty into the idle and do-no- 
 thing state of an Epicurean god, or confining his rule to 
 Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Halley's Comet, and the like. 
 Maybe, however, God's rule extends as near the earth 
 as the moon ; but it comes no nearer. The orbit of the 
 moon may be a kind of boundary line between the pope 
 and the Deity, though the fact is nowhere mentioned 
 by Newton or any other astronomer. I am unable to 
 find any definite and exact boundary between the pope 
 and the devil. Their imperial and sinful majesties are 
 on so intimate and friendly terms, being members of 
 a family alliance, (though not a holy one,) as not to 
 require an intermediate boundary ; for they rule and 
 govern in a kind of coparcenary way, having all things 
 in common, having no mine and thine, but only our. 
 4th. If matrimony or marrying be taken for a sacra- 
 ment, none may contract marriage unless the Roman 
 
292 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 cr sacramental priesthood perform the solemnization, 
 and procure sacramental support for pride and power ', 
 people may not marry, if the priest will not marry 
 them, and do not, by the sacramental whim, endanger 
 his humility and the like. No man may have a wife, 
 and no woman may have a husband afore the priest 
 agrees to tie the matrimonial knot, and risks the unty- 
 ing of his humble demeanor, and letting it run away. 
 Again. No husband or wife may be divorced, unless the 
 priesthood permit, grant a dispensation, or allow a di- 
 vorce ; and unless, through their sacramental hobby, 
 they become in danger of a divorce from more or less 
 of their modest or lowly carriage. Thus people may 
 neither marry nor unmarry without priorly obtaining 
 permission from papal or sacramental Rome, and with- 
 out giving her occasion for being puffed up by her fan- 
 cied sacramental importance and power. Moreover, the 
 priesthood claim to convey a greater good or blessing 
 to the married pair, even a sacramental one. If the 
 pretended sacrament would keep away the matrimo- 
 nial ills that afflict the present life, (through want of 
 piety, good temper, good sense, &c») it would be a 
 boon ; and Rome might then be the general marrier of 
 Christendom. 
 
 5th. If Extreme Unction be taken for a sacrament, 
 the priesthood obtain the greater regard by being the 
 anointers. How important the priestly hand that sacra- 
 ment ally anoints the dying person ! Moreover, they 
 claim to convey far superior advantage to the dying 
 man or woman's body or soul, to the latter I opine 
 What the boon and benefit are that the clerical donor 
 confers on the laical donee, I do not pretend to imagine 
 Maybe Extreme Unction is sometime given not only as a 
 viaticum, a provision for the journey, but even as a kind 
 of letter of recommendation to Peter ! a kind of pass- 
 port to heaven ! 
 
THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS. 293 
 
 Subsection IV. The tendency and aptitude of the pa- 
 pal doctrine of the five sacraments to promote priest- 
 rule, to bring power, and pelf, and exaltation to the pa- 
 pal priesthood, are the grand recommendation of the 
 doctrine to their priestly favor, are the leading reason, 
 the main cause why the doctrine was imposed upon the 
 world, or why it was palmed on the unreading, un- 
 thinking, confiding multitude. The people depended on 
 the priesthood to be guided in the true scriptural way ; 
 and the latter, deeming the fivefold sacramental doctrine 
 a utile medium for promoting their own temporal inte- 
 rest, beguiled the poor people by the delusive quintuple 
 medley of reality and fable. The five sacraments are 
 five particular plans for pillaring up the priesthood, and 
 for confirming their power and rule ; and thereby form 
 the principal ground for the papal sacramental doctrine. 
 Revelation and reason afford no good ground for the 
 doctrine, therefore the priesthood uphold it because of 
 its priestrulive character. The doctrine favors the Ro- 
 man clergy ; and for this reason, and for no other, it is 
 favored by them in return. If the five sacraments were 
 not Rve strong supporters of priestrule, they might go 
 to the four winds. Alas! How many of. the doctrines 
 of popery have no foundation in truth! Popery is a 
 cunning compound of superficial truth and solid error. 
 
 Subsection V. Article 1. Papal folk have held an 
 impious and immoral dogma, in holding that the sacra- 
 ments confer grace independently on the state of the 
 mind, on the bent of the will, on the secret inten- 
 tion of the soul ; that they confer grace ex opere ope- 
 rate, through work wrought* The notion of the in- 
 herent efficacy of the bare sacramental rite is a dan- 
 gerous delusion. Holding the opinion that the mere 
 
 * Glueiy. Are the three Latin words, ex opere operalo, duly ren- 
 dered by the three English ones, through uuirlc itrought? 
 
294 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 regular performing of the sacramental rite, the mere 
 opus opercdum or work wrought, confers grace or 
 makes one a christian, will naturally take off the atten- 
 tion from the great essentials of repentance and faith, 
 pardon and purity. The delusive opinion will greatly 
 tend to substitute the sign for the thing signified, will 
 more or less make Christianity appear to consist in name 
 instead of in nature, and will effectively bring one to 
 pay more regard to the outward ceremony, than to in- 
 ward devotion or holiness of heart. The delusive 
 opinion leads one to contravene the benevolent design 
 of heaven, counteracting the love and goodness of God. 
 Article 2. Popery has taught the delusive and dan- 
 gerful doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration. Baptismal 
 Regeneration may mean two things. 1st. It may mean 
 that baptism is regeneration, that baptism by water is 
 regeneration by the Spirit, that the material and out- 
 ward ceremony is the only mental and inward change, 
 that there are not a sign and a thing signified, or that 
 the sign and the thing signified are identical, or that the 
 mere bodily and external washing is all in all. 2nd. It 
 may mean that baptism is always accompanied by re- 
 generation, that baptism by water is ever connected 
 with regeneration by the Spirit, that the material and 
 outward ceremony is invariably attended by the mental 
 and inward change, that the sign has a constant compa- 
 • nion in the thing signified, or that the bodily and exter- 
 nal washing and the spiritual and internal blessing, the 
 two parts of the whole, inseparably go hand in hand, the 
 application of less or more of water to the body being 
 never without the application of purity or sanctification 
 to the soul. Now the foregoing two meanings are 
 unreasonable and unscriptural, and particularly the for- 
 mer meaning. Baptism is not regeneration. Baptism 
 is not always accompanied by regeneration. The water 
 ceremony neither is, nor is continually followed by, 
 
THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS. 295 
 
 the renewal of heart or purification of soul. The first 
 meaning is uncommonly absurd, and the second absurd 
 enough. Baptism may be, and sometime is an operative 
 mean of grace, and accompanied by regeneration. It 
 may be a leading mean of grace, one of the most 
 important of all 5 and may be not seldom attended by 
 the regenerating operation. But that baptism is univer- 
 sally an effective mean of grace, and universally attend- 
 ed by regeneration or renovation, is denied or contra- 
 dicted by all we see, and hear, and read 5 by the testimo- 
 ny of every country and age, or by the general experi- 
 ence of the christian world. Affirming baptism either 
 to be regeneration, or to be always accompanied by it, 
 is a part of the ex opere cperafo plan, that monster of 
 popery and murderer of piety. And the affirmation has 
 been made over and over by the papal tongue and pen. 
 Papal priests of pagan principle, gravely tell the people 
 that when baptized they are born again ! when sprink- 
 led with water, or immerged herein, they are made new 
 creatures ! What heathen darkness relating to the work 
 of God upon the soul, to the words of Holy Scripture, 
 and to right reason ! I pity the blind guides, and the 
 poor souls whom they guide, or rather misguide. ft Art 
 thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things V 
 John, 3. Unrenewed, unholy, unregenerate men advo- 
 cate baptismal regeneration. But do we find people 
 truly converted to God, people of real religion, of genu- 
 ine godliness, of decided and deep personal piety ; do 
 we find them contending for the doctrine ] Very seldom 
 indeed. They who are regenerated by the Holy Ghost, 
 who are renewed in the image of Christ, who are scrip- 
 turaily and spiritually born again, who are sanctified by 
 Divine power, who are really and truly changed in heart 
 from sin to holiness, they hurl to the winds, or even to 
 the fiends, the solemn foolery, the monster doctrine, the 
 dangerous delusion, the pestilent principle, the fatal 
 
296 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 error, the baneful heresy of baptismal regeneration, — 
 that lamentable offspring of papal Eome. N. B. Of 
 course, these remarks on baptismal regeneration apply- 
 to it when taken in the meanings here given, and then 
 only. Therefore if any one take baptismal regeneration 
 in a third meaning, in one quite different from the fore- 
 going two, he is not affected by these remarks, and has 
 no reason to feel offended or hurt. 
 
 I see no more reason for holding baptismal regene- 
 ration, than for holding eucharistal forgiveness of sin $ 
 baptismal sanctification and eucharistal justification 
 being doctrines equally tenable, or rather equally un- 
 tenable. Now no reasonable, scriptural, and holy men 
 really believe, or ought really to believe in eucharistal 
 justification; therefore none ought to believe in baptis- 
 mal sanctification. The eucharist, or Lord's Supper, is 
 an outward sign of justification, and Baptism is an out- 
 ward sign of sanctification; but the two signs are not 
 the two things signified, and are not always accompa- 
 nied by them. As people can, and often do receive the 
 eucharist without being justified ; so people can and of- 
 ten do, receive baptism without being sanctified. In fine, 
 eucharistal pardon and baptismal regeneration are two 
 doctrines equally and eminently unchristian and absurd. 
 
 Baptismal regeneration must surely imply baptismal 
 forgiveness of sin ; justification being clearly implied 
 by sanctification* Whoever has purity, has pardon ; 
 whoever is freed from the corruption of his heart, is 
 liberated from his guilt in the court of heaven. God 
 does not cleanse a soul from inward pollution, without 
 remitting the debt contracted by iniquity. Will God re- 
 new a man in his own holy image, while he is under the 
 curse, and exposed to the vengeance of the broken law \ 
 will God make him fit for heaven, while he is liable to 
 the punishment of hell \ the heart of an angel being 
 joined to the doom of a devil] No, no. A sanctified 
 
PRIESTAL INTENTION, 297 
 
 soul is a justified one, heaven-born holiness is meant to 
 lead to heavenly happiness, a god-like soul is not ap- 
 pointed to be eternally absent from God, and sancti- 
 fication, the farther and higher work, is not without 
 justification, the preliminary one. As the Lord does 
 not mean to damn a being having his own pure na- 
 ture, so he pardons if he purify. Sanctification im- 
 plying justification; if water baptism imply the former, 
 it implies the latter 5 if through being outwardly bap- 
 tized we be regenerated, through that we are forgiven : 
 and therefore baptismal regeneration implies baptismal 
 forgiveness of sin. Now as reasonable, scriptural, and 
 holy people do not hold baptismal forgiveness of sin, 
 do not believe that water baptism must imply or carry 
 justification ; so they ought not to hold or believe, but 
 ought to reject the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, 
 or of sanctification being conveyed by a mere rite, hurl- 
 ing: the nonsensical notion to all the winds that blow. 
 
 SECTION XVIIL 
 
 PRIEST A L INTENTION. 
 
 Subsection 7. Think of the blasphemous conceit of 
 Priestal Intention. We have been told, in effect, that 
 people, whatever the state of their heart, whatever the 
 bent of their soul, however good, do or do not receive 
 benefit in religious ordinance, particularly the seven 
 sacraments, according to the secret intention of the 
 officiating priest ! Without intention in the priest, there 
 is no real sacrament ! If the priest intend to bless, they 
 are blessed ! if the priest intend not to bless, they are 
 not blessed ! It follows that the priest, and not God 
 
 13* 
 
298 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 only, is the blesser ! that the priest, and not God only, 
 gives or withholds the blessing ! Detestable compound 
 of falsehood, pride, and blasphemy ! abhorrible* engine 
 of popery and Rome ! 
 
 The plain and palpable aim or object of the utterly 
 unreasonable and unscriptural doctrine of priestly in- 
 tention, is to magnify the power of the priesthood over 
 the people, to make the latter tremble before the former, 
 and fear to offend them, lest they occasion the withhold- 
 ing of priestly intention ! Priestal intention is maintain- 
 ed to maintain priestal interest. 
 
 Subsection II. Article I. The doctrine of priestal in- 
 tention, however, is a two-edged sword, and a two-point- 
 ed one, and deservedly cuts and pierces the unworthy 
 priestly hand that wields it. According to the doc- 
 trine, nobody on earth can be certain or can have certain 
 knowledge that a supposed priest is a real one ; that he 
 was really ordained, really confirmed, or really baptiz- 
 ed ; that his ordination, confirmation, or baptism was 
 any thing more than a mere empty form or unreal 
 mockery. How can any one know it certainly, seeing 
 that the validity of the ordination, confirmation, bap- 
 tism, depends on the intention of another, and that no 
 one can certainly and fully know another man's inten- 
 tion 1 Who upon earth can search the heart, see the 
 interior of the soul, or evidently know the secret thought 
 and intention of the mind of another, of priest A or 
 priest B1 No one. Therefore no one upon earth can 
 indubitably know that a priest when baptizing, confirm- 
 ing, ordaining, or administering the eucharist, penance, 
 marriage, or extreme unction, really intends to baptize, 
 confirm, ordain, or the like. For aught that any man or 
 woman can assuredly tell, the priest does not so intend, 
 has not the required intention, and therefore hinders the 
 
 * Is not the word abhorrible a very proper one. 
 
PR4ESTAL INTENTION, 290 
 
 being of a real and true sacrament. In regard to any 
 sacrament of the seven, if the priest do not intend to 
 make the sacrament, no sacrament is made; and we 
 cannot affirm with clear knowledge, that he does intend 
 to make it. We are not sure that, in administering a 
 sacrament, a priest has the due intention ; and perhap 
 he has it not, We know not that he has, and perhap he 
 has not. If a priest intend not to baptize, confirm, ordain, 
 or the like, there is no baptism, confirmation, ordination, 
 or the like ; and probably many a priest have, one time 
 or oftener, been without the due intention; and there- 
 fore probably many a sacrament have been unreal and 
 null, or a mere hollow mockery. And when we contem- 
 plate the long line of priests, a line reaching from the 
 christian era to our day, we find that hundreds or thou- 
 sands of men may have wanted the right intention ; and 
 therefore may have, hundreds or thousands of times, 
 nullified or hindered a sacrament, or wholly corrupted 
 a sacramental administration ; and therefore may have, 
 hundreds or thousands of times, brought disorder and 
 nullity into the kirk, unpriesting the priesthood, and 
 unchristianizing both priesthood and people. The great 
 priestal chain extending from the apostolic time to our 
 time, contains thousands of links ; and any priestal link 
 may have failed in right intention, and so may have 
 destroyed or prevented a sacrament, and so may have 
 let confusion and nihility into the long and broad range 
 of ecclesiastical conduct and character, making a thing 
 to be nothing, and men to-be not what they appear. In 
 fine, according to the doctrine of priestal intention, 
 apparent priests may be not really priestal, and appa- 
 rent christians may be not really christian — sacramen^ 
 tally. See Transubstantiation, subsection 2, argument 18. 
 Article 2. I quote the following from Gideon Ouseley: 
 tr While the clergy contemplated the great benefits 
 which accrued to them from this doctrine of intention, 
 
300 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 even the full subjugation of the people, and were com- 
 forted with the delightful prospect, through the blind- 
 ness of their hearts to which it seems God gave them 
 up in just judgment for their daring conduct and Babel 
 building, little did they think or foresee they were pre- 
 paring a rod terribly to scourge themselves, a complete 
 instrument of their own undoing. For while this doc- 
 trine exalts them thus to the summit of their desires, it 
 is but for a moment, and to precipitate them headlong 
 into utter annihilation. For if by the want of intention 
 in them when they ministered, the people were destroy- 
 ed ; so by the want of the like intention in those who 
 baptized and ordained themselves, must themselves be 
 destroyed. So that now, if they have not been rightly 
 baptised and ordained by such as were rightly qualified, 
 and had right intention, and they again by other such 
 persons, and so on back to the very apostles — a thing 
 impossible, they have no true baptism or ordination at 
 all ; and this operating on the whole body of the clergy, 
 necessarily exterminates them all. For if by this doc- 
 trine of intention, all the people of the papal church 
 are brought unto such miserable circumstances and per- 
 plexities, that 'tis impossible for them to know whether 
 their clergymen be lawful, or be christians at all ; or 
 whether they be christians themselves, or have received 
 any true sacrament 5 (as Bellarmine confesses) or whe- 
 ther what they have and do receive, being false sacra- 
 ments, are not hastening their damnation ! so also are 
 the priests, from the highest to the lowest of them, 
 unavoidably plunged into the same abyss of uncertainty 
 and misery ; because 'tis impossible for them to know 
 whether they be priests, as above noticed, and as Gabriel 
 Biel (one of them) is obliged to allow ; or whether all 
 their services be not so many sacrileges, hastening their 
 own destruction, and that of their people ! Thus by this 
 famous canon of Intention, found in the Council of 
 
SUPERSTITION. 301 
 
 Florence, and in that of Trent, by this conspicuous child 
 of the Infallibility, is the entire Papal Church, Clergy, 
 People, Infallibility, Transubstantiation, with all the 
 other peculiarities, grandeur, and high pretensions of 
 the papacy, precipitated into eternal ruin — swallowed 
 up as in a moment — and devoured altogether! ! Thus 
 corruption terminates in its own ruin. 
 
 " Saith Gabriel Biel, * No priest that celebrateth, can 
 know evidently whether he be a priest ; for he cannot 
 know evidently whether he be baptized, or whether he 
 be lawfully ordained. 5 
 
 w Saith cardinal Bellarmdne, f No man can be certain, 
 with the certainty of faith, that he receives a true 
 sacrament \ because it depends on the intention of the 
 minister, and none can see another man's intention.' " 
 
 SECTION XIX. 
 
 SUPERSTITION. 
 
 Subsection /. Superstition is one main essential of 
 popery, being thoroughly and largely mingled with the 
 other materials of the papal fabric. Standing up for 
 trifles ; making a great stir about little things $ treating 
 a duck as if it were a swan, and a hawk as if it were an 
 eagle, carefully regarding the minor matter, and often 
 disregarding the major one ; — this conduct imbues the 
 whole papal system ; runs through the length, the 
 breadth, and the depth hereof; is found in every grade, 
 even from the pope to the lowest friar ; and appears in 
 all work, from the canonization of a worthy, or the 
 making and marring of a new Jesus Christ, (see Tran- 
 
302 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 substantiation,) to the counting of the beads, or the 
 placing of an image; To one deeply imbued with the 
 sublime spirit of Scripture, and filled with the soul of 
 ennobling philosophy, a great portion of the papal 
 scheme appears little more than a mere mass of mum- 
 mery ; an innumerable number of nothings ; the moun- 
 tain deemed a molehill, and the molehill esteemed a 
 mountain ; the lion bartered for the jackal, and the 
 jackal exchanged for the mouse. 
 
 White, black, and gray, with all their trumpery. 
 
 Milton. 
 
 And how could it easily be otherwise 1 Popery is de- 
 signed not for the mind, the soul, the reason, but for the 
 body, the senses, the ear and the eye ; is intended to 
 prepare man not for communion with God, but for sub- 
 jection to the priesthood ; is meant not to elevate hu- 
 man beings in the scale of existence, and to endow 
 them with heaven, but to keep or make them unintellec- 
 tual and low, and even to deprive them of earth. Pope- 
 ry was planned to promote spiritual and temporal slave- 
 ry ; to make the many (the people) a mere beast of bur- 
 den, and to make the few (the priesthood) the burdener, 
 rider, and owner. Therefore popery is in a manner 
 bound to deal in littles, to occupy and amuse mankind 
 with trifling and toys, and to allure and delude the 
 world with hollow appearances and with empty show. 
 Of a large part of popery, one may say cut bono ? to 
 what good 1 what good and solid end does it accom- 
 plish 1 Alas ! It is marked with vanity ; it is followed 
 by inutility ; it is plagued with barren toil, with unpro- 
 fitable care, with laborious attention to petty points 
 that bring no reward. " Wo unto you scribes and pha- 
 risees, hypocrites ! for ye pay tithe of mint, and anise, 
 and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of 
 the law, judgment, mercy, and faith. Matt. 23:23. 
 
SUPERSTITION. 303 
 
 Luke, 11:42. Ye blind guides, who strain at a gnat, 
 and swallow a camel." Matt. 23: 24. 
 
 Subsection II. I remember having attended, many 
 years ago, and on Europe continental, the public Sunday 
 service of a popish cathedral. What did I find there 1 
 A round of silly trifling, a tedious and tiresome course 
 of mere fiddle-faddle, an interminable succession of no- 
 things, of tweedledum and tweedledee. The ringing of 
 bells, the lighting of tapers, the burning of incense, the 
 sprinkling of water, the changing of apparel, the gab- 
 bling of priests, the comical contortion of the face, the 
 ridiculous attitudes of the body, the turning and twist- 
 ing, the innumerable number of ceremonies and empty 
 forms, surfeited and sickened me, not with religion cer- 
 tainly, but with popery and irreligious man. I beheld a 
 host of clergymen ; and they, with the unmeaning frivo- 
 lities wherein they were occupied, appeared to have 
 little more to do with real religion, with personal piety, 
 with heart-work, than a number of boys unconcernedly 
 gabbling over a catechism. The ear and the eye had 
 something to please and allure them ; but the mind was 
 left empty, and the soul unsatisfied. I heard good mu- 
 sic, I saw good pictures; but I met little rationality, 
 and little or less religion. I was strongly reminded, by 
 contrast, of that fine passage of our Redeeming Lord : 
 "God is a Spirit; and they who worship him, must 
 worship him in spirit and in truth." John, 4 : 24. I ob- 
 served in the papal display nothing of spiritual and true 
 worship; nothing to fill the deep desire, to answer to 
 the inward longing, to respond to the intellectual aspira- 
 tion of an immortal mind, of a soul created by God, to 
 live for and with God, through all eternity. If man had 
 no soul, and no immortality, the papal exhibition would 
 be all very well. I can easily imagine a sensible Hin- 
 doo, after hearing and seeing what I heard and saw, 
 making the following soliloquy : u I have met foolery at 
 
304 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 home, and I meet foolery here 5 and I deem our pagan 
 foolery about equal to your papal one." My own solilo- 
 quy, on leaving the cathedral, was the following : ft Vani- 
 ty of vanities, vanity of vanities ; all is vanity." Ec- 
 cles. 1:2. 
 
 Subsection IIL What a multitude of things, rites, 
 customs, and laws, forming a huge bulk of trifling cere- 
 monial and idle externality, doing no good and great 
 harm, has popery borrowed or invented, and daringly 
 added to the pure and simple scheme of the Lord ! I 
 will mention a part only, and in a very general manner ; 
 for to mention the whole, and with full particularity, 
 would require a volume. We find holy water, holy salt, 
 holy clay, holy bones, holy grains, holy beads, holy 
 scapulars, holy ashes, holy candles, and the like. We 
 find the baptizing of bells, the lighting of lamps or can- 
 dles by day, the burning of incense, and the like. We 
 find pilgrimages, festivals, fasts, prohibition of meats, 
 bodily suffering, and other matters of like kind. What 
 a pile of folly and profanity ! # 
 
 Did popery find the foregoing things ready made, or 
 did she make them 1 She found a great number ready 
 made by the paganism of antiquity ; for we have to re- 
 member that many or most of the ceremonies and cus- 
 toms whereby the papal kirk differs from the protestant, 
 are of heathen origin. Indeed, a deal of popery is mere 
 paganism under the borrowed and honorable name of 
 Christianity. Popery and paganism ! Alas ! Why has 
 the mantle of departed pagan error been taken up and 
 worn by any system bearing the christian name, and 
 claiming to have come from the word of truth ! 
 
 Pye Smith has the following two periods : " A pros- 
 trate obedience to these usurpations is produced and 
 
 * A brief and useful account of papal superstitions may be found 
 in Ingram Cobbin's " Book of Popery." 
 
SUPERSTITION. 305 
 
 maintained by terrifying the consciences of the wretch- 
 ed votaries of this superstition with the threats of una- 
 voidable and eternal damnation. — Can any language do 
 justice to the unprincipled fraud and impudence, the 
 blaspheming impiety, of this vile delusion V* 
 
 Subsection IV. Relics. Any thing or every thing ap- 
 pears to be a relic, that enables a priest while pretend- 
 ing to benefit the people, really to bamboozle them, 
 and obtain possession of their money. No matter what 
 the relic is, or of whom or of what it is a relic. Bone, 
 teeth, nail, hair, tusk, horn, hoof, and claw ; a preserved 
 ear, a pickled tongue, and a candied nose ; the remain 
 of a great toe, of a little toe, and of no toe at all. The 
 relic may be something of an apostle, or an apostate ; 
 of a saint, or a sinner ; of a christian martyr, or a gypsy 
 fortune-teller; of an orang-outang from the Indies, or a 
 Barbary ape; of a living lion, or a dead ass; of the 
 great fish that swallowed Jonah more than two thousand 
 years ago, or a pilchard caught in Cornwall last year, 
 and eaten in Rome in the present Lent of 1839. All are 
 fish that come to the papal net, all are relics that pro- 
 mote gainful jugglery. 
 
 I have somew T here seen or heard an anecdote on the 
 point that I will mention, so well as I recollect, for the 
 instruction of the reader. A priest sold to different 
 people what he called a leg of the ass that carried our 
 Lord into Jerusalem. In the overflowing of his zeal, 
 however, for their spiritual welfare, or for his own pe- 
 cuniary profit, he sold a leg to five people ! These peo- 
 ple happening to be severally aware of the whole cir- 
 cumstance, the fivefold purchase, and wondering at the 
 marvellous matter, called on the priest together to have 
 the mystery explained. His reverence seeing the pre- 
 dicament he was in, (for the five buyers, with open 
 
 * See :l The Reasons of the Protestant Religion," page 37. 
 
306 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 mouth, were before him,) put a solemn face on the af- 
 fair, and gravely assured them that the said ass was an 
 extraordinary one, even more so than Balaam's, and had, 
 in addition to other wonderful properties, the miracu- 
 lous merit of having five legs ! Maybe if all the legs 
 of our Saviour's ass that have been sold were known 
 and brought together, they would amount not to five 
 merely, but to five score, or even five hundred ! 
 
 Possibly as many finger and toe-nails of the apostle 
 Peter only, have been sold, as would nail all the fingers 
 and toes of a corner of Christendom ! 
 
 As to locks of the Virgin Mary's hair, I am lost in 
 amazement at their possible number. If Mary's hair 
 were about as plentiful as the widow's meal and oil 
 mentioned in 1 Kings 17, it would be little enough pos- 
 sibly for all the locks said to be taken therefrom. Am 
 I not pretty near the truth in the following couplet 1 
 
 More locks of the Virgin's hair have been, 
 Than single hairs on her head were seen. 
 
 Subsection V. Pious fraud is a common proverb. 
 Pious however is too good a word to be desecrated by 
 connection with so bad a word as fraud. Moreover, the 
 word pious is not adequately definite and exact in mean- 
 ing. I exchange pious for priestal. Priestal fraud. 
 And alas! if all priestal frauds that have occurred since 
 the world began, or even since popery began, were as- 
 sembled together in one place, and formed into one 
 mass, they would constitute a huge heap, a prodigious 
 pile, a colossal monument, beside which the tower of 
 Babel would appear as the tower of a common country 
 church ! the largest Egyptian pyramid would resemble 
 a sugar-loaf! and a mountain would be like a molehill ! 
 Happily priestal fraud, though very far from obsolete, is 
 obsolescent. I conclude the paragraph by quoting sub- 
 
BLASPHEMY. 307 
 
 stantially a saying of that unholy and immoral popan in- 
 fidel (some call him an atheist) pope Leo the tenth. 
 "What an inexhaustible mine of wealth do we find the 
 fable concerning Jesus Christ !" 
 
 Subsection VI. I may take the opportunity of men- 
 tioning that I have somewhere read or heard of three 
 theories propounded by some papal oracular men, to 
 account for the birth of Luther. 1st. That he sprang 
 from a she-devil and a wizard ! 2d. That he sprang 
 from a he-devil and a witch ! 3d. That he sprang from 
 a he-devil and a she-one ! Another possible theory, that 
 he sprang from a wizard and a witch, would not, I sup- 
 pose, be bad enough to account for the birth of the 
 German worthy, the sun of the Reformation. 
 
 SECTION XX. 
 
 BLASPHEMY. 
 
 Subsection I. Superstition abounding in the practice, 
 Blasphemy abounds in the doctrine of the kirk of 
 Rome, as we shall find by going through the doctrines 
 one by one. 
 
 1st. Is not the assumption of Infallibility an example 
 of blasphemy 1 Short-sighted, ignorant, and erring man 
 can hardly declare himself infallible, without blasphem- 
 ing; for he thereby attributes to himself the prerogative 
 of God. " Now we see through a glass, darkly ; * * * 
 Now I know in part." 1 Cor. 13: 12. 
 
 2nd. What is the attribution of Divine authority to 
 the Vulgate, Apocrypha, and Tradition, but blasphemy 1 
 Putting a mere human translation or the Vulgate, put- 
 
308 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 ting a mere human original or the Apocryphal collec- 
 tion, putting mere Traditional trumpery — on an equality 
 with the inspired word of God, is really blaspheming 5 
 for it is making human wisdom or human folly equal to 
 the wisdom of Jehovah. " Add thou not unto God's 
 words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." 
 Prov. 30 : 6. 
 
 3rd. Forbidding people to read the Bible, while God 
 bids them to read it, implies a kind of blasphemy. 
 u Search the Scriptures." John, 5 : 39. w Turn away 
 from these poisonous pastures." — Bull of Leo XII. (See 
 page 127.) " Blessed is he that readeth," &c. Rev. 1 : 3. 
 " If any presume to read * * * he shall not have absolu- 
 tion"* * # — Council of Trent. (See page 121.) 
 
 4th. Using an Unknown Tongue, in order to keep the 
 people ignorant of God's word, and of their duty toward 
 him, and in order to make the priesthood appear so 
 many little gods, involves a kind of blasphemy, or a 
 thing about as bad. " Write the vision, and make it 
 plain" Hab. 2 : 2. The pope and priesthood, by con- 
 cealing it in an unknown tongue, make it obscure 
 and perplexing. 
 
 5th. Is there no blasphemy in Transubstantiation \ 
 We cannot pretend to make a Jesus Christ, and then to 
 destroy, to eat and drink him, without blaspheming ! 
 
 6th. The Sacrifice of the Mass is declared, in the 31st 
 Article of the kirk of England, to be a " blasphemous 
 fable." 
 
 7th. Is no blasphemy implied in the worship of the 
 host] 
 
 8th. Half Communion implies very daring presump- 
 tion, if not blasphemy, in overturning and putting aside 
 the undoubted and allowed institution of our Lord. 
 
 9th. Committing Idolatry, putting many a saint and 
 angel nearly on a par with God, or with Christ the 
 Mediator, is blaspheming. 
 
BLASPHEMY. 309 
 
 10th. The papal doctrine of Merit, of Works of Supe- 
 rerogation, by making the Creator a debtor to the crea- 
 ture, involves blasphemy. " When ye shall have done 
 all those things that are commanded you, say, we are 
 unprofitable servants ; we have done that which was 
 our duty to do." Luke, 17 : 10. 
 
 11th. Asserting the fable of Purgatory, with praying 
 God to deliver herefrom, is mocking our Maker, and 
 therefore is very like blaspheming. 
 
 12th. The doctrine of priestal absolution and excom- 
 munication contains a large amount of blasphemy, by 
 proudly claiming for men the prerogative of God ! 
 ff Who can forgive sins, but God only ?. Mark, 2:7.* * 
 He only is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." 
 Matt. 10 : 28. 
 
 13th. Auricular Confession involves a degree of blas- 
 phemy, in pretending that none can be saved without 
 confessing to a priest, and in private, and thereby making 
 the priest a kind of co-saviour. " Believe on the Lord 
 Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." Acts, 16 : 31. 
 
 14th. Is there nothing like blasphemy in telling a 
 large body of men, the clergy, that they may not marry, 
 while God tells them that they may 1 If any deny it to 
 be blaspheming, can they deny it to be contradicting 
 God \ "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly that in the 
 latter times some shall depart from the faith, *-* * * 
 Forbidding to marry. 1 Tim. 4 : 1-3. 
 
 15th. Is there nothing like blasphemy in pretending 
 that Christ ordained seven sacraments, though he or- 
 dained no more than two 1 and in making the human 
 five and the Divine two to be co-equals 1 Confirmation, 
 Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction are 
 the mere coinage of Rome, having no sacramental cha- 
 racter in the written word of God : yet popery has proud- 
 ly put the vain and complex inventions of men on a 
 
310 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 par with the strikingly significant and beautifully simple 
 institutions of our Lord. 
 
 16th. Priestal Intention has a great deal of blasphe- 
 my, in affirming a sacrament to be or not to be, in pre- 
 tending that people obtain spiritual blessing or obtain it 
 not, according to the secret intention of the officiating 
 priest ! The doctrine makes the priest a partner with 
 God in the work of saving a soul ! It even puts the 
 gracious working of the Deity himself under the offi- 
 cial control of thousands of his creatures ! making the 
 Holy Ghost dependant on a priest ! 
 
 In relation, however, to the sixteen parts or heads, the 
 reader can prosecute the train of thought by himself; 
 and therefore I leave him to enlarge the inquiry accord- 
 ing to his own free judgment. 
 
 Subsection II. Additional blasphemy. Firstly. Who 
 are not amazed at the blasphemous titles that have been 
 given to, and taken by the papal chief? " The Lord 
 God the Pope! " " Our Lord God the Pope .'" tf Another 
 God upon earth /" u True God, and true man ?" u King 
 of kings, and Lord of lords /" " Lord of the Universe /" 
 " The Light that came into the world /" " The Universal 
 Head /" The Universal Bishop /" " The Husband of 
 the Church /" and the like. The last title scripturally 
 belongs to Christ. Rev. 19 : 7, and 21:9, See Isa. 54 : 
 5. The title "King of kings, and Lord of lords," is 
 thrice given to Christ. 1 Tim. 6 : 15, Rev. 19 : 16, and 
 17 : 14. Moreover, Christ is called ,f the prince of the 
 kings of the earth." Rev. 1 : 5. Moreover, see Dent. 
 10 : 17, and Dan. 2 : 47. It appears that pope Paul the 
 fifth called himself Vice-God, the monarch of Christen- 
 dom, the supporter of papal omnipotence, &c. &c. Pa- 
 pal blasphemers, examine yourselves. Miserable men ! 
 deceiving and deceived ! 
 
 Secondly. The pope daringly pretends to have the 
 keys of earth, of hell, and heaven ! He assumes au- 
 
POPERY IS A NOVELTY. 311 
 
 thority to do what he will on earth, to send whom he 
 will to hell, and to send whom he will to heaven ! Proud 
 and blasphemous worm ! Who would imagine that so 
 great presumption and blasphemy dwell in a weak and 
 mortal man ! 
 
 The pope pretends to have the keys 
 
 Of earth, and hell, and heaven! 
 
 Affirms that power over these 
 
 To him is amply given ! 
 
 Power to rule, to damn, to save ! 
 
 Three worlds being subject to one knave ! 
 
 Oh pope ! if ever blasphemy 
 
 Were found in man, 'tis found in thee. 
 
 Subsection III. " He shall speak great words against 
 the Most High. Dan. 7: 25. The man of sin, the son 
 of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above 
 all that is called God, or that is worshipped : so that he, 
 as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself 
 that he is God. 2 Thess. 2. I saw a beast rise up out of 
 the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his 
 horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blas- 
 phemy. He opened his mouth in blasphemy against 
 God, to blaspheme his name. Rev. 13 : 1, 6. I saw a wo- 
 man sit upon a scarlet-coloured beast, full of names of 
 blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns." Rev. 
 17 : 3. See chapter first, section ninth or l?«*t. 
 
 SECTION XXI. 
 
 POPERY IS A NOVELTY. 
 
 f - Where was your religion before Luther V J This 
 showy and shallow question has been often put. " Where 
 
312 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 was your religion before Luther V 9 said a Jesuit to a 
 British Protestant. The latter replied, " Where your 
 religion never was, in the written word of God." They 
 ask, w Where was your religion before Luther V 1 We 
 ask them, " Where was your religion before the Council 
 of Trent 1" Did not that Council and Pope Pius IV make 
 several new articles of faith] They did. And what is 
 called the creed of Pope Pius fourth contains twelve 
 articles more than the Nicene or Constantinoplan creed, 
 twelve new articles! Surely the twelve new articles 
 were not a part of the old faith $ for if they were they 
 would form a part of the old creed. To show more 
 fully, however, that popery is a novel or new think, I 
 will now go on to prove, by a short historical account, 
 that popery has gradually arisen or grown up since the 
 primitive and pure time of Christianity, not only since 
 the reign of Constantine, but even in time comparatively 
 modern. " Where was your religion afore the Council 
 of Trent T 
 
 1st. Infallibility was not claimed till many centuries 
 after Christ. It is hard to mark the exact time when it 
 began ; but if we may date it from the leading event 
 whereby it was helped forward, or from the most re- 
 markable move in its early career, we may deem it to 
 have begun in the seventh century, in A. D. 606. In 
 that woful year the pope gained the title of Universal 
 Bishop, But though infallibility may be viewed as then 
 born, it took centuries in growing up to full size and 
 complete strength, or to its ultimate maturity. 
 
 2d. Vulgate, Apocrypha, Tradition. Their sacred or 
 canonical character was laid down and made an arti- 
 cle of faith by the Council of Trent in the sixteenth 
 century. 
 
 3d. Knowledge a proscribed thing, and the Bible a 
 forbidden book. The proscription and forbidding began 
 nearly imperceptibly, went on by little and little, and 
 
POPERY IS A NOVELTY. 313 
 
 became in time remarkable in extent and formidable 
 in power ; and if admitting a more exact or formal date 
 in their very early career, may probably be dated from 
 the secularizing of the kirk in the fourth century. The 
 seed was then sown, if it did not then sprout. n 
 
 4th. Unknown Tongue, or Latin the general lan- 
 guage of popery. This great improvement on the Divine 
 plan was made or brought in by pope Vitalian in cen- 
 tury seventh, in A. D. 666. 
 
 5th. Tran substantiation was begun by second Ni- 
 cene Council in century eighth, and was made an ar- 
 ticle of faith by the fourth Lateran Council in century 
 thirteenth. 
 
 6th. The Sacrifice of the Mass could not be afore 
 transubstantiation. 
 
 7th. The Worship of the Host could not be afore 
 transubstantiation. 
 
 8th. Half Communion, or No Cup to the Laity. It 
 began in century eleventh, and was fully and finally 
 settled by the Council of Constance in century fifteenth. 
 
 9th. Idolatry appears to have begun, openly and ef- 
 fectively, in century fourth, and was confirmed by the 
 second Nicene Council in century eighth. 
 
 10th. Merit, according to the papal view of the 
 thing, may be dated from the twelfth century, for then 
 the monster whim of Supererogation was first invented, 
 the invention being made at the end of the twelfth 
 century. 
 
 11th. Purgatory, and Praying for the Dead. Ac- 
 cording to the learned Hartwell Home's Protestant Me- 
 mortal, Purgatory was not introduced until the time of 
 Gregory, in the beginning of century seventh ; was not 
 positively affirmed till about the year 1140, the mid- 
 dle of century twelfth ; and was not made an article of 
 faith till made one by the Council of Trent in century 
 
 sixteenth. 
 
 14 
 
314 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 
 
 12th. Priestal Absolution and Excommunication, as 
 a formal and definite twofold thing, may probably be 
 dated from twelfth century, for then Indulgence became 
 a part of the papal heresy. H. Home's Prot. Memorial 
 declares, — " It is a fact well attested in ecclesiastical 
 history, that the power of granting indulgences was 
 not claimed by the popes before the twelfth century." 
 
 13th. Auricular Confession was first enjoined by 
 fourth Lateran Council in century thirteenth. 
 
 14th. Celibate of the Clergy in whole and by law, or 
 universal and compulsory, was begun by pope Cyricius, 
 or Siricius, in the end of century fourth, and was com- 
 pletely confirmed by pope Gregory VII in the end of 
 century eleventh. 
 
 15th. The Seven Sacraments. That the sacraments 
 are exactly seven, was first formally maintained by 
 Peter Lombard in century twelfth ; and that they are 
 exactly seven, was first made a matter of faith by the 
 Council of Trent in century sixteenth. 
 
 16th. Priestal Intention was formally and fully set 
 up by the Council of Florence in century fifteenth. 
 
 17th. Superstition began early, though probably it 
 received a grand impetus, and therefore may have the 
 date from the secularizing of the kirk, in century fourth ; 
 and it became fully confirmed by the papa li zing of the 
 kirk in century seventh, when the pope presumed to be 
 the general ecclesiastical head under the title of Univer- 
 sal Bishop : for it made a main move from each great 
 event, the christian kirk becoming thenceforth deformed 
 and corrupted by her unhallowed union with pagan 
 superstitions. 
 
 18th. Blasphemy, bold and open blasphemy, may be 
 dated from century seventh, A. D. 606, when the pope 
 became entitled the Universal Bishop, a vain, arrogant, 
 and blasphemous title ! N. B. The patriarch of Con- 
 stantinople indeed had priorly obtained the title of 
 
POPERY IS A NOVELTY. 315 
 
 Universal Bishop, but he held it only a very short time. 
 As a standing or permanent thing, the title began with 
 the pope of Rome ; and therefore from his obtaining of 
 the title we may date the blasphemy. 
 
 Reader, we have now gone through the special order, 
 the eighteen parts or heads whereinto popery is here di- 
 vided and what have we found ! We have found that they 
 are not old, but new 5 that they have not antiquity, but 
 modernity.* The eighteen things were not from the 
 beginning of Christianity ; therefore they are not chris- 
 tian. In fine, Popery is a Novelty, an Innovation, an 
 •Addition to Christianity, an imperfection and corruption 
 added by man to the pure and perfect Revelation of 
 God. Popery is a Novelty.f 
 
 * I beg leave to coin the word modernity to mean time modern, 
 as antiquity means time ancient or antique. g 
 
 1 1 now refer the reader to the chronological map at the beginning 
 of the book, and beg him to review it with care, it being a summary 
 peculiarly planned and carefully made, of the present section. 
 Though I have seen no former map of the kind, and therefore have 
 no sanction for mine by example, yet I hesitate not to put it forth, 
 deeming the history of popery brought within the limit of a glance 
 of the eye, to be very helpful to the memory, and very convenient. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
683 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
 Treatment Date: Jan. 2006 
 
 Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
 
 
 
 
 PreservationTechnologies 
 
 A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 
 
 1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
 Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
 (724)779-2111