The person charging this material is re¬ 
 sponsible for its return to the library from 
 which it was withdrawn on or before the 
 Latest Date stamped below. 
 
 Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books are reasons 
 for disciplinary action and may result in dismissal from 
 the University. 
 
 To renew call Telephone Center, 333-8400 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 
 
 m 1 0 W 
 
 JliL 
 
 it im 
 
 
 •'V" 
 
 V : 
 
 V ■ V- " 
 
 'm 
 
 ■ mi mm\ h i ii ■■■■n—rnf* Ti 
 
EXPOSURE OF POPERY. 
 

EXPOSURE OF POPERY. 
 
 BY 
 
 REV. J. F. ULLMANN. 
 
 BEING 
 
 X FREE TRANSLATION 
 
 (WITH SOME additions) 
 
 or 
 
 P 0 PI Y AT KA AHWAL, 
 
 A WORK 
 
 WRITTEN IN HINDUSTANI 
 BY THE SAME 
 AUTHOR. 
 
 PRICE 4 -A.2ST.ISr AS. 
 
 Printed at the Bombay Guardian Press, Khetwadi. 
 
 Published by Bbv i A i W i TmiUj Bqmti i y 
 

 ■■ - ' ; : > 
 
 ■ • j n; 
 
 
 ? i 
 
 
 
 .1 ' : t '■ ■ % 
 
 ’ 
 
 
 
 ■ _ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - - . ' 
 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 ADDRESS TO CHRISTIANS.I 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Four Christian brethren, whose names are Qaitn-i-din (Established 
 Christian))Kalam-shinas (Knowing the Word of God), Tawarikhdan 
 (Acquainted with History), and Talib-i-haqq (Searching after the 
 Truth), agree to meet from time to time, to converse about the 
 
 subject of Popery.. 4 
 
 < 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Is the Roman Catholio Community the Churoh, or a Branoh of the 
 Church ?..7 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 The Word of God, and the Popish Traditions. First Part. . * 12 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 The Word of God, and the Popish Traditions. Second Part . . 19 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 The Popes and Priests have corrupted the Word of God, and forbid 
 the Laity to read it.25 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Rise and Progress of Popery.34 
 
 CHAPTE'R VII. 
 
 Idolatry of the Papists. First Part, . „ , 41 
 
X. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. PAGE. 
 
 Idolatry of the Papists, Second Part.49 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 Idolatry of the Papists. Third Part.59 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 The Lord’s Supper, and the Popish Doctrine of Transubstantiation . 67 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 The Sacrifice of the Mass.75 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 The Popish doctrine of Purgatory. ....... 82 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 Auricular Confession.90 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 The Popish Saorament of Penance. Indulgences. Works of 
 Supererogation. . ..96 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 The Sacrament of Baptism. 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 Extreme Unotion. 
 
 • i 
 
 • • • • 
 
 . 106 
 
 . 114 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 Worship of the Virgin Mary, her Immaculate Conception, and her 
 Assumption, .122 
 
 • • • # • • 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 Has the apostle Peter ever been Bishop of Rome ? 
 
 • • * 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 Apostolic Succession. 
 
 , 128 
 
 135 
 
LIBRARY 
 OF THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
 
ROME AS IN THE DAYS OF THE APOSTLES 
 
/v 3 /yi ^ 
 
 PREFACE, 
 
 HIS book, as is stated on the Title Page, is a free 
 
 translation (with some additions) of a work written 
 
 in Hindustani by the same author. 
 
 The Original was written for the Natives of India, 
 specially for Native Christians. It was designed principally, 
 not for the educated but the common people. Its style, 
 therefore, is simple and conversational. And there are also 
 frequent repetitions, lengthy explanations, and historical, 
 and other references which would be unnecessary and even 
 objectionable in a book written for English readers. 
 
 A work of this kind seemed to be imperatively demanded 
 by the circumstances of this country, and the present 
 time. It is well known that Roman Catholic priests and 
 Jesuits have of late been entering communities of Native 
 Christians, and drawing away, at least temporarily, many 
 of these poor people who are ignorant of the history, the 
 spirit, and the tactics of popery. 
 
 The book has been translated into English at the request 
 of friends who thought that it would be more accessible 
 to, and more easily understood by, many Educated Natives 
 in this language, than in Hindustani. 
 
 J. F. U. 
 
 Delira Dun f N. W. P. 
 

 
 
 
 • i r . i . : "f( i >’ ' ' - ' 
 
 ■ ; • i'"ibnllT'kil 
 
 ' • ■ . . .■ 
 
 • •?-. ,r- f( >p| 
 
 , <•. > j v l;^| 
 
 . . 
 
 ■■ •; > 
 
 . 
 
 ' ' • • 
 
 •' • u L r' - . 
 
 . 
 
 • : 
 
 . . 
 
 }' fU r U 'H (j. Ou , S 
 
 . ,<i • , • •• 
 
 
 
 .Ti :K ■' 
 
 
 
xi. 
 
 CHAPTER XX. page. 
 
 Celibacy of Popish Priests.145 
 
 CHAPTER XXL 
 
 Justification, Human Merits, Monkery and Nunnery. . . . 153 
 
 CHAPTER XXII. 
 
 The spirit of Popery is a Persecuting and Murderous spirit . . 161 
 
 CHAPTER XXIII. 
 
 The dogma df the Infallibility of the Pope ..... 174 
 
 CHAPTER XXIV. 
 
 Jesuitism. First Part.181 
 
 CHAPTER XXV. 
 
 Jesuitism. Second Part. ..190 
 
 CHAPTER XXVI. 
 
 Jesuitism. Third Part.200 
 
 CHAPTER XXVII. 
 
 Character of Popery, as stated in the Word of God . . . 211 
 
 CHAPTER XXVIII. 
 
 The End of Popery, as stated in the Word of God . . . .221 
 

 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 . t •' o’ **I f 
 
 . i vlt 
 
 r . ) 
 
 
 ' 
 
 j. * 
 
 
 . ; ! .. 
 
 
 • .« - • - i . ' •- 
 
 
 . r . 
 
 
 : *A. 
 
 . '' 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 : 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ADDRESS TO CHRISTIANS. 
 
 D ear Christian brethren, Let us thank God 
 
 that He has given us in this dark world His holy 
 Word, for our guidance in religion, and that He has 
 clearly stated therein both the way of salvation which Ho 
 has ordained for us sinners, and also the duties which Ho 
 requires of us as such. If He had left us in this dark 
 world without a written Word for our guidance, we should 
 follow our own thoughts and imaginations, and never obtain 
 salvation. In that state we should be like the blind, 
 groping about in ignorance and error; and, like the Hindus 
 and Mohammedans and other nations, who do not know the 
 divinely revealed way of salvation, should perish in the 
 slough of sin and misery. Hence, I say again, let us thank 
 the Lord, that He has given us His holy Word, the holy 
 Bible, to be our guide in religion. 
 
 Regarding this Word the apostle Peter wrote: “ We have 
 also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well 
 that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, 
 until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts.” 
 2 Pet. i. 19. Moses, too, by inspiration of God, says: “ What 
 thing soever I command you,.observe to do it: thou shalt 
 not add thereto , nor diminish from it” Deut. xii. 32. 
 
 Dear brethren, this very thing, that God forbids, has 
 
 1 
 
2 
 
 been done by those people of whom you may have heard, 
 called Eomau Catholics. They corrupt the pure Word of 
 God by mixing with it their own imaginations, notions, and 
 traditions, just as a goldsmith lessens the purity and value 
 of pure gold by mixing with it in his crucible any of the 
 base metals. To such an extent have they been guilty of 
 thus corrupting the Word of God, that they seem to deserve 
 the woe that God pronounces on those that “ call evil good, 
 and good evil", that put darkness for light, and light for 
 darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.” 
 Isa. v. 20. 
 
 You no doubt are aware that Roman Catholics hate the 
 reformation and speak against it, thus desiring and using 
 all possible means, wherever they are, in this country and 
 elsewhere, to bring Protestant Christians into the snare of 
 their corrupt system. In these last times, especially in this 
 country, they are making greater efforts than ever before to 
 effect their evil purpose. 
 
 We, therefore, who are your leaders and pastors, consider 
 it to be our duty to warn you, and to say, Brethren, be on 
 your guard, and keep away from having fellowship with 
 the papists, in order that you may be saved from the 
 judgments which from the Word of God we believe are 
 to come upon them. 
 
 I do not mean to say that you should be rude or 
 impolite to papists. You should treat them with the same 
 kindness and politeness that you exercise toward Hindus 
 and Mohammedans; but remember this always, that it is 
 the constant desire and effort of the popish priests, to draw 
 you into the net of popery. Be therefore on your guard; 
 keep away from their churches and popish services, that 
 you may not fall into their traps. 
 
 I have therefore written this booh, that you may be 
 
3 
 
 watchful agaiust the evil, and that you may warn also 
 others to be on their guard. 
 
 I asked a Christian brother, in what particular form he 
 thought I should write this book. His reply was, that the 
 people would like it best if it were written in the form of 
 conversations. I therefore have written it in that style; 
 and my prayer to God is, that He may graciously bless the 
 book, and lead the readers of it into the understanding of 
 the truth of His holy Word. 
 
 I remain, in the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, 
 Your Friend and Wellwisher, 
 
 J. F. Ullmann, 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 FOUR CHRISTIAN BRETHREN, WHOSE NAMES 
 ARE QAIM-I-DIN (ESTABLISHED CHRISTIAN), KALAM-SHINAS 
 (KNOWING THE WORD OF GOD), TAWARIKHDAN (ACQUAIN¬ 
 TED WITH HISTORY), AND TALIB-I-HAQQ (SEARCHING 
 AFTER THE TRUTH), AGREE TO MEET FROM TIME TO TIME, 
 TO CONVERSE ABOUT THE SUBJECT OF POPERY. 
 
 Q AIM-I-DIN was an aged and experienced Christian, 
 who by his consistent Christian conduct showed that 
 he was a true servant of the Lord, and that his 
 heart’s desire was to lead a pious and consistent life before 
 Him. In his youth he had been a papist, and, like his 
 parents, walked in all the rites and ceremonies of the 
 papists. At first, as it is usual among them, he knew 
 but little of the Word of God, for his priest had strictly 
 ordered him that he should never read the Bible, as that 
 was a dangerous Book, and ought not to be kept in his 
 house. He was told that the Catholic priest would select 
 those parts of the Bible which would be of use to him, 
 or would give him a book which contained such a selec¬ 
 tion as was used in the Catholic Church. 
 
 One day it happened, that a certain Protestant Christian 
 had a religious conversation with him, from which it be¬ 
 came clear that he was still walking in the darkness of 
 ignorance and godlessness, and did not know the way of 
 salvation. He then began reading the Bible, and God, by 
 

 His Holy Spirit, through the Word, enlightened his mind, 
 so that he became convinced that his popish religion was 
 a system of religious error, and human imagination. He 
 consequently renounced popery, and received the truth, or, 
 in other words, became a Protestant, and on account of 
 his love to God and the Lord Jesus, which dwelt in his 
 heart, he became known as a true Christian. Many papists 
 visited him, to learn from him why he had renounced his 
 former Catholic creed, and become a Protestant, and with 
 them he had many religious conversations. He joyfully 
 said to them, I bless the Lord, that He mercifully deliver¬ 
 ed me from the satanic net of popery, and brought me 
 into the way of truth. 
 
 Among his friends were particularly three persons, with 
 whom he had frequent religious conversations, and fellow¬ 
 ship in prayer. The name of one was Kalam-Shinas ; the 
 other, Tawarihhdan; and the third, Talib-i-haqq. K. and 
 Taw. were, like Q., experienced Christians, resting in the 
 pure Word of God ; but Talib-i-liaqq belonged to that 
 section of Episcopalians who are known by the name of 
 Ritualists. And as the Ritualists hold more or less the 
 tenets, and observe the rites, of the Roman Catholic com¬ 
 munity, he to some extent defended the doings of the 
 papists and semi-papists. He was really a true Christian, 
 but had not as yet entered into the full light of the 
 Gospel. He had still some of the leaven of popery in 
 him, and that word of the Lord was applicable to him, 
 “ No man also having drunk old wine, straightway desireth 
 new : for he saith, The old is better.” Luke v. 39. 
 
 When these four friends met together, they often con¬ 
 versed about the contents of the Gospel, and also talked 
 about the popish religion. One day Q. said : Brethren, in 
 my opinion it would perhaps be good if we meet once or 
 
6 
 
 twice a week, and, asking help from the Lord, compare 
 each doctrine of popery with the statements contained in 
 the Word of Truth. The four brethren then agreed that 
 they would do so, and appointed a day in the week when 
 they would regularly meet together for this purpose. 
 
 Brother K. said to them, Brethren, do not forget to 
 bring your Bibles with you every time, for you know 
 that the faith of Protestant Christians rests upon the Bible 
 alone. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 IS THE ROMAN CATHOLIC COMMUNITY THE CHURCH, 
 OR A BRANCH OF THE CHURCH ? 
 
 W HEN the four Christian brethren met, Tal. put 
 first the question, Why they called the Roman 
 Catholic Church merely the Popish Community and 
 not the Church; and whether, if she was not the Church, 
 she was not a branch of the Church ? 
 
 Qaim replied, that the Church of God was that com¬ 
 munity of believers who rest upon the pure and unmixed 
 Word of God, and worship God in accordance with it. Bub 
 the popes and papists have mixed up with it a great many 
 other things, so that really the Christian faith, as held by 
 them, is nob pure and true; therefore the Roman Catholic 
 Community is not the Church, nor indeed a branch of it. 
 We can call her only the Roman Catholic, or Popish 
 Community. 
 
 Tal. asked again whether, in the opinion of the brethren, 
 true people of God could not be found in the popish 
 community ? 
 
 Qaim replied, Yes, certainly. The members of the Church 
 of God are scattered among all the different Christian 
 sects. No body of Christians can truly say of themselves, 
 We alone are the Church. Among all the different sec¬ 
 tions of the Church—the Presbyterians, Episcopalians, 
 
8 
 
 Methodists, Baptists, and all others—there are false as 
 well as true Christians. True Christians alone, however, 
 constitute the Church of God. We do not deny that there 
 may be true Christians in the Popish Communion, but they 
 are such not because of, but in spite of, the uuscriptural 
 forms and gross errors of popery. Whosoever of them 
 received, by the grace of God, the truth of the Gospel into 
 their hearts, and rest on that truth, are members of the 
 Church of God, notwithstanding the errors in which they 
 may be educated. 
 
 Kal. This is like the state of things in Israel in the 
 time of king Ahab. When the prophet Elijah, full of 
 sorrow, thought that, besides himself, there was no other 
 worshipper of Jehovah in Israel, God said to him, “I have 
 left Me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have 
 not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not 
 kissed him.” 1 Kings, xix. 18. In the same way, though 
 on account of her idolatry, deceits, fleshly and spiritual 
 fornication and murders, popery is called in the Word of 
 God, the “ Mother of abominations,” yet the Lord knows 
 His thousands, that are within that corrupt community, 
 who have not bowed unto the popish Baal. As it was in 
 Israel, at the time of Ahab, so now among the papists, the 
 Lord’s people are hidden here and there, and though we 
 may not know them, yet “ the Lord knoweth them that 
 are His.” 
 
 Qaim. But we must also remember that the Roman 
 Catholic community is abomination to the Lord, and that 
 the Lord commandeth His people, who are mixed up with 
 them, to separate themselves from among them. 
 
 Kal. What you say is very true; hence in that portion 
 of holy writ, where we read of “Babylon the great,” which is 
 the whole apostate Church, in which the popish community 
 
 i 
 
 «--- ;,zsd 
 
9 
 
 is the foremost or mother, there we find also these words : 
 “I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of 
 her, My people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and 
 that ye receive not of her plagues.” Rev. xviii. 4. In this 
 passage the Lord Himself declares, that within that apostate 
 community there are some of His people; for if there were 
 not, how could He say, “ Come ye out of her, that ye be 
 not partakers of her sins, and receive not of her plagues ? ” 
 
 Tal. Would you not call that community the Catholic 
 Church, or the Catholic Community ? 
 
 Qaim. I do not see how we can do so. It is true that 
 in the Apostles’ Creed we say, “ I believe in the holy 
 catholic Church.” The meaning of the word catholic is 
 universal, or common. I believe with heart and soul that 
 all true believers over the whole earth, wherever they 
 may be, or to whatever sect they may belong, constitute 
 the catholic or universal Church. True there are many 
 merely nominal Christians, who have been baptised and are 
 called Christians, but who have never been born again by 
 the Holy Spirit. Though baptised by minister or priest, 
 by a bishop or by the pope himself, they are not true 
 Christians; they are spiritually dead, I said before, that, 
 since the papists do not rest their faith upon the pure 
 Word of God, but upon their own corrupted rule of faith, 
 and traditions, and rites, they can in no way be considered 
 worthy of the name of Church. Much less could we call 
 them the catholic or universal Church. They are a corrupt 
 community. If you give their members the name of Roman 
 Catholics, the mistake is not so great as the former, for 
 the subjects of the pope are generally called by that name. 
 
 Tal. I wish to ask you another question. You used the 
 expression “ Babylon the great,” which is in the Word of 
 God. Do you think that the Roman Catholic community 
 
10 
 
 is “ Babylon the great ? ” 
 
 Qaim. The passage in which we find that phrase is in 
 the seventeenth chapter of the book of Revelation. It is 
 as follows :— 
 
 “ Mystery, Babylon the Great, 
 the Mother op the Harlots and op the Abominations 
 
 op the Earth.”* 
 
 This “Babylon the great,” &c., is generally understood to 
 comprise not only the popish community, but also all the 
 corrupt and apostate Churches or communities, which have 
 sprung from her. The popish community is certainly the 
 mother, the chief of all these corrupt and apostate Churches, 
 and may, therefore, appropriately be called “ Babylon the 
 great, the mother of harlots.” 
 
 Kal. In order to understand this well, we must remember 
 that in many places of Scripture we read of spiritual 
 adultery, or whoredom. When the Jews left their rightful 
 Lord or Husband, Jehovah, and worshipped the idols and 
 gods and goddesses of the heathen, and became partakers 
 of their wicked and filthy rites and customs, then the Word 
 of God terms them adulterers, for they had left their 
 true and rightful Lord, and were committing spiritual 
 adultery, or whoredom. If a woman forsakes her own 
 husband, and has sinful intercourse with another man, she 
 is called an adulteress. In the same way the Word of God 
 calls the wickedness of those who forsake the true God, 
 and worship and serve false gods, adultery and whoredom. 
 The papists have established among themselves the worship 
 or adoration of angels, of male and female saints, and many 
 other things. They worship the angel Michael, and Gabriel, 
 John the Baptist, and Joseph, and Peter, and Paul, and 
 
 * Revised Version 
 
11 
 
 Stephen, and St. Lawrence, the Virgin Mary, and Mary 
 Magdalene, and Agatha, and hundreds of other creatures. 
 And they also worship different kinds of pictures, and 
 idols, and the sacramental wafer. This idolatry, and worship 
 of saints and pictures, and wafer-worship, and all their vanity 
 and folly in their worship are the spiritual adulteries and 
 whoredoms of the popes and papists. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 THU WORD OP GOD, AND THE POPISH TRADITIO J . 
 
 FIRST PART. 
 
 Q AIM. Dear brethren, we Protestants believe that all 
 the different subjects of our holy faith are contained 
 in the holy Bible. But the papists say, that it is not 
 so, but that besides the written Word of God in the Bible 
 there are many traditions, i.e., teachings of the Lord and 
 the apostles not contained in the Bible, which, though not 
 recorded by the apostles themselves, were afterwards com¬ 
 mitted to writing by the Fathers, and were received by 
 the ancient Church. They say, that these traditions are not 
 only equal to what is written in the Bible, but are even of 
 higher value; and wherever there is a disagreement or con¬ 
 tradiction between them there, not the word of the Bible, 
 but the tradition of the Church must decide what is the 
 rule of faith. 
 
 Taw. History fully proves the truth of what you say. 
 Cardinal Eckius and Sylvester Prierias maintained, in 
 opposition to Luther: “The Word of God derives all its 
 authority from the Church and the pope, and to deny that 
 proposition is heresy.” The Council of Rome, held by 
 Gregory VII. in 1076, ordained: “No chapter or book (of 
 the Bible) shall be held as canonical, without the pope’s 
 authority.” Baronius, A.D. 1076, and Bailie, the Jesuit, 
 averred: “Without the authority of the Church I would 
 believe Matthew no more than Titus Livius, the historian.” 
 
13 
 
 The Council of Trent, Session 4, enacted: “ That all should 
 receive with equal reverence the books of the Old and New 
 Testaments, and the traditions concerning faith and manners, 
 as proceeding from the mouth of Christ, or inspired by the 
 Holy Ghost and preserved in the Catholic Church; and 
 whosoever knowingly, and of deliberate purpose, shall 
 despise traditions, shall be accursed.” 
 
 Qaim. The papists, moreover, say that the Holy Spirit, 
 who dwells in the Church, does from time to time reveal 
 new articles of faith, which must be considered equal to 
 the word of God in the Bible. 
 
 Kal. It is strange that the papists should believe this. 
 When they say that there are traditions of the Church, 
 and that the Holy Spirit, who dwells in the Church, has 
 revealed such and such a new article of faith, we must 
 consider what they mean by saying so. When papists 
 speak of the Church, they mean, that their own Roman 
 Catholic community is the Church, and all other Christians 
 are excluded from it. Again they say, that the pope and the 
 priests constitute or represent the Church, and that to them 
 the Lord gives from time to time new revelations and 
 commandments. Again, .they believe that the whole power 
 and government of the Church is in the hands of the 
 pope as the representative of Christ. Hence it follows, 
 that whatsoever the pope is pleased to do, whether 
 to add to the Word of God, or to take away from it, 
 must be right, for, according to their popish idea, the 
 commandment of the pope is the commandment of God, he 
 being inspired by the Holy Spirit in giving it. Instructions 
 or commands thus given become a part of the authoritative 
 traditions or teachings of their system, and are employed in 
 determining questions respecting the Bible, its teachings 
 and'its ordinances. If the Bible states one thing, and a 
 
14 
 
 pope or some popish tradition states something different 
 from or opposed to it, then the word of the Bible must be 
 declared invalid, and that of the pope or popes must stand. 
 You know, brethren, that the Pharisees at our Lord’s time 
 spoke and acted in the very same way; and the Lord on that 
 account rebuked them, saying, “In vain do they worship 
 Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men . . . 
 Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may 
 keep your own tradition.” Mark vii. 7, 9. And again the 
 Lord said unto them, “Thus have ye made the commandment 
 of God of none effect by your tradition.” Matt. xv. 6. 
 The popes and papists are acting exactly as the Pharisees 
 did at our Lord’s time. 
 
 Tal. I also believe with my whole heart that the words 
 of the Bible are the Word of God, and it is the foundation 
 of my faith; but we must remember that, when the papists 
 refer to the traditions or writings of the Fathers of the 
 Church, they say that they receive only those traditions as 
 possessing authority, regarding which there is a unanimous 
 consent of the Fathers. In my opinion those statements of 
 the Fathers of the Church in which they all agree, must 
 be true. 
 
 Taw. Dear brother; do you know what is the number 
 of those books containing the writings of the Fathers? I 
 read the other day a remark of Archbishop Usher, which 
 will throw light upon it. He says: “ I have been in the 
 habit of reading every day, without intermission, a portion 
 of the writings of the Fathers, and yet it took me eighteen 
 or nineteen years to finish them. Now I am sure that there 
 will be but very few persons who may have read half or 
 a fourth part of the writings of the Fathers; and very rarely 
 one may be found who, like that Archbishop, has read all 
 the Fathers. Hence how can we know and say, that in 
 
15 
 
 regard to such and such a tradition, all the Fathers are 
 agreed? This so-called unanimous consent of the Fathers 
 is nothing but a futile idea, and vain imagination. Most 
 likely no pope even has read all the Fathers. 
 
 And another point is this, that the Fathers in many 
 parts of their writings make statements opposed to the 
 Word of 'God, and make often foolish remarks, such as the 
 following: Justin Martyr, a famous Father of the Church, 
 commenting on the passage, “I have spread out My hands 
 all the day unto a rebellious people,” &c. (Isa. Ixv. 2.), 
 says, this is a prophecy of Christ’s crucifixion, for Christ 
 was spreading out His hands when they were nailed to 
 the cross. Who can accept such an explanation of that 
 passage ? 
 
 Again, that same Father explains the passage in Isa. x. 6, 
 “Unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given: and 
 the government shall be upon His shoulder,” in this way, 
 that the government, which is to be on Christ’s shoulder, 
 is the power or weight of the cross, which Christ was to 
 carry upon His shoulder on the way to Calvary. 
 
 Again, Clement, one of the Fathers, who was a contem¬ 
 porary of the apostle Paul, makes this fanciful remark, that, 
 when the harlot Rahab in Jericho did bind the line of scarlet 
 thread in her window, by which she let down the spies, 
 she by the scarlet colour (the colour of blood) of the cord 
 showed that she believed in the atoning sacrifice of the 
 Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 Again, Origen was a very renowned Father. Any one 
 reading his writings will find that in many places he makes 
 most wonderful and fanciful explanations of some of the 
 plainest statements in Holy Writ, and that being led astray 
 by his philosophy, he makes such queer and extraordinary 
 comments as seem to be mere playing with the words of 
 
16 
 
 Scripture. The Fathers have certainly written a great many 
 things which are good and useful, but they have mixed 
 up with them a great deal that is fanciful and foolish and 
 hurtful. 
 
 Qaim. Brethren, Augustine also was one of the great 
 Fathers, and there is no doubt that there are most important 
 and weighty statements in his writings, but together with 
 them some which cannot be received. There is for instance 
 that parable in Luke. xi. 5, 7, where we read that a man 
 goes to his friend at midnight, and says to him, “ Friend, 
 lend me three loaves,” &c., which he explains in the follow¬ 
 ing way: The three loaves mean the holy Trinity, the Father, 
 the Son and the Holy Ghost; for our spiritual life and 
 support we receive from the holy Trinity; and the children 
 who are with the friend in bed, are angels or saints in 
 heaven. 
 
 Again, in Luke xi. 11, 12, we read thus: “If a sou ... of 
 any of you that is a father . . . ask a fish, will he for a fish 
 give him a serpent ? or if he shall ask an egg, will he 
 offer him a scorpion ? ” Augustine gives this explanation 
 of the passage: “The meaning of a fish in this place is 
 Faith; aud that of an egg is Hope.” Brethren, who can 
 accept such an explanation ? There is folly also in the 
 Fathers. Is all that they say right, because they are called 
 Fathers who said it ? Certainly not, because the Fathers 
 also were erring men. 
 
 Kal. I also can give you one or two of such fanciful 
 explanations of Scripture passages by the Father Augustine. 
 We read, that at the marriage feast in Cana of Galilee 
 the Lord miraculously turned six waterpots of water into 
 wine, each waterpot containing two or three firkins apiece. 
 Augustine says: It is stated here, two or three firkins 
 apiece. If we adopt two firkins, then the meaning is two 
 
17 
 
 nations, viz., Jews and Gentiles. If we adopt three firkins, 
 it means the three sons of Noah, viz., Shem, Ham and 
 Japheth. The six waterpots indicate the six ages, from 
 Adam to the birth of Christ. Brethren, what more need 
 I say ? These are some of Augustine’s fanciful imaginations. 
 
 Taw. I also can give you a few fanciful expositions of 
 the great Father Augustine. In speaking of Nathanael he 
 says: “ It is written, that the Lord saw him under a 
 fig tree. Remember that Adam and Eve, after they had 
 fallen into sin, and knew that they were naked, sewed fig 
 leaves together, and made themselve aprons to cover their 
 nakedness: hence fig leaves are an emblem of sin. The 
 Lord seeing Nathanael under a fig tree means, therefore, 
 that Nathanael was at that time sitting in the shadow of 
 sin and death.” 
 
 Tal. What queer expositions of plain statements! Hither¬ 
 to I always thought that the Fathers were very wise and 
 godly persons, but hearing what you, my friends, tell of 
 them has lowered my faith in them a little. But even if 
 there are some queer things in their writings, yet we must 
 admit, as has been said, that there are also many correct 
 and precious statements contained in them. Moreover they 
 lived so much nearer to the time of Christ and the 
 apostles, that it seems to me they had a much better 
 opportunity to understand and explain their writings, than 
 the writers and commentators of our times. However, I 
 have now some doubts in regard to their correctness in 
 what they say, and it appears to me that it is dangerous 
 to travel on the sea of theology in the bark of the 
 wonderful and often fanciful expository writings of the 
 Fathers. For though, no doubt, they possessed great wisdom, 
 yet their wisdom, it seems, became sometimes foolishness, 
 and if I had to sail with them in the same ship, and 
 
18 
 
 were carried about by every wind of their statements, and 
 explanations of Scriptural doctrines, I do not know whither 
 these variable winds might carry me. 
 
 Qaim. What you say is very true; and now consider that 
 the popes and popish priests tell us that the truths of the 
 Word of God must be explained in accordance with the 
 teaching contained in the traditions or writings of the 
 Fathers! This is of course impossible. And yet, dear 
 brother, we must not, on account of the mistakes contained 
 in the writings of the Fathers, reject all that they say, 
 but follow the injunction of the apostle, “Prove all things; 
 hold fast that which is good.” 1 Thess. v. 21. Let us 
 examine what the Fathers say; the different traditions that 
 have come down to us from them, and see whether they 
 are right or wrong. Just as a goldsmith assays gold on his 
 touchstone to find out whether it be geniune or not, so 
 we ought to examine the different statements of the papists, 
 the traditions, rites, and dogmas which exist among them, 
 on the touchstone of truth, and that touchstone is the 
 Word of God, the holy Bible. “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. viii. 20. If 
 what they say and hold is in accordance with God’s holy 
 Word, it is right; if not, it must be wrong. 
 
 Kal. Blessed be the Lord, that He has given us His 
 true and pure Word. If we had not this Word to rest 
 on, we should be like a ship without chart and compass, 
 tossed to and fro by every wind that blows. The apostle 
 Paul, therefore, exhorts us, “ that we henceforth be no 
 more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about 
 with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and 
 cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.” 
 Eph. iv. 14. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE WORD OF GOD, AND THE POPISH TRADITIONS. 
 
 SECOND PART. 
 
 Q AIM. Brethren, the subject of our discourse, at our 
 last meeting, was, that all the writings of the Fathers, 
 and all doctrines and rites of our holy religion must 
 be proved and examined by the unerring standard of the 
 Word of God. If they are in accordance with that, we must 
 receive and obey them; if not, we must reject them. 
 
 Taw. The papists are doing just the very reverse. They 
 say that the writings of the Fathers, and what they consider 
 to be the traditions which have come down from them, are the 
 standard of the rule of faith, according to which we must 
 examine and explain the Scriptures. And now, since we know 
 that in their traditions and canons they do not include only the 
 writings of the Fathers, but also the words and statements of 
 popes and priests, whether true or false, it follows that only 
 those portions of the Bible are to be received by the people as 
 canonical which it pleases the priests to teach them, and they 
 thereby hide, if possible, their lying and deceit, and their 
 unscriptural dogmas. If the people were allowed to read the 
 Bible for themselves, they would soon find out which of the 
 
20 
 
 statements of their priests are true, and which are not true. 
 
 Kal. Every reader of the Bible knows that very many of 
 the popish doctrines are opposed to the truths stated in the 
 Bible. I will mention only two of them. The Bible teaches 
 that there is ONE Mediator between God and men, even the 
 Lord Jesus Christ. The popish creed teaches that there are 
 MANY mediators, Besides the Lord Jesus Christ they make 
 their saints, both men and women, particularly the Virgin 
 Mary, and also angels, their mediators. They call upon them 
 in their prayers, saying, Holy Mary, pray for us; Saint Peter 
 and Saint Paul, pray for us ; all ye holy angels and archangels, 
 pray for us, &c., &c. Those who read the holy Bible 
 know that these prayers of the papists are not only sin, but 
 blasphemy. In order to keep away this knowledge from 
 the people, the priests tell them that they must not read the 
 Bible, but must receive only what they teach and tell them. 
 
 Again, the Word of God says : “ 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.” Ex. xx. 4, 5. The -papists, by the 
 order of the priest, or in accordance with their traditions, bow 
 down themselves to their saints, and idols, and pictures, and 
 many other things, and worship them. Thus their custom in 
 doing so is opposed to the command of God in His Word. It 
 is no wonder that the priests, in order to hide this fact of 
 opposition to the command of God, tell their people, You 
 must not read the Bible. 
 
 Qaim. Brethren, in all that we have been speaking about 
 we see the cunning and deception practised by popes and 
 priests. If religious truth rests only upon the Word of God, 
 as it indeed does, it is easy to prove the articles of faith from 
 that; and if we examine the popish dogmas and their tra^i- 
 
21 
 
 tions by the only true standard, viz., the Word of God, we find 
 that many, or rather most of them, turn out to be more or 
 less untrue, and the deceit] of those who made them is evident. 
 When they make their traditions the standard by which to 
 judge of right and wrong religion, they can establish any 
 thing they like. For what false or unscriptural subject is 
 there which they by their cunning could not bring forward as 
 a tradition from the Fathers ? The pope needs only say, that 
 it is, and the thing is done. Hence the assertion of the papists 
 that the traditions of the “ Church ” ( i.e ., of the popish com¬ 
 munity) are of greater importance than the words of the Bible, 
 is not only wickedness but rank blasphemy. 
 
 There is another point to be considered regarding which 
 great care is required. Some of the Fathers in explaining 
 truths from the Bible, reject the natural and literal meaning, 
 and put a fanciful and unnatural meaning in their place, 
 which they call spiritual , or allegorical , or figurative, which is 
 often merely the production of their fancy, and not the truth 
 of the Divine Word. So, for example, the narrative of the 
 marriage in Cana, which has been mentioned before, the 
 Fathers give a long figurative or “ spiritual ” explanation. 
 Leaving, however, the nonsensical “ spiritual ” meaning given 
 by them, we need only remember that in that narrative water 
 means real water; and waterpots mean real waterpots; and 
 their containing two or three firkins apiece means two or 
 three real firkins apiece; and wine means real wine. 
 We must take the literal sense, and nob a figurative or 
 spiritual one. 
 
 Kal. The apostle Paul gives us a rule in explaining the 
 Word of God, which is this, that the different portions or 
 passages must be “ according to the proportion of faith that 
 is, they must agree with the general tenor of the Scriptures. 
 If we hear the exposition of some passage from such a 
 
22 
 
 “ spiritualiser,” and inquire whether that explanation i 3 
 according to the proportion of Gospel truth in general, we 
 shall soon find out that what is called the figurative or 
 “ spiritual ” meaning of the passage thus treated is often 
 only a new thing, to mislead us, and cause us to give up 
 the true and natural meaning. Common sense, guided by 
 the Word of God, gives us the true meaning. 
 
 Taw. I wish to say one word more. We all know that the 
 papists have not only corrupted the articles of faith of our 
 holy religion, by their own additions and traditions, but they 
 have also invented many legends and fabulous stories, which 
 they teach their people as if they were true. They have taken 
 away the true bread of life, and in the place of it, or mixed 
 up with it, r give them stones for food. They tell them 
 thousands of foolish legends, and amongst them are 
 many which are real nonsense, which, however, many of 
 them believe to be true. I will relate one of these 
 legends, which is a most wonderful one, as recorded by 
 the famous Anselm, who in the eleventh century was 
 Archbishop of England. He tells as a genuine fact that 
 one morning a notorious thief entered the cottage of a 
 poor widow, with an intention to rob her; but judging 
 her not worth enough for his trouble, he thus famil¬ 
 iarly accosted her,—“ Have you breakfasted yet? ” “I break¬ 
 fasted P ” she replied, “ God forbid that I should violate my 
 vow to fast every Saturday in the year.” “Every Saturday, 
 and why that ? ” he asked. “ Because,” answered the woman, 
 “ I heard from a famous preacher that whoever fasts on 
 Saturday, in honour of our Lady, cannot die without con¬ 
 fession.”* The thief upon that information feeling penitence 
 
 * The papists think that if any dying person, before expiring, 
 makes his confession to a priest, and the priest gives him abso¬ 
 lution, his soul will go to heaven. 
 
23 
 
 knelt down and swore to the Queen of Angels, that he would 
 also fast every Saturday for her sake; and thenceforth 
 inviolably kept his promise. But as he still continued his 
 robberies, he was eventually surprised by some travellers, 
 who severed his head from his body. His executioners were 
 instantly surprised to hear the head cry out, “ Confession, 
 masters, I beg at least that I may have confession.” The 
 affrighted manslayers ran to the next village, to inform the 
 curate, who immediately went to the place with a multitude 
 of the people, to witness that prodigy ; and having joined the 
 head of the highwayman to his body, according to his desire, 
 gave him confession. After which the penitent, having 
 thanked the priest for his absolution, said with a loud and 
 distinct voice, “ Masters, I never performed any good in all 
 my lifetime, except my having fasted every Saturday in 
 honour of the mother of God. At the very moment I 
 received the deadly blow a frightful troop of devils surround¬ 
 ed me to seize my soul; but the blessed Virgin came to my 
 aid, and drove them far from me by her divine presence, and 
 would not suffer my soul to leave my body till I should 
 be sufficiently contrite, and make confession of my sins. 
 Having also intreated the attendants to pray for him, ho 
 passed from this world into the state of happiness and 
 glory.”* 
 
 Qaim. I will also give you one of those wonderful popish 
 legends. In the Roman Breviary, the following legend 
 is recorded of Margaret, one of their saints. “ She prayed 
 that she might have a personal conflict with the Devil. 
 He appeared in the form of a dragon, and swallowed her; but 
 she instantly armed herself with the sign of the cross, 
 upon which the dragon burst asunder, and the virgin came 
 from him unhurt.” 
 
 * Salo, Methode, &c> 
 
24 
 
 Kal. We all know the story of the Samaritan woman, 
 as recorded in the fourth chapter of the Gospel of John. It is 
 a most beautiful story, provided we do not add to it, or 
 take away from it. Cornelius a Lapide, a popish com¬ 
 mentator, adds some new things to it, saying, that the 
 name of that woman was Photiua, and that after she had been 
 truly converted she went to the city of Carthage, preached 
 there the Gospel, and became there a martyr. That same 
 commentator gives us also the date, namely, the 20th of 
 March, when on account of her faith in Christ Photina 
 was decapitated. And that day is noted down in the 
 calendar of the popish saints, male and female, when the 
 papists commemorate the martyrdom of Photina. That 
 commentator also states, that in the church of St. Paul 
 in Borne, that martyred woman’s skull is preserved as a 
 relic, and that he had seen it with his own eyes! 
 
 Tal. Who can believe such stories ? 
 
 Qaim. You may well put that question. But now think 
 about those miserable priests who withhold from the 
 people the pure Word of God, and instead of it give 
 them such ridiculous and nonsensical legends. And many 
 of their people being in a state of ignorance and superstition 
 receive these false and misleading stories and traditions 
 as true. They receive stones for bread. 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE POPES AND PRIESTS HAVE CORRUPTED THE WORD 
 OF GOD, AND FORBID THE LAITY TO READ IT. 
 
 Q AIM. Dear brethren, when at our last meeting we 
 conversed about the pure Word of God, and the 
 traditions made by men, our hearts rose in gratitude to 
 God, saying, Lord, we bless and praise Thy holy Name, 
 that Thou hast given us the holy Bible, written by Divine 
 inspiration, and hence free from mistakes. 
 
 Kal. It seems to me, that if the pope and popish 
 
 priests say that we must understand and explain the 
 
 words of Scripture according to the traditions of the Fathers 
 and the popes, it is as if a person should take an oil 
 lamp, and place it close by the moon, in order that we 
 may be able to see that luminary. We Protestants grieve 
 about the fact that the papists have put their unholy 
 hands upon the holy Bible, and mixed up with it writings 
 which are not given by Divine inspiration, but by the 
 erring human mind. There are fourteen different writings 
 of that kind, which are called Apocrypha, added by the 
 papists to the Old Testament, just as if they were a 
 
 part of the inspired volume, and indeed papists consider 
 
 them to be so. 
 
 Tal. Will you kindly mention the names of the 
 fourteen writings which are called Apocrypha? 
 
26 
 
 Kal. Their names are :— 
 
 The two Books of Esdra; 
 
 The Book of Tobifc; 
 
 The Book of Judith; 
 
 The Rest of the Chapters of the Book of Esther; 
 
 The Wisdom of Solomon; 
 
 The Wisdom of Jesus, the son of Sirach; 
 
 The Book of Baruch ; 
 
 The Song of the Three Holy Children; 
 
 The History of Susanna; 
 
 The History of the Destruction of Bel and the 
 Dragon; 
 
 The Prayer of Manasses, King of Judah; 
 
 The two Books of the Maccabees. 
 
 Tal. Please tell me, whether the Jews, who were the 
 keepers of the Old Testament, acknowledge the Apocrypha 
 to be of Divine authority. 
 
 Taw. No, they do not even mention them. Moreover, 
 whilst the inspired books of the Old Testament were all 
 written in the Hebrew language, the Apocryphal books 
 were written in the Greek language. 
 
 Tal. Why, in your opinion, did the papists admit them 
 into the Bible, and declare them to be of Divine authority ? 
 
 Taw. They very likely admitted them because their 
 contents support some of the erroneous doctrines of 
 their rule of faith. 
 
 Qaim. Brethren, we must not forget that in the Apocry¬ 
 phal books there are indeed many things which, like other 
 human compositions, are useful and worth reading, but 
 besides these there are other things in them which are untrue 
 or silly, which prove that they are not Divinely inspired. 
 For instance, it is written in one of them, that Baruch, 
 the companion of Jeremiah, the prophet, was taken to 
 
27 
 
 Babylon, whilst, contrary to this, Jeremiah himself states 
 that he was taken to Egypt. In one place there is this 
 silly story, that when Tobit wished to cast out a demon 
 from a person, an angel gave him the advice to catch 
 some fish, take out its heart and liver, and burn them 
 near the man possessed, and the smoke of it would drive 
 out the demon. Again, we also read in the Apocrypha, 
 that during the forty years that the children of Israel 
 sojourned in the wilderness, the tabernacle, and the ark 
 of the covenant, according to the command of Moses, 
 followed him. Such queer and wonderful stories, opposed 
 to reason and revelation, are contained in the books of 
 the Apocrypha, and they prove clearly that they cannot be 
 Divinely inspired, but are mere human compositions. By 
 mixing up Divine revelation with human compositions the 
 papists have corrupted the Bible. 
 
 Taw. There is one thing more which I should like to 
 mention in this connection. It is this, that the Apocry¬ 
 phal books were not received into the canon of Scripture 
 during the first four centuries after Christ, nor ever 
 authoritatively so, by the papists, before the Council of 
 Trent in 1563. 
 
 Kal. We must also consider another point, namely, 
 that in the fourth century the popes and priests made a 
 translation of the Old and New Testaments, from the 
 original Hebrew and Greek languages, into the Latin tongue, 
 which they call the Vulgate, and though there are a 
 number of mistakes and mistranslations in it, and though 
 to most of the people Latin is an unknown tongue, they 
 have made that Latin translation the only authorised one 
 for use in their religious services. 
 
 Taw, Wherever the holy Bible has been translated 
 into the vulgar tongue, i.e., into the language of the 
 
28 
 
 people, the priests and bishops disapprove the reading of 
 it by the people, without a written permission from them. 
 They say : “ If any (of the common people) shall have the 
 presumption to read or possess it ( i.e ., the Bible trans¬ 
 lated into the vulgar tongue), without any such written 
 permission, he shall not receive absolution, until he have 
 first delivered up such Bible to the Ordinary.” * 
 
 Tal. Why should the priests be so anxious to prevent 
 the reading of the Word of God, in the vulgar tongue, 
 by the people? 
 
 Kal. The reason is a very simple one. They are desirous, 
 not only to prevent their people from reading the Bible 
 in their own language, but also from becoming generally 
 educated, and able to read other books, whether of a 
 religious or scientific nature, because their power and 
 influence among them depends upon their keeping them 
 in ignorance. It is universally known that the pope and 
 priests do not favour the education of the people in 
 popish countries, such as Spain, Portugal, Italy, Mexico, 
 the South American Republics, &c. In such countries 
 the people are generally more or less sunk in ignorance 
 and debasing superstitions. And the reason why the 
 priests are so anxious to keep the people in ignorance 
 and mental and religious darkness is because they very 
 well know, that wherever people become enlightened and 
 educated, and where they are able to read and examine 
 books of science and religion for themselves, there the 
 priests are in danger of losing their power and authority; 
 for reading people will soon be able to see the difference 
 between the teachings of the Bible and the idolatrous 
 worship and the superstitious ceremonies taught by the 
 priests. They, therefore, consider it of vital importance 
 
 * Index de Lib. Prohib., Reg. iv. 
 
29 
 
 to withhold the Bible from the people, to oppose the 
 establishment of schools, and to keep them in ignorance 
 so that they might not be able to read the Bible. Where 
 Protestants in a popish country or community use the 
 Bible translated into the language of the people, the 
 popish priests in that country or place forbid their people 
 to read it, and prevent them from doing so as much as 
 they can. It is well known, that where a priest finds 
 one of his people reading the Bible, he does not only threaten 
 or punish him in the popish way, but generally seizes 
 the book and burns or otherwise destroys it. 
 
 Qaim. What you say is a fact. A friend of mine told 
 me the other day something of the kind, which happen¬ 
 ed a few years ago. On one of his missionary journeys 
 towards Nepaul he arrived in the city of B——, and heard 
 that there was a Eoman Catholic community with a 
 priest attending it. The congregation was of considerable 
 size, and the quarter in which they lived was called 
 Kristian-tola, and in which there was a church. When 
 my arrival became known, my friend said, many of the 
 Eoman Catholic Christians came to my tent, to hear the 
 Gospel, and to ask for medicine, which I was in the 
 habit of giving to the sick. They told me, that some 
 years ago another missionary had been there, and after 
 preaching the Gospel to them, and the heathen of that 
 place, he distributed a number of single Gospels. The 
 members of the popish community took them gladly, but 
 when their priest heard of it, he became very angry 
 with them, and took the books away and burned them. 
 Among these Eoman Catholic Christians I found two who 
 appeared to me to be pious persons, and the cause of 
 their piety was soon known to me. When we three were 
 alone, they told me, that when the priest had collected 
 
30 
 
 the books I spoke of, in order to burn them, they both 
 had kept and secreted their own, and had been reading 
 them privately. I was glad when I heard this, and, on 
 conversing more with them, I found out that they had 
 been searching the Scriptures, and had found out the 
 way of salvation. Then it became clear to me, that the 
 reading of God’s Word was the foundation of their true 
 Christianity. They asked me whether I would not come 
 and settle down in their city, and establish a school for 
 their children, that they might learn to read, “ For,” said 
 they, “our priest does nothing for the education of our 
 children, who are growing up like buffaloes, without any 
 education or ability to read.” They were very sorry when 
 I told them that I could not do that. 
 
 Tal. Gentlemen, I heard that the popish priests give 
 their people instead of the Bible a book which they call 
 “Breviary,” which contains portions of Scripture, and a 
 catechism of religion, and the Ten Commandments, and 
 prayers. Do you call that good or bad ? 
 
 Qaim. I cannot call it good, but must call it bad. It 
 is bad, because that “ Breviary ” is to take the place of 
 the Bible. The priests, keeping back from the people the 
 Word of God, give unto them, instead of it, some popish 
 composition, mixed up with a few words from Scripture. 
 And what you call a catechism of religion, is a catechism 
 teaching popery. Prayers in it are mostly to the Virgin 
 Mary, and other so-called saints, asking them to pray 
 for them. And in regard to the Ten Commandments 
 they have also altered them with great cunning. The 
 Breviary is full of such things, which are contrary to 
 the Word of God. 
 
 Tal. What do you mean by saying that in recording the 
 Ten Commandments they have also shown great cunning ? 
 
31 
 
 Kal. You are aware, brother, that the second com¬ 
 mandment in the decalogue forbids all idolatry. The 
 papists do not indeed throw that commandment out of 
 the decalogue, but have stated it so cunningly, that 
 people generally do not notice the commandment at all. 
 
 Tal. Please show us their cunningness. 
 
 Kal. I will show you. The first commandment is,— 
 “ I am the Lord thy God .... thou shalt have no other 
 gods before Me.” Ex. xx. 2, 3. Again, the second 
 commandment is,—“ 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.” Ex. xx. 4, 5. They have 
 joined this second commandment to the first, in such a 
 way as if it were a 'part of the first commandment. And 
 in fact, they have given to the two commandments, thus 
 joined together, the name of first commandment. 
 
 Tal. It is clear from what you state that they have 
 really not thrown out the second commmandment, but only 
 joined it to the first. What wrong is there in it ? 
 
 Kal. The thing is this, brother, that the priests have 
 prepared a catechism, and in it stated the Ten Command¬ 
 ments in an abbreviated form. They have only taken the 
 first sentence of each, or what they considered the main 
 part of it, and dropped the remainder. And these 
 abbreviated Ten Commandments they have placed in the 
 people’s hands. In this commandment which is their first, 
 but which is really the first and second, they have merely 
 received these words,—“ I am the Lord thy God: thou 
 shalt have no other gods before Me,” and have dropped 
 the whole remaining portion, which is really the second 
 commandment, from the catechism, If they should write 
 
32 
 
 out the Ten Commandments fully, and the second also in 
 full, then the people in reading that could easily see that 
 they (the papists) are transgressing God’s holy law in 
 worshipping idols or living creatures in heaven or on 
 earth, and that they must not even bow down themselves 
 to them and serve, or worship, or adore them. But 
 since the popish priests do worship creatures, and idols, 
 and pictures, &c., they have shown their trickery in 
 giving that mutilated catechism to the people, in which 
 the second commandment is not to be found. 
 
 Tal. Then there remain only nine commandments 
 altogether. How did they fill up the number ten? 
 
 Kal. They did this cunningly, by cutting the tenth 
 commandment in tivo, to fill up the number. The tenth 
 commandment in the Bible is,— “ Thou shalt not covet thy 
 neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s 
 wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his 
 ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.” 
 It will be clear to any unprejudiced person, that there 
 is only one kind of commandment contained in this, 
 namely, Do not covet that which is thy neighbour’s. 
 But sheer helplessness led the papists to cut this 
 commandment in two, so that they could fill up the 
 number of ten . 
 
 Tal. Please tell me how they have worded the 
 different Ten Commandments. 
 
 Kal. In their catechism they have worded them in 
 this abbreviated way:— 
 
 I. I am the Lord thy God: thou shalt have no other 
 gods before Me. 
 
 II. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God 
 in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless 
 that taketh the name of the Lord his God in vain. 
 
33 
 
 HI. Remember that thon keep holy the Sabbath day. 
 
 IY. Honour thy father and thy mother, that thou 
 mayest be long-lived upon the land which the 
 Lord thy God will give thee. 
 
 Y. Thou shalt not kill. 
 
 YI. Thou shalt not commit adultery. 
 
 YII. Thou shalt not steal. 
 
 YIII. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy 
 neighbour. 
 
 IX. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife. 
 
 X. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, nor 
 his servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing 
 that is his. 
 
 Tal. Do the papists now-a-days also receive the Ten 
 Commandments in this form P 
 
 Taw. Before the Reformation, i.e., until the sixteenth 
 century, this altered form of the Ten Commandments 
 was printed in all their religious books, and in this form 
 it became current, and spread also in other countries. 
 But after the Reformation there arose a great dispute 
 among the Protestants and papists about it. The Protestants 
 accused the papists of having mutilated the Ten Com¬ 
 mandments, and dishonoured the holy law of God. The 
 papists were at last obliged to print them in a complete 
 form as an appendix to the Douay catechism. They 
 , did, however, not separate the first commandment from 
 the second, but printed both together, as if they were one, 
 
 Kal. When thinking about the wickedness of the papists, 
 that they with their unholy hands have introduced 
 changes into God’s holy Word, the Lord’s word, we know, 
 is applicable to them,—“ Men loved darkness rather than 
 light, because their deeds were evil.” John iii. 19. 
 
 q 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 RISE AND PROGRESS OF POPERY. 
 
 T AL. Brethren, if you have no objection, let the subject 
 of our conversation to-day be, How the Primitive 
 Apostolic Church degenerated into Popery. 
 
 Taw. Our brother’s suggestion is a good one, and we 
 shall all doubtless be profited by considering this matter. 
 When our Lord Jesus Christ had finished the great work of 
 salvation, for which He came to the earth, and assumed our 
 nature, He said to His disciples, “ Go ye therefore, and 
 make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name 
 of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.* 
 teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have 
 commanded you.” After this He ascended up to heaven, 
 and according to His promise He will come again at the 
 end of the age, i.e., at the end of this dispensation. 
 Obedient to the command of the Lord, the apostles travelled 
 from country to country, preaching the Gospel; and where- 
 ever they preached, people were converted, in some places 
 many, in others but few, and thus Christian congregations 
 were formed; and wherever these congregations existed, 
 there the brethren elected from among themselves some 
 pious and experienced brother, who was to become their 
 pastor, and the apostles ordained him to be pastor of that 
 congregation or Church. That ordained person was called 
 
35 
 
 Bishop (which means overseer), or Presbyter (which means 
 elder), or Pastor (which means shepherd). If in some large 
 city there were many Christians, who could not worship 
 all in the same place, they constituted several Churches, 
 and over every one a separate bishop or pastor was elected 
 and ordained. 
 
 Tal. You are aware, that a bishop (or overseer) among 
 Roman Catholics, and Episcopalians, and some other sections 
 of the Church, now-a-days, is not considered to mean the 
 overseer of one Church, but of all the Episcopal Churches 
 in a country, province, or district, and he has the over¬ 
 sight of all the Churches with their ministers in that 
 country or district, which is called his diocese. From this 
 we see that there is a great difference between the primi* 
 tive bishops and the present ones. Will you kindly bring 
 forward such passages from Scripture as prove your point, 
 namely, that the bishops of the primitive Churches were 
 not diocesan bishops, or overseers of the Churches of a 
 certain district, but bishops, or pastors, of the different 
 Churches ? 
 
 Kal. Yes, I will tell you. Please open your Bible, and 
 look at the first verse of Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians. 
 There we read: “ Paul and Timotheus, the servants of 
 
 Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are 
 
 < 
 
 at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons.” From this 
 verse it is evident that in the city of Philippi there were 
 several—two, three, or more—bishops and deacons. As 
 they were all in one city, it is clear that those bishops 
 could not have been overseers over a number of Churches 
 of a country or district, or in other words diocesan bishops, 
 but the bishops or pastors of the different Churches of 
 that city. And the deacons, who are mentioned, were the 
 servants of the Churches, liko the seven deacons who are 
 
36 
 
 mentioned in the sixth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, 
 who served tables, i.c., attended to the widows and poor 
 of the Church. 
 
 Let me refer you to another passage, When the apostle 
 Paul sent from Miletus to Ephesus, and called the elders 
 or presbyters of the Church or Churches in Ephesus to 
 Miletus, he said to them, in his instruction: “ Take heed 
 therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the 
 which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops (or overseers), 
 to feed the Church of God, which He hath purchased 
 with His own blood.” Acts. xx. 28. The city of Ephesus 
 was a large city, and he therefore called the bishops or 
 pastors (all of whom he called presbyters,) of the Church 
 or Churches of that city, and perhaps those of adjacent 
 places also, to Ephesus, to give them his instructions. 
 
 Tal. From those passages of Scripture, mentioned by 
 you, it certainly seems clear that the bishops of the apos¬ 
 tolic age were pastors of the Churches, and not overseers 
 having ecclesiastical jurisdiction over a number of Churches 
 and pastors in a district, or province, or a country. 
 
 Taw. Well, as the Word of God, so also history, teaches 
 us that the different Churches in the apostolic age had 
 each their own bishop or pastor. But the writers of history 
 inform us, also, that in the apostolic age already there 
 were schisms and dissensions among the bishops, and among 
 the members of the Church. Among those members who 
 had come out of Judaism there were some who wanted to 
 introduce Jewish rites again into the Christian Church. 
 Wo read, that “ certain men (believers) which came down 
 from Judea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be 
 circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.” 
 Acts. xv. 1. In order to decide this question, the apostles 
 and elders came together, and after much disputing this 
 
37 
 
 heresy was condemned. (See Acts, xv.) 
 
 Again, in the large Church of Corinth there were some 
 who said that there is no resurrection of the dead. (See 
 1 Cor. xv. 12.) Paul in his first epistle to Timothy speaks 
 of heretics, whose “ word will eat as doth a canker: of 
 whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; who concerning the 
 truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is passed 
 already; and overthrow the faith of some.” 2 Tim. ii. 17, 18. 
 And the same apostle blames the Churches of Galatia, 
 that they so soon had been removed from the true Gospel, 
 and were listening to heretical teachers, who .troubled them, 
 and would pervert the Gospel of Christ. (See Gal. i. 6, 7.) 
 Again we read also of blameworthy things regarding some 
 of the bishops. The apostle Paul writes, to the Colossians : 
 “ Say to Archippus, Take heed to the ministry which thou 
 hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfil it.” Col. iv. 17. 
 And the apostle John says in one of his epistles: “ I 
 wrote unto the Church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to 
 have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. 
 Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which 
 he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and 
 not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the 
 brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth 
 them out of the Church.” 3 John ix. 10. It appears that 
 this Diotrephes was the bishop of the Church, in whose 
 heart pride and self-sufficiency were the ruling propensities. 
 
 Tal, Brethren, pride we find in the very apostles. We 
 see it when we read: “There was also a strife among them, 
 which of them should be accounted the greatest.” Luke 
 xxii. 24. 
 
 Taw. You are right. Now if in the apostles 5 time, nay, 
 even in the very apostles themselves, such blemishes and 
 defects were found, need we wonder that after them such 
 
38 
 
 sins, and greater ones, wore found in the Churches, and 
 pastors of the Churches? History tells us that gradually 
 all kinds of heresies, and unscriptural doctrines crept into 
 the Churches. We find that envy and strifes arose among 
 the bishops, and that one wanted to be greater than the 
 other. The congregations of large cities were generally 
 larger than those of towns and villages, and the bishops 
 of these large cities were generally more learned and 
 eloquent preachers, and people would on that account con¬ 
 sider them to stand higher than those of smaller towns 
 and villages. The Church of the city of Rome was con¬ 
 sidered to take a higher place than all the other Churches, 
 not only because Rome was the capital of the large Roman 
 Empire, but also because the apostle Paul, though not the 
 founder of that Church, had yet been living in it several 
 years. It was natural that other Churches would consider 
 the Church of Rome of high standing, and her bishop 
 occupying a higher position than that of all others, a kind 
 of chief-bishop or archbishop; and the bishop of Rome was 
 pleased with it. Hence when disputes, or dissensions, or 
 heresies arose in other Churches, which they themselves 
 could not settle, they would naturally look to that chief- 
 bishop, the bishop of Rome, to settle it and remove the 
 difficulties. When in the fourth century the Emperor of 
 the Eastern and Western Romish empires—Constantine— 
 became a Christian, worldly pomp and love of worldly 
 grandeur, and with these much wickedness and pride, and 
 more heresies and dissensions troubled the Churches; the 
 Church became then the Established Church of the empire, 
 and worldly pomp and excellency in the Church took more 
 and more the place of spiritual beauty and excellency. 
 The emperor’s desire wa.s to conform the ecclesiastical 
 government, as much as possible, to the secular govern* 
 
39 
 
 ment of the empire; and as in the latter there were 
 officers of different degrees in rank, so, he thought, there 
 should be officers or ministers in the Church of different 
 degrees. He therefore appointed sub-bishops, and high 
 bishops, and chief-bishops, &c., &c., and their subordinates 
 were also of different degrees. And, as there was much 
 pride and ambition among the bishops in the Church, they 
 liked this arrangement generally. The chief-bishop of 
 Rome would be naturally pleased with his high rank and 
 name, and would practise oppression and, to some extent, 
 tyranny over the sub-bishops. To make a long descrip¬ 
 tion short, the chief-bishop of Rome, through his own 
 ambitious desires, and the help of the emperor, rose 
 gradually higher and higher, until he declared himself, or 
 was declared, the head of the whole Church, and in his 
 pride and arrogancy thought and stated that, whilst the 
 Lord Jesus Christ was the Great Head of the Church 
 Universal, in heaven, he was His vicegerent, or vicar and 
 representative, on earth. In this way the popedom was 
 established. We must, moreover, consider, that King Pepin, 
 in the year 755, gave to the pope a certain small portion 
 of the country of Italy, and from that time the power of 
 the pope increased so much, that in his arrogancy he con¬ 
 sidered himself as possessed of supreme authority not 
 only over all Churches and bishops, but also over all 
 emperors and kings. This small country, called the “ States 
 of the Church,” which he possessed, remained in the 
 possession of the popes till the year 1870, when it was taken 
 from them; and from that time the pope has had only 
 ecclesiastical authority over the whole popish community; 
 or Roman Catholic Church. In order to increase this 
 ecclesiastical power, i. e., to spread popery, and, if pos¬ 
 sible, obtain again political power, the pope, and all his 
 
40 
 
 subordinates, particularly that wicked and unscrupulous 
 sect, the Jesuits, use all means in their power to arrest 
 the spread of Protestantism, to extinguish, if possible, 
 the light of the truth, and to bring the Protestant nations 
 again into the cursed net of popery. 
 
 Qaim. Brethren, one of the wicked ways of the popish 
 priests, all over the world, consists in this, that wherever 
 the Lord has blessed the labour of Protestant missionaries, 
 in bringing people out of the darkness of heathenism 
 into the light of Christianity, there in those places, or 
 very near to them, popish priests, particularly Jesuits, are 
 placed, to draw away the converts from the truth, and by 
 lying and deception, in the garb of piety, to bring them 
 into their popish net. And the semi-papists or Eitualists 
 among the Episcopalians assist them most effectually in 
 their evil work. Here in India, for example, in Chota 
 Nagpur, in the Punjab, in Ahmednagar, and other places, 
 they by their cunning and craftiness have enticed many of 
 the simple converts into the popish net. It is therefore the 
 duty of every Protestant to avoid them as much as possi¬ 
 ble, and to teach our simple converts, too, to keep away 
 from them, lest by their efforts and false promises they 
 are caught in their snares. Brethren, as among the 
 Protestants in Europe and America, so here also in India 
 the motto should be written on the Christian banner, 
 
 NO PEACE WITH ROME! 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 IDOLATRY OF THE PAPISTS 
 FIRST PART. 
 
 Q AIM. Brethren, with your consent our conversation to 
 day shall be about the idolatry of Popery. The first 
 of the commandments of the Divine law is this: 
 “Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.” Ex. xx. 3. 
 According to this commandment we are forbidden to wor¬ 
 ship any creature, whether man or angel, but only the only 
 living and true God. 
 
 And the second commandment is: “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.” Ex. xx. 4, 5. 
 This commandment forbids us both to make idols and to 
 worship them. Papists are transgressing this commandment 
 continually by worshipping angels, or men, particularly the 
 virgin Mary. And they worship also pictures of a certain 
 kind, and various idols, and many other things. The Word 
 of God plainly forbids every kind of idolatry. 
 
 Tal. In connection with this point we must consider, 
 what the papists have to say in regard to this, to clear 
 themselves from such an accusation. They say, that there 
 are two kinds of worship. One is the worship which we 
 
42 
 
 render only to God, and the other is a mere adoration 
 which we render to Saints, and angels, and piotures, and 
 other things. We do not really worship them, but only 
 adore them. 
 
 Qmi. You know, dear brother, that I was brought up 
 among the papists, and spent my childhood and youth in 
 the popish community. I can tell you, that, though the 
 priests speak of the difference between worship and adora¬ 
 tion, they make this difference merely in theory, in order 
 to cover their great sin, but in reality they, and the papists 
 generally, make no such difference in their practice. 
 
 Just as they worship God, in the same manner they worship 
 Saints, Angels, the virgin Mary, Images, Pictures and 
 other things. And if they say that they only bow down 
 in adoration before them, we must remember that the 
 commandment of God is,—“ Thou shalt not bow down thy • 
 self to them .” Ex. xx. 5. To worship any thing, or any 
 creature, beside God, or to bow down ourselves to it, in 
 the way of worship, is idolatry. The fact is, that the 
 papists worship angels, and prophets, and apostles, and men 
 and women, who are dead, whom they call Saints. They 
 believe them to be present with God, and therefore call 
 upon them in prayer, saying,—Holy Mary, holy Mother of 
 God, St. Michael, St. Gabriel, St. Raphael, all ye holy 
 Angels and Archangels, pray for us ! All ye holy Orders 
 of blessed Spirits, St. John Baptist, St. Joseph, all ye 
 holy Patriarchs and Prophets, St. Peter, St. Paul, St. 
 Andrew, &c., &c., pray for us! All ye holy Apostles and 
 Evangelists, all ye holy Disciples of our Lord, all ye holy 
 Innocents, St. Stephen, St. Lawrence, St. Vincent, &c., &c., 
 all ye holy Martyrs, &c., &c., all ye holy Bishops and 
 Confessors, all ye holy Priests and Levites, all ye holy 
 Monks and Hermits, pray for us! St. Mary Magdalene, St. 
 
43 
 
 Agatha, St. Lucy, St. Agnes, &c., &c., all ye holy Virgins 
 and Widows, all ye holy Men and Women, Saints o£ God, 
 make intercession for us ! &c., &c. In this way the papists 
 worship, or adore in prayer, these and many others, and by 
 doing so commit idolatry. 
 
 There is a most blasphemous prayer recorded in the 
 Novena of St. Joseph, page 227, which runs thus: “0 most 
 desirable Jesus ! O most amiable Mary ! 0 most dear Joseph ! 
 I give myself up entirely to you; take possession of me for 
 ever. 0 holy trinity! 1 offer and consecrate to you the 
 three faculties of my soul. 0 Jesus! Mary! Joseph! most 
 blessed trinity! bless me with the triple benediction of the 
 thrice holy Lord.” 
 
 Tal. This is indeed an awfully idolatrous and blasphemous 
 prayer of the papists. 
 
 Taw. Yes, and let us notice particularly that, among all 
 the Saints worshipped by them, the virgin Mary stauds 
 highest, higher than any Saint, yea, higher even than our 
 Lord Jesus Christ; and the worship or adoration paid to 
 her is higher than that of any other creature, and more 
 prayers are offered to her than to any one else. They 
 foolishly imagine that Mary, in answer to their prayers, 
 will go to Jesus, and coax or persuade Him, saying,—My 
 Son, give unto them what they ask, or induce God, the 
 Father, to give to them. In doing so, they do not consider 
 what awful dishonour they show to the Lord Jesus. 
 
 Kal. Yes, brother, they grossly dishonour Him. The 
 Lord did not say to His disciples, Whatever ye shall ask 
 of Me, through My mother, that I, going to the Father, will 
 cause Him to give you; but, “Whatsoever ye shall ask in 
 My name , that will I do, that the Father may be glorified 
 in the Son.” John xiv. 13. And again, “Verily, verily, I 
 say unto you, whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in My 
 
44 
 
 name, He will give it you. Hitherto have ye asked 
 nothing in My name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your 
 joy may be full.” John xvi. 23, 24. If, as is evident from 
 these passages, the Lord Jesus Himself is our Intercessor, 
 what need is there of other intercessors, or sub-intercessors, 
 that we should put up ? In obedience to Christ’s word we 
 are to go straight to Him. But the Mariolaters (or worship¬ 
 pers of Mary) think that, unless they accept her mediation, 
 the Lord Jesus will not hear them, or, at any rate, not 
 soon hear them, to give them what they want, and there¬ 
 fore say, Let us make His mother a mediatrix, in order 
 that she may induce Him to hear us. They do not consider 
 that His mother is a sinner by nature, like other human 
 beings, and that she has obtained salvation only by the 
 grace of God, through Jesus Christ, the Mediator, and is 
 herself dependent upon the intercession of the Lord Jesus. 
 Hence Mary can do nothing for others. 
 
 Qaim. We must, moreover, consider, that the virgin Mary 
 herself confesses that she needs salvation, for after having 
 received the message from the angel, that she was to 
 become the mother of the Lord Jesus, she, in praising Him, 
 said: “ My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit 
 hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.” Luke i. 46, 47. Now it 
 is sinners only who need a Saviour and salvation. If then 
 the virgin Mary said, “ My spirit hath rejoiced in God my 
 Saviour,” she confessed herself, that she was a sinner, and 
 needed to be saved from sin, 
 
 Tal. Gentlemen, please tell me, does the virgin Mary not 
 occupy a very high position in the sight of God? 
 
 Kal. That she does occupy a high place among the 
 redeemed there is not the least doubt, for when the Lord 
 would become incarnate, it was His pleasure to grant to 
 Mary the great honour of becoming His mother. Hence 
 
45 
 
 the angel Gabriel also said to her, “Hail, thou that art 
 highly favour ed\ The Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among 
 women /” Luke i. 28. Yes, there is not the least doubt but 
 that Mary was a blessed woman, for she became the 
 mother of our Lord. But this does not mean that she was 
 a woman without sin, and worthy to be worshipped. Like 
 all other human beings, she was a sinner needing salvation, 
 or deliverance from sin, and knowing this, she says, “ My 
 spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.” The papists err 
 greatly in not only worshipping her, but worshipping her 
 even more than the Lord Jesus. 
 
 Again, if the papists think that Mary ought to be prayed 
 to, because she is called “ blessed among women,” then 
 surely there is greater cause for praying to “ Jael, the wife 
 of Heber the Kenite,” for Deborah, the prophetess, calls her 
 “blessed above women.” Judges v. 24. But who would be 
 so foolish as to pray to Jael on this account? 
 
 Taw. St. Liguori in his book, page 64, tells a ridiculous 
 story about the virgin Mary. He says; “ Bernardine de 
 Busto relates, that a bird was taught to say, Hail, Mary ! 
 A hawk was on the point of seizing it, when the bird cried 
 out, Hail, Mary! In an instant the hawk fell dead.” 
 
 Tal. Who can be so simple as to believe such a story ? 
 
 Qaim. There are a few more things connected with the 
 virgin Mary, that we must speak of. First, the papists 
 call her the mother of God. This is rank blasphemy. The 
 Lord Jesus was, and is, the eternal Son of God in His 
 Divine nature, for, “In the beginning was the Word, and 
 the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John i. 1. 
 It pleased Him to assume human nature. “The Word was 
 made flesh.” John i. 14. He was conceived by the power 
 of the Holy Ghost in the womb of the virgin Mary. Hence, 
 as to His human nature, the virgin Mary became his mother; 
 
46 
 
 bub according to His Divine nature she could never be His 
 mother. To say, then, that Mary was the mother of God is 
 not only wrong, but blasphemous. 
 
 There is another thing which is an invention of the 
 papists. They say that Mary was a virgin not only until 
 Christ was born, but that she remained a virgin ever after¬ 
 wards. Hence, when they repeat her name, they generally 
 add to it the two words, “ ever virgin.” They thus teach 
 that there is something wrong or impure in becoming a 
 mother of children, and that there is a particular holiness or 
 excellency in remaining unmarried. Their whole system 
 teaches that Celibacy is a holier state than that of Matri¬ 
 mony, although God, creating them male and female, designed 
 men and women for marriage, and although the apostle 
 Paul says, “ Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed 
 undefiled.” Heb. xiii. 4. Hence, had the virgin remained 
 “ ever virgin,” and had never had any connection with her 
 husband, Joseph, it would be no reason why she should 
 be considered better and more honourable than married 
 women. It seems to me, however, that the Word of God 
 leads us to believe that Mary, after the birth of Christ, had 
 sons and daughters, whose father wa3 Joseph. 
 
 Tal. How can you prove this? 
 
 Kal. Please open your Bible at Matthew xiii., and let 
 us read from verse 54th to 57th. There it is written : “When 
 He (Jesus) was come into His own country, He taught 
 them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were asto¬ 
 nished, and said, Whence hath this Man this wisdom, and 
 these mighty works ? Is not this the carpenter’s Son ? is 
 not His mother called Mary ? and His brethren, James, 
 and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are 
 they not all with us? Whence then hath this Man all 
 these things? And they were offended in Him.” 
 
47 
 
 Let us road also in Matthew xii., verses 46 and 47. 
 There it is written: “ While He yet talked to the people, 
 behold, His mother and His brethren stood without, desir¬ 
 ing to speak with Him. Then said one unto Him, Behold, 
 Thy mother and Thy brethren stand without, desiring to 
 speak with Thee.” From both these passages it appears 
 that the Lord Jesus had brethren and sisters; and it is 
 natural to conclude that they were children of Mary and 
 Joseph. 
 
 Tal. Some people think that those called brethren of 
 Jesus, in these passages, were not the children of Mary, 
 but of Mary’s sister, the wife of Cleophas, for near rela¬ 
 tives were sometimes called brethren. Or they may have 
 been Joseph’s children by a former marriage. 
 
 Kal. The papists say this merely because they are intent 
 upon making out that the mother of the Lord Jesus was 
 an “ ever virgin.” But it seems to me, and must appear 
 so to every unbiassed person, that if we read in our 
 passages that the people said of the Lord, “ Is not His 
 mother called Mary? and His brethren, James, and Joses, 
 and Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all 
 with us?” And again, speaking to the Lord, they say, 
 “ Behold Thy mother and Thy brethren stand without, 
 desiring to speak with Thee.” I say, if we look at these 
 passages with an unprejudiced mind, and without a precon¬ 
 ceived notion, we shall naturally come to the conclusion that 
 these brethren and sisters of Jesus were the children of 
 Joseph and Mary after the birth of our Lord. In trying 
 to prove that Mary remained “ever virgin,” they seem to 
 think that as such she would be declared more holy than 
 people who are married. They thereby cast dishonour upon 
 marriage, which, as mentioned before, the apostle speaks of 
 as honourable. They are certainly mistaken. 
 
48 
 
 Taw. I will mention here another passage which will 
 also prove that papists are mistaken in regard to their 
 idea about marriage. Of Enoch it is written, that “Enoch 
 walked with God after he beget Methuselah three hundred 
 years, and begat sons and daughters.” Gen. v. 22. We learn 
 from this passage that walking with God, i.e., leading a 
 life of holiness, and begetting sons and daughters, are not 
 inconsistent with each other, for both are ordained by God. 
 
 In regard to the virgin Mary we Protestants know, from 
 the Word of God, that when the Lord Jesus was born of 
 her she was a pure virgin, aud what can we say better of 
 her than this ? And afterwards she was and remained the 
 pure wife of her husband Joseph. And when we speak of 
 her as the virgin Mary we do so, not because she did not 
 live with Joseph as his wife after the birth of Christ, but 
 simply because as a virgin she miraculously became the 
 mother of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. 
 
CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 IDOLATRY OF THE PAPISTS. 
 
 SECOND PART. 
 
 Q AIM. In our last conversation we spoke of the idolatry 
 of the papists, in the worship or adoration of what 
 God has forbidden in His Word. They worship 
 Angels, and Saints, and especially the virgin Mary. In regard 
 to Mariolatry I would like to say one thing more. It is 
 impossible that the virgin Mary could hear all the prayers 
 of all who pray to her in every place. Has she the power 
 of attending to all the thousands of thousands of prayers 
 and petitions which are offered to her from all countries 
 from hundreds of thousands of cities, and from millions and 
 millions of her suppliants ? Can she listen to all these 
 petitions at once? Can she comprehend at once all the 
 cases of her innumerable worshippers, and can she present 
 every individual’s prayer to her Son ? If she can she must 
 be Divine, she must possess the Divine attributes of 
 Omnipresence, Omniscience and Omnipotence. 
 
 The worship of Pictures and Images is another species 
 of popish idolatry, which we must mention. Everywhere 
 papists worship the Pictures and Images of male and 
 female Saints, of Christ and the Apostles. 
 
 Tal. Brethren, you are aware, that the worshippers 
 themselves say that they do not worship or adore these 
 
50 
 
 Pictures or Images, but the persous represented by then. 
 
 Taw. This reminds me of what the Hindoo idolators say. 
 They also, when worshipping their idols, if they think at 
 all about what they are doing, which is very rarely the 
 case, say: We do not worship these Images, or Figures, or 
 Idols of Ram, or Krishn, or Seeta, or Luchhmee, or Mahadeo, 
 or Kallee, &c., but the god or goddess which they represent. 
 We know, brethren, that this is merely a pretence. The 
 people do really worship these very Idols of silver, or 
 brass, or copper, or stone; and the dhoop deep , or water, or 
 milk, or flowers, which they offer, they place or pour upon 
 these very Idols, or put in front of them. They offer them 
 to the Idols. Of the same nature is the worship of Pictures 
 or Images among the papists. That pretence is useless. 
 
 Qaim. Another species of Idolatry of which the papists 
 are guilty, is their worship of Belies. 
 
 Tal. Will you kindly explain what you mean by Belies? 
 
 Qaim. The meaning of a Belie is “that which remains 
 after loss or decay;” and in the particular sense in which 
 the papists use it, it is the body, or some part of the 
 body, or something connected with the body, of a deceased 
 Saint or Martyr. Bones of Saints and Martyrs, their Clothes, 
 the Instruments by which they were killed or tortured, or 
 any other things that had belonged to them, may be regarded 
 as Relics. Often such things are certified by the pope or 
 some priest to be relics of particular Saints, and are deposited 
 in some church or other place to be considered sacred and 
 worshipped by the people. Sometimes they are offered for 
 sale, and the purchasers are told that if they buy them, 
 or keep them, or present them to some church, they shall 
 thereby obtain for themselves great temporal or spiritual 
 benefits. Again, when it is desired to give to some church 
 or place a great name for sacrcdness, a Relic, said to have 
 
51 
 
 belonged to some great Saint, is placed in it, and wonderful 
 stories are circulated of astonishing cures having been 
 experienced by those who visited the place, and worshipped 
 the Relic. Thus thousands of pilgrims flock from far and 
 near to this place, worship the Relic, and make offerings 
 to the Saint, in the hope of being healed of their diseases, 
 or of obtaining some other benefit. Some may obtain 
 imaginary good; but whether this be so or not, one thing 
 is certain, that the pope and the priesthood derive a great 
 revenue of money from their deluded victims by this 
 superstitious aud dishonest traffic in Relics. 
 
 Taw. I have read many wonderful stories about Relics 
 which show how far the folly and credulity of Relic-mongers 
 or worshippers may go. It is said that there are eight 
 cities or places where the people believe that they have 
 the Bone of an Arm of the apostle Matthew. Again, in 
 other places they believe they possess the Bone of a Leg, 
 or of a Finger of that apostle. There are several places, 
 in each of which thay say that they have the Bone of one 
 of the Arms of the apostle John. Again, the priests say, 
 that iu the Lateran, which is a church in the city of Rome, 
 there is the Ark of Moses, and his Rod, by which he 
 produced those wonders in Egypt; and also the Table, on 
 which the Lord and the apostles ate the Passover and the 
 Lord’s Supper. They pretend to possess the whole Table, 
 but in a number of other places priests tell the people 
 that they possess a piece of the Wood of which that Table 
 was made. They also say that on the altar of the Lateran 
 are the Skulls of the apostles Peter and Paul. At the 
 large church of St. Peter’s, in Rome, wonderful Relics are 
 exhibited to the visitors. There they show what they call 
 the Cross of the Penitent Thief, who was crucified with 
 Christ; and the Lantern which, they say, Judas Iscariot 
 
52 
 
 used in Gethsemane to find Jesus; also the Dice which the 
 soldiers cast for Christ’s garment. It is said that there are 
 in the same church the Tail of Balaam’s Ass; and the Saw 
 and Axe, aud some other Tool of Joseph, the carpenter. In 
 a certain church, they say, they have a little of the Manna 
 which the Children of Israel ate in the wilderness; and 
 in another they show a Rod, which, they say, was Aaron’s 
 Rod, with a few of the blossoms on it. In a certain place 
 they show a Picture, which, they say, is the true Picture 
 of the virgin Mary, painted by the evangelist Luke. At 
 a certain church they show a Comb, which, they say, 
 belonged to the virgin Mary; and in another church Twelve 
 Combs, which according to their statement belonged to the 
 twelve apostles. In a certain place of worship they pretend 
 to possess a Piece of the Body of Lazarus, when it was 
 stinking. In another place they show a Portion of the 
 Gospel of Mark, which, on the authority of the priests, he 
 wrote with his own hand. In one church, they say, they 
 have the Bone of a Finger of St. Hanna, whom they call 
 the sister of Mary. In another they show a certain Staff, 
 regarding which, they say, that with it St. Patrick drove 
 out all snakes from Ireland. In a certain place they show 
 a Vial which appears to be empty, but the knavish exhibitors 
 tell the visitors that it contains some of the Breath of 
 Joseph, the husband of Mary, which had been caught by 
 some augel, and put into that Vial. There is also a place 
 in which they show a piece of Rope, saying that it is a 
 part of that with which Judas Iscariot hanged himself. 
 
 Kal. Brethren, allow me to mention also a most wonderful 
 Relic. I read in a certain book, that the Carthusian Friars 
 at Cologne pretend that they have the Hem of the Garment 
 of Christ, which the woman afflicted with the loss of blood 
 touched, in order to be cured. The ladies of the city, in 
 
a certain delicate condition, send wine to the Friars in 
 which the Relic may be steeped, and of which they drink 
 expecting to obtain thereby infallible relief. 
 
 Taw. Brethren, I cannot help saying, in astonishment at 
 what I hear from you,—Is it possible, that a rational being 
 can be so foolish as to believe such ridiculous and nonsen¬ 
 sical things? 
 
 Taw. People living in darkness consider darkness their 
 element, and move in it considering it to be light. It is 
 of course foolishness. But how great must the wickedness 
 of those priests be, who can state and propagate such 
 false and foolish things! It is a fact that, in the year 
 406, certain Bones, which, priests said, were the Bones of 
 Samuel the prophet, who had died 1460 years before that 
 time, were translated to Constantinople.* And ten years 
 afterwards, in 416, it is said, the Bones of the martyr 
 Stephen, of Nicodemus, and Gamaliel, were found by Lucian 
 of Jerusalem.! It is also stated, that in the year 678 the 
 Napkin of our Saviour, eight feet long, was found by the 
 Jews, and given to Christians.^ There is a certain church, 
 in which they show a few Hairs, which, they say, were 
 from the virgin Mary’s head; and in another they show 
 a Yial, in the bottom of which is something white, which, 
 they state, is a little Milk from Mary’s breast. 
 
 Qaim. A friend of mine, who a few years ago travelled 
 about in Palestine, gave me the following statement: “ In 
 a cave at Bethlehem, which is said to be the stable in 
 which Christ was born, and where is shown the manger 
 in which Christ was laid, there are on a rock some White 
 Spots which are said to be Drops of Milk which fell from 
 Mary’s breast. This,” my friend said, “I saw with mine 
 
 * Nicep., Lib. 14, Cap. 10. + August., Serm. 51, 
 
 + Bede de Loc., Sanct-, Cap, 5. 
 
54 
 
 own eyes, and this I heard on the spot with my own ears.” 
 
 Tal. Is it possible! Can there be greater folly and 
 infatuation ? 
 
 Taw. In the Rhemish Testament it is recorded that 
 Peter’s Chair at Rome, the Prison where Paul was kept in 
 Malta, the Chain with which Paul was bound at Rome, and 
 the Stone which struck Stephen upon the elbow, are preserved 
 at Ancona.* There is a certain monastery in which the 
 monks show some wonderful Relics, namely, a Spear and a 
 Shield, which, they say, the angel Michael used wheu fighting 
 with the Dragon. Yes, with one Relic-monger there is a 
 Feather which, he says, is a Feather of the Wing of the 
 Ploly Spirit, when at Christ’s baptism He descended like a 
 dove, or in the form of a dove, and abode upon Him. 
 
 But, brethren, shall we say more of the silly and nonsen¬ 
 sical stories of popish fabrication ? We have heard enough. 
 Among them there are indeed many laughable things, but 
 in reality we ought to weep over the trickery and deceitful¬ 
 ness of those persons who fabricated such stories, and over 
 the superstition and stupidity of their victims who can 
 receive and believe them. 
 
 Tal. Kindly tell me, what, in your opinion, is the motive of 
 the priests is establishing the worship or adoration of Relics ? 
 
 Qaim. I have already stated, that I believe their principal 
 motive is the desire of gain. All those who go there for 
 worshipping those Relics, and will make offerings to the 
 priest, are promised great blessings. By this means the 
 priests obtain their object, and the pope is also satisfied. 
 
 Kal. These wonderful stories of the wonder-working 
 Relics remind me of a story which I heard of the way a 
 Hindoo priest once performed a miracle. He told the 
 
 * Rhemish Test., Romans, Chapter xvi. 6; Acts, Chapters xxviii., 
 
 and xxvii, and vii. 
 
55 
 
 people that the god Mahadeo had appeared to him in a 
 dream, and said that on a certain day he would come up 
 out of the ground near his house. This he was to tell 
 the people, and also that they should build a temple for 
 his worship on the place where he would appear. Ac¬ 
 cordingly on the day fixed a large number of people 
 appeared to witness the wonderful appearing of their god. 
 Upon the Brahmin’s request they poured water upon the 
 place shown to them, and continued doing so for a con¬ 
 siderable time, waiting for their god. After some time 
 really an idol of Mahadeo broke through the earth, and 
 gradually rose to a certain height before them. The people 
 seeing this became dumbfounded, and praised the wonder¬ 
 working priest, and worshipped the god who had appeared 
 so miraculously! The faot was, that the priest had deceived 
 them. He had, without any one’s knowing, dug a narrow 
 hole in the ground, had filled it partly up with gram, and 
 upon that gram placed the idol of stone which was to 
 make its appearance afterwards. He had smoothed the 
 ground, so that no one could suspect the trick. When at 
 the bidding of the priest the people poured water on the 
 place, the gram below through the effect of the water 
 began to swell, and gradually raised the god of stone above 
 the ground, and the miracle of the god’s appearance was 
 wrought. The temple was built on the spot, and that 
 Brahmin became the officiating priest. He had thus obtained 
 his object. It would not be singular, that some pretended 
 miracles of the papists are of a similar nature, based upon 
 trickery and deceit. 
 
 Taw. I have a pamphlet with me, the title of which is, 
 “ Escaped from the Snare; the experience of an ex-disciple 
 of the Jesuits,” from which I will read the following story :— 
 “There is a picture called ‘The Weeping Madonna,’ and 
 
56 
 
 the picture does, to all appearance, weep. How is it 
 managed? A look behind the scene reveals the secret. 
 A large bladder with the slightest possible incision, close 
 to the eye, is placed behind the picture, and a heavy weight 
 on the top of the bladder, producing a gradual pressure, 
 causes every now and then a drop of water to ooze out 
 of the eye. Such is the solution of this lying wonder, the 
 ‘Weeping Madonna,’ a source of much gain to the apostate 
 Church, which thus practises on the credulity of her infatua¬ 
 ted votaries.” It was this shocking trickery of the Jesuit 
 priests which led the writer, a Jesuit, who was too upright 
 a man for that deceiving community, to leave them, and to 
 escape from the snare of popery and Jesuitism. 
 
 Tal. Tell me, please, are there not among the priests 
 some good and truthful men, who know that the Relic* 
 raongery, and Relic-worship, and the so-called wonders 
 among the papists are a lie and deceit ? And if there are, 
 as no doubt there may be, could they not reveal and expose 
 those lies ? 
 
 Qaim. They certainly could, if they would, and some 
 have exposed the fraud and deception, but they had on 
 that account to flee from the priests, for they knew that 
 very likely they would have to pay for such an exposure 
 with their lives. There is at present a most excellent aged 
 minister, of the name of Father Chiniquy, or Pastor 
 Chiniquy, in America, who had been a priest among the 
 Roman Catholics for many years, but left that community 
 and became a Protestaut, and who since then has exposed 
 the evil of popery, and preached a pure Gospel. In a 
 book published by him with the title, “ Fifty Years in the 
 Church of Rome,”* he tells us, how many narrow escapes 
 
 * On sale at the India Watchman Office, Tardeo, Bombay, 
 
 price Rs. 2-12-0. 
 
57 
 
 he has had from being murdered by papists. Bub there 
 are nob many priests like him in that apostate Church. 
 The fact is, that even though they all may know the 
 frauds connected with Relics, they are kept almost univer¬ 
 sally by the love of place and gain from exposing the fraud. 
 
 Taw. At some of the places where famous Relics are 
 deposited, there are held Melas, or fairs, which are visited 
 by many pilgrims, and from which the priests reap a rich 
 harvest. It is very much like what we see here in India. 
 The Brahmins tell the people all kinds of falsehoods 
 regarding their gods and goddesses, and fatten on the gifts 
 of the people whom they thus delude. They know that 
 the things which they say and teach are nob true, and 
 that they teach them merely for a living. Some of them 
 have freely confessed this to me, saying, We know that our 
 religion and worship are not true, but what shall we do? for 
 (as one of their proverbs says), “ the belly-dog is barking.’’ 
 
 Tal. Tell me, Sir, is the pope himself not aware of 
 all this fraud and deception? And if he is, why does he 
 not forbid it, and stop it altogether? 
 
 Taw. Your question reminds me of something that I 
 read about Luther, the great reformer. He was first, as 
 you know, a popish priest and knew well that there was 
 a great deal of lying and deceit among the monks and 
 priests, but he imagined that the lying and deceit were only 
 among them, and that the “Holy Father” himself was 
 a good and holy man. Bub he found out afterwards that 
 pope and priest row in the same boat, and he changed 
 his mind. The fact is that as a muddy river, coming out 
 of a quagmire, and flowing through a plain, carries along 
 with it all the dirt falling into it from both its banks, so 
 popery, springing from a filthy source, is filthy from begin¬ 
 ning to end, and will remain so until the Lord, by His 
 
58 
 
 judgment, will put an end to it. 
 
 Kal. We must also keep in mind, that vast sums of 
 money are required to support the pope, to keep up his 
 ecclesiastical pomp and splendour, and to carry on the varied 
 and expensive operations of the papacy, and that the vast 
 expenditure thus incurred is met in part by the proceeds 
 of this trade in Relics. 
 
 Tal. Does any one of you know, what the income of 
 the pope is ? 
 
 Taw. Yes, I can tell you. The other day I read in a 
 newspaper that the annual regular income of the pope is 
 fifty-eight lacs of rupees, two-thirds of which, nearly thirty* 
 nine lacs, are the collection of the so-called “ Peter’s Pence,” 
 and the remaining third is the interest flowing from different 
 kinds of investments. Besides this ordinary income he 
 has an extraordinary one, arising from the many offerings 
 made him at different times, such as the great collection 
 made for him by the papists a few years ago, on the 
 occasion of his Jubilee. 
 
 Tal. Wonderful! wonderful! What a large income the 
 pope has ! fifty-eight lacs of rupees annually; or nearly five 
 lacs every month; or upwards of sixteen thousaud rupees 
 every day! What a huge income ! 
 
 Kal. What a difference there is between him and the 
 apostle Peter, whom they call the First Pope ! Peter could 
 say, “ Silver and gold have I none,” Acts iii. 6., and the 
 pope, if he would declare the truth, might say, Silver and 
 gold have I very much, for my daily income is more than 
 sixteen thousand rupees, and besides this I receive many 
 large presents from my people. 
 
 Qaim. Brethren, I have to say something more in connec¬ 
 tion with Relic-mongery, but will leave ft for our next 
 meeting. 
 
CHAPTER IX. 
 
 IDOLATRY OF THE PAPISTS. 
 
 THIRD PART. 
 
 Q AIM. At our last meeting the subject of our conver¬ 
 sation was about Relics, which the papists worship, 
 or cause to be worshipped. We wonder how it is 
 possible for men endowed by God with reason to believe 
 such nonsense. It is said that the Emperor Charlemagne, 
 of Europe, had a particular fancy for collecting Relics. 
 He collected a large number from Jerusalem and Constan¬ 
 tinople, and placed them in churches which he built to 
 give them a name of great sanctity. It is said that his 
 Rolic-collectors would dig up bones out of graves in Judea 
 and other countries, and take them to the emperor, to be 
 stored up in his storehouse of Relics. Besides these Bones 
 the emperor collected some wonderful pieces of cloth as 
 Relics. Amongst them was the Cloth, in which it was said 
 the Head of John the Baptist, after it had been severed 
 from the body, bad been wrapped. He had another piece, 
 which was said to be the Swaddling Cloth, in which Mary 
 wrapped the infant Saviour when she laid Him in the 
 manger. Another was said to be the piece of Cloth which 
 had been wrapped round a part of Christ’s body, when he 
 was nailed to the cross, and in which they also showed 
 some spof;s made by His blood. In his storehouse of Relics 
 
60 
 
 the emperor had also a Tooth, said to be of St. Catharine; 
 and some Hair of John the Baptist; and a Link of the 
 Chain with which Peter had been bound when he was in 
 prison. There was also a Bone reputed to be that of 
 the Arm of the aged Simeon, in which he took the infant 
 Saviour, when Mary and Joseph brought Him into the 
 temple, to present Him to the Lord. A Leather Belt also 
 was shown, which they said had been worn by the Lord; 
 and a piece of the Sponge which one of the soldiers 
 filled with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave the 
 Lord to drink when He was nailed to the cross. There 
 was also a Thorn of the “ crown of thorns ” put upon our 
 Lord’s head; and a few pieces of Wood, stated to be 
 pieces of the Cross of Christ. Though we consider all 
 these Relics base impostures, yet they were collected and 
 preserved by the emperor, and the people thought them 
 to be truly what they were said to be, and considered 
 them very sacred. If there existed any doubt as to the 
 reality of a Relic, the pope had to decide the question. 
 And if he said that such-and-such a thing was a Relic 
 of such-and-such a Saint or apostle, the case was decided. 
 
 Taw. I have read, that in the church of the Palace of the 
 Escurial, in Spain, there is a collection of not less than 
 eleven thousand different Relics. If is said that among them 
 there are the following: a Hair of the Beard of Christ; several 
 pieces of the Cross of Christ; thirteen Thorns of the “crown 
 of thorns,” which was put on Christ’s head; a few pieces 
 of the Manger into which Mary put her Child; a piece 
 of the Dress of the virgin, and also a Piece of the Hand¬ 
 kerchief, with which she wiped her eyes at the foot of the 
 cross. 
 
 Tal. Brethren, people who can believe such silly things, 
 must be very credulous, and easily to be imposed upon. 
 
61 
 
 Kal. There is a story of some Dutch people, which I 
 must relate. A Dutohman had bought from a Relic-selling 
 priest a Bone which the priest told him was a Leg of 
 the Ass ou which the Lord rode when He made His last 
 public eutrance into Jerusalem. The priest when delivering 
 him the bundle, in which it was wrapped up, advised him 
 not to open it until he came to the boundary of Germany. 
 The man felt very happy to possess, as he thought, such 
 a sacred treasure; and when he entered Germany he 
 opened, with holy awe, his Relic-bundle, to show it to 
 others, saying, Look, friends, this is a Leg of the Ass on 
 which our Lord rode when He entered into Jerusalem. 
 There were at the time four other persons present, who 
 said that it was very strange, for they also had each of 
 them bought of the same priest one of the legs of that 
 Ass. Then they felt all confounded, and said one to 
 another, Had that ass five legs, or only four ? Who should 
 decide that important question ? Reason said, Four only ; 
 but according to the priest it had five. It was a very 
 difficult question to settle, and remained unsettled. 
 
 Tal. There are so many people who say that they have a 
 piece of the Cross of Christ. What do you say about that ? 
 
 Qaim. Yes, there are many places in popish countries 
 where the priests pretend that they have a piece of the 
 Wood of the Cross. It has been computed, that if all 
 these pieces could be joined together, they would make 
 about one hundred crosses. This of course shows that there 
 is great trickery in this matter. 
 
 Taw. History tells us, that according to the statement 
 of papists, Helena, the mother of the emperor Constantine, 
 found the true cross of Christ in the year 325, and also 
 the two other crosses of the thieves, uninjured.* There 
 
 * Ruffinus. 
 
62 
 
 is no doubt that from the fourth century the worship of 
 the cross commenced. People imagined that the wood on 
 which the Lord Jesus was crucified and died must be a 
 sacred thing, and that they ought therefore to make 
 something of the same shape and worship or adore it. 
 They did so in the dark ages, and there are many at the 
 present time who do likewise. Crosses, small and large, 
 are made of gold, silver, brass, stone, and other materials, 
 and are considered sacred. Crucifixes, that is, crosses with 
 the figure of Christ on them, are set up in churches, and 
 also in private houses, and are worshipped. 
 
 Qaim. It is sad that many Protestants also imitate the 
 papists in believing that a cross is a holy thing. Brethren, 
 I remember reading of an event which occurred in a 
 Sabbath-school. In that school a pious, Protestant young 
 lady had a class in which she taught the Gospel to the 
 children. She wore on her neck a small cross, made of 
 jet, as an ornament. She was a truly pious person, and 
 considered it a mark of piety to wear such an ornament. 
 The superintendent of the Sabbath-school, an experienced 
 Christian, asked her one day why she wore that kind of 
 ornament. She replied, that she wore it as a memorial of 
 Jesus Christ who was crucified for us sinners. The gentle¬ 
 man continued: Suppose that some wicked person had 
 murdered your father or your brother with a dagger, 
 would you have a miniature kind of dagger made of jet, 
 or silver or gold, and hang it on your neck as an ornament, 
 to remind you constantly of that wicked act of the murderer? 
 The cross is that cursed thing on which our dear Lord 
 was killed, and you, in remembrance of it, carry a little 
 imitation of the cursed thing round your neck? Is that 
 right ? The young lady replied, Sir, I have never looked 
 upon the cross in that light, but I see you arc right. I 
 
63 
 
 should not wear such a thing as an ornament. Saying 
 this she took the ribbon, on which that little cross was 
 hanging, tore it into pieces, and gave it, together with the 
 little jet cross, to the superintendent, saying, I shall never 
 again wear such a cursed ornament. 
 
 Kal. It is true, brethren, that the cross is not a blessed 
 thing, but a cursed thing. That young Christian lady may 
 have remembered the words of the apostle,—“Christ hath 
 redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse 
 for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth 
 on a tree.” Gal. iii. 13. 
 
 Taw. Gentlemen, I heard once a story of an occurrence 
 in Germany. A man one day, while eating his dinner, got 
 a bone into his throat. The doctor failing to extract it 
 the man died. His wife who loved her husband most 
 tenderly had after his death the bone extracted, and gave 
 it to a goldsmith to have it covered with gold, and kept 
 it among her precious things and ornaments. She wished 
 it to be a memorial of her husband. It appears to me 
 that there is not much difference between the conduct of 
 this woman and that of the ladies who wear the cross as 
 an ornament. In the one case a bone was the intrument 
 or means of death; in the other case the wood of the cross. 
 The cases seem to me similar. 
 
 Qaim. Brethren, let us also speak a little about the 
 Pilgrimages connected with the worship of Relics. We 
 know that there are places in popish countries to which 
 pilgrimages are made. The Hindoos, as you know, have 
 many places of pilgrimage which they consider particularly 
 holy, and which they visit as pilgrims, such as Benares, 
 Jugunnatli, Muttra, Prag, Buddreenath, &c. They go to these 
 places to be freed from their sin, and to offer something 
 to the god or goddess of the locality. The gifts and offer- 
 
64 
 
 ings which they present are of course appropriated by the 
 resident priests or Brahmins. The Muharamedans also have 
 their sacred places of pilgrimage. One of them is Mecca. 
 In the same way the papists have their particular places 
 of pilgrimage, to visit which is considered very meritorious, 
 —such as Borne, the residence of the pope; Jerusalem; the 
 city Tours; the city Loretto, and many others. They have 
 hundreds of churches or places considered sacred because 
 of its possessing some Relic of an apostle or some of their 
 Saints, and thousands make pilgrimages to these places, 
 hoping that by such a meritorious act they may obtain for¬ 
 giveness of their sins, or recovery from some sickness, or 
 some other benefit which they are seeking. If after the 
 performance they do not obtain what they expected, the 
 priest throws the blame upon them, saying that their faith 
 was not of the right kind, or that the ofiering made to the 
 church was defective in some way. In England, Scotland, 
 and Ireland, and on the continent of Europe there are many 
 such places of pilgrimages for papists. The pilgrims upon 
 arrival at the place, have in many cases to repeat prayers 
 and do penances. These prayers and penances are long and 
 severe, as for example those at one of the places of pilgrimage 
 in Ireland. There is a well in that country, which is called 
 “St. Patrick’s well.” Near it there is a heap of stones, on 
 the top of which there is a large stone, and on that stone 
 there is an impression made, the papists say, by St. Patrick’s 
 knee Above all stands a stone cross, which, they say, St. 
 Patrick himself placed there. Near it, about fifty steps 
 distant, is a tree, regarding which there is the legend, that 
 when St. Patrick blessed that ground, at that very moment 
 the tree, whole and entire, rose out of the ground. The 
 pilgrims first go to the well, and kneeling down, call on the 
 Saint. Then they recite the Lord’s Prayer fifteen times, and 
 
65 
 
 the Apostles’ Creed once. Rising, they repeat the name of 
 St. Patrick, bowing down; walk round the well three times, 
 drinking after each time of the water of the well. They 
 then approach the heap of stones, and bow down before 
 the cross above it; and after kissing the impression of St. 
 Patrick’s knee, put their own knee into the same place. 
 Then they go round on their knees three times, and after 
 every time kiss the stone. Leaving the heap of stones 
 they go to the tree, and beginning from the West, they 
 bow themselves down to it, walk three times round it, and 
 repeat the Lord’s Prayer fifteen times, and the Apostles’ 
 Creed once. This finishes the whole worship of the pilgrim. 
 People who live in villages near the well often give 
 their cattle water from that well when they get ill, in 
 hopes that it will cure them. 
 
 Taw. Brethren, it is a fact that the papists have adopted 
 many rites and customs from idolatrous nations, and also 
 adopted their festivals to some extent, changing them a 
 little, as circumstances required, and giving them Christian 
 names, and thus incorporating them into their own religion. 
 They have gone even farther. They have received some of 
 the gods and goddesses of the heathen nations, and after 
 giving them Christian names have made them objects of 
 worship. By this trick they have tried to please the idola¬ 
 ters and to bring them over into the popish creed and 
 worship. History tells us, that the corrupt ritual of the 
 papists tended more and more to idolatry. Edifices were 
 named after Mary, Ann, Peter, Paul, John, &c., and the 
 temples which the pagans had devoted to the honour of 
 Venus, Apollo, Mars, and their other gods and goddesses 
 were devoted to the popish Saints. Baronius himself, the 
 Popish Annalist, confesses that in the year 607 Boniface 
 requested the permission of the emperor Phocas to trans- 
 
 4 
 
66 
 
 form the Pantheon into a temple for the worship of Mary, 
 the mother of God, and of all Saints, which was given. 
 
 Qaim. Brethren, it is a fact, that there is indeed no 
 great difference between the worship practised by the idola¬ 
 trous nations, and the papists. 
 
CHAPTER X. 
 
 THE LORD’S SUPPER, AND THE POPISH DOCTRINE 
 OP TRANSUBSTAN TIATION. 
 
 Q AIM. I thought that we might to-day have a 
 conversation on the popish doctrine, which they call 
 the Sacrifice of the Mass , but it is perhaps better that 
 we first consider the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper as we 
 find it in the Word of God, and then contrast it with 
 the corrupt rite of the popish Mass. 
 
 The Lord instituted that sacred rite, or sacrament of 
 the Lord’s Supper, the night in which He was betrayed, 
 in order that it should be a standing memorial of Him 
 to His disciples and the whole Church until His return 
 in glory. A description of it is given in four places 
 of the Hew Testament, and we will consider these four 
 descriptions first. 
 
 In the Gospel by Matthew we read:— 
 
 “As they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed 
 it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and 
 said, Take, eat; this is My body. And He took the 
 cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, 
 Drink ye all of it; for this is My blood of the new 
 testament, which is siied for many for the remissioo 
 of sins.” Matt. xxvi. 26-28. 
 
 In the Gospel by Mark we read:— 
 
68 
 
 “As they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, 
 and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this 
 is My body. And He took the cup, and when He had 
 given thanks, He gave it to them : and they all drank 
 of it. And He said unto them, This is My blood 
 of the new testament, which is shed for many.” 
 Mark xiv. 22-24. 
 
 Again in the Gospel by Luke we read:— 
 
 “And He took bread, and gave thanks, and brake 
 it, and gave unto them, saying, This is My body which 
 is given for you: this do in remembrance of Me. 
 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This 
 cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed 
 for you.” Luke xxii. 19, 20. 
 
 And the apostle Paul writes thus;— 
 
 “I have received of the Lord that which also I 
 delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same 
 night in which He was betrayed took bread: and when 
 He had given thanks, He brake it, and said, Take, 
 eat: this is My body, which is broken for you: this 
 do in remembrance of Me. After the same manner 
 also He took the cup, when He had supped, saying, 
 This cup is the new testament in My blood: this do 
 ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me. 
 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this 
 cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till He come.” 
 1 Cor. xi. 23-26. 
 
 Brethren, the words of the institution of the Lord’s 
 Supper are very plain and simple. The Lord, as it were, 
 says: My disciples, I shall leave you soon, I shall be 
 crucified, and thus, shedding My blood, shall die. My wish 
 is that ye should remember My love to you, manifested 
 in My death. I therefore establish this memorial rite, which 
 
69 , 
 
 you are to observe. Meeting together, break bread and eat it, 
 and in doing so remember that My body which shall be 
 nailed to the cross was broken for you. And after that 
 pour wine into a cup and drink of it, and in doing so 
 remember that My blood which shall be shed on the cross 
 was shed for you. All of you eat of this bread, and all of 
 you drink of this cup. From time to time observe this 
 rite of commemoration. 
 
 Taw. We know, brethren, that the primitive Church 
 observed this holy rite or sacrament with that simplicity 
 with which the Lord had ordained it. They added nothing 
 to it, nor did they take any thing from it. But gradually 
 errors crept in, and increased, and the papists corrupted 
 it so much that the original sacrament was lost sight of, 
 and became a totally different rite. One of their perver¬ 
 sions is the assertion, that when the priest says these words,— 
 “This is My body, This is My blood,” over the elements, 
 the bread and the wine undergo a complete change; the 
 Bread is changed into the real Body of Christ, and the 
 Wine into the real Blood of Christ. But these their state¬ 
 ments are words of fraud and blasphemy, for how can a 
 poor sinner, as every priest, like all other men, is, by 
 moving his hands over bread and wine, and speaking a 
 few words, change or transubstantiate them into Christ’s 
 real body and real blood? Is his hand like the wand of 
 a wizard, to perform such a change? 
 
 Qaim. Before entering more into the subject we must 
 consider one thing. The popish priests do not use real 
 bread in this Supper, but instead of it they make a kind 
 of Wafers of flour, and bake them,—small ones of the 
 size of a rupee for the communicants, and one much 
 larger for the priest, which he keeps for lifting up, and 
 having it worshipped by the people, ^nd eating it himself, 
 
70 
 
 On this large wafer is an impression of a crucifix; and on 
 every one of the smaller ones there is the impression of 
 the cross, and the three letters, I. H. S., which are the 
 first letters of three Latin words, meaning, “Jesus, Saviour 
 of men.” 
 
 Taw. In the opinion of the papists, as has been said, 
 these wafers are changed into the real body of Christ; 
 and the wine into the real blood of Christ. And although 
 these wafers made of flour, retain, after the consecration 
 by the priest, the shape, and nature, and taste of wafers, 
 yet they say that by the manipulation or consecration of 
 the priest every wafer, and every piece or particle of a 
 broken wafer, is changed into the whole real body of 
 Christ. And in the same way, though the wine in the 
 cup also retains the nature of wine after the consecration, 
 as can be ascertained by looking at it, smelling and tasting 
 it, yet the priest says that it has truly been changed into 
 the real blood of Christ. If papists will stubbornly call 
 black white, and white black, they may please themselves, 
 but we who believe in the words of the Bible cannot receive 
 that statement. 
 
 Tal. But, dear friends, you must remember that the 
 express words uttered by our Lord, were,—“This is My 
 body,” and, “This is My blood.” 
 
 Taw. Yes, the Lord said these words, and we do remem¬ 
 ber them, but after considering them, and the whole 
 subject fully, we must say that their meaning is, and can 
 only be, This bread signifies or represents My body, or, 
 is an emblem of My body; and, This wine signifies or 
 represents My blood, or, is an emblem of My blood. Can 
 you believe that when the living Lord Jesus was sitting, 
 bodily and really, among His disciples, at the first Lord’s 
 Supper, they were really eating His body, and were drink- 
 
71 
 
 ing the real blood of His body, there before Him? 
 
 Tal. It is true I cannot comprehend that; it is too high 
 for me. I cannot understand the mystery, but want to 
 have it explained to me. 
 
 Taw. Let me tell you, dear brother, that the Jews, 
 when they wanted to say that a thing signifies a certain 
 thing, or is an emblem of it, their custom very often was 
 to say that it is such a thing. For iustance, in Gen. xli. 
 26, we read that Pharoah had two dreams, in which he saw 
 seven kine, and seven ears of corn; and he* gave to Pharaoh 
 the following interpretation of these two dreams: “ The seven 
 good kine are seven years; and the seven good ears arc 
 
 seven years.And the seven thin and ill favoured kine 
 
 that came up after them are seven years; and the seveu 
 empty ears blasted with the east wind shall be seven years 
 of famine.” Now you know yourself, that seven kine cannot 
 be really seven years, and that seven ears of corn cannot be 
 really seven years; but the meaning of the seven kine and the 
 seveu ears is, that they signify or represent seven years. 
 
 Kal. Again, in the first chapter of the Book of Revelation 
 there is a passage which will elucidate the point before us. 
 The apostle John had a vision, when he was a prisoner in the 
 isle of Patmos. He saw the Lord in the midst of seven 
 golden candlesticks, and He had in His hand seven stars. 
 The explanation is given in the following way:— 
 
 “The seven stars are the angels of the seven Churches: 
 and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven 
 Churches.” Rev. i. 20. You know very well that a candle¬ 
 stick cannot be a real Church, and hence the seven 
 candlesticks could not be seven real Churches; nor could the 
 seven stars be seven real angels. But the meaning is, 
 that the seven candlesticks represented or signified seven 
 
 # Joseph. 
 
72 
 
 Churches, and that the seven stars signified seven angels. 
 
 Again, let ns look at another passage, in Rev. xvii. 9. 
 There it is written: “ The seven heads are seven mountains, 
 on which the woman sitteth.” Well, seven heads cannot 
 be seven real mountains, but the meaning is, that they signify 
 seven mountains. In the New Testament we find many more 
 passages showing that this was the way of speaking among 
 the Jews. We read, for instance, “The field is the world;” 
 i.e., the field signifies the world. “The good seed are the 
 children of the kingdom;” i.e., the meaning of the good 
 seed is, that they signify the children of the kingdom. 
 “The tares are the children of the wicked one,” i.e., they 
 signify the children of the wicked one, &c. Matt. xiii. 38. 
 
 Taw. Brethren, there are many more passages showing 
 that it was the way of Jews to say that such and such 
 a thing is, which could only mean that it signifies or is 
 a sign or emblem of such a thing. Let me mention a few 
 such passages: “Judah is a lion’s whelp.” Gen. xlix. 9.— 
 “Issachar is a strong ass, couching down between two 
 burdens.” Gen. xlix. 14.—“All flesh is grass.” Is. xl. 6.— 
 “Their throat is an open sepulchre.” Rom. iii. 13. Again, 
 the Lord said, “I am the true vine, and my Father is 
 the husbandman.” John xv. 1.—“I am the door.” John x. 
 9.—“That Rock was Christ.” 1 Cor. x. 4, &c., &c. 
 
 The thing is, as said before, that it was a way of Jews, 
 if they wanted to state that such and such a thing was 
 an emblem or sign of another thing, to say that it is that 
 thing; and our Lord, being a Jew, spoke of course as the 
 Jews generally did. If we explain the words in the Lord’s 
 Supper according to this rule, that when the Lord said, 
 “This is My body,” and “This is My blood,” He meant 
 to say, This broken bread signifies My body, to be broken 
 for you; and this cup signifies My blood, to be shed for 
 
78 
 
 you, things appear to be very plain. 
 
 Qaim. In connection with this holy sacrament I should 
 like to mention two other things. First, they say, that 
 every wafer which they give contains the whole Lord 
 Jesus—His humanity and Divinity. They thus teach that 
 in the large wafer which the priest worships, and lifting 
 it up causes the whole congregation present to worship, 
 and in every small wafer which is given to the people, 
 the Lord Jesus in His Divine and human natures is present. 
 Now the question arises, are the fifty or hundred wafers which 
 the priest gives to the people, which have been transub¬ 
 stantiated by him, fifty or one hundred complete Christs in 
 His Manhood and Godhead ? The priests say Yes, but common 
 sense and the testimony of the Scriptures says No. 
 
 And another thing which I wish to bring forward is that 
 the priests give only half of the Lord’s Supper to the people. 
 They give them indeed the wafer or bread, but they with¬ 
 hold from them the wine. The priest only drinks that. 
 He may perhaps think in his mind, or say, that he drinks 
 the wine in the name of all partakers of the former, but it 
 is contrary to the command of the Lord Jesus. For it is 
 written, that the Lord gave the cup to His disciples, and 
 said, “Drink ye ALL of it.” Matt. xxvi. 27. And again we 
 read in Mark xiv. 23, “And He took the cup, and when He 
 had given thanks, He gave it to them: and they ALL drank 
 of it.” Just as the Lord’s command is that they should all 
 eat of the bread, so it is His command that they should all 
 drink of the cup. Bnt the priests will not give the cup 
 to the laity. 
 
 Tal. How do the priests justify their action of with¬ 
 holding the cup ? 
 
 Qaim. They say that the human body consists of both 
 flesh and blood. The bread in the sacrament is changed 
 
74 
 
 into the real body of our Lord. Hence when the communi¬ 
 cant eats the real body, he partakes also of the blood. Hence 
 there is no necessity of giving the cup. The bread is 
 sufficient. 
 
 Tal. That is very strange logic. If that is the case, 
 then why do the priests drink wine from the cup. If the 
 cup is not necessary for the laity, why should it be necessary 
 for the priest? 
 
 Qaim. From what we know about the doctrine and 
 administration of the Lord’s Supper among the papists, it is 
 evident that neither the one nor the other is Scriptural, and 
 therefore, that there is really 
 
 NO SACRAMENT OF THE LORD’S SUPPER 
 administered among the Roman Catholics. 
 
CHAPTER XI. 
 
 THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 
 
 Q AIM. In our last conversation we saw that the Lord’s 
 Supper, according to the Scriptures, is a holy rite or 
 sacrament, instituted by our Lord in commemoration 
 of His death. We also noticed that the papists have 
 corrupted this holy ordinance by teaching that the bread 
 and wine, when the priest consecrates them, or pronounces 
 over them the words of institution, are changed into the real 
 body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 Taw. In the Catechism of the Council of Trent* there is 
 this awful and blasphemous statement: “Bread and wine 
 are truly, really and substantially changed into the body and 
 blood, together with the soul and Deity, and the bones and 
 sinews of Christ.” 
 
 Tal. This is indeed an awful and blasphemous statement. 
 Qaim. Besides this, they corrupt it still more, by teaching 
 that this sacrament is not a mere commemoration of the death 
 of Christ, but a real sacrifice, which the priests offer up to 
 God every time that they observe it. They call it the 
 Sacrifice of the Mass. As often as they celebrate Mass they 
 offer up the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus on the cross. 
 
 Tal. Can you tell me what is the origin of the word “Jlass”? 
 
 * Catechism of Council of Trent, page . 
 
76 
 
 Taw. The origin of the word is somewhat doubtful. But 
 it is generally thought that it is derived from a Latin word, 
 signifying dismission. It was used in Christian congrega¬ 
 tions as a kind of command to the catechumens and 
 strangers to depart from the assembly, prior to the 
 administration of the Lord’s Supper, which was celebrated 
 when the communicants only were present; and subsequently 
 was also addressed at the close of the communion-service. 
 As immediately after the first “Missa” the Lord’s Supper 
 took place, or, as it were, was introduced by it, it may be 
 easily understood that the Lord’s Supper was named 
 “Missa” or “Mass,” which gradually, among the papists, 
 degenerated into the popish Mass. The word Mass was 
 adopted in the year 394.* 
 
 Kal. During the time of the old covenant the priests, 
 again and again, indeed day by day, offered up sacrifices; 
 but all these sacrifices were only signs and types of the 
 true sacrifice that was to come, namely, that of the Lord 
 Jesus Christ. When at the appointed time He Himself 
 appeared, and offered up Himself, then He with that one 
 perfect offering or sacrifice of Himself procured the forgive¬ 
 ness of all the sins of all believing sinners? so that there is 
 no second sacrifice required for the future. The papists 
 by their “ Sacrifice of the Mass ” pronounce that one perfect 
 sacrifice of the Lord imperfect or insufficient, and declare 
 His work and word false and useless, and that is blasphemy. 
 
 Tal. Please tell me why the popish padrees are called 
 Priests? Have they a right to that title? 
 
 Qaim. No, they have not the least right to it. During 
 the time of the old covenant, there were priests who offered 
 up sacrifices, and they did this in accordance with the 
 Divine command and appointment. But we must remember 
 
 * Augustin de temp, Cadsifcn. Lib, 3, Cap. 7.—Crispin. 
 
77 
 
 that all the sacrifices of the old covenant were, as we said 
 before, but types of the coming true sacrifice, that of the 
 Lord Jesus. When He appeared, and once for all offered 
 up Himself on the cross, then the repetition of typical 
 sacrifices became needless, and the necessity for having 
 offering or sacrificing priests came to an end. 
 
 Kal. It is true what you say; and let us ever remember 
 that passage, that declares,—“This Man (Jesus) after He had 
 offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right 
 hand of God .... For by one offering He hath perfected for 
 ever them that are sanctified.” Heb. x, 12, 14. This, 
 however, is also true, that all true believers of the Lord are 
 in a certain sense priests, for they offer the sacrifice of 
 praise to God, as it is written,—“By Him therefore let us 
 offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the 
 fruit of our lips giving thanks to His name.” Heb, xiii. 15. 
 And again it is written,—“Present your bodies a living sacri¬ 
 fice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable 
 service.” Rom. xii. 1. Besides this priesthood, which belongs 
 to every Christian, there is none other in the Church of God. 
 There are in the Church those that are called bishops, or 
 pastors, or teachers, or ministers, but there are no priests. 
 The office or title of priest, besides that which we have 
 already noticed, has no foundation in the religion of the Hew 
 Testament. It has been assumed by the papists as necessary 
 to carry out the blasphemous doctrine of the Sacrifice of the 
 Mass. We Protestants, governed by the teachings of the 
 Bible, know that the office and title of priest, as used by 
 the papists, are an unholy assumption, contrary to the Word 
 of God, and to the custom of the apostolic Church. 
 
 Tal. Brother Qaim-i-Din, I have heard that when the 
 popish priests celebrate Mass, they represent, in a figurative 
 way, the whole spectacle of the crucifixion of Christ. Is this 
 
78 
 
 true? You were yourself once a member of that community, 
 and therefore you will be able to tell us the truth in 
 this matter. 
 
 Qajm. What you have heard is true, and I will explain 
 it to you. First, you must know, that all the prayers and 
 the whole worship in the popish community is in the Latin 
 language. Although that language is now not spoken by 
 any nation, and though the worshippers generally do not 
 know it, nay, many priests even know nothing of Latin, 
 besides the forms of prayer, yet their whole worship and 
 their prayers are conducted in that strange language. 
 Whether the hearers or attendants understand it or not 
 the priest does not care about that, for it is the papal 
 order that all the worship must be performed in the Latin 
 tongue. 
 
 You know that in their churches the papists have a 
 certain elevated place, which they call the Altar. When 
 the priest approaches the altar, to celebrate Mass, the order 
 for him is to imagine that, like Christ, he is entering into 
 the garden of Gethseraane. At that time the priest’s face is 
 towards the altar, and his back towards the people. Again, 
 when he repeats the prayer of the Mass, he is to imagine 
 that this is to represent Christ’s prayer in the garden. The 
 priest then kisses the altar, in remembrance of Judas Iscariot 
 betraying the Lord with a kiss. After this he turns his face 
 towards the people, and says in Latin, “The Lord be with 
 you.” And this turning of his face is a reminder of the 
 fact that Christ, in the palace of the high-priest, turned His 
 face and looked upon Peter. The priest then washes his 
 hands before the altar, to represent the scene when Pilate 
 “took water and washed his hands before the multitude, 
 saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just Person.” 
 He then, with his back towards the people, lifts up the largo 
 
79 
 
 wafer of the Mass above his head, in remembrance of the 
 fact that the Lord was lifted up on the cross. By breaking 
 this wafer he reminds the people that the body of Christ 
 was broken, and that He died. Indeed, brother Talib , 
 the whole actions of the priest are a farcical show or 
 representation, and an unholy and absurd imitative exhibi¬ 
 tion of the original holy, real event. And in this show 
 there is an act of idolatry, for when the priest is lifting 
 up the large wafer above his head, to enable the people 
 to see it, all those present, according to the papal command, 
 fall on their knees, not as a mere act of adoration of the 
 Host, but, as it is expressly stated, for worshipping it; for 
 they are taught to believe that that wafer has been 
 changed or transubstantiated into God, and must therefore 
 obtain Divine worship. Shame upon such exhibition of 
 popish idolatry and superstition! 
 
 Taw. I read in a certain publication, in connection with a 
 statement of this idolatrous performance of the priests, that 
 a pious nobleman in England one day said to a priest,— 
 “By reading and much meditation I have come to believe 
 that God has made man; but I cannot believe the statement, 
 made by priests, that a man can make God.” 
 
 Kal. Let us also consider another point in regard to the 
 Sacrifices of the Mass. The priests say that they are of 
 benefit not only to the living, but also to the departed, 
 who, as the papists think, are now suffering the torments 
 of Purgatory. If a wealthy person pay the priest well, 
 that priest will read many Masses for that person’s departed 
 friend, and the benefit of these many Masses will, as they 
 say, accrue to the benefit of that departed one, now in 
 purgatory. But what will become of the departed ones of 
 poor people, who cannot so easily satisfy the priest P Alas, 
 they may continue’' burning in the fire of that place of 
 
80 
 
 torment, until the priest is satisfied, and allows him to 
 
 come out of it. Money is in the eyes of a priest a great 
 
 motor for piety. The Lord says,—“How hardly shall they 
 that have riches enter into the kingdom of heaven;” but 
 the people and priests say,—How easily shall a man that 
 has riches enter the kingdom of heaven! He has only to 
 leave a large sum of money for Masses for his soul, and 
 he is sure of it. Hence the popish religion is a religion 
 for people who have money; and the poor may perish. 
 
 Qaim. One thing more ought to be mentioned. It has 
 been said before, that since the whole worship and j prayers 
 of the papists are made in the Latin tongue, the observing 
 of the Sacrifice of the Mass is of course also in that strange 
 language, a language which is generally unknown to the 
 laity. And if the question is put, why they read or 
 
 repeat tbeir prayers in an unknown tongue, their reply is 
 
 that they do this because the Latin language is the ancient 
 language of Borne, and because the city of Rome is the 
 ancient seat of the pope of Rome. Moreover the transla¬ 
 tion of the Bible, called the Vulgate, which is authorised 
 by the pope, is in the Latin language. And then the fact 
 that Latin is the language used by every priest, of all the 
 various countries in the world, and that all their services 
 and prayers are performed in one and the same language, 
 gives unto the priests a certain power, derived from the 
 consciousness of all priests belonging to one grand brother¬ 
 hood, all using the same ecclesiastical language. Moreover we 
 must not forget, that by keeping up a strange language 
 in their religious affairs the priests are able to carry out 
 their principle of keeping the common people in ignorance, 
 which, as we know, is the mother of superstition. 
 
 KaI. If the priests could and would read and study the 
 Scriptures but a little, they would soon find out what the 
 
81 
 
 apostle Paul thinks of praying and speaking in an unknown 
 tongue. He says: “In the Church I had rather speak five 
 words with my understanding, that by ray voice I might 
 teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown 
 tongue.” 1. Cor. xiv. 19. 
 
 o 
 
CHAPTER XII. 
 
 THE POPISH DOCTRINE OP PURGATORY. 
 
 Q AIM. Brethren, if agreeable to you, we will consider 
 to-day the popish doctrine of Purgatory. You are 
 aware that the Muharamedans believe in some kind 
 of Purgatory, which they call Araaf. But between their 
 Purgatory and that of the papists there is a difference. 
 The Muhamrnedans say that their Purgatory is a place 
 between heaven and hell, where there is neither pain nor 
 pleasure, neither joy nor sorrow. Those who go there do 
 neither experience the joys of heaven, nor the sufferings of hell. 
 
 The popish Purgatory is a different kind of place. But 
 in order to understand their dogma well, we must first 
 consider that in their belief there are two kinds of sin 
 committed by man —mortal sins, such as cannot be forgiven, 
 and which ensure the perdition of those that commit them; 
 and venial sins , such as tend not to perdition, but oau be 
 forgiven. 
 
 Tal. Is it in accordance with the Word of God, to make 
 such a distinction of sins? 
 
 Kal. There is no doubt that some sins are more heinous 
 than others. For instance, to commit murder is a greater 
 sin than telling an untruth; but all sins, whether great or 
 little, are mortal, t.e., they are all of such a nature that 
 
88 
 
 if they are not blotted out by Christ, they will bring us 
 into perdition. The apostle tells us, that “ Sin is the 
 transgression of the law.” 1 John iii. 4. And James says 
 that, “Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend 
 in one point, he is guilty of all.” James ii. 10. And if we 
 transgress only one commandment, we read of its punish¬ 
 ment in the following passage,—“Cursed is every one that 
 continueth not in all things which are written in the book 
 of the law to do them.” Gal. iii. 10. Hence the punish¬ 
 ment of any and every transgression of the law is, that 
 he who commits it is cursed; and unless it be forgiven him 
 he must go into perdition, which the apostle expresses in 
 these few words, “The wages of sin is death.” Rom, vi. 23. 
 
 Qaim. Perhaps some people may think that the sin of 
 our first parents, when they ate of the forbidden fruit, 
 was a little sin, but the result of their disobedience was 
 dreadful, for all the evil and misery existing in the world 
 was the fruit of that one sin, as the apostle Paul also 
 says, “As by one man sin entered into the world, and death 
 by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all 
 have sinned.” Rom. v. 12. 
 
 Contrary to these passages of Holy Writ, the popish 
 priests declare that some kinds of sin are mortal and others 
 are venial. Deliverance from venial sins may be obtained, 
 and for this purpose God has created Purgatory. They 
 teach that Purgatory is a place of torment, where those 
 who die in venial sin, or who have not paid the temporal 
 punishment of sin, expiate their guilt, previous to their 
 being admitted into heaven. 
 
 Tal. Cardinal Bollarmine says that Purgatory is a prison, 
 inside the earth, where the spirits of those people go who 
 here in this life have not been entirely purified, in order 
 that they may be purified by fire. And after they have 
 
84 
 
 become pure, they are allowed to enter heaven.* And the 
 same cardinal gives the following description: “By common 
 consent the schoolmen agreed that there is within the earth 
 four gulfs, or one divided into four parts—the lowest for 
 the damned; the next for Purgatory; the third for infants 
 who die without baptism; and the fourth for the righteous 
 who died before the sufferings of Christ, which now 
 remains vacant.f 
 
 Contrary to this statement of Bellarmine is the following 
 of Augustine, a famous Father of the Church: “Such a 
 middle place as Purgatory does not exist at all; and that 
 person who is not with Christ when he dies is with the 
 devil. We are utterly ignorant of any third place, for we 
 find it not in Scripture.” £ 
 
 Tal. How, in the opiuion of papists, can those people 
 who are in Purgatory obtain that purity which is necessary 
 for them to be permitted to come out of it? 
 
 Qaim. Papists say that there are two things necessary 
 for their deliverance. One is that their relatives, and friends, 
 and others who are still on the earth, should pray for them 
 that they may be delivered. And the second is that the 
 priests should say Masses for them. For these Masses, 
 however, payment is required; and thus they become another 
 and a fruitful source of gain to the priests, and the more 
 wealthy the friends of the departed are, the more profita¬ 
 ble to the priests is this shameful imposture of Masses 
 and prayers for the dead. 
 
 Kal. Gentlemen, papists say, as has been stated, that 
 only venial sins can be purged away in Purgatory, and 
 mortal sins are without forgiveness. Nevertheless if in the 
 case of a rich man, who had committed mortal sins in his 
 
 * Bellarmine, De Purgat. Book 1, Cap. 1. + Bellarmine, De Purgat, 
 
 Book 2, Cap. 6, £ De Peccator Remiss, Book 1, Cap. 28. 
 
85 
 
 life time, large sums are paid from his estate, or by his 
 friends, for Masses, the priests may change his sins into 
 venial sins, that can be pardoned. 
 
 It may be inferred, however, that such a great sinner, 
 and such a wealthy man, will not speedily be released from 
 the fiery prison; for the longer he remains there, the greater 
 will be the income to the priestly coffers. Besides this 
 pay for Masses to be celebrated, the priests require also 
 money for the common prayers to be offered for the 
 deliverance of the sufferers from Purgatory. 
 
 Tal. Brethren, let me tell you something which I have 
 heard, connected with the dogma of Purgatory. I have 
 heard that it is customary for the priests in Ireland, after 
 part of the Mass has been said, to turn their faces towards 
 those assembled, and read the long list of the names of the 
 dead for whose deliverance from Purgatory the Mass is 
 being said; and this they generally do on Sundays. Those 
 who have their relatives or friends entered upon that list by 
 the priest are obliged to pay him a certain amount of 
 money every year, according to their ability; and if that 
 payment be suspended, the name of the person for whom 
 it was paid is erased from that list. The particular case 
 to which I refer was that of a widow with many children. 
 She, believing that according to the priest’s statement her 
 beloved husband was in the torments of Purgatory, and 
 being desirous that he might speedily be delivered out of 
 it, had his name entered upon the priest’s list, and paid for 
 some time regularly the money demanded by him, and was 
 glad and comforted every Sunday when she heard her 
 husband’s name mentioned, together with others, for whom 
 Mass was said, and prayer offered by the priest. This 
 continued for several years; but she was startled one Sun¬ 
 day when she found that her husband’s name was omitted. 
 
86 
 
 The first effect of the omission upon her was that of joy, 
 for she thought that now her husband most likely was 
 delivered from his torments, and that Masses and prayers 
 were no longer needed for him. But again the doubt 
 troubled her mind, that in some way or other she might 
 have offended the priest, and that he on that account might 
 have left her husband to burn in Purgatory. With great 
 anxiety she went to him and inquired whether her husband 
 had come out of it, and received the reply, “ No, he is 
 still in Purgatory, for,” said he, “you have stopped the 
 yearly payment for Masses and prayers to be offered for 
 him.” The poor widow at once paid the money required, 
 and her husband’s name was again put on the list. Alas, 
 what wretched people these priests are! The Lord, in due 
 time will take an account of their evil deeds! 
 
 Kal. We must remember, that in the Bible there is no 
 authority for this popish dogma. It is an invention of 
 popery, and depends solely on the authority of popes and 
 popish councils. It has been devised and is upheld as 
 one of the most effectual means of obtaining and exer* 
 cising power over the bodies and souls of men. At the 
 same time it has been the most fruitful source of priestly 
 gain, and papal revenue, for who would hesitate to pay 
 money to deliver from such fiery torments their beloved 
 friends that had departed? 
 
 Tal. It is a fact that aucient heathen nations believed 
 that there was a place where the spirits of those who 
 have died go, and are purified by fire. We find allusions 
 to it in the writings of those nations, and it would not 
 be wonderful if the Fathers would be affected more or less 
 by the leaven of this prevailing belief of their day, aud 
 that through them it was ultimately received as a doctrine 
 into the creed of the papists. Some of the Fathers said 
 
87 
 
 that there may be such a purifying fire after death, which 
 others, however, denied. But bishop Gregory I., in the 
 year 590, pronounced it an article of faith, that there is 
 a place of Purgatorial fire, to which the spirits of men 
 go after death. 
 
 Again at the great Council of Trent it was declared 
 that, according to the creed of the Catholic Church, there 
 is a Purgatory, that is, a purifying fire, in which the 
 spirits of those who have died are kept imprisoned, and 
 that their deliverance is to be effected by the prayers of 
 the faithful, and particularly by the Sacrifices of the Mass, 
 and that whoever does not believe or accept this doctrine, 
 as the Church decreed it, is to be accursed. 
 
 Kal. I have heard that in popish countries, as France, 
 Spain, Italy, Austria, and others, it is customary to have 
 erected in their burial places upon many graves crosses of 
 iron, or stone, or wood, on which besides the name of the 
 person buried there, these words are also written, “Reader, 
 pray for the soul of him who is buried here.” And along 
 the highways, here and there, are wooden crosses, on which 
 the same request is found. The object of those who erect 
 these crosses and make this request, is, that they may 
 speedily increase the prayers for their friend’s deliverance 
 from Purgatory, to the total number required for that 
 purpose. The simple people who, living in popish darkness, 
 make these requests, deserve our compassion, but no 
 denunciation is too severe for the popish priests who thus 
 delude them. 
 
 Taw. Popes and priests have declared this doctrine of 
 Purgatory to be of such importance, that they have appoint¬ 
 ed a certain day iu the year (the 2nd of November,) as 
 a particular day for the benefit of the souls, which, they 
 say, are imprisoned in Purgatory. This day they call 
 
88 
 
 “All souls’ day,” and observe it every year. They say that 
 on this day particular prayers should be offered up, Masses 
 said, and money contributed, in order that the souls of 
 the departed may obtain partial or entire deliverance from 
 their fiery sufferings. The cunning cleverness of the priests 
 in regard to the observance of this popish dogma can be 
 easily understood; it is a source of unspeakable gain 
 to them. 
 
 Tai, Brethren, are there none among the priests who 
 have a little feeling of pity or compassion for others? If 
 they have power, as they profess to have, to deliver souls 
 from the torments of Purgatory, why are not some of them 
 so kind-hearted and sympathizing as to deliver without 
 money, for pity’s sake, the many sufferers in that dread* 
 ful place? 
 
 Qaim. Dear brother, you do not know the character of 
 priests. Having been a papist myself I know they are like 
 the horseleech, of which Solomon says: “The horseleech hath 
 two daughters, crying, Give, give!” Pro. xxx. 15. More¬ 
 over to act independently, according to his own idea of 
 right and wrong, is not in the power of the priest. Should 
 there be such a one who would wish to act kindly, in 
 this way, he would very soon learn that as the silver¬ 
 smiths of Ephesus acted under their leader Demetrius, so 
 the priests would act and say to their fellow-priests, Sirs, 
 ye know that by this craft we have our wealth, and ye 
 hear what this man says, so that not only our craft is 
 in danger, to be set at nought, but his holiness the pope 
 also, whom all the world worshippetb, would be despised, 
 and his magnificence destroyed. The whole priesthood would, 
 if not with the voice, yet in their hearts, cry out,—Great 
 is the pope of Home! Great is the pope of Rome! The 
 fact is that as soon as a priest has put his neck under 
 
89 
 
 the popish yoke it is exceedingly difficult, almost next to 
 impossible, to get away from under it. And if he shows 
 some opposition to popery, and does not quickly flee, he 
 will be completely ruined. 
 
 Kal. Dear brethren, if any one will search the Scriptures 
 in sincerity to see whether the doctrine of Purgatory is 
 taught in them, he will find that, as I said before, it is 
 altogether a popish invention. God has opened the cleansing 
 fountain, for “ the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth 
 us from ALL sin.” 1 John i. 7. And David, in his prayer, 
 asks God,—“Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.” 
 Ps. li. 7. Having been cleansed and purified from all sins 
 in the atoning blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, what is 
 there remaining to be purified or burned away in a 
 Purgatorial fire? Again, when our Lord was hanging on 
 the cross, and the penitent thief on the cross near Him 
 prayed, “Lord, remember me when Thou comest into Thy 
 kingdom,” what did the Lord reply? He did not say, 
 When thy spirit will leave the body, then thou must first 
 go to Purgatory, in order that thou raayest be fully purified 
 in that fire; and after that has been done, then thou shalb 
 go to paradise; but we read,—“Jesus said unto him, Verily 
 I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with Me in paradise.” 
 Luke xxiii. 42, 43. 
 
 Qaim. What you say is true. The popish doctrine of 
 a Purgatory is a purely popish fabrication, or rather, a 
 dogma brought over from heathenism into the popish 
 system, and has been made and used by them as a means 
 to extort money from the people, and there is no doubt 
 but that popes and priests have obtained millions through 
 that lying invention. 
 
 l 
 
CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 AURIC ULAR CONFESSION. 
 
 Q AIM. Beloved brethren, another tenet of the popish 
 system, considered by them of the utmost importance, 
 is Auricular Confession. According to this every 
 member of their community, whether man or woman, must 
 from time to time, at least once a year, confess to a priest, 
 when with him alone, all the sins they have committed. 
 In this confession all sins, great or small, of thought, 
 word, or deed, as far as they are remembered, must be 
 stated to the priest. Nothing must be kept secret; for, 
 say they, if only one sin remains unconfessed, the whole 
 Confession is vitiated, and not one sin will be forgiven. 
 
 Tal. Is this not in accordance with the Word of God? 
 James says in his epistle, “Confess your faults one to 
 another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed.” 
 James v. 16. Tell me, please, is there any essential differ¬ 
 ence between the word of the priest, “Confess your faults 
 to me,” and James’ word, “Confess your faults one to 
 another?” I see no real difference. 
 
 Qaim. There is a great difference between them. James 
 does not say, “Confess your faults to the 'priest ,” but, 
 “Confess your faults one to another” The meaning of this 
 can only be, If you have committed a fault against a 
 
91 
 
 brother, a neighbour, or any other person, you ought to 
 go and confess the fault to the person against whom it 
 has been committed, and ask his forgiveness. The priest 
 is not mentioned at all, bub the injunction is to all Christians, 
 so that even if a priest commits a fault against any other 
 person, he ought to go and confess his fault to that person, 
 and ask to be forgiven. Thus, you see, that there is a 
 great difference. There is in the whole Bible nob one 
 passage, saying, Confess your faults to a priest; and nowhere 
 do we find it written that a priest is to pronounce the 
 word of absolution. 
 
 Tal. Yes, I see, there is a difference. I should like, 
 however, to hear the particulars of this doctrine of Auricular 
 Confession. 
 
 Qaim. As I was a papist myself formerly, and was for 
 some time entangled in the snares of that popish doctrine, 
 I will try to explain it to you. First you must know, 
 that in popish countries there is what the papists call a 
 “ Confessional box,” erected in or near their Churches, where 
 papists—men or women—may go and make Confession of 
 their sins to a priest. But I must mention that very often 
 this Confession is made not in the Confessional box, but in 
 the house of the priest, or that of the penitent. The 
 Confessional box is a little room with a door in front, 
 containing a small lattice, covered by a curtain. Into that 
 little room the priest goes, and takes his seat; and close 
 to it, but separated from it by a wooden partition, is another 
 little room, made for the person who is to confess his or 
 her sins. In that partition is a small hole leading from 
 one room into the other. The person wishing to make 
 his Confession to the priest, goes into this adjoining little 
 room, and kneels down, so that his mouth is opposite the 
 hole in the partition. On the other side at the hole is 
 
92 
 
 the priest’s ear, ready to hear the Confession of the man 
 or woman whispering through it. The priest is not con- 
 tented with hearing only what the penitent says of his 
 own accord, but questions him to such an extent that the 
 penitent is forced to lay open to the priest the whole state of 
 his heart. When the Confession is heard, and accepted by 
 the priest, he pronounces the absolution, by using the two 
 Latin words “Absolvo te ,” which means, “I absolve thee.” 
 
 Tal. Sir, this appears to me to be a very crooked 
 affair; for the priest is but a mere man, and a sinner 
 like other people. How can he grant me the forgiveness 
 of my sins? Is he in the place of God? 
 
 Kal. No. Who can forgive sins but God alone? It is 
 not written in the Word of God, that if we confess our 
 sins to a priest, then the priest will forgive us our sins, 
 but, “If we confess our sins, He” ( i.e ., God) “is faithful and 
 just to forgive us our sins.” 1 John i. 9. But let us 
 remember that the priest does not ask, What does the 
 Word of God say, but, What does our Church say ? 
 
 Tal. Well, will you kindly tell me what a person entering 
 the Confessional whispers to the priest through that hole ? 
 
 Qaim. The order is, that the person making Confession 
 to a priest shall use the following form: “In the name 
 of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, 
 Amen. Father, give me your blessing.” And, saying this, 
 he is to make the sign of the cross, by touching with the 
 finger of his right hand his forehead, and breast, and the 
 right and left shoulders. Again he is to say, “Before 
 Almighty God, and blessed Mary ever virgin, and the 
 blessed archangel Michael, and blessed John the Baptist, 
 and the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, and all Saints, 
 
 I confess that I have sinned much in thought, word, and 
 deed; yes, I myself have sinned.” Then he is to smite 
 
93 
 
 several times upon his breast, and recount his sins, one after 
 another, as far as he remembers them, clearly and dis¬ 
 tinctly to the priest. After having done this he is to say, 
 “For all of them, and also those sins which I do not 
 remember, I repent from the heart, and humbly ask forgive¬ 
 ness from Almighty God, and from you also, who are my 
 spiritual father. I ask that you may pronounce the 
 Absolution, and state the kind of penance I am to undergo. 
 I therefore ask blessed Mary ever virgin, and blessed 
 Michael the archangel, and blessed John the Baptist, and 
 the holy apostles Peter and Paul, and all the Saints, that 
 they may pray for me to the Lord.” 
 
 The person then leaves the Confessional, and the priest 
 goes to the altar, and offers up a prayer in Latin. 
 
 Tal. Do the priests themselves also make Confession in 
 the same way, to other priests? 
 
 Qaim. Yes, it is the duty of every papist, man or 
 woman, and of all priests, and even the pope himself, to 
 make Confession of their sins to some priest, and receive 
 Absolution. 
 
 Kal. In this kind of Confession there are several things 
 which are obviously objectionable:— 
 
 (1) It is very wrong to require a young woman, married 
 or unmarried, to go into the Confessional, and to pour into 
 the ear of a priest all her secret sins—all the thoughts and 
 emotions which ever entered into her mind—all the hidden 
 secrets of her heart, which no human being has a right 
 to pry into—which none can know but God, and which 
 she is bound to confess only to Him who is the Searcher 
 of hearts. 
 
 (2) It is criminal, when a girl or woman, through modesty 
 is not able to speak of her feelings or affections—it is 
 criminal, I say, for the priests, to ply. as they are said 
 
94 
 
 to do, such girls or women with impure questions, in order 
 to detect some unclean desire, or something impure in 
 thought or act. The criminality of the Confessional in this 
 particular consists in the fact that the filthy questions put 
 to the woman, in many cases, suggest and reveal vile and 
 polluting things that had never entered her mind before, 
 and leave her heart less pure than it was before her 
 Confession. 
 
 Taw. The mind and heart of the priest, who is in the 
 habit of hearing Confession, appears to me to be something 
 like a receptacle in which the men and women who make 
 Confession pour all sins and filthiness imaginable. What 
 must that receptacle become into which tho continual 
 droppings of all the debauchery of a parish are falling, and 
 through which all its abomination filters ? And now we 
 must remember that the priest who puts such questions 
 to a man or a woman, and hears the answers, is an 
 unmarried man, whose natural desires are just as strong 
 as those of other young or unmarried people. Brethren, 
 I assure you, I should not like to look into that receptacle. 
 
 Tal. There is no doubt in my mind that the hearing 
 Confession of men and women must have a corrupting 
 influence. But tell me, please, why have popes and priests 
 established the Confessional? 
 
 Kal. They did it, as I believe, in order that they might 
 become acquainted with all the secrets, plans, and intentions 
 of their people, and thereby obtain and keep a certain kind 
 of power over them. We know that if one person opens 
 his mind to another, and tells him all the evil he has done, 
 and is doing, he thereby to a certain extent puts himself 
 into that person’s power, for he remembers always that the 
 other knows his affairs and the hidden things ’of hislheart. 
 In order to prevent him from communioating these things 
 
95 
 
 to others he fears to offend him and seeks to please him. 
 Popish priests by means of the Confessional become acquain¬ 
 ted with the secrets of the members of their congregation. 
 From Confessing servants they learn the state and affairs 
 of their masters and mistresses. From married women they 
 thus learn the state of their husbands, and through the 
 Confession of young men and women the affairs of their 
 parents. In short, the priests through the Confessional 
 acquire such a knowledge of the secrets of families, and of 
 State secrets, as puts into their hands a fearful and dangerous 
 power. From such a system and engine of tyranny and 
 wickedness may the Lord in mercy preserve us. 
 
CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 THE POPISH SACRAMENT OP PENANCE. 
 INDULGENCES. WORKS OF SUPEREROGATION. 
 
 Q AIM. You are aware, my friends, that the papists 
 hold seven sacraments, of which two only—Baptism 
 and the Lord’s Supper—are Scriptural; the remain¬ 
 ing five are mere popish inventions. One of these five is 
 the so-called Sacrament of Penance. They say that original 
 sin, that is the sin in which we are born, is washed away 
 by baptism; and those sins which are committed after 
 baptism are forgiven by means of the sacrament of 
 Penance. This however, as we have already stated, is not 
 the doctrine of the Word of God, but an anti-Scriptural 
 observance of papists. 
 
 Tal. Kindly explain what you understand by the sacra¬ 
 ment of Penance. 
 
 Qaim. The papists say that there are three things included 
 in the sacrament of Penance—contrition, or sorrow for sin; 
 confession to a priest; and satisfaction, or submission to 
 that amount or degree of penance which the priest assigns 
 the contrite sinner. They say,—The Lord Jesus has given 
 to us priests such power and authority, that whosesoever 
 sins we remit, they are remitted unto them, and whosesoever 
 sins we retain, or do not forgive, they are not forgiven. 
 Accordingly, we priests pronounce upon every penitent who 
 
9? 
 
 performs the penances dictated by us, the word of Absolution. 
 This word of Absolution is, “ In the name of the' Father, 
 and the Son, and the Holy Ghost I give thee Absolution 
 from thy sins.” And the priest’s explanation is, that all 
 the sins which the person has committed, from the time 
 of his baptism to the present time, are forgiven, and 
 into the grace from which he had fallen he has been 
 reinstated, through the sacrament of Penance. Then, 
 continues the priest, great peace and joy will enter into 
 that man’s soul, and like the prodigal son, of whom we read 
 in the Word of God, he is restored to the love and honour 
 of the house of his Father. The power and authority which 
 the priests thus claim to possess is a wonderful thing. 
 
 Tal. Tell me, please, what are these penances which the 
 priests inflict, in order to bring about this satisfaction, and 
 which are considered so meritorious in the sight of God? 
 
 Qaim. Some of the penances which they inflict are such 
 as the following :— 
 
 To repeat the Lord’s Prayer five, or ten, or fifteen times, 
 or oftener; to say so and so many Ave Marias; practise 
 so many fastings or scourgings; repeat the creed of the 
 apostles so many times; go on such a pilgrimage, &c., 
 &c. If you do these things, they say, you will make 
 atonement for your sins, and obtain deliverance from the 
 punishment of them. 
 
 Taw. Brethren, I read that once a priest, after having 
 heard Confession of a certain person, appointed it as his 
 penance that until his coming to Confession the next time, 
 he should not eat breakfast any day. 
 
 Kal. It is very sad that popish priests should have so 
 forsaken the Word of God and gone so far astray. One . 
 great error of theirs is, that they make a difference between 
 sins committed before baptism and those committed after 
 
 6 
 
98 
 
 it. This is opposed to the Word of God, and a pure inven¬ 
 tion of the papists. Another great error is, that they do 
 not consider, or do not know, that the Lord made an 
 atonement for ALL our sins, both original and actual, and 
 for those committed before as well as after baptism. TGven if 
 a true believer in Jesus Christ should fall again ir 
 read in God’s Word, “the blood of Jesus Christ, the 
 of God, cleanses us from all sin.” 1 John i. 7. Again, it 
 is written: “If we confess our sins”—not before a priest, but 
 before God—“ He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, 
 and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” 1 John i. 9. 
 
 Qaim. Let us now speak of another unscriptural and 
 dangerous dogma of the papists—that of Indulgences. The 
 popes and priests assert that there are certain mortal sins 
 which deserve punishment, both in this world and in the 
 world to come. They say that the punishment to be inflic¬ 
 ted in the world to come may be forgiven by the sacra¬ 
 ment of Penance; and that which is to be inflicted here in 
 this world may be forgiven by a grant of Indulgences. 
 This grant can be made only by the pope. They say that 
 many saints have done more meritorious works than were 
 needed for their own salvation; super-abundant merits, called 
 works of supererogation. They form a treasury of merits 
 which is placed in the pope’s hands, and he disposes of it 
 as he pleases. This is of course a fraud, entirely and clearly 
 opposed to the Word of God, which says, all people are 
 “gone out of the way, they are together became unprofit¬ 
 able ; there is none that doeth good ”—or can perform 
 meritorious acts—“no, not one.” Rom. iii. 12. And our 
 Lord says: “When ye shall have done all those things which 
 • are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we 
 have done that which was our duty to do.” Luke xvii. 10. 
 Where then are those works of supererogation ? And where is 
 
99 
 
 suoh a treasury to be found in the pope’s hands, of which he 
 can dispose as he pleases, and which he can place to the credit 
 of any one devoid of righteousness P It does not exist, and 
 hence the dogma of Indulgences is a mere popish dream. 
 
 Kal. In popery the apostle’s word has been, and daily 
 is being, verified, “Evil men and seducers shall wax worse and 
 worse, deceiving, and being deceived.” 2 Tim. iii. 13. When 
 a ship has lost its anchor, it is driven about anywhere. 
 When the ship of popery, having broken its anchor chain, 
 has got loose from the anchor of the Word of God, the 
 apostle’s words are fulfilled in her,—They are “ tossed to 
 and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, 
 by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby 
 they lie in wait to deceive.” Eph. iv. 14. 
 
 Taw. We learn from history, that the popes granted 
 these Indulgences, which they considered their own disposa¬ 
 ble treasure, at first only to their own friends and partisans; 
 but when they saw that selling Indulgences could be made 
 a source of great gain, they prepared Indulgences of 
 different prices, according to the greatness of the crime, 
 or the wealth of the criminal. Rich people who had 
 committed great crimes, such as murder and adultery, had 
 to pay much, and the poor, less, according to their ability. 
 By means of these Indulgences the pope granted forgiveness 
 not only of past sins, but also of sins which people 
 intended to commit in the future. 
 
 A large sale of papers of different scales and degrees 
 of Indulgences was carried on, these papers being hawked 
 about by monks and others in different countries, and thus 
 a very large amount of money was brought into the treasury 
 of the pope; for the foolish and sin-loving people eagerly 
 purchased these Indulgences that offered them for money the 
 remission of heir sins, in which they lived, and which 
 
100 
 
 they did not wish to give up. 
 
 Qaim. Thinking of this sale of Indulgences reminds me 
 that sometimes the devil himself is used, contrary to his 
 intention and wishes, to serve God, and his craftiness to ac¬ 
 complish the Lord’s purposes. The Lord can bring good out 
 of the evil done by the devil. The pope sent an Indulgence- 
 monger of the name of Tetzel into Germany, and this man 
 was such a godless and shameless man, that he carried 
 on his work of Indulgence-mongery with satanic zeal and 
 shamelessness. He and his wicked doings roused Luther, the 
 great reformer, to oppose these evil doings of the pope, 
 and thus the devil, through Tetzel, as it were, started 
 the Reformation. 
 
 Tal. Dear friends, you are aware that among the papists, 
 and also among the Ritualists, there are many who speak 
 evil of Luther’s character, and denounce him as a wicked 
 man. I should like to know what you think of him. 
 
 Taw. I do not wonder that the papists and semi-papists 
 or Ritualists denounce Luther as a wicked man. If a good 
 man disclose the deceitfulness of a wicked person, that 
 wicked person will naturally hate and calumniate the person 
 that exposed him. When Luther, the reformer, exposed to 
 the world the wickedness and deceit of the popes and 
 popish priests, they no doubt became angry, and invented 
 and spread all kinds of infamous and false reports about 
 him, notwithstanding that he was known to be an eminently 
 godly man, and a learned and experienced Doctor of 
 Divinity in the university of Wittemberg. The Lord raised 
 him up to oppose the popish ungodliness and wickedness, 
 and gave him for this great work the necessary courage 
 and fortitude. Seeing and hearing Tetzel’s blasphemous 
 doings, he could not remain silent, but considered it right 
 and necessary to expose before the world the lying dogmas 
 
101 
 
 and established wickedness of popery in selling Indulgences 
 to sin, and to show the true, Scriptural way of salvation. The 
 eyes of the people were opened, and the great Reformation 
 began in Germany. Luther translated also the Bible into 
 the German language, so that the people could read for 
 themselves what the Word of God says in regard to the 
 sinner’s salvation; and they found that there was as great 
 a difference between the popish religion and the truths of 
 the Bible, as between the darkness of night and the 
 light of day. 
 
 Kal. What the Pharisees did to our blessed Lord, that 
 the popish priests did to Luther, and do so still. There 
 the Pharisees, calumniating our Lord’s character, said, 
 “ Behold a man gluttonous and a winebibber, a friend of 
 publicans and sinners.” Matt. xi. 19. But wisdom was 
 justified of her children, and here the papists and Ritualists 
 calumniate Luther, and in every possible way speak evil of 
 him; but here also wisdom is justified of her children. 
 He certainly made the pope, and the priests, and Indul¬ 
 gence-sellers very angry. If they had the power, they 
 would have killed the reformer, Luther; but God covered 
 him with His protecting hand, and gave him strength and 
 boldness, so that the Reformation was victorious, and the 
 pope and the devil were defeated. 
 
 Taw. Brethren, I read in a book a story which happened 
 in the country of Saxony, which, as you know, is a part 
 of Germany. That famous and blasphemous seller of Indul¬ 
 gences came into Saxony, having received authority from 
 the pope to prosecute his infamous work there. He used 
 to say to the poor dupes, to whom he was offering and 
 selling his hellish ware:— 
 
 “As soon as your cash in my money box sounds, 
 
 The soul with delight out of purgatory bounds; ” 
 
102 
 
 and the simple and superstitious people believed him, and 
 many bought Indulgences from him. But there were also 
 those among his listeners who could look through the 
 deceit of that infamous man. A certain nobleman, living 
 in the city of Leipsic, could not bear the awful deceit of 
 the imposter, and determined in his mind that in some 
 way or other he would bring the wicked monk to his 
 senses. He went to him and asked if he had the power 
 to forgive not only past sins, but also those which had 
 not yet been committed, but were in the plan of a person 
 to commit at some future time. “Of course,” replied 
 Tetzel, “all power is given unto me in this affair, from 
 the holy father, the pope, that I may do whatever I consider 
 right.” The nobleman then continued, “I want to avenge 
 myself in a small degree upon an enemy who has done 
 wrong, but I do not wish to put him into danger of his 
 life.” Tetzel replied, that if he wanted to buy such an 
 Indulgence he would have to pay a great deal. The noble¬ 
 man offered him a certain sum, but Tetzel wanted much more. 
 However, after a great deal of bargaining, they fixed upon 
 a certain amount, for which he would let him have such a 
 paper of Indulgence, which the nobleman paid, and having 
 received the paper he left Tetzel. A few days after, Tetzel 
 left Leipsic for another city, and the nobleman with four 
 associates was lying in wait for him, at a place between the 
 towns Juterbok and Trebliu, which he had to pass. Upon his 
 arrival there they suddenly fell upon him, and after having 
 beaten him a little, took his money chest and went their 
 way. Tetzel cried out for help, but could not obtain any. 
 He went and complained against the nobleman who was a 
 known character. The nobleman acknowledged that he had 
 committed that act of robbery, but at the same time 
 showed Tetzel’s certificate with his signature, and the pope’s 
 
103 
 
 attestation, to the judge, that the crime committed had 
 been pardoned, and that there was no claim upon the 
 delinquent. The case had to go up to Duke George, to 
 whom Saxony belonged, who after having read the paper, 
 with Tetzel’s and the pope’s signatures could say nothing, 
 and dismissed the case. 
 
 Tetzel was defeated. He had been paid in his own coin. 
 His prey of robbery had been taken away by another robber 
 whom he in that paper declared free of guilt. 
 
 Qaim. It is very true that the moral darkness in Europe, 
 before the Reformation, was very great, and people upon 
 Tetzel’s arrival generally rejoiced that now, without the 
 necessity of giving up their wickedness, they, merely by 
 paying a certaiu amount of money, could obtain so easily 
 the absolution of their sins. There is not the least doubt 
 but that the blasphemous selling of Indulgence brought a 
 large amount of money to the pope’s treasury. But let 
 us not forget that among the many thousands of people sitting 
 in popish darkness, and in the shadow of death, there were 
 God’s elect who were hungering for the Bread of Life. I 
 read the history of a person of this kind, and I will tell 
 it, if you would like to hear it. 
 
 Tal. Will you be so kind as to tell us? 
 
 Qaim. The Indulgence*monger, Tetzel, came into Anna- 
 berg, another city of the kingdom of Saxony, and carried on 
 there also his diabolical sale of Indulgences. He would go 
 there, in his public proclamations, even so far as to say 
 blasphemously,—“ Come, all ye people! Behold, now is the 
 accepted time, behold now is the day of salvation! ” At 
 last on the feast of Pentecost he made the announcement 
 that to the poor he would give Indulgences freely, without 
 money, for the love of God, adding, “Come ye all, and 
 receive such a favour!” 
 
104 
 
 Among those who heard this proclamation there was a 
 student of the university, of the name of Myconius. He 
 was thinking in his mind,—I am sure I am a sinner. I 
 will go to the monk, and ask for a free salvation, without 
 money and without price. He went to Tetzel’s assis¬ 
 tants, and asked for the free gift. They told him that 
 if he would pay a very little, he would obtain what he 
 wanted. He replied, If you demand money for the Indul¬ 
 gence paper, why do you then proclaim publicly, that to 
 the poor it would be given freely and without money? 
 I am a poor man; I can give you nothing. Tetzel’s assis¬ 
 tants said that he should give them a very little money, 
 but Myconius insisted upon their giving him a certificate 
 of the forgiveness of his sins, freely and without money, 
 Tetzel’s men suspected that the whole was a trick of the 
 man, and offered him a small amount of money as a 
 present which he should pay them for the paper. “No,” 
 saidlM., “ I do not want to pay for such a paper. I wish 
 to have it gratis. If I liked to buy one, I could sell a 
 few of my books and pay for it. I want a free forgive¬ 
 ness, without paying anything. I ask you to give it to me 
 for the love of God. And if you will not give it to me, 
 you will have to answer for it in the day of judgment, 
 that for the sake of a small amount of money you refused 
 granting me forgiveness, and suffered my soul to go down 
 to perdition.” They, suspecting that he was sent by some 
 person to find occasion against them, asked him who had 
 sent him. Myconius replied that he had been sent by no 
 one, but that it was the most ardent desire of his heart 
 to obtain the forgiveness of his sins, without money and 
 without price, and that he had come to them to obtain 
 that boon. They, however, refused to give*him a paper 
 of Indulgence, and he went sorrowful to his house. 
 
105 
 
 His own statement regarding his heart is the following;— 
 “ I returned without any consolation to my house. I had 
 not obtained what I wanted, but my heart told me that 
 there was an almighty and merciful God in heaven who 
 is able to grant salvation to penitent sinners, without 
 money and without price, for His Son Jesus Christ’s sake. 
 When I left Tetzel’s people, well nigh despairing, the 
 Holy Spirit spoke to me most powerfully. Keturned to 
 my house, I threw myself on my knees, and wept bitterly, 
 and said to the Lord in prayer, O Lord, they will not grant 
 me the forgiveness of my sins without taking money. 0 God, 
 have mercy upon me, and of Thy sovereign goodness grant 
 me freely forgiveness of my sins, and the boon of salvation.” 
 In this way I poured out my heart before the Lord and 
 He graciously, by His Holy Spirit, wrought most powerfully 
 upon my mind, so that I knew He had forgiven my sins, 
 and granted me salvation through Christ, freely and fully. 
 
 Brethren, this Myconius became afterwards a most powerful 
 and effectual preacher, of the free and full salvation prepared 
 by Christ. 
 
CHAPTER XV. 
 
 THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Q AIM. Brethren, if you please, the subject of our 
 conversation to-day will be the Sacrament of Baptism. 
 We know that it is a holy rite, instituted by the 
 Lord Jesus Christ after His resurrection, and immediately 
 before His ascension. He said to His disciples, “Go ye 
 therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing 
 them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
 the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things 
 whatsoever I commanded you.” Matt, xxviii. 19, 20. (R.V.) 
 It is not necessary to speak at present about the nature, 
 &c., of baptism. We shall confine our attention only to 
 what the papists say is the purpose or object of the 
 ordinance, and to those things which they have added to 
 it, or mixed up with it. 
 
 Taw. Brethren, the popish priests teach, that every one 
 who is baptized is regenerated, or made a subject of the 
 new birth by the Holy Spirit. Here the question arises, 
 that if the rite of baptism is not only indispensably neces¬ 
 sary for salvation, but is indeed, as they say, the only 
 means of obtaining salvation, then what is to become of 
 all those who indeed believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, 
 but, from some unavoidable cause have not the opportunity 
 
107 
 
 of obtaining baptism? Are they all to be cast into hell? 
 Who can believe such a dreadful thing? And are all the 
 thousands, nay, millions of infants who die in their infancy, 
 and could not have been baptized, doomed to perdition? 
 This is an awful popish dogma. Christ said: “ Of such is 
 the kingdom of God ” (Mark x. 14); but the popish priest 
 says, No; for, as they have not received baptism, they are 
 lost. Awful blindness of the priests! 
 
 Tal. This is perhaps the reason why popish and semi- 
 popish priests do not bury unbaptized infants, when they 
 die, in their so-called consecrated burial ground, but outside 
 of it, in a separate place. 
 
 Kal. Yes, I believe that is the reason. Based upon 
 this idea, that baptism is the door of salvation, is the 
 practice of popish parents, when their infant is ill, about 
 to die, that they quickly call a priest to baptize it. But 
 if a priest or a minister cannot be obtained, they get a 
 layman or even a woman, if necessary, to administer the 
 ordinance. This they do because they believe, though they 
 have no Scriptural warrant for such a belief, that baptism 
 is the door of heaven or salvation. They believe that a 
 baptized child is safe, but an unbaptized one is lost. 
 
 Qaim. Brethren, we observe the sacrament of baptism, 
 because the Lord has instituted it for the Church, and yet 
 we must remember that it is nowhere stated in Scripture 
 that he who is not baptized, shall be damned, but “he 
 that believeth not shall be damned.” Mark xvi. 16. And let 
 us also remember that neither priest, nor bishop, nor pope 
 can bestow regeneration by means of baptism. The Lord 
 instituted the rite of baptism to be the initiatory rite of 
 the visible Church, but man’s regeneration is not at all 
 dependant upon it. Exoneration, or the new birth, which 
 is the work of the Holy Spirit only, may take place at 
 
108 
 
 baptism, or "before baptism, or after baptism. 
 
 Kal. Here, I believe, the Word of our Lord is applicable, 
 —“The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the 
 sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and 
 whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the 
 Spirit.” John iii. 8. 
 
 Tal. Brother, tell me, is there anywhere in the Word 
 of God mention made of regeneration by the Holy Spirit, 
 occurring Jbefore baptism P 
 
 Kal. Yes, brother; open your Bible at the tenth chapter 
 of the Book of Acts. The Lord had sent the apostle 
 Peter to the city of Ceesarea, that he might preach the 
 Gospel to Cornelius, a centurion of an Italian band, and to 
 his kinsmen and near friends assembled iu his house. 
 While Peter was speaking, the Holy Ghost fell on all them 
 which heard the word. They were born again by the Holy 
 Ghost, though they had not yet received baptism. Seeing 
 this, Peter said: “Can any man forbid water, that these 
 should not be baptized, which have received the Holy 
 Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be 
 baptized in the name of the Lord.” Acts x. 47, 48. Here 
 we see that the new birth by the Holy Spirit took place 
 before baptism, in them to whom Peter preached, and on 
 this account he commanded them to be baptized. The 
 Spirit of God creates man anew whenever He pleases, and 
 this new oreation or regeneration does nob depend upon 
 the will or pleasure of the baptizer. 
 
 Tal. I have heard that there are some additional rites 
 or ceremonies which the popish priests observe at the time 
 of, and together with, the sacrament of baptism, which are 
 . not commanded in the Word of God. Brother Qaim , what 
 do you say about them ? 
 
 Qaim. Brother Talib, when I was a papist I often attended 
 
109 
 
 baptisms, and saw many such unscriptural additional practi¬ 
 ces, which are not only a childish show, bat an exhibition 
 of folly. I have here a book with me, written by one 
 who knows well, and instead of giving you a description 
 of my own, I will read to you what he says about baptism 
 of children as practised by popish priests. The writer 
 says; “The ensuing narrative combines the succession of 
 mummery which has been added to the Redeemer’s ordinance. 
 
 The priest begins with an inquiry to the sponsors respect¬ 
 ing the child, and its name, with the determination that 
 the child shall live and die a papist. Then follows an 
 exhortation, to which succeed a few questions concerning 
 the requirement of the sponsors. The priest next breathes 
 thrice upon the child, saying, ‘Come out of this child, thou 
 evil spirit, and make room for the Holy Ghost; ’ after 
 which he makes a cross on the child’s forehead with the 
 thumb of his right hand, and another on its breast, pro¬ 
 nouncing, ‘Receive the sign of the cross in thy forehead 
 and in thy breast.’ He then takes salt, and having blessed 
 it, he puts some of it in the child’s mouth, saying, ‘Receive 
 the salt of wisdom.’ A third prayer is repeated, after 
 which he puts on his cap, exorcises the devil, and commands 
 the devil spirit to come out of him. He again makes the 
 sign of the cross on the child’s forehead, lays his hand 
 on his head, and recites another prayer. He then takes 
 hold of the child’s clothes, having laid the stole upon it, 
 and then the sponsors enter with the child into the church, 
 repeating after the priest the Apostle’s Creed, and the 
 Lord’s Prayer. At the font of * holy water ’ ( i.e ., water 
 which has been blessed on the eve of Easter or Whit¬ 
 sunday, and carefully kept in a vessel for that purpose), • 
 he exorcises Satan once more, and then taking some spittle 
 on his thumb, he rubs the ohild’s ear and nostrils, repeating 
 
110 
 
 the same word, Ephphatha, which our Lord said to the 
 man who was deaf and dumb, doubtless intending to coerce 
 the silly people to believe that the child is deaf and dumb, 
 and that the priest can make it hear and speak. Then 
 while the priest prepares the oil, the child is stripped to 
 below the shoulders. The male sponsor then holds the 
 child over the font; and the female sponsor takes it by 
 the feet, turning it towards the east. Then the questions 
 of renunciation of the devil, &c., are proposed; after which 
 the priest anoints the child between his shoulders with a 
 cross, and puts off his purple stole for a white one, when 
 other questions are proposed to the sponsors. When they 
 have replied, the priest takes some of the ‘blessed water’ 
 and pours it thrice on the child’s head in the form of a 
 cross. Next he anoints the child’s head with the chrism in 
 the form of a cross, lays a piece of white linen on its head, 
 and puts a lighted taper into the sponsor’s hand. The whole 
 ceremony is closed with a short unintelligible exhortation.” 
 
 Tal. Do the priests really imagine that there is a devil, 
 or evil spirit, in every unbaptized child and adult person, 
 which must first be cast out ? 
 
 Qaim. Dear brother, what the priests say and do in 
 regard to casting out the devil or evil spirit before baptism, 
 is a ridioulous pretence. If it were, however, as they say, 
 the fact of the priest’s exorcising it three times would 
 show either that the spirit inhabiting the person is very 
 obstinate, in not minding the exorcist’s first and second 
 commands, or that the priest is very weak and wanting 
 in exorcising power. But the whole thing is a farce. The 
 priest after the baptism declares that now the power of 
 • Divine grace has been imparted to the baptized child, and 
 its baptism has given it a passport into heaven. 
 
 Tal. Alas 1 alas that these things should be so! I never 
 
Ill 
 
 knew that t 1 was so much that is unscriptural and silly, 
 added to * jimple rite of baptism. The whole of these 
 ceremor' ohe casting out of the devil three times—the 
 makh osses over the child—the putting salt into its 
 mr -the application of the priest’s spittle upon its ears, 
 nostrils—the anointing with oil between its shoulders, 
 
 ,d afterwards again upon its head—the priest’s applying 
 only holy water, i.e., water blessed for this purpose on the eve 
 of Easter or Whitsunday—the laying a piece of white linen 
 upon the child’s head—the putting a lighted taper into the 
 sponsor’s hand—all these ceremonies appear to me ridiculous 
 additions to the simple sacrament. We find, as far as I 
 know, nothing of these things enjoined in the Bible. They 
 are therefore not only unnecessary, but contrary to the 
 simple rite of Scriptural baptism. 
 
 Qaim. On account of these useless and unscriptural 
 additions, made by the priests, some people who, convinced 
 of the errors of popery, leave the popish community and 
 join the Protestants, consider the popish baptism invalid, 
 and are re-baptized in the Scriptural way. 
 
 Taw. There is another baptism practised among the 
 papists, about which we must speak. It is the baptism of 
 bells for churches. 
 
 Tal. Baptism of bells! Kindly tell me, where is there 
 in the Word of God a command to baptize bells ? 
 
 Taw. There is in the whole Bible not a word which 
 would sanction such a practice. But then papists do not 
 care whether their rites or ceremonies are commanded in 
 Scripture or not. With them the only question is, Is such 
 a rite in accordance with the custom of our community or 
 not? If so, whether Scriptural or not, it must be done. 
 
 Tal. Then please tell me why and how they do perform 
 this baptism of bells. 
 
ii2 
 
 Taw. They say, If we baptize the bells, then their sound 
 will reach not only the ears of the hearers, bnt also their 
 hearts. The priest commences this nonsensical performance 
 by seating himself near the bell, and telling the people 
 that the baptism of a bell is a holy rite, and then sings 
 a psalm. He afterwards takes some water and salt, and 
 after blessing them prays that God may grant that thO 
 sounding of the bell may be made efficacious to drive away 
 the devil and all unclean spirits; to quell tempests, 
 strengthen and increase faith, comfort the dying, and pro¬ 
 duce by its sound the fear of God in every one who hears 
 it. Then the priest puts the salt into the water, makes 
 the sign of the cross three times over it and says, “May 
 God be with you.” Then he takes the sprinkler, a thing 
 like a native chouree, dips it into the water whioh he 
 considers holy, with it washes the bell, and wipes it with 
 clean linen; and whilst this is being done, psalms, from 
 the 145th to the 150th are said or sung. After this some 
 of the holy oil of the sick is brought. Into it the priest 
 dips the thumb of his right hand, and with it makes the 
 sign of the cross in the middle of the bell. He then sings 
 or says the 28th psalm, makes seven times the sign of 
 the cross upon it, and applying water in the name of the 
 Father, the Son, and Holy Ghost, consecrates the bell, and 
 gives it the name of some saint, who from that time is 
 considered its protector. The priest then burning myrrh and 
 incense perfumes the bell, and in his closing prayer calls 
 the dew of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 im. It is sad, very sad, that the popish priests should 
 tu he holy rite of baptism into such a farcical and 
 sata L x play. They do this being enveloped in the darkness 
 of superstition. But brother Taivarikhdan, you no doubt 
 know that they attach a meaning to the different parts of 
 
113 
 
 that foolish rite of the baptism of bells. Will you kindly 
 explain this to us? 
 
 Taw. I will gladly do so, bat first allow me to tell you 
 that pope John XIV. was the first who introduced the 
 consecration of “bells, in the year 968. A new bell was 
 placed in the Lateran which he called John. A Latin 
 inscription was affixed at that time to those which had 
 been consecrated, of which I give you a translation. It is 
 this: “I” (the bell) ‘‘adore the true God; I call the people; 
 I collect the priests; I worship the saints; I deplore the 
 dead; I drive away pestilence and devils.” 
 
 As to the meaning they attach to the different parts of 
 this foolish rite, they give very queer and foolish explana¬ 
 tions. They say that the consecration of bells by baptism 
 is a sign of the consecration of the priest. The applica¬ 
 tion of water and incense signifies the holiness of baptism. 
 Making seven times the sign of the cross signifies that 
 the pastors of the Church excel all others as to the 
 abundance of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. And as the 
 fragrance of the incense enters into the bell, and the bell, 
 as it were, receives it, so the pastors, being filled with 
 the Holy Spirit, receive the fragrance of the vows and 
 prayers of the members of the Church. 
 
 Tal. I feel indignant when I see and hear that beiugs, 
 endowed with reason, can observe such foolish things, and 
 can turn the holy sacrament of baptism into such an 
 unholy show and play. 
 
 Kal. True is the word of the Lord,—“ The way of peace 
 they know not; and there is no judgment in their goings: 
 they have made them crooked paths: whosoever goeth 
 therein shall not know peace.” Isa. lix. 8. 
 
 7 
 
CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 EXTREME UNCTION. 
 
 Q AIM. “Extreme Unction” is also a rite invented by 
 the papists. They call it a sacrament, but there is 
 not the least mention of it in the Sacred Volume. 
 They state that when a person believes that his last hour 
 has arrived, and he is about to leave this world, he should 
 send for the priest to anoint him with holy oil, in order 
 that he may safely go to heaven. The priests say that 
 the devil is always desirous to ruin the souls of men, but 
 it is particularly in their dying hour that he attacks them 
 in order to gain his purpose. And they assert that the 
 great advantage of being anointed with holy oil at such 
 a time consists in this, that it gives to the dying man, 
 in his last hour, strength to overcome his spiritual foes, 
 so that he is able to depart from this world in holiness 
 and purity, and to enter into eternal happiness. This 
 anointing in the dying hour, or, as it is called, Extreme 
 Unction, can only be performed by a bishop or priest. 
 They state that the anointing oil must be olive oil which 
 has been blessed by the bishop, for which blessing money 
 is paid to him. 
 
 Tal. Please tell me, has this Extreme Unction any effect 
 upon the dying person ? 
 
115 
 
 Qatm. The priests say that it has; that thereby the 
 dying person obtains the pardon of the venial sins, and 
 perhaps also the mortal sins, committed by him. And they 
 also say that the anointing relieves the weakness and 
 infirmity of the spirit, removes the burden of the punish¬ 
 ment of past sins, conveys strength to the soul to bear 
 the sickness and sufferings of the body, drives away spiri¬ 
 tual foes, and, as it is beneficial to the soul, very often 
 also gives recovery from bodily illness. 
 
 Tal. How do they perform Extreme Unction? 
 
 Qaim. Should there be still time to do it, the priest first 
 utters a prayer over the dying person, then hears his Confes¬ 
 sion, and gives him Absolution. After this he makes over 
 him three times the sign of the cross, and says,—“ In the 
 name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and by my 
 laying hands upon you, and by the mediation of all angels, 
 and archangels, the power of the devil is to depart from 
 you.” He then dips his thumb into “the holy oil,” and 
 anoints in the form of the cross, the eyes, and ears, and 
 nose, and mouth, and hands, and feet of the sick, saying, 
 “The Lord through this holy unction, and His own most 
 gracious compassion, forgive thee whatsoever sin thou hast 
 committed, by seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, talking, 
 touching, and by walking, Amen.” 
 
 Tal. If the sick person should not die at that time, but 
 recover, and he should again become sick, and be expected 
 to die, what will be done then to him ? 
 
 Qaim. Then the priest must again administer Extreme 
 Unction. 
 
 Tal. And now inform me, since the priests consider the 
 rite of Extreme Unction a sacrament, on what passage or 
 passages of Scripture do they base it? 
 
 Qaim. They refer to the passage in James,—“Is any 
 
116 
 
 sick artiong 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; and if he have 
 committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.” James v. 14, 15. 
 But the priests have corrupted that passage, by translating 
 it in this way: “Is any man sick among you? let him 
 bring in the priests of the Church,” &c. The correct 
 rendering is,—«“ Let him call for the elders of the Church,” 
 and not, “the priests of the Church.” By this mistransla¬ 
 tion they have put this popish rite into the hands of 
 the priesthood. 
 
 Tal. I cannot comprehend how the priests can base their 
 rite of Extreme Unction upon this passage. The object of 
 anointing the sick with oil, and the praying of the elders 
 
 over him, is, that the sick person may recover; while the 
 
 anointing of the sick by the priest is administered only 
 when the sick one is dying, and there is, humanly speaking, 
 no hope of his recovery. Else, why should the ceremony 
 be called Extreme or Last Unction? 
 
 Taw. You are right, but here is another difficulty. The 
 
 anointing of which James speaks is in order to bodily 
 
 recovery. The popish priests, however, do not anoint the 
 dying person in order that he may obtain bodily recovery, 
 but in order that his spirit, which is about to depart, may 
 have a safe departure; and the passage does not allude to 
 that at all. The blessings promised in this passage—“ The 
 Lord shall raise him up, and if he have committed sins, they 
 shall be forgiven him ”—rest upon the faith of those who 
 pray for the sick, James’s prayer, offered up in faith with 
 the anointing, is, as it appears to me, the wonder-working 
 faith given to the elders, the effect of which is the recovery; 
 but the result of the anointing by the priest is the expected 
 
117 
 
 death of the sick person. You see that there is a great 
 difference between these things. 
 
 Tal. I see this great difference, but is there no other 
 passage, on which papists base the rite of Extreme Unction? 
 
 Taw. There is no other passage in the Word of God on 
 which it can be based, and the passage to which we have 
 referred would have no apparent connection with Extreme 
 Unction, if it had not been mistranslated. But it is no 
 strange thing for papists to corrupt or pervert the words 
 of Scripture, or to make additions to the pure text, in order 
 to establish some of their peculiar dogmas and practices. 
 
 Tal. I have another question to put in regard to this 
 rite, and shall feel obliged if you will answer it. If the 
 effect of this anointing by the priests, of the eyes, ears, 
 nose, mouth, hands and feet, is the pardon of sins com¬ 
 mitted, and the recovery from spiritual sickness, and deliver¬ 
 ance from satanic foes, then of what use or necessity is 
 the sacrifice of our Lord on the cross P And if, as we 
 believe, the offering of Christ, and the presence of the 
 Holy Spirit secure these blessings to us, then of what use 
 or necessity is the applying of the olive oil ? - 
 
 Qaim. What you say is true. Since we, through faith 
 in the Lord Jesus Christ, and His great atonement, have 
 obtained the pardon of our sins, and the blessings which 
 accompany salvation, the application of olive oil, or any oil, 
 can be of no further benefit to us. Connected with this 
 Extreme Unction of the papists, however, there are other 
 follies which I wish to mention. In one of their catechisms 
 it is taught that Extreme Unction brings the spirit of the 
 dying person safely to the door of the wall of everlasting 
 happiness. But passing through the door of that wall, 
 where does it go ? Their answer is, it has to go into the 
 fiery torments of Purgatory. According to the teaching of 
 
118 
 
 the priest, the departing spirit of the dying person is, 
 through the anointing with olive oil, brought to that door, 
 and for that the priest is paid; but at that door he will 
 be undeceived; for instead of entering into the place of 
 everlasting happiness, beyond the wall, he is to enter into 
 Purgatory, to suffer the torments of fire. Again, in order 
 to be delivered out of that horrid place, and to be permit¬ 
 ted to enter into heaven, money must again be paid to 
 the priest, so that he may be induced to say Masses (who 
 knows how many?), and thus secure the spirit’s deliverance. 
 You see that this is another device for making money. 
 In short, money is all-powerful with the papists —money 
 payable for Extreme Unction, that the spirit may be brought 
 to the door leading into Purgatory; and money again, to 
 be brought out of Purgatory into heavenly rest. The popes 
 and priests certainly increase their income, but what of the 
 poor soul, according to their creed ? 
 
 Kal. Brethren, I must tell you, that when I consider 
 how these popish priests, by their covetousness and lying 
 doctrines, hurry millions of souls into the torments of 
 another world, I am filled with indignation. Just suppose 
 the case of a papist who all his life has been living in 
 sin,—he does not want nor does he consider it necessary, 
 to give up his sinful life, nor to prepare for eternity, for 
 when death approaches, he thinks he has merely to call 
 his priest, make Confession, and obtain Absolution, and 
 Extreme Unction will bring him safe to heaven;—he is 
 very ill and is afraid he is going to die;—he sends for the 
 priest;—if he is still conscious, he makes confession;—if 
 he has become unconscious, the priest will nevertheless ad¬ 
 minister Extreme Unction;—the priest makes the signs of 
 the cross, anoints his eyes, ears, nose, mouth, hands and feet, 
 and repeats certain Latin prayers. That wretched dying 
 
119 
 
 man, if conscious, believes that his sins are all forgiven, 
 though he has not in the least repented of his sins, and 
 though he knows nothing about the Scriptural way of 
 salvation: he is taught that all is right, that his spirit 
 has obtained a pass to heaven, that his spiritual foes have 
 been conquered, and all this by the application of olive 
 oil. Brethren, the words of the prophet are here applica¬ 
 ble,—“ He feedeth on ashes: a deceived heart hath turned 
 him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, Is 
 there not a lie in my right hand?” Isa. xliv. 20. That 
 lie the priest has put into his right hand, the lie that 
 his sins are all forgiven, and that he is going straight to 
 heaven. And with that lie he is going to appear at the 
 awful tribunal of God, the righteous Judge. Woe, woe, 
 upon the spirit of that wretched, deceived man! and woe, 
 woe upon that deceiving priest! Just suppose that a 
 murderer in jail has been informed that in a few days 
 he is to be hanged. The day appointed for his execution 
 arrives. Early on that day the jailor brings to him a closed 
 envelope, telling him that it contains an order from the 
 king, that his crime has been pardoned, and that he has 
 only to haud that envelope to the judge standing outside 
 who will open it, read the order, and release him. With 
 great rejoicing he hands it to the judge, who opens it, 
 and reads that the murderer is to be executed. The jailor 
 deceived him. The wretched criminal expected a royal pardon, 
 but instead of it he is to suffer the punishmont of his 
 crime. In the same way, and much worse than that, the 
 popish priests deceive the people, and send them with the 
 lies of Confession and Absolution and Extreme Unction, 
 in their right hand, to God, the Judge of all. They do 
 not know, or do not think of the word of the apostle,—“Be 
 not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man 
 
120 
 
 sowetb, that shall he also reap.” Gal. vi. 7. Instead of 
 administering Extreme Unction, he should have declared to 
 the poor man the necessity of true repentance, and the 
 way of salvation through Christ, that He died for us sinners 
 on the cross as a sacrifice, to atone for our sins; but he 
 does not say a word about Christ the Saviour of sinners. 
 On the contrary he puts a false hope into the dying man’s 
 heart, and sends him to eternal condemnation. Beloved 
 brethren, I say again, that my mind is filled with indigna¬ 
 tion at the mummery of those wretched deceived and 
 deceiving priests. 
 
 Qaim. I do not wonder that you are indignant with the 
 deceit of the popish priests, who are doing all this awful 
 evil in order to obtain money from a dying man, or his 
 relatives. And what man is there, who, believing that the 
 priest has it in his power to send him to heaven or to 
 hell, will not pay the priest well, to induce him to give 
 him a pass to heaven, by the application of his oil? 
 
 Tal. Tell me, sir, are the priests not aware that all 
 their mummery, when they administer Extreme Unction to 
 dying men, is lying and deceit ? 
 
 Qaim. I do not doubt that there are many priests so 
 ignorant or simple that they do not consider at all what 
 they are doing, but are merely acting in accordance with 
 the popish customs, without thinking whether they are right 
 or wrong. It is with them, as it is with many Brahmins 
 of this country, who perform their heathenish worship 
 and ceremonies, day by day, without thinking what they 
 are doing, but doing what they are in the habit of doing 
 regularly. I have, however, also met with Hindoo priests, 
 who on my inquiry, told me openly, that they knew that all 
 
 # 
 
 their gods and goddesses, and the whole Hindoo system 
 of worship were false; but then, said they, What shall 
 
121 
 
 we do? We must live. We have no other means of support, 
 except what we realise in continuing this false worship. 
 What we do, we do for our temporal support. Many 
 popish priests are, no doubt, like these heathen priests. 
 They know that there is much wrong in popery, but 
 believe that they are doing only what all other priests do. 
 Tal. It is sad, very sad, that it should be so. 
 
CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN MARY, 
 
 HER IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, AND HER ASSUMPTION. 
 
 Q AIM. Dear friends, some time ago we had a brief 
 conversation on the subject of the worship of the 
 virgin Mary by the papists, and you will remember 
 that we then mentioned that she is considered by them the 
 greatest of all the saints, and that she is worshipped more 
 than any other, even more than the Lord Jesus Christ, 
 for they consider her a wonderful intercessor in heaven. 
 They suppose that she, if requested, will speak to her 
 Son, and persuade Him to intercede for them with the 
 Father to grant their request. It is something like this: 
 the petitioner’s prayer goes to Mary; Mary’s request goes 
 to Jesus; Jesus’ intercession goes to the Father. God, the 
 Father, grants the request to His Son Jesus; Jesus carries 
 it to His mother, Mary; and Mary sends the answer to 
 the original petitioner. 
 
 Tal. What a queer, round about way such a petition takes! 
 Qaim. Yes, indeed. It is foolish of the worshipper of 
 Mary to do so, but they act in the ignorance of their heart. 
 You will also remember that we said, if the virgin Mary 
 is able to listen and attend to the millions of prayers 
 offered up to her by millions of persons in millions of 
 different places, she must possess Divine attributes, for only 
 
123 
 
 ft 4! S j I) (I i 
 
 God can be present everywhere and see and hear all things^ 
 Hence by giving unto Mary this Divine honour, they become 
 idolaters, or Mariolaters. 
 
 We also stated that these Mariolaters call Mary the 
 “Mother of God,” which is blasphemy; and if they call 
 her “Ever virgin,” they say something which they cannot 
 prove, for it appears from the Scriptures that after the 
 birth of Jesus, Mary had sons and daughters. 
 
 When the papists looked up to Mary as if she were a 
 goddess, and commenced worshipping her everywhere, it is 
 no wonder that they gradually raised her rank higher and 
 higher, and attributed qualities to her which are higher 
 than those belonging to humanity. The result was that 
 papists, first with some doubt, but gradually without any, 
 came to the conclusion that Mary had no inherited sin, 
 that her conception was Immaculate, and that from her 
 mother’s womb she was holy and without blemish. 
 
 Kal. Contrary to this popish assertion I will mention 
 only one passage from Holy Writ. We read in Job xiv. 4,— 
 “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not 
 one.” Mary’s father and mother were unclean, or sinners; 
 how could Mary, their daughter, be clean or Immaculate? 
 
 Taw. The popish dogma of Mary’s Immaculate Concep¬ 
 tion, or in other words, that she was conceived and born with¬ 
 out sin, was unknown down to the eleventh century, but from 
 the twelfth century some papists asserted it to some extent. 
 The Fathers of the Church, however, and the popish teachers 
 generally, taught the reverse, that Mary, like other people, 
 was conceived and born in sin. Notwithstanding this, pope 
 Pio Nono, in the year 1854, published a Bull, in which 
 he declared the virgin Mary to have been born without 
 sin; and although there were, and are, many popish doctors, 
 and priests, and members of their community opposed to 
 
124 
 
 tbe doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the virgin 
 Mary, yet it has become a new article of the popish creed. 
 Among those who do not believe in that dogma there are 
 many who accept it merely because the pope has declared 
 it to be right. 
 
 Qaim. There is another popish dogma connected with the 
 virgin Mary, about which we should say something: it is the 
 so-called Assumption of Mary, or her ascension to heaven. 
 
 Tal. If the virgin Mary ascended up to heaven, there 
 must no doubt have been present persons who witnessed 
 the ascension ; who are those persons ? When our Lord 
 ascended unto heaven, His disciples were present and saw 
 Him ascending, but no one saw Mary ascend to heaven. How 
 then ca$ they prove the dogma of Mary’s Assumption? 
 
 Qaim. Brother, the papists do not care about proving it 
 from the testimony of eye-witnesses. Though no one has 
 witnessed the event, and though the “ Assumption of the 
 Virgin ” has not received the sanction of any of the Councils 
 of the Church, yet the papists for some reasons or other 
 believe it to be true. It is true that there are those 
 among papists who disbelieve it, but the fear of man keeps 
 them silent. The papists have even appointed a day, the 
 15th of August, which they observe every year to com¬ 
 memorate the virgin Mary’s Assumption, and make it a 
 great festival in her honour. In a Pastoral letter, addressed 
 to the Homan Catholic community, by the late Cardinal 
 Cullen, on the 5th of the month of August, 1854, he says: 
 “ The Church invites us at this season to celebrate the 
 Assumption of the holy Virgin into heaven. This festival 
 recalls to our recollection the last moments of the great 
 mother of God upon earth, and puts before our eyes the sub¬ 
 lime spectacle of her passage into heaven, where she shall 
 be for all ages, the health of the weak, the refuge of sinners, 
 
125 
 
 IIM/ 
 
 the source of all spiritual graces and favours.” Brethren, 
 we can call this only a blasphemous effusion of the Cardinal. 
 
 Taw. There is no doubt that the papists worship the 
 virgin Mary, and even pray to her in such a way, as if 
 she were a Divine person. So, for instance, they say in 
 one of their prayers,—“ 0 holy Virgin, enable me to praise 
 thee as I ought, and grant me strength to be victorious 
 over thine enemies.” 
 
 Kal. The papists also give titles to Mary which belong 
 only to the Lord Jesus, and represent her as Divine. In 
 the Bull of pope Sixtus, adopted by the Council of Trent, 
 she is styled “Queen of the heavens;” and in the same 
 sentence her Son is spoken of as “ King.” This same 
 title, “ Queen of heaven,” is given to her in the popish 
 “Breviary,” where she is also called “ Domina omnium 
 creaturarum.” St. Bonaventura says: “All who trust in 
 Mary will see heaven’s gate open to receive them after 
 death.” St. Peter Damian calls Mary, “ Ladder to heaven, 
 for as God descended from heaven by her, so man, by her 
 means, deserves to ascend from earth to heaven.” St. 
 Athanasius says: “You have been filled with graces, Queen 
 of the universe, that you might become the way of our 
 salvation, and the road by which we ascend to our celestial 
 country.” St. Bernard calls Mary, “A vehicle to heaven;” 
 and St. Bonaventura says: “ Happy are they who know 
 you, O mother of God, for to know you is the way to 
 eternal life; and to celebrate your praises is the high road 
 to heaven.” In other places she is called “ The refuge of 
 sinners;” “Door of salvation;” &c., &c. I will give you 
 also an extract from the “Speculum B. V. M., or Virgin’s 
 Looking-glass.” We read there: “After all that has been 
 said, we are to consider that Mary is interpreted Lady; this 
 title, also, excellently suits so great an empress, who is, 
 
126 
 
 in truth, ruler of things in heaven, in earth, and under 
 the earth; ruler, I say, of angels, ruler of men, ruler of 
 demons, ruler of each in heaven, ruler in the world, 
 ruler in hell.” 
 
 Qaim. This is indeed awful blasphemy, but I believe the 
 greatest of all blasphemies are contained in a book called 
 “ The Psalter of the Virgin ,” published by St. Bonaventura, 
 who is called by the papists “the Seraphic Doctor,” in 
 which the name of Mary, or Lady, or Virgin, is substitu¬ 
 ted for that of God, or Lord. The editiou which I have 
 here with me is that published in Rome in the year 1834 
 with the imprimatur of the papal authorities. I will give 
 you a few specimens :— 
 
 “Lady, in thee do I trust, let me never be ashamed. 
 Into thine hand, O Lady, I commit my spirit.—Give unto 
 our Lady, O ye mighty, give unto our Lady glory and 
 strength !—-Let Mary arise, let her enemies be scattered.— 
 How amiable are thy tabernacles, O Lady of hosts !—It 
 is good to sing praises to the Virgin, and to make con¬ 
 fession of sins before her, and to praise her is comely.— 
 Bless the Virgin, O my soul, and all that is within me, 
 bless her holy name and give glory to her. Praise her 
 goodness and her wondrous works. Bless her, ye company 
 of the apostles, bless her all ye patriarchs, and prophets, 
 and ye host of martyrs, bless her.” 
 
 Brethren, I have given you these specimens of papal 
 blasphemy with great hesitancy, for I cannot but abominate 
 such awful sins, but I will not give you any more. 
 
 Taw. Perhaps you may be aware that Alphonsus Liguori, 
 who died in the year 1787, has written a book with the title, 
 “Glories of Mary.” Many popes have praised his writings, 
 and the papists of England consider them most excellent. 
 In this book, “ Glories of Mary,” he speaks of Mary as if 
 
127 
 
 71 
 
 ) i 
 
 she were a Divine person, and attributes to her, omnisci¬ 
 ence, omnipresence and omnipotence; and speaks of her 
 as a saviour and redeemer of sinners. 
 
 Kal. Let us now read a few passages from Scripture, in 
 opposition to this idolatrous worship of Mary and other 
 popish saints. 
 
 First, the passage in Acts. x. 25, 26. We have there the 
 history of Cornelius, the centurion in Caesarea, who was 
 going to worship the apostle Peter, but was forbidden by 
 him to do so. We read: “As Peter was coming in, Corne¬ 
 lius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped 
 him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself 
 also am a man.” 
 
 Another passage we find in Rev. xix. 10, where it is 
 said that the apostle John was about to worship a holy 
 being from heaven, but was forbidden by him to do so. 
 We read: “ And I fell at his feet to worship him. And 
 he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellow- 
 servant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of 
 Jesus : worship God.” 
 
 And a third passage, forbidding creature-worship, we find 
 in the same book, in Rev. xxii. 8, 9. There we read : “And 
 I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I 
 had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the 
 feet of the angel which showed me these things. Then 
 saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy 
 fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of 
 them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.” 
 
 I am sure, brethren, that if Mary were now upon earth, 
 and saw how the papists worship her, she would, like the 
 apostles Peter and John, say, See thou do it not, for I 
 am thy fellowservant, and of them that have the testimony 
 of Jesus; worship, not me, but God. 
 
CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 ? 
 
 
 HAS THE APOSTLE PETER EVER BEEN BISHOP OF ROME ? 
 
 Q AIM. Brethren beloved, the subject on which we are 
 going to converse to-day is considered by papists 
 an exceedingly important one. They say that the 
 apostle Peter* was the first bishop of Rome, but cannot 
 bring forward one convincing proof to substantiate the 
 statement. All the proofs which they advance are based 
 upon mere tradition; and since the truth or untruth of 
 tradition depends with them upon what the pope says, it 
 follows that if it pleases the pope to say that Peter was 
 the first bishop of Rome, the question is settled in the 
 mind of the papists. Let us, however, examine what they 
 say regarding this subject. 
 
 Taw. The first question on this subject is this. Did 
 the apostle Peter ever reside at Rome ? We learn from 
 Scripture that the apostle Paul was certainly a few years 
 at Rome, but, with respect to Peter’s having been in that 
 city,' we have no certain proof. I will state a few things 
 which make it exceedingly probable that he never was 
 there. 
 
 First. If the apostle Peter had ever been at Rome, 
 Luke, in the “ Acts of the Apostles,” would have men¬ 
 tioned the fact, but we find no mention of it in that book. 
 
129 
 
 Secondly. If Peter had been at Rome, would he not 
 have accompanied the brethren of that city, as far as 
 Appii Forum, and the Three Taverns (see Acts xxviii. 15) ? 
 If he had been with them, it would have been mentioned, 
 but we find nothing of the kind. This seems to show 
 that he was not at Rome. 
 
 Thirdly. It was a rule of the apostle Paul to preach 
 the Gospel where Christ was not named, that he might 
 not build on another man’s foundation (see Rom. xv. 20). 
 If Peter had been at Rome, and preached there the Gos* 
 pel, then, if Paul had also gone there for the same pur¬ 
 pose, he would have departed from his rule; and how 
 could he have said to the Romans in his Epistle, “I 
 would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes 
 I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that 
 I might have some fruit among you also, even as among 
 other Gentiles ” P Rom. i. 13. How could he have written 
 this, if he had known that the apostle Peter was the 
 founder and spiritual father of the Church in Rome ? 
 
 Fourthly. We must also consider the fact that Paul, 
 in the last chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, where 
 we find the names of many brethren living in Rome, to 
 whom he sends his salutation, does not include the name 
 of Peter among them. If Peter had been there, would 
 he not have sent greeting to him also P But his name 
 not being among them seems to show that he was not 
 at Rome. And if some one should suggest, that when 
 Paul was in Rome, just then Peter may not have been 
 there or may have gone to some other place, then what 
 is the reason that Paul in none of his Epistles, written 
 to the Churches from Rome, ever mentions the name of 
 Peter? Would he not have mentioned it in one or 
 another, if he had been a resident of Rome? 
 
 B 
 
130 
 
 Considering, all these particulars, it appears that the 
 apostle Peter was not an inhabitant of Rome, bub of 
 some other place. An<i we learn from history, that until 
 the year 68, when the apostle Paul was killed by the 
 emperor Nero, Peter had not been in Rome; and from his 
 own epistles it seems to be clear that he was in the 
 city of Babylon. 
 
 We must also consider that of the bishops of Rome, 
 until Leo I., in the year 462, no one ever said or wrote 
 that the apostle Peter had ever lived in Rome, or had ever 
 been bishop of that city. Well, if his having been a resident 
 of Rome cannot be proved, how can it be proved that he 
 was the first bishop of Rome ? 
 
 Tal. If according to what you say, the apostle Peter 
 was not the founder of the Church at Rome, then how 
 do you think it came into existence? The apostle Paul 
 did not found it. When he arrived there, there were 
 Christian brethren living there, for they came to meet 
 him at Appii Forum. By whom, do you think, was the 
 Gospel brought to Rome ? 
 
 Kal. It is not certainly known, how and by whom the 
 
 Gospel was first brought to Rome. On the day of 
 
 Pentecost, when the Holy Ghost descended upon the 
 
 thousands that were gathered together, and three thousand 
 were baptized, and became Christians, there were among 
 these converts people from Rome; for we read that there 
 were people of Phrygia, and Pamphylia, Egypt, and in 
 the parts of Libya about Gyrene, and strangers of Rome, 
 Jews, proselytes, &c. Now it is very likely that when 
 these Roman converts, or strangers of Rome, returned to 
 their own country, and city of Rome, they spread the 
 good tidings of salvation through Christ among their 
 
 countrymen, and that many, perhaps hundreds of them, 
 
131 
 
 became Christians. It was these brethren who, on hearing 
 of the expected arrival of the apostle Paul, went to 
 welcome him. 
 
 Tal. If you have no objection, let us examine those 
 passages of Scripture which the Roman Catholics bring 
 forward, to prove that the Lord made the apostle Peter 
 
 j 
 
 the chief of the apostles, and the first bishop of the Church 
 of Rome. 
 
 Kal. Very well. In the first place let us look at the 
 passage in Matt. xvi. 13-19. There we read: “When Jesus 
 came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His 
 disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of 
 man am? And they said, Some say that Thou art John 
 the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of 
 the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye 
 that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou 
 art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus 
 answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon 
 Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, 
 but My Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto 
 thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build 
 My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against 
 it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom 
 of,heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall 
 be bound in heaven:- aud whatsoever thou shalt loose on 
 earth shall be loosed in heaven.” 
 
 Now we know that in order to prove any doctrine or 
 subject from Scripture, we must not be content with 
 examining one passage, whilst there are others on the 
 same subject; but we must examine all the passages bear¬ 
 ing on that subject, and compare them one with the 
 other, in order to ascertain the truth taught on it in 
 the Scriptures. 
 
132 
 
 The papists say that it is clear from the passage just 
 quoted that the Lord made the apostle Peter the founda¬ 
 tion of the Church. But Peter himself denies this, when 
 he says in the second chapter of his First Epistle, that 
 Christ is a Living Stone, chosen of God and precious, the 
 chief Corner-stone laid in Sion, upon whom the living 
 stones, the Church, are built up. And the apostle Paul 
 says: “For other foundation can no mau lay than that is 
 laid, which is Jesus Christ.” 1 Cor. iii. 11. And to the 
 Church at Ephesus he writes: Ye “are built upon the 
 foundation of the apostles and prophets ( i.e ., the founda¬ 
 tion laid by the apostles and prophets), Jesus Christ Him¬ 
 self being the chief Corner-stone.” Eph. ii. 20. All these 
 passages prove that not Peter, but the Lord Jesus Christ, 
 is the foundation of the Church. 
 
 Tal. What you say is no doubt right, but what does 
 the Lord mean, when He says, “ Thou art Peter, and 
 upon this rock I will build My Church ” ? 
 
 Kal. You will see that the Lord did not say, Thou 
 art Peter, and upon this Peter I will build My Church. 
 Consider also that the two words, rendered Peter and 
 rock, are not the same, but different words in the original 
 language. Peter made confession, “ Thou art the Christ, 
 the Sou of the living God.” This confession—“ Thou art 
 the Christ, the Son of the living God ”—is the rock upon 
 which the Church shall be built. And with this agree 
 also the passages mentioned before, that the Lord Jesus 
 Christ is the Foundation, and the Corner-stone of the 
 Church. 
 
 Taw. With this agrees also what the Fathers of the 
 Church state in regard to this passage. Jerome, and Chry¬ 
 sostom, and Origen, and Cyril, and Hilary, and Augus¬ 
 tine, all agree in stating that the rock which is the 
 
133 
 
 foundation of the Church, is nob the man Peter, but the 
 confession of Peter,—“ Thou art the Christ, the Son of 
 the living God.’* 
 
 Tal. But what about Christ saying to him, “ I will 
 give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and what¬ 
 soever thou shalb bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: 
 and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed 
 in heaven”? Does that not raise Peter above the other 
 apostles, and make him the head of them all ? 
 
 Kal. No, brother, for the^ same power or authority which 
 the Lord in this passage of the Bible gave to Peter, He 
 gave in another passage to the other apostles also. In 
 Matt, xviii. 18 we read, that the Lord said to all the 
 apostles—“ Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind 
 on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye 
 shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” We do 
 not find that in any respect the apostle Peter was made, 
 by the Lord,, the head or chief of the apostles: nor can 
 it be proved that he became the first bishop of Rome. 
 
 Taw. There are one or two other things which I should 
 bring forward in this connection. One is, that the Lord 
 in the same chapter in which He approves of Peter’s con¬ 
 fession, and says, “Upon this rock I will build My 
 Churob,” He rebukes him sharply, saying, “ Get thee behind 
 Me, Satan; thou art an offence unto Me: for thou savouresb 
 not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.” 
 Matt. xvi. 23. Is it very likely that whilst the Lord calls 
 Peter Satan, and an offence to Him, He would make him the 
 head and bishop of the whole Church? Impossible! 
 
 Another thing which I should mention is this: If our 
 Lord made Peter the head and bishop of the whole 
 Church, how was it that the apostle Paul knew nothing 
 of it; for he says, “I suppose I was not a whit behind 
 
the very chiefest apostles.” 2 Cor. xi. 5. 
 
 Qaim. One more remark, brethren, about Peter’s head¬ 
 ship. If he was made by the Lord the head and chief of 
 the apostles, how could the apostle Paul take it upon 
 himself, when he came to Antioch, to withstand him. to the 
 face, and rebuke him, because he was to be blamed, for 
 he walked not uprightly, according to the Gospel, but 
 hypocritically (See Gal. ii. 11—14.) ? 
 
 The conclusion which we arrive at, therefore, is this: the 
 Lord did not appoint the apostle Peter chief of the 
 apostles; He did nob constitute him bishop of the whole 
 Church; and most likely Peter never was at Rome. 
 
CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 
 
 Q AIM. Brethren, the conclusion to which we came in 
 our last conversation was that the claim of the papists 
 that the apostle Peter was the First Bishop of Rome 
 is without foundation, and that it is most likely he never 
 even was at Rome. Upon this unfounded claim, however, 
 the papists have erected an imaginary lofty building which 
 they call “Apostolic Succession.” 
 
 Tal. Please explain what you understand by Apostolic 
 Succession. 
 
 Qaim. The popes and priests think that from the time of 
 the apostles (beginning with the apostle Peter, whom they 
 consider to have been the first bishop of Rome), to the present 
 time, there has been an unbroken or uninterrupted chain or 
 succession of bishops; and that only those bishops and priests 
 who have received ordination by the laying on of the hands 
 of one of this succession of bishops, are true officers of the 
 Church; and that no one who has not been ordained by one 
 of this supposed succession is to be considered a minister 
 of the Church of Christ. As they count this chain or 
 succession of bishops from the time of the apostles, they 
 call it “ Apostolic Succession; ” and they moreover assert 
 that this chain or succession has never been broken. 
 
136 
 
 Taw. In regard to this dogma of the Apostolic Succes¬ 
 sion there are two things which must first be proved, before 
 it can be accepted. First, supposing it proved by history, 
 that from the time of the apostles, through the whole 
 Gospel-dispensation such an unbroken succession of bishops 
 can be traced, it remains to be proved from the Word of 
 God , that only those ministers who have received ordination 
 by a bishop in this line of succession are rightly ordained 
 officers of the Church. This cannot be proved. We Protest¬ 
 ants, who take the Word of God as our guide and authority, 
 believe that any minister of an evangelical Church who 
 discharges the duties of his office according to the pattern 
 of apostolic faith and godliness, and shows by his evan¬ 
 gelical teaching or preaching, and his life of holiness, that 
 he has the anointing of the Holy Spirit, we believe that 
 such a minister is in the true line of Apostolic Succession. 
 And we believe that if a minister be not such as we have 
 described, though ordained by a bishop of unbroken line, 
 or by the pope himself, he cannot be truly said to be a 
 successor of the apostles. 
 
 Tal. Brethren, is the Apostolic Succession something like 
 a tube or channel, through which is conveyed spiritual author¬ 
 ity or spiritual anointing to those who are ordained, 
 irrespective of the moral and spiritual character of the 
 individual bishops, composing the pipe or channel ? Is it 
 possible for such popes as Boniface VI., and Stephen VI., 
 to be such a channel, who for vileness and wickedness, as 
 history tells us, surpassed the openly wicked and ungodly? 
 Impossible! But when the conveying pipe of Apostolic 
 Succession is broken, as I believe has happened a number 
 of times, what becomes of the spiritual authority or anoint¬ 
 ing which it was intended to convey? 
 
 Taw. Brother Talib, I wonder that you who were once 
 
137 
 
 half a papist, should be willing to show the absurdity of 
 Apostolic Succession, but I agree with you in all that 
 you say in denouncing it. 
 
 Tal. I cannot help it. I never knew before we com¬ 
 menced our meetings, in what state of delusion I as a 
 semi-papist was; and you will, therefore, not be surprised 
 at my strong remarks, seeing the Lord has led me into the 
 clear light of the truth of the Bible. 
 
 Taw. Brethren, we must remember that the corruptions 
 in the Church arose and spread gradually, already in the 
 days of the apostles, as we learn from the Scriptures. In the 
 days of the apostles Peter and Paul there were some proud 
 and quarrelsome teachers in Corinth, who said that inas¬ 
 much as Paul was not one of the twelve apostles, he could 
 not be counted an apostle at all. The apostle Paul answers 
 them in the following way: “ Am I not an apostle P 
 . . . . Are not ye my work in the Lord? If I be not an 
 apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you : for the 
 seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.” 1 Cor. ix. 1, 2. 
 In the same way, at the present time, every godly and 
 faithful minister who has the seal of the Holy Spirit’s 
 unction upon his ministry, may say, Am I not a minister 
 of the Church of Christ? Though I have not received 
 ordination from a popish bishop, yet the Lord Jesus has 
 ordained me, for He has put His seal upon my ministry, 
 by enabling me to call others out of the darkness of 
 ignorance and godlessness into His marvellous light. 
 
 Qaim. The second thing which believers in the Apostolic 
 Succession have to prove, to justify their belief, is this:— 
 Suppose that the Word of God has declared that Apostolic 
 Succession is a sine qua non of ministerial ordination, has 
 such succession continued unbroken; and is there such a 
 succession now, which, beginning with the apostles, has 
 
138 
 
 properly come down to us? Now we know that every 
 chain must have a first link, and after that a second, third, 
 &c. The papists say that the apostle Peter was the first 
 link, that is, that he was the first bishop of the Church 
 of Rome. This however, as we said in a former conversa¬ 
 tion, cannot be proven. On the contrary, it is exceedingly 
 doubtful that he ever was at Rome, and thus the first link 
 is a very doubtful one. Then there is a great uncertainty 
 about his successor, whether bishop Linus or Clement is 
 the second link. 
 
 Taw. In order to be sure of the soundness of this chain, 
 we must also examine the character of the successive popes, 
 to see whether they were fit to be considered links in the 
 chain of succession. 
 
 Qaim. It is certainly a most important point, to as¬ 
 certain whether the successive bishops or popes were in 
 possession of the apostolic doctrine, or whether they were 
 heretics; whether they led a life becoming a bishop, or not; 
 and what was their education. In this examination we must 
 consider not only what Protestant writers have said, but 
 also, and especially, what popish writers have testified on 
 this subject. 
 
 Taw. Gentlemen, popish writers have written a great 
 deal on this point, so much, indeed, that it seems un¬ 
 necessary to quote Protestant writers at all. I have here a 
 book, containing statements of popish authors, giving the 
 character and conduct of many popes. If agreeable to you 
 I will select some of their statements. 
 
 Tal. Please let us hear. 
 
 Taw. I am now reading from these. There were many 
 heretics among the popes. For instance, Adrian VI. says, 
 that pope Honorius was condemned by two Councils as an 
 heretic; and that pope Liberius considered our Lord a mere 
 
130 
 
 human creature. Could these two popes be considered fit 
 links in the chain of Apostolic Succession P Certainly not. 
 
 In this singular line of popes there were some who could 
 not even read. Pope Clement III., who lived in the twelfth 
 century, was so ignorant in arithmetic, that he did not 
 even know the multiplication table. 
 
 Alphonsus de Castro relates that there were several popes 
 who did not know anything of the Bible. 
 
 Millner, the historian, who in the year 1819 occupied a 
 high popish office in England, states in his book*, that of 
 the 255 popes, counted in history, there were 25 who were 
 certainly wicked men. Some of them produced forged 
 documents, stating that they were true canons and tradi¬ 
 tions of the Church. 
 
 Among the wicked popes there were, particularly in the 
 ninth, tenth and eleventh centuries, some such impious and 
 nefarious sinners, that in their impiety and filthiness they 
 surpassed the generality of wicked people by far. 
 
 Some of the popes were infidels, such as Marcellinus, and 
 John XXII., John XXIII., and others. Genebrardf narrates 
 that fifty popes from John VIII. to Leo IX., during 150 years 
 were “the most profligate and execrable villains who ever 
 lived in the world.” And that statement is fully ratified 
 by Baronius. 
 
 There were also among the popes those who had obtained 
 the popedom by treachery, craft, bribery, and murder, 
 and who sold the sacraments for money. Do you think, my 
 friends, that such awfully wicked popes could be proper 
 links in the Apostolic Succession ? You will agree with 
 me, that they could not. 
 
 Again, history tells us that boys also were made popes. 
 The papists certainly deny such a general statement, but 
 
 * “End of Controversy)” page 307. Chronolog, Lib. 4, Sec. 10. 
 
140 
 
 they must admit such a fact at least in regard to one hoy 
 who in the eleventh century was made pope, and who 
 then was named Benedict IX., because there does not exist 
 the least doubt in regard to him. He was eleven years 
 when he was declared pope. 
 
 History tells U3 also of a popess, or female pope, who 
 under the name of John VIII. was made Vicar of Christ, 
 about the years 855 and 856. 
 
 Tal. I have heard that papists deny the truth of such 
 a statement, and say that it is a mere invention of the 
 Protestants, and that there has never been a woman who 
 held papal authority. 
 
 Taw. It is true that papists deny that narrative, but 
 it was neither disputed nor denied until after the Reforma¬ 
 tion. The woman was a common prostitute whose real 
 name was Agues. It is stated that the fact is attested 
 by fifty ancient papal writers, and that Greek historians 
 of the ninth century verify that anomalous fact. The most 
 convincing narrative, however, occurs in the history of the 
 Council of Constance. The inquisitors of that assembly 
 alleged against John Huss, that he denied the inherent 
 attributes ascribed to the office of the pope, and that if he, 
 or any subordinate ecclesiastic, was in deadly sin, he was 
 in no sense a genuine officer of the Church. Huss admit¬ 
 ted the truth of the charge, defended the principles which 
 it involves, and justified what he said in the following 
 words: “It is in the power and hands of wicked electors”— 
 the cardinals—“to choose a woman into that ecclesiastical 
 office, as appears by the election of Agnes who was called 
 John, who occupied the pope’s place and dignity more than 
 two years.”* It is totally incredible, that the Council of 
 Constance would have permitted such a statement to pass 
 
 * Poctrines controverted between papists and Protestants,” page 21. 
 
141 
 
 uncondemned, if they had not known that the Martyr, 
 John Huss, possessed ample proof to substantiate wbat he 
 asserted. Among the large number of popish writers who 
 testify to the truth respecting this female pope are the 
 famous popish annalist Platina, Marianus, Scotus, Sigebert 
 and Sabellicus. 
 
 Again history tells us that in the tenth century a 
 renowned prostitute, of the name of Theodora, ruled at 
 Rome, and appointed popes. And it is said that through 
 her licentiousness, and her ecclesiastical paramours, Rome 
 became a “cage of every unclean and hateful bird.”* The 
 same popish annalist, from whom we have this statement, 
 says that pope Stephen VI. was a most outrageous monster 
 of iniquity. He was seized and strangled in prison. 
 
 Baronius also says that harlot Marozia, the daughter of 
 harlot Theodora, mentioned before, murdered the two popes 
 John XI. and Stephen VIII. in order that she might place 
 in the popedom John, her son, of whom pope Sergius III. 
 was father. 
 
 Of pope John XIII. (in the year 963) it is stated by 
 Baronius, that he was deposed from the popedom for 
 abusing his father’s concubines, for drinking the devil’s 
 health, and for other very nefarious iniquities. 
 
 Pope Leo VIII. was caught in adultery and slain upon 
 the spot by the husband.f 
 
 Pope Alexander VI. had two sons and a daughter, and 
 her epitaph contains this phrase—“ Alexandri filia, sponsa, 
 nurus;” daughter, wife, and daughter-in-law of Alexander. 
 
 “Leo X., through whose prodigality and voluptuousness 
 the Reformation ostensibly commenced, publicly ridiculed 
 Christianity as a fable, and died in the commission of the 
 unnatural abomination.” Lev. xviii. 22. 
 
 * Baroniu*. f Platina, Baronius, Sigronius. 
 
142 
 
 Platina declares that Benedict VIII., Sylvester III., and 
 Gregory VI. were “ Tria teterrima monstra three most 
 filthy monsters.* 
 
 Let me give you just one more quotation form cardinal 
 Baronius, the great annalist of the papists, whom Leo XIII., 
 the present pope, in his recent Encyclical selects as a faith¬ 
 ful writer, “ who has never been equalled,’* This cardinal 
 Baronius says: “What was the face of the holy Roman 
 Church? How most foul! when harlots at once most 
 powerful and most base ruled at Rome; at whose will 
 Sees were changed, bishops were presented, and what is 
 horrid to hear, and unutterable, false pontiffs, their lovers, 
 were intruded into the chair of Peter, who are only written 
 in the catalogue of Roman pontiffs for the sake of raarkiug 
 the times! For who cau affirm, that men, illegally intruded 
 by wicked women of this sort, were Roman pontiffs ? ” f 
 
 Tal. Brethren, I never knew before that there have 
 been such wicked popes in the popedom. Are the popes 
 and priests not ashamed to count such vile creatures among 
 the links of the Apostolic Succession? 
 
 Qaim. Brother, you must put such a question to those 
 who believe in, and defend, the Apostolic Succession. 
 
 Taw. One other thing ought also to be mentioned. There 
 were at one time three or four popes, living at the same 
 time, denouncing one another. Pope Benedict IX. was 
 banished from the popedom for his wickedness. Sylvester 
 III. was also expelled. Gregory VI. was elected. They 
 all resided in Rome among their respective votaries, until a 
 Council at Sutrium excluded them all, and Clement II. was 
 appointed. Thus four popes were living at the same time.^ 
 
 * Platina, Vit Pontif, + Baronius, Annal. Eccles. Ann. 012. 
 
 + Baronius, 
 
143 
 
 Here the question arises, who of these three or four 
 popes, living at the same time, was a true link of the 
 papal chain, through whom the Apostolic Succession was 
 preserved ? 
 
 Tal. Brethren, my eyes have been opened. In my 
 opinion none of these three or four popes just spoken of 
 could have been a true link of the chain, and I see the 
 dogma of the Apostolic Succession is a fable. 
 
 Taw. Another event, something like the one just 
 mentioned, occurred at the beginning of the fifteenth cen¬ 
 tury. Pope Alexander V. died in 1410. From that year 
 there were for seven years three different popes residing 
 in three different places, one in the city of Avignon, another 
 in Rome, and a third in the city of Bologna. These three 
 popes quarrelled and fought .with each other, and each 
 one cursed and condemned the other two. To settle this 
 awful state of the papacy the Council of Constance was 
 held. This Council deposed all the three popes from the 
 papacy, and appointed a new one who adopted the name 
 of Martin V. But from the 29th of March, 1415, to the 
 11th of November, 1417, that is for nearly two and a-half 
 years, there was no true pope in existence. 
 
 Tal. This being the case, when the chain of lineal 
 successors was broken for two and a-half years, what 
 priest or bishop can still believe in the unbroken Apostolic 
 Succession ? 
 
 Qaim. And suppose even that the chain had never been 
 brokeu, could any one believe that such wicked popes, as 
 there have been so many, including also popess Joan or 
 John VIII., could form a part of that chain of Apostolic 
 Succession ? 
 
 Kal. It is surprising that any one could believe in 
 such a thing. 
 
Qaim. There is no doubt but that the idea or dogma of 
 Apostolic Succession is only an imaginary building of the 
 papists, without a Scriptural foundation; but the Lord be 
 praised that we have a true Apostolic Succession, which 
 was established by the Lord Himself, and never was 
 broken, nor ever can be broken. It is the long uninter* 
 rupted line of true witnesses of the Gospel, from 
 apostles’ time down to us. Though at times their num 
 appeared very small, and through the oppression and bloody 
 persecutions which they suffered from the papists they 
 were hidden to some extent, particularly at the times 
 when through the wickedness of the papacy and popery 
 they had to pass through dark periods, yet even at such 
 times, in fact at all times, the Lord has had in different 
 places His witnesses of the true Apostolic Successor, 
 The oppressed members of the true Church by their 
 mony, their holy lives, and their sufferings for Christ even 
 unto death, bore their Christian witness, and many sealed 
 it with a martyr’s death. The papists were not worthy 
 of them. In the darkness of popery they, with the lamp 
 of the truth in their hand, confessed and published that 
 truth, and are doing so now also among papists aud semi¬ 
 papists, who exert themselves to their utmost to regaiu 
 the power which they have lost. This succession of wit¬ 
 ness-bearers does not belong to one particular denomination, 
 but they are found among Episcopalians* Presbyterians, 
 Methodists, Baptists, &c., yea, and also among papists. 
 Among these different denominations all the true ministers 
 of the Lord Jesus, in whom the apostolic spirit dwelleth, 
 and whose preaching is in accordance with the pure 
 doctrine of the apostles, and who in their walk and con¬ 
 versation are followers of the apostles —all these, and only 
 these have the true Apostolic Succession. 
 
CHAPTER XX. 
 
 CELIBACY OF POPISH PRIESTS. 
 
 Q AIM. If agreeable to you, we will converse to-day on 
 the subject of the Celibacy of the popish bishops 
 and priests. You are aware that the popish bishops 
 and priests are forbidden to marry. About the year 390, 
 Siricius, the Roman prelate, issued his mandate, prohibiting 
 bishops, presbyters and deacons, to marry,* declaring that 
 the marriage of ministers, after their ordination, is the 
 same as the sin of adultery. His proof he pretended to 
 derive from the words of the apostle Paul, in Rom. viii. 8, 
 —“They that are in the flesh cannot please God.” In the 
 early ages of Christianity ministers of the Church married, 
 and in the Greek Church the clergy marry. The Council 
 of Treut denounces a curse not only against the clergy 
 who marry, but against those also who say that it is 
 lawful for ministers to contract marriage. 
 
 Tal. This is a very singular popish mandate. The 
 papists consider the apostle Peter their first pope, and 
 yet we know from Scripture that he was a married man, 
 for we read that “When Jesus was come into Peter’s 
 house, he saw his wife’s mother laid, and sick of a fever.’ 5 
 
 * Epist. 1. ltd Himer. Tarracon,. Centra 7, 
 
 & 
 
146 
 
 Matt. viii. 14. Now if he whom they call the first pope, 
 or bishop, of Rome was a married man, why should not 
 popes and bishops in general follow his example and 
 marry P 
 
 Kal. In regard to this point let us consider also another 
 passage. The apostle Paul, in his First Epistle to 
 Timothy says: “A bishop then must be blameles? 
 husband of one wife . . . one that ruleth well hie orcn 
 house, having his children in subjection with all gravity 
 . . . Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling 
 their children and their own houses well.” 1 Tim. iii. 2, 
 4, 12. Hence, if bishops and deacons are permitted in 
 Scripture to marry, what right have popes and papists to 
 forbid it ? 
 
 Taw. We learn from history, that pope Gregc 
 who was pope from the year 1073 to 1085, issued a man¬ 
 date ordering all bishops, priests and deacons to turn off 
 their wives, threatening at the same time that those who 
 would not do so should be deprived of their office. He 
 also convoked a Council at Rome, in which it was decided 
 that no married priest should ever celebrate Mass. 
 
 Tal. I am thinking of another passage which justifies 
 the marriage of priests, and I cannot conceive why they 
 should be forced to remain unmarried. The apostle Paul 
 says: “ Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: 
 but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.” Heb. 
 xiii. 4. If “ marriage is honourable in all” it is also honour¬ 
 able in the ministers of the Church. If marriage is an 
 honourable state, why should it be declared dishonourable in 
 a priest? And allow me another question. What is the 
 reason for forbidding marriage to popish ecclesiastics? 
 
 Qaim. Puffendorf in the “History of Europe,” Cap. xii. 
 Sec. 32., illustrates the prohibition of marriage to priests 
 
147 
 
 in this forcible language which I will read to you : “ The 
 ecclesiastics, being freed from the care of wives and 
 children, are more devoted to the interest of the papacy. 
 By their celibacy they are not tempted to attach them¬ 
 selves to the sovereigns in whose dominions they reside; 
 they have no excuse for appropriating any part of the 
 ecclesiastical spoils for the subsistence of their families; 
 and they are better qualified, and always ready, to execute 
 the orders of the pope, particularly against their own 
 sovereign, whose displeasure they dread not when they 
 can so easily remove from their jurisdiction. Thus having 
 no care but for themselves and their order, the pope has 
 taught them to abandon all the associations of life with¬ 
 out feeling, and has released them from all secular power 
 and jurisdiction, that he might more securely retain thorn 
 as his own vassals.” 
 
 Tax. This is awful oppression and tyranny. You know 
 that the apostle Paul says, “To avoid fornication, let 
 every man have his own wife, and let every woman have 
 her own husband.” 1 Cor. vii. 2. There are no doubt 
 many among the priests, who upon reaching manhood, 
 like others, have the temptation to gratify the carnal 
 desires of the flesh. Do they in such a state suppress 
 these desires, contain themselves, denying themselves and 
 “mortifying their members which are upon the earth, for¬ 
 nication, uncleauness, and inordinate affection,” Col. iii, 5; 
 or do they gratify their fleshly desires in sinful ways? 
 
 Qaim. It is sad to say, but nevertheless a fact, and 
 generally known, that among young priests there are those 
 who live in fornication aud uncleanness. Only think if, by 
 priestly order, a woman in the Confessional or some other 
 secret place, is obliged to speak of things which could and 
 should only be mentioned between husband and wife; or 
 
148 
 
 if a young priest wlieu lie is alone with a girl or young 
 woman, and he in order to have a full Confession puts a 
 number of such filthy questions to her, which no one else 
 from very shame or delicacy would mention or speak of, 
 what may at such tempting occasions pass through the 
 mind of a young priest? 
 
 It is a fact that on such occasions it has occurred many, 
 many times, and has been proved, too, that the priest com¬ 
 mitted wickedness with the girl or woman who came for 
 confession. The natural desire of sin is in the priest, who 
 is moreover an unmarried man, and the devil with his great 
 power to seduce is present with him, to lead him into sin. 
 
 Taw. It is also a generally known fact, that many 
 women in convents have been seduced by priests, who 
 had to attend to priestly functions in those places. Let 
 me quote here a portion of a book written by Nicholas 
 Clemangis, a popish archdeacon who lived in the fifteenth 
 century. In that volume, chapter 23rd, with the Latin 
 title of “ De* Corrupt*) Statu Ecclesiae ,” he delineates the 
 extremely inordiuate sensuality of all orders of popedom, 
 Cardinals, Prelates, Regular priests, Mendicant friars, Monks 
 and Nuns. "What he writes about them is heart-sickening. 
 I will not for very shame repeat it, but only read what 
 he says about Nuus. He says, “ De his plura dicere 
 verecundia proliibet,” &c., the translation of which is as 
 follows,—“Modesty forbids to speak more concerning them 
 (the Nuns). Instead of describing societies of virgins 
 devoted unto God, we should delineate brothels with all 
 the deceptions and wantonness of harlots, rapes, and incest* 
 For what other are nunneries at this period, but execrable 
 abodes of licentiousness devoted to Yenus; and receptacles in 
 which lascivious youth fulfil their impetuous libidinousness ? 
 So that it is the same thing to place a girl in a convent, 
 
149 
 
 and publicly to doom her to the vilest prostitution.” 
 
 Tal. What you read just now is said to have been 
 the state of Nunneries in the fifteenth century. It may 
 be different at present. 
 
 Kal. If it were different, why are all convents so care¬ 
 fully closed that no person is allowed to enter them for 
 inspection? What is done within is hidden from every 
 one who does not belong to the convent. Here the Word 
 of our Lord is again verified, that “Every one that doeth 
 evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his 
 deeds should be reproved.” John iii. 20. 
 
 Tal. If convents are so carefully closed to people from 
 outside, and besides the priests no one is permitted to 
 enter them, as you say, how has that which is going on 
 inside become known to the outside world? 
 
 Qaim. Popish priests themselves who knew well about 
 it, have given descriptions of it. Moreover it has frequently 
 occurred, that nuns, being sick of their imprisonment 
 within the walls of a convent, have succeeded in escaping 
 from it, and through them the veil has been lifted, and 
 the evil done within its walls has been made known. 
 Some of the escaped nuns have written and published 
 books in which they give a description of the wickedness 
 perpetrated in these convents.* 
 
 Tal. Are the pope and the bishops not aware of the 
 evil deeds done in these convents? And if they are, how 
 is it that they do not put an end to it ? 
 
 Taw. The fact is, that some popes and bishops them¬ 
 selves have been guilty of the same crimes. Hence though 
 they knew that the priests were committing fornication 
 
 * ♦■Convent Life Unveiled,” by Edith O’Gorman, Price 12 ans., 
 India Watchman Office, Tardeo, Bombay, 
 
loO 
 
 
 with the nuns, they, in order to screen themselves, pass 
 it over, for they in reproving the priests would condemn 
 themselves, which of course they would not like to do. 
 And another reason why they did not, and do not, rebuke 
 and punish such culprits is that with them, according to 
 the popish system, the sins of fornication and adultery 
 are not considered Mortal but Venial sins; and they have 
 certain penances for these adulterers or fornicators, which 
 are considered by them to be an atonement for such sins. 
 And even if a Mortal sin had been committed by any 
 priest or nun, nay, even if guilty of that abominable vice, 
 spoken of in Lev. xviii. 22, it could be changed from 
 Mortal into a Venial sin.* 
 
 Pope Innocent declared, that if a Roman priest should 
 keep a number of prostitutes, he would only be guilty of 
 a Venial sin, and is on that account not considered unfit 
 to discharge his priestly duties, f 
 
 History tells us, that pope Paul III. supported thousands 
 of prostitutes in the city of Rome; and that pope Sixtus 
 IV. ordered that houses should be built for such women. 
 He even gave them license for committing their filthy 
 deeds; for the sale of such licenses brought in a great 
 deal of money to him. Baptist Mantuan, a Latin poet, 
 referring to this, wrote,—“The whole city of Rome has 
 in these days become a large brothel.” $ 
 
 “ Having relinquished matrimony, the ecclesiastics gratify 
 every unlawful lust; and transform lawful marriage into 
 adultery.” || 
 
 “ According to the order of Saint Bridget, monks and 
 
 * Claude Espence in Com. in Epist. at Tit. Cap. 1. 
 f Extravag, Cap. de Bigami?, J Paolo Hist, du Cone, de Trent, 
 Vol. 1. Ann. 1537. || Bclga Schism et Concil Schism. 14. 
 
nuns resided in the same house. A prelate who was 
 confessor, persuaded the nuns that they were innocent 
 before God, notwithstanding the frequency of their sins, if 
 they immediately confessed and received his absolution.” * 
 
 “ Flagitiose stupri, sodomitae, bestialitatis plures rei sunt. 
 Et omnes in supradictis saevient sceleribus . All are guilty 
 of those flagitious crimes.” f 
 
 Cardinal Hosius wrote: “Pighius affirmed not less truly 
 than piously, that a priest sins less who is habitually 
 unclean, than if he contracted marriage.” 
 
 “ The archbishop of Beneventum wrote a book, than 
 which nothing can be conceived more filthy; and he was 
 nob ashamed to eulogise the most basely atrocious crime.” J 
 “During the thirteenth century a papal Council was 
 held at Lyons. At the dissolution of that wicked assem¬ 
 bly, cardinal Hugo, the pope’s legate, and president of 
 that body of ecclesiastics, characterised the Roman cardinals, 
 prelates, priests, monks and nuns. In his farewell address 
 to the magistrates and inhabitants of that city, he thus 
 displayed his own matchless audacity and the unparal¬ 
 leled filthiness of the papal hierarchy by saying,—‘Friends, 
 since we arrived in this city we have performed for you 
 a most useful service. At our first coming we found three 
 or four brothels; and now at our departure we leave only 
 one; but that extends without interruption from the 
 eastern to the western gate of the city.’ ” || 
 
 “ This was in exact conformity with the blasphemous 
 canon of Thomas Aquinas— 'Ex mandato Dei,* &c., By the 
 command of God it is lawful to murder the innocent, to 
 
 * Fuller’s Church History, book 6. t Hilderic Epist. advers. 
 Constit. Cleric. Celib. J Sleidan Comment* Lib* 2, Page 652. 
 
 || Mat. Paris, Hist. An, 1251* 
 
152 
 
 rob, and to commit all lewdness; and thus to fulfil His 
 commandment is our duty." * 
 
 Tal. What a dreadfully vile state was that of many 
 popes and priests, according to what we have just heard. 
 How much better would it have been, if they had acted 
 in accordance with the injunction of the Word of God, 
 and every priest had been permitted to marry, and every 
 bishop to be the husband of one wife. 
 
 Qaim. It is, therefore, no wonder, that in consequence 
 of this prohibition all kinds of foul and filthy deeds were 
 committed by the bishops and priests, constituting the 
 Council of Trent. It has been said by one of them, that 
 with difficulty you could have found one priest in fifty 
 who was not a notorious fornicator, f 
 
 Kal. The apostle Paul has prophesied in his Epistle 
 to Timothy of this coming corruption. He says: “Now the 
 Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some 
 shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, 
 and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having 
 their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to 
 marry.” 1 Tim. iv. 1-3. 
 
 Qaim. We have in to-day’s conversation spoken of the 
 Celibacy of the popish priests, and of the evil effects of 
 this unnatural state upon their morals and character. This 
 unnatural state still existing, and human nature being the 
 same, it is to be feared that, notwithstanding the improved 
 moral tone of the present day, the like evil effects will 
 prevail to a great extent; and this fear is increased by 
 the claim that is made by the papists themselves, that— 
 
 POPERY NEVER CHANGES. 
 
 * Sum. Theolog. Compend. Quest. 34. f Soave Polano 
 . Cone. Trid. Pag. 840. 
 

 CHAPTER XXL 
 
 JUSTIFICATION, HUMAN MERITS, MONKERY 
 AND NUNNERY, 
 
 . ; ' * , f » , - t 
 
 t- ; \ 
 
 Q AIM. We know, dear friends, that the papists say a 
 great deal about Human Merits, and about the way 
 of Justification before God, obtained by their own 
 good works. The Word of God, however, tells us that we 
 are justified before God, and saved, not by works of righte¬ 
 ousness which we have done, or could do, but solely and 
 entirely through -the righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ, 
 imputed to us, and received by faith alone. By nature we 
 are all sinners, and deserve the punishment of hell, but 
 through God’s free grace, on account of the perfect merits 
 of our Divine Substitute, the Lord Jesus Christ, the be¬ 
 liever obtains a free and full salvation. Thus says the 
 Word of God: “All have sinned, and come short of the 
 glory of God; being justified freely by His grace through 
 the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God hath 
 set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to 
 declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are 
 past, through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, 
 at this time His righteousness: that He might be just, 
 and . the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.” Bom. 
 iii. 23-26. 
 
 Contrary to this Divine declaration, the papists say that 
 
154 
 
 not through the righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ 
 alone, but together with it our own works of righteous¬ 
 ness, that is, through Christ’s merits and our own merits, 
 we are justified in the sight of God! In short, the justi¬ 
 fication of a sinner is with them a joint-affair between 
 God and him. 
 
 Taw. If you like I will read to you a few of the 
 canons and decrees in regard to this point, made by the 
 papists at the Council of Trent. 
 
 One canon is as follows: “Whoever shall affirm that 
 justification received is not preserved and even increased, 
 in the sight of God, by good works, but that works are 
 only the fruits and evidences of justification received, and 
 nob the causes of its increase , let him be accursed.” (Trent, 
 Sess. vi. Canon 9, 24.) 
 
 Again: “Men are not justified by the righteousness of 
 Christ, and the remission of sin.” (Trent, Sess. vi. Canon 11.) 
 
 Again: “We are able to maize satisfaction to God the 
 Father through Jesus Christ, by punishments, either spon¬ 
 taneously by ourselves, or imposed upon us by the priest.” 
 (Trent, Sess. vi. C. 2.) 
 
 Again: “As in His passion our Lord merited and satis¬ 
 fied for us, so in the oblation of this sacrifice (the Mass) 
 which is a bond of Christian unity, Christians merit the 
 fruit of His passion, and satisfy for sin” (Catechism of 
 Trent, page 247.) 
 
 Again: “ Let our fasts, we beseech thee, O Lord, be 
 acceptable to Thee, that by atoning for our sins, they may 
 make us worthy of Thy grace , and bring us to the everlast¬ 
 ing effects of Thy promise.” (The Missal.) 
 
 Again, in the Rhemish Annotations on 1 Cor. ix. we 
 read: “ Confidence in God’s grace and salvation is the 
 faith of devils, and not the apostles.” 
 
155 
 
 Again: “By the good works appointed by the Church 
 men are justified.” (Trent, Sess. vi. Cap. 10. Can. 25.) 
 
 Tal. It is very sad that this glorious doctrine of the 
 sinner’s justification before God, through the merits of our 
 Great Substitute, Jesus Christ, has been so dreadfully 
 corrupted by the papists. Brethren, I am sure in my own 
 mind, that if my salvation is not a free and sovereign 
 gift of God, through the righteousness of the Lord Jesus 
 Christ, and if I have to add but the smallest particle of 
 merit, acquired by me, to make it complete, I am undone 
 and must perish, for I am convinced that I have no good 
 works or merits of my own, which God could accept. If 
 
 for the blotting out of that enormous debt of my sins, I 
 
 have to add but a farthing of my own, my debt would 
 never be removed, and I should never enter into the king¬ 
 dom of heaven, for I do not possess any righteousness 
 or merit of my own, in which the all seeing aud search¬ 
 ing eye of God could find no flaw or defect. I like the 
 
 two verses of that beautiful hymn:— 
 
 “Once I did not know the way, 
 
 Then my foolish heart would say, 
 
 My own works of righteousness 
 Lead to heaven and happiness: 
 
 But God’s Spirit changed my mind, 
 
 And I found I had been blind $ 
 
 Now I say—for now I see— 
 
 Sovereign grace is all my plea!” 
 
 Qaim. Dear brother, what you say is precious truth, 
 and I heartily agree with you. Through God’s sovereign 
 mercy alone, coming to us through the perfect merits of 
 our dear Lord Jesus Christ, we obtain salvation. Salvation 
 
150 
 
 is of God alone. I dare say yon know that beautiful 
 liymn:— 
 
 1 ‘‘Salvation is of God alone; 
 
 The glorious plan is all His own ; 
 
 In love He formed the great design, 
 
 And here His grace and wisdom shine. 
 
 2 Salvation is of God alone; 
 
 One only Victim could atone 
 
 For human guilt; that Victim He, 
 
 Who claims with God equality. 
 
 3 Salvation is of God alone; 
 
 ; Tis He who breaks the heart of stone, 
 
 Who makes self-righteousness to cease, 
 
 And gives the troubled conscience peace. 
 
 4 Salvation is of God alone; 
 
 ? Tis He who leads His people on ; 
 
 "Tis He who makes their burdens light, 
 
 And shields them in the day of fight. 
 
 5 Salvation is of God alone; 
 
 This truth let all His people own, 
 
 And to His Name the praise be given 
 By saints on earth, and saints in heaven.” 
 
 Our heart and soul agree with the words of this hymn, 
 
 and yet we know that it is the duty of every believer 
 
 to do good works, not, indeed, in order to add any thiug 
 
 to the great merits of our Lord, and make them complete 
 
 * 
 
 to procure our soul’s salvation, but in order to evidence 
 thereby, that our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is of the 
 right kind, a living, working faith; “for as the body with¬ 
 out the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead 
 also.” James ii. 26. . 
 
157 
 
 Kal. The apostle’s exbortatiou m agrees with what you 
 say: “Being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which 
 are by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God.” 
 Phil. i. 11. 
 
 Tal. Well, we all agree in regard to that essential truth 
 in the Word of God, that the salvation of our soul does 
 not rest upon our own meritorious works, not even in part, 
 but only and entirely upon the perfect sacrifice and 
 atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ, and that we cannot add 
 the least to it. But please, tell me, What kind of works 
 do papists consider Meritorious works? 
 
 Taw. In olden times there were people who said that 
 to forsake the world was a very meritorious work. By 
 “forsaking the world” they understood, that they should 
 leave their homes, give up all intercourse with their fami¬ 
 lies and friends, and every work or occupation connected 
 with house-keeping, and go into a wilderness or solitary place 
 and live as fakeers. They thought that marriage, keeping 
 house, secular occupation, or earning their bread by any 
 kind of work or business was worldly, and interfered with 
 their spiritual condition; and this being the case in their 
 opinion they considered it their duty to give it up and 
 thus forsake the world, in order to lead a life of holiness. 
 They did not consider, that besides the outside-world there 
 was a world within the heart, and that to whatsoever soli¬ 
 tary place they might go, they would take this inside- 
 world along with them. Just as there are many heathen 
 fakeers in this country now, so there were in former ages, 
 particularly in the time of the Fathers, many Christian 
 fakeers, or hermits. They had the idea that to leave your 
 own home, friends and relatives, to remain unmarried, to 
 do nothing for your own support, but live upon the alms 
 of others, to lead a life of austerity, to cause pain an 
 
suffering to your own body, &c., was very meritorious. 
 It is true there were among these Christian hermits true 
 and sincere people, who in reality longed to be away from 
 the temptations of the world, but they were mistaken in 
 thinking that by becoming hermits they had forsaken 
 the world. There were, however, others, who without any 
 truly religious motives, merely from love of ease and idle¬ 
 ness, became hermits or Christian fakeers. Such Christian 
 fakeers were called Monks, which word means, Alone, and 
 indicates they wanted to be away from human society, 
 and to live in solitude. Gradually, however, when the 
 number of these Monks increased, they built houses or 
 monasteries, where they might live together, and practise 
 their austerities. They imagined that by thus separating 
 themselves from other people, and engaging in no secular 
 business, they were serving the Lord, and acquiring merits, 
 which, added to the merits of the Lord Jesus, would 
 secure their entrance into heaven after death. Brethren, 
 we and all Protestants know, that as the fakeery of 
 Hindoos and Muhammedans, so the Christian fakeery or 
 monkery is contrary to the will of God. He made us social 
 beings, and designed us to be members of families and 
 communities, discharging the mutual duties of these rela¬ 
 tions in the fear of God; and His command is, that we 
 should work with our own hands, that we may not live 
 on the earnings of others, but that we may have to give 
 to him that needeth. Monks living by begging are in this 
 world like boils upon the human body. They are excres¬ 
 cences, and a plague in the communities in which they live. 
 
 Qaim. We should mention, that as there are male fakeers 
 or Monks among -the papists, so there are also female 
 fakeers, who are called Nuns, and live in buildings called 
 convents, separated from the outside world. They leave 
 
159 
 
 their own relatives, parents, husband and friends, and enter 
 into these convents to live and die in them. Having once 
 entered a convent, they can never again leave it and 
 return to their relatives. 
 
 Tal. What is the meaning of the word Nun. 
 
 Qaim. The meaning of the word is Good ; and this name 
 is intended to teach that to become a Nun is good and 
 meritorious. But it very often happens, that, after these 
 misguided girls and women have entered a Nunnery, and 
 become acquainted with the real state of convent life, they 
 deeply regret that they acted so foolishly and made them¬ 
 selves prisoners for life, and they would, if they could, 
 retrace their steps, but this they cannot do. They must 
 remain in their self-chosen miserable imprisonment until 
 death releases them. 
 
 To become a Nun is considered by papists, as I said 
 before, very meritorious, but we know that the life which 
 they live is an unnatural one, and is, therefore, contrary 
 to the design of God in their creation. In their views and 
 practices about the celibacy of the priesthood, and the 
 meritoriousness of the life of monks and nuns, the papists 
 teach that the state of celibacy is more holy than that 
 of matrimony; but this teaching casts a reproach on the 
 wisdom of God in creation, and denies the truth of His 
 Word. God created man, male and female, and thus de¬ 
 signed them for the married state, and declares in His 
 Word that marriage is honourable in all. 
 
 Kal. How great is the folly and wickedness of man! 
 As soon as he departs from the Word of God, and follows 
 his own ways and religious devices, his religion becomes 
 irreligion, and his piety, impiety, and his righteousness, 
 unrighteousness. “ For they being ignorant of God’s righte¬ 
 ousness, and going about to establish their own righteous- 
 
160 
 
 ness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness 
 of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness 
 
 to every one that believeth.” Rom. x. 3, 4. 
 
 » 
 
 Qaim. Blessed be God, that He has not made our salva* 
 tion dependent upon our own good works and merits, but 
 upon the glorious work and perfect righteousness of our 
 great Substitute and Mediator, and that every one who 
 trusts in Him alone, will obtain salvation and attain to 
 holiness. 
 
 j 
 
CHAPTER XXII. 
 
 THE SPIRIT OF POPERY IS A PERSECUTING, 
 
 AND MURDEROUS SPIRIT. 
 
 Q AIM. Brethren, we know from the Book of the Acts 
 of the Apostles, and from the history of the Church, 
 that wherever the Church of Christ gained victories, 
 there, from time to time, enemies arose and arrayed them¬ 
 selves against it, and oppressed and persecuted the people 
 of God. The enemies at that time were Jews and idola¬ 
 ters. The Jews said that the Christians were despisers 
 of Moses and the Law, and acknowledged Jesus of Nazareth 
 to be the true Messiah, whom they could not accept. And 
 the idolaters said that the Christians despised their gods 
 and goddesses, and proclaimed one Jesus Christ as the 
 only Saviour of the world, whom they could not accept. 
 Thus Jews and idolaters both united in opposition and 
 enmity against Christ, and persecuted and oppressed the 
 Christians, and killed great numbers of them. Of this the 
 Lord forewarned His disciples, saying, “They shall put 
 you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that 
 whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.” 
 John xvi. 2. Well, every one can understand why Jews 
 and Gentiles in their mistaken zeal should hate and 
 persecute Christians, for both of them hate Christ, whom 
 the Christians call the Son of God, and Saviour of the 
 
 10 
 
162 
 
 world; bub the subjeot of our conversation to-day will be, 
 that those who call theraselvos Roman Catholic Christians, 
 persecuted those who belonged to different sections of the 
 Church, and oppressed them and murdered many of them. 
 
 Tal. What did the papists give as the reason for 
 persecuting and killing the Christians, who did not belong 
 to their party ? 
 
 Qaisi. There are various reasons why the papists persecu¬ 
 ted the Protestants, but the chief reason was, that while 
 the papists consider their traditions equal to the Bible, yea, 
 higher than the Bible, the Protestants, contrary to the 
 popish rule of faith, believe that the Bible is the only 
 rule of faith and practice, aud consider every dogma or 
 rite or custom of the papists, which is opposed to it, as 
 of no authority. Now if any person said any thing against 
 a popish dogma or custom, or did not acknowledge the 
 pope to be the vicar of the Lord Jesus Christ on earth— 
 or did nob accept the teaching of the popes or priests— 
 or if he exposed their superstition and idolatry, and their 
 worship or adoration of Mary, and their other Saints, and 
 their worship of the Host, and of Relics—or if he became 
 a reader of the Bible, and tried to prove the truth of the 
 
 articles of faith from the Word of God—or kept in his 
 
 house a copy of the Bible, without the priest’s permission 
 —he would be considered for any of these reasons to be 
 a heretic. Thus all who held opinions contrary to, or 
 
 protested against, the erroneous teachings or superstitious 
 
 practices of popery were called heretics, and many of those 
 who persisted in (what the papists called) their heresy, 
 were excommunicated, and, in countries where the papists 
 had the power, they were persecuted, their goods were 
 confiscated, they themselves were cast into prisons and 
 dung-sons, and tortured or killed in the most cruel manner; 
 
183 
 
 and the papists iii thus persecuting and murdering them 
 thought they were doing God service. 
 
 Taw,. What you say is true, for there have been many 
 papists, who, inspired by the devil, and regarding the 
 command of the pope as the command of God, have hated 
 the Protestants, and persecuted them, and treated them 
 with satanic cruelty. All acquainted with history know 
 that the papists have slaughtered millions of Christians, 
 who, rejecting the anti-scriptural doctrines and practices 
 of the papists, believed in the pure doctrines of the Bible; 
 and these massacres of Christians have generally beeu 
 instigated and directed by Jesuits. We will not, however, 
 now speak about this wicked order of papists at present, 
 but will do so on another occasion. To recount all the awful 
 massacres and dreadful murders perpetrated by the papists 
 is impossible. I will, therefore, if you agree, mention only 
 some of the principal and most notable ones. 
 
 1. The Massacre of the Waldenses and Albigenses, These 
 people were Christians living in the South of Europe. 
 They from the earliest ages of the Church possessed the 
 true faith of the Word of God, and rejected all the 
 doctrines and teaching of popery. When the popish 
 apostacy spread everywhere, they remained steadfast in the 
 apostolic doctrine, and resisted all the encroachments of 
 popery. The pope being greatly incensed against them on 
 account of their opposition, persuaded the king of France 
 to send an army against them, to annihilate them. The 
 king, accordingly, in the year 1260 raised an army which, 
 after receiving the pope’s blessing for their infernal pur¬ 
 pose, was let loose, like bloodhounds, upon these quiet, 
 faithful Christians to destroy them. His armies burst upon 
 them, burned their houses, desolated their country, and 
 murdered thousands of Christians, men, women and children. 
 
164 
 
 Many of these persecuted people fled into other countries, 
 but those who could not or would not flee were ruth¬ 
 lessly slaughtered. The number of those faithful Waldenses 
 and Albigenses who did not flee, and preferred a martyr’s 
 death to submitting to the popish yoke, was about 100,000. 
 
 2. The Slaughtering of Huguenots. The Christians of 
 France, who opposed popery, and defended the pure doctrine 
 of the Gospel, were called Huguenots. The pope stirred 
 up the king of France, a most bigoted papist, to destroy 
 all the Huguenots in the land. In order to ingratiate 
 
 himself with the pope, and gratify his own hatred of those 
 
 who were opposed to popery, this wicked king cast many 
 thousands into prisons or dungeons, and subjected them 
 to such awful sufferings that thousands of them died in 
 prison. Many of the Huguenots fled from the country to 
 save their lives, and settled down in other countries, and 
 yet not less than five millions of Huguenots were slaugh¬ 
 tered in France. The king in his ambition to obtain the 
 favour of the pope, exerted himself to the utmost to 
 exterminate all anti-papists, and was so successful in his 
 
 diabolical efforts that the pope and the priests compli¬ 
 
 mented him by saying, You have delivered the land from 
 the plague of the Huguenots, and have restored to us 
 peace and quiet, having rid us of the enemies of the 
 faith. They thus flattered the king, although they were 
 aware that there were hundreds of thousands perishing in 
 dungeons under cruel sufferings and tortures. They repre¬ 
 sented to the king that the Huguenots deserved all the 
 sufferings inflicted on them. 
 
 Kal. Brethren, God who is the righteous Judge will, 
 one day bring these murderers to account. 
 
 Taw. 3. Let us speak of another massacre known as 
 the Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Night, which occurred in 
 
iss 
 
 the year 1572. Charles II., king of France, was a bigoted 
 papist, and his mother, Catharina de Medici, excelled him 
 in bigotry and fanaticism. Both were thirsting for the 
 blood of Huguenots, and, encouraged by bis mother, the 
 king was determined to destroy them. To achieve his 
 wicked purpose he treacherously invited many of the chief 
 people, and of the nobility in the country, who were 
 Protestants, to Paris, his capital, in order that he might 
 fully accomplish his murderous plan. He had fixed upou 
 the day and hour when the massacre of Protestants should 
 take place. It was to be on the night of the 24th of 
 August and commenced at midnight, first in Paris, the 
 capital, and from Paris it spread into other cities through¬ 
 out France, so that within thirty days about 30,000 
 Huguenots were butchered. 
 
 Qaim. In connection with this massacre we must remem¬ 
 ber that the papists considered this act of enormous 
 wickedness a particular service done to God, and when 
 the pope and his cardinals heard of it, they were jubilant, 
 and, assembling the priests at Rome, went to one of their 
 churches and observed a feast of thanksgiving for the 
 great success which, they said, God had granted to them 
 and to their Church by the destruction of so many 
 Huguenots. In commemoration of this fearful massacre 
 the pope ordered a medal to be struck, on which the 
 spectacle of the massacre was to be engraved. 
 
 Kal. Brethren, when we read or hear of these tremendous 
 massacres and shedding of the blood of God’s saints, 
 perpetrated by the devil and his host, our hearts feel deeply 
 grieved; but the Word of God gives us the comforting assur¬ 
 ance, that “ Precious in 'the sight of the Lord is the death 
 of His saints.” Ps. cxvi. 15. And again, “Precious shall 
 their blood be in His sight.” Ps. Ixxii. 14. And these 
 
166 
 
 popish murderers of God’s saints shall one day experience 
 the fulfilment of the Lord’s threatening,—“They have shed 
 the blood of saints and prophets, and Thou hast given 
 them blood to drink; for they are worthy.” Rev. xvi. 6. 
 
 Taw. Another massacre perpetrated by papists, instigated 
 by Jesuits, is the Massacre in Ireland, in 1641. Many people 
 in that island had cast off popery and received the truth 
 as contained in the Bible. This enraged the pope to such 
 a degree that he sent a mandate to Ireland, that all those 
 who had renounced the “Catholic” religion and adopted 
 the “ Heresy ” of the Protestants, should be extirpated. A 
 certain author writing of this massacre, says; “Archbishop 
 Usher and other authors assure us that, prior to the massacre 
 in Ireland, in 1641, the Roman priests were assiduous in 
 persuading the people not to spare one man, woman or 
 child of the Protestants, assuring them that * it would do 
 them much good to ivash their hands in the heart's llood 
 of the heretics' The common ignorant people were taught 
 by their Jesuit priests, that ‘ the Protestants are worse than 
 dogs; for they are devils; and therefore the hilling of them 
 is a meritorious act, and a rare preservative against the 
 pains of purgatory, for ’ (said those impious priests,) * the 
 bodies of those ivho fall in the holy cause shall not be 
 cold, before their souls shall ascend up into heaven .’ During 
 that carnage many of those who had brutally tortured and 
 butchered the Protestants, men, women, and girls, thus 
 boasted, relying on the Romish priest’s promise, * If we die, 
 we shall go straight to heaven.’” 
 
 Excited by these words of the popish priests and Jesuits 
 of Ireland, they slaughtered nearly 200,000 Protestants. 
 
 Kal. In connection with this statement of the massacre 
 in Ireland I wish to say a few words. When this popish- 
 slaughter of Protestants was going on, the priests continued 
 
167 
 
 to celebrate Mass in their churches, but would on no 
 account give the sacramental Wafer to any one who did 
 not first state on oath that to the utmost of his power 
 he would persecute, and, if possible, kill the Protestants. 
 When pope Urban VIII. heard that 200,000 Protestants 
 had been slaughtered, he ordered that a feast of rejoicing 
 be kept, for the good work of killing so many Protestants 
 in Ireland; and he told these murderers that as a reward 
 for the good work done by them, a plenary indulgence 
 for all sins which they had committed, or purposed to 
 commit, was granted them. 
 
 Taw. Another massacre of Protestants by papists is that 
 perpetrated by the Duke of Alva , who was governor of the 
 Netherlands for six years. That cruel bigot boasted that 
 his executioners and minions had within a few years killed 
 36,000 Protestants. Besides, the inhabitants of those pro¬ 
 vinces whom he did not butcher, he pillaged of nearly 
 forty millions of rupees per annum; and for this combined 
 plunder and slaughter of the Reformed Dutch Protestants 
 an honorary statue was erected to commemorate his 
 murderous acts. * 
 
 Here we mu3t also speak of the awful popish Tribunal 
 of the Inquisition , set up by pope Innocent III. It was 
 a secret tribunal originally established to inquire , or search 
 out “heretics,” to ascertain their whereabouts, and to bring 
 them to judgment. From the fact of their making inquiry 
 that diabolical tribunal was called “the Inquisition.” It 
 was first set up in Spain, then in Italy and gradually in 
 other countries, and consisted originally of six cardinals, 
 appointed by the pope. If they suspected any persons, 
 whether men or women, high or low, of anti-popish tenden¬ 
 cies, they would on the most trivial pretence seize them, 
 
 * Jtyrien, Apolog, pour la reform. Vol. 2, p. 275* 
 
168 
 
 put them through a secret mock-trial aud torture, or kill 
 them. In case any person was heard to say something 
 against the pope, or any popish doctrine, or custom, his 
 house would be entered, and he, generally by night, would 
 be dragged to this secret tribunal, and there subjected to 
 most cruel tortures. Of many who were thus dragged 
 away, nothing was ever afterwards heard. Most likely they 
 were either killed at once, or slowly tortured to death by 
 that satanic tribunal. 
 
 Tal. What was the nature of these tortures? 
 
 Taw. They were of various kinds, all that diabolic 
 ingenuity could invent, in order to give pain to the human 
 frame. I will give you a description of some of them, 
 as stated in the “ Protestant Catechism,” by Rev. R. P. 
 Blakeney. Some of them were: “Trial by the Pulley,” by 
 which persons were hoisted up to the ceiling with a 
 weight attached to the feet, and then suddenly allowed to 
 fall almost to the ground, with a jerk which dislocated 
 the joints: trial by the “ Chaffing-dish,” by which persons 
 were stretched on the back, and a slow fire applied to 
 the soles of the feet: trial by the “ Rack,” by which the 
 frame was distorted and lacerated. Besides these, persons 
 were often cast into pits full of reptiles; while others were 
 starved to death; and others again burned to ashes at 
 the stake. And all this was done under the mask of religion, 
 but done to extort secrets from the person, about himself, 
 or about others, suspected of Protestantism. Hundreds 
 of thousands were murdered by the Inquisition. Many 
 who did not die under the dreadful tortures they were 
 subjected to died from the after effects. Many, as I stated 
 before, were burned to death at the stake, remaining stead¬ 
 fast in their faith, aud refusing to acknowledge popish 
 errors to be truth. “They overcame by the blood of the 
 

 To face page i6g 
 
169 
 
 Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved 
 not their lives unto the death.” Rev. xii. 11. Among these 
 martyrs were some godly, true-hearted bishops and priests 
 in the apostate Church, who were not afraid to declare 
 publicly their disbelief in the errors of popery, and to 
 publish their faith in the truths of the Word of God. 
 There was, for instance, the bishop of Toledo, who taught 
 his people plainly that their own works of righteousness, 
 and their best meritorious deeds, were but as filthy rags 
 (see Isa. Ixiv. 6.) before God, and that the belief in the 
 atonement of Christ alone would give them salvation. For 
 this so-called “heresy” he was confined in prison by the 
 Inquisition for eighteen years. Other bishops and priests, 
 for rejecting popish errors, and believing in the Word of 
 God were seized and tortured by the Inquisition, and thus 
 sealed their testimony by a violent death. 
 
 From fear of this diabolical tribunal of the Inquisition 
 many true Christians, believers in the Word of God, hid 
 themselves to save their lives. It has been computed that by 
 this bloody tribunal, from the year 1481 to the year 1808, 
 not less than 341,021 men and women have had to suffer, 
 whose only sin was that they did not believe in popish 
 lies and errors. Of this large number, 31,912, or nearly 
 thirty-two thousands, were burnt to ashes at the stake; 
 and 291,456, a little less than three lacs, had to undergo 
 indescribable tortures inflicted by the priests of the Inquisi¬ 
 tion. In addition to these, 17,509 persons either “died in 
 their dungeons, or in some way escaped from the 
 Inquisitors. Those who escaped were burned in effigy. 
 This foolish thing was done to make people believe that 
 those burned in effigy, being “heretics,” deserved to be 
 burned alive. 
 
 Dr. Wyllie, in his history of Protestantism, tells the 
 
170 
 
 story of the “ Iron Virgin,” whioh is still to be seen in the 
 town of Nuremberg, in Bavaria, among a collection of 
 implements of torture actually in use on the continent of 
 Europe a few decades ago. Describing this relic of the 
 “holy Inquisition,” Dr. Wyllie says: “The person who has 
 passed through the terrible ordeal of the Question Chamber, 
 but has made no recantation, would be led along the 
 tortuous passage by which we had come, and ushered into 
 this vault, where the first object that would greet his eye, 
 the pale light of the lamp falling on it, would be the 
 ‘Iron Virgin.’ He would be bidden to stand right in 
 front of the image. The spring would be touched by the 
 executioner,—the ‘Virgin’ would fling open her arms, 
 and the wretched victim would be forced within them. 
 Another spring was then touched—the ‘Virgin’ closed 
 upon her victim. A strong wooden beam, fastened at one 
 end to the wall by a moveable joint, the other placed 
 against the doors of the iron image, was worked by a 
 screw, and as the beam was pushed the spiky arms of the 
 ‘Virgin* slowly but irresistibly closed upon the man and 
 did their work.” .... “A canal had been made to flow 
 underneath the vault where the Iron Virgin stood, and 
 when she had done her work upon those who were 
 delivered over to her tender mercies, she let them fall, 
 with quick descent and sudden plunge, into the canal 
 underneath, where they were floated to the river Pegnitz, 
 then to*the Rhine, and by the Rhine to the ocean.”" 
 
 Kal. Gentlemen, from what has been said to-day, it is 
 clear that the spirit of popery is a persecuting and mur¬ 
 derous spirit. Arvine’s calculation is, that about 200,000 
 Christians suffered death in seven years, under pope Julius; 
 no less than 100,000 were massacred in France, in the 
 space of three months; 1,000,000 Waldeuses and Albigenses 
 
171 
 
 were massacred by the papists; 900,000 were destroyed by 
 the Jesuits, within thirty years; 36*000 were executed 
 under the Duke of Alva; 150,000 perished in the Inquisition. 
 
 Besides this vast multitude of slain, many more, of 
 whom the world could never be particularly informed, were* 
 proscribed, banished, chained to the galleys for life, or 
 immured within the horrid walls of the Bastille or other 
 prisons. According to some authorities the whole number 
 of persons massacred since the first few centuries amounts to 
 
 Fifty Millions. 
 
 What an immense slaughter of human beings ! It is 
 equal to the slaughter of the inhabitants of 500 large cities, 
 containing each one hundred thousand people! How 
 horrible to think of such a massacre—50,000,000, or 500 
 lacs of human beings, not only put to death, but put to 
 death, the most of them, in the most cruel manner!!! 
 
 Besides these 500 lacs, or fifty millions of martyrs, there 
 are hundreds of thousands more whose real fate is uot 
 known. Some of them died in dungeons, and others were 
 banished from their country. These things suggest the 
 word of the Psalmist,—“The dark places of the earth are 
 full of the habitations of cruelty.” Ps. lxxiv. 20. Indeed 
 of all the dark places of the earth none have been so 
 full of the habitations of cruelty as the dark places of 
 popery. 
 
 Kal. Brethren, the Lord knows and sees all that is 
 going on in the world, however hidden from our view. 
 According to His blessed Word the time will come when 
 the earth “ shall disclose her blood, and shall no more 
 cover her slain.” Isa. xxvi. 21. The psalmist says: “When 
 He (the Lord) maketh inquisition for blood, He remem- 
 bereth them (His oppressed people): He forgetteth not the 
 cry of the humble.” Ps. ix. 12. Brethren, the Divine 
 
172 
 
 inquisition for blood will be very different from the horrid 
 popish Inquisition, which tormented and slaughtered so 
 many thousands of God’s saints. When the Xiord on the 
 great Day of Judgment will make inquisition for blood, 
 and take account from the popes, and priests, and papists 
 generally, what an awful account that will be! 
 
 Tal. Hearing these things I cannot help saying, Is it 
 possible that the Roman Catholic Church could be so 
 awfully wicked ? Admitting, however, that they were so 
 wicked and murderous in former times, I cannot but think 
 that popery, and the popes and priests, may have changed, 
 for at present they appear to be as quiet and gentle as 
 sheep, and engaged in their own priestly functions, and 
 certainly do not appear to be capable of murdering Protes¬ 
 tants. Perhaps the statements about them may contain 
 exaggerations. Do you really think that such oppression 
 and tyranny could be exercised, and such persecuting and 
 murderous work be done by papists at present ? 
 
 Kal. Dear brother, do you remember the words of warn¬ 
 ing of our Divine Master, when He said, " Beware of 
 false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but 
 inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall, know them by 
 their fruits?” Matt. vii. 15, 16. The papists, if they had 
 the opportunity, would show their wolfish nature. Present 
 circumstances prevent them from showing what they are. 
 At present they seem only to be sowing their popish 
 tares, and spreading their popish creed and maxims as 
 much as they can. But yon may be sure that if they 
 had'the power in this country, and their numbers were 
 larger, they would show their true nature. The fear of 
 Government, however, and the influence of an enlightened 
 public opinion keep them in check; but remember, brother, 
 that—POPERY NEVER CHANGES. Under more favour- 
 
173 
 
 able circumstances they would act differently, and show 
 their persecuting spirit as formerly. 
 
 Taw. In order to prove to you that the spirit of popery 
 is now the same that it ever was, and is only kept down 
 by circumstances, I will mention but one fact. The present 
 pope, Leo XIII., has ordered that in all their colleges or 
 theological institutions “the Theology of Thomas Aquinas 
 must be taught.” This Thomas Aquinas was a famous 
 popish Professor; and one of the canons contained in 
 his book is this: “Wherever there are heretics (t.e., 
 Protestants), admonish them once or twice in kindness, 
 to return to the (popish) Church. If after the second 
 admonition they remain stubborn, they ought to be not 
 only excommunicated from the (popish) Church, but be 
 made over to the head of the Government, to be punished 
 with death.” Kemember this is the opinion of the present 
 pope, and it shows you that, as I said before, the spirit of 
 popery is unchanged and unchangeable. In past ages when 
 they had the power, they, in accordance with their principle, 
 murdered millions of Protestants. And should the Govern¬ 
 ment of this country fall into their hands, they would, 
 following the ^direction of the present pope, carry out the 
 instructions of Thomas Aquinas and be ready to kill every 
 one who is opposed to popery.* We must not be deceived 
 by their appearance in sheep’s clothing, but remember 
 that under the sheep’s clothing there is hidden the un¬ 
 changeable wolfish nature of popery. If the papists should 
 obtain the rule in this country, then evil days would come 
 upon God’s people, and it would then be seen again, as 
 in former times, that the spirit of popery is a persecuting 
 and murderous spirit. May the Lord in mercy preserve 
 us from such a dreadful calamity. 
 
CHAPTER XXI11. 
 
 THE DOGMA OF THE INFALLIBILITY OF /THE POPE. 
 
 Q AIM. Beloved brethren, the subject of our conversa¬ 
 tion to-day is one on which papists are divided 
 among themselves, and which some of their bishops 
 and priests have publicly opposed. It is the doctrine of 
 the Infallibility of the pope. Those who believe it, try 
 to prove it to be scriptural by bringing forward a few 
 passages which have no reference whatever to such a 
 monstrous doctrine. It is however, as I said, a disputed 
 question among papists. 
 
 Tai» Kindly tell me what the papists understand by 
 the doctrine of Infallibility. Does not th% apostle Paul 
 say, that we all by nature are dead in trespasses and sins 
 (Eph. ii. 1); that there is none righteous, no, not one; 
 that there is none that understandeth; that they are all 
 gone out of the way, and are together become unprofitable 
 (Rom. iii. 10.)? How can any one after reading this 
 assert the infallibility of any creature? What do they 
 mean by this strange dogma? 
 
 Taw. Some understand thereby that the pope personally 
 is infallible; others again, that Councils are infallible; and 
 still others say that Councils headed by the pope are in¬ 
 fallible. Bub at a Council held in the Vatican on the 
 
175 
 
 18th of July, 1870, the pope decreed that whenever the 
 Roman pontiff speaks “ex cathedra,” that is, with authority, 
 he is infallible. But we must remember that this decree 
 of the pope was never put to the vote in the Council, 
 because it was known that many bishops present at the 
 Council were opposed to it, and hence it rests on the 
 sole authority of pope Pio Nono; and yet that decree ends 
 in the way in which all the popish dogmas end— If 
 any one presume to contradict this assertion, let him be 
 anathema , i.e., accursed. 
 
 Tal. When the pope says that he is infallible, when¬ 
 ever he speaks “ ex cathedra,” or with authority, does 
 he mean that he has from time to time Divine inspirations, 
 and new Divine revelations which make his statements at 
 such a time infallible ? 
 
 Kal. He may think so, or try to persuade himself that 
 it is so. We know that the popish doctrine is that the 
 Holy Spirit dwells in the Church, and in their opinion 
 the Church means the Roman Catholic community. Of 
 that community the apostle Peter, and the popes after 
 him, are considered by them to be representatives; and 
 hence it is natural that if the Holy Spirit dwelling in 
 the Church intends to make some new revelation to the 
 Church, He will make it through her representative* the 
 pope, and hence, so the papists say, the pope’s statements 
 made “ex cathedra,” or with authority, must be infallible. 
 This being their belief or assertion, we can easily under¬ 
 stand how they can establish all the unscriptural dogmas 
 of popery, such as the worshipping of Mary, and other 
 Saints, and of the Host, and Relics, the Sacrifice of the Mass, 
 the doctrine of Purgatory, &c. If the pope wishes the 
 papists to believe or accept any thing, he has only to say 
 that the Holy Ghost has revealed it to him, as the head 
 
176 
 
 of the Church, aud that it is infallible truth, and hence 
 the whole community has to receive it as from God. 
 
 Tal. This certainly shows that the pope can, in this way, 
 establish any thing he pleases, as of Divine authority. 
 But, please, tell me, if this new idea, or new dogma, differ 
 from, or be opposed to, the old accepted doctrines of the 
 Bible, what would they do? 
 
 Kal. Such a difficulty never arises in the mind of a 
 papist. Popes and priests know but little about the pure 
 contents of the Bible, and they would very rarely consider 
 the point that one statement of the Holy Spirit was opposed 
 to another made at another time. In their opinion it is quite 
 sufficient to know what the pope says, and that settles the 
 question. He is Christ’s vicar on earth, and he must know. 
 
 Tal. Then they are in this respect like the Hindoos, 
 who believe the most contradictory things. 
 
 Qaim. You are right. Sometimes when I preached the 
 Gospel to the Hindoos, I said to them, that they believed 
 things which contradicted each other. For iustance, I said, 
 you believe that God is a Spirit, and that as such He has 
 no shape whatever, and yet you make and worship idols 
 which have form and shape. Are these two things not 
 opposed to eaoh other? Do you never think about that? 
 They replied, Sir, we believe all that our gooroos tell us. 
 We believe that God is a Spirit, and has no form or 
 shape, and we believe also, that He has a shape, and hence 
 we worship idols. Why should we trouble ourselves with 
 things which are beyond our comprehension? We leave 
 that to our priests, and believe and observe what they tell us, 
 for what they say must be right. All that our religion 
 teaches is true, and if not, we leave it to our priests. 
 What do we know about it? Just so, my friend, it is with 
 the Roman Catholics. There certainly are some wise and 
 
177 
 
 discriminating people among them who do not believe all 
 the nonsense told them by the priests, but examine and 
 scrutinize what they are told to believe, and discern truth 
 from error, and facts from fiction; but the opposition in 
 their minds to the lying statements in popery is often so 
 great, that in rejecting them they also reject the truths 
 of the Bible together with them, and, doubting every thing 
 in religion, say with Pilate, “What is truth?” or in other 
 words, Is there any thing true in the world P They 
 externally remain papists, but really believe nothing in 
 religion, and are godless infidels. The popes and priests 
 by their lying and deceiving popish dogmas drive many 
 thinking and reasoning people into infidelity and godless- 
 ness. And the illiterate class of papists accept and believe, 
 without thinking or examining what their priests tell them. 
 They say that if they should allow any doubts to enter 
 their minds, they would at Confession tuve to confess such 
 doubts, or they could not obtain Absolution, and for these 
 doubts they would have to do some disagreeable penance. 
 Brethren, the papists are in a terrible state of spiritual 
 bondage and tyranny, and there is only one way to escape 
 from it—they must renounce popery altogether and turn 
 to the Word of God. 
 
 Taw. If the papists would look into history with an 
 unprejudiced mind, they would soon find out that the dogma 
 of infallibility is false from beginning to end. It is well 
 known that different popes have at different times made 
 statements, declared by them to be infallible, which con¬ 
 tradicted each other, and thereby showed clearly that they 
 could not have been infallible statements. If one “infalli¬ 
 ble” pope asserted a certain thing, which, according to 
 his doctrine of infallibility was a revelation from the Holy 
 Spirit; and another pope, also considered infallible, issued a 
 
178 
 
 mandate opposed to the former, which was also to be con¬ 
 sidered a revelation from the Holy Spirit, then it would follow 
 that the Holy Spirit makes mistakes, giving to one pope a 
 certain revelation, and to another pope another, opposing 
 or nullifying the former, which is, of course, blasphemy. 
 
 Qaim. Some of the popes themselves exhibit the roost 
 convincing demonstration that the dogma of papal infalli¬ 
 bility is an imposture. For instance, pope Adrian VI. says 
 in his Questions, Book X, Article 3: “It is certain that 
 the Roman pontiff may err in those things which belong 
 to faith, and assert heresy by his decision and decretal, 
 for many Roman pontiffs were heretics. I propose to 
 make void that impossibility of erring which others assert.” 
 
 Taw. The fact is, that the so-called infallible statements 
 of the popes are impostures, and the dogma of infallibility 
 itself is an imposition. Let me just bring forward a few 
 facts from the history of popery to prove this point. 
 
 Popes have declared that though in the Lord’s Supper 
 only bread is taken and no wine, yet it is a right and 
 perfect sacrament. Contrary to this, pope Gelasius said 
 that what these former popes asserted was heresy and 
 fraud. Can both these opposite statements be infallible P 
 
 Again, the popes of Rome assumed the title of Universal 
 Bishop, but pope Gregory opposing it declared that it was 
 blasphemy to do so, and that no pope should arrogate 
 Buch a name and title. Where then, I ask, is the infallibility 
 of the popes, if one upsets what others had established ? 
 
 Let us also speak of the great astronomer Galileo, who 
 in the year 1616 discovered and taught the great truth 
 that the sun does not move round the earth, as was gene¬ 
 rally believed, but that the earth revolves round the sun. 
 The pope pronounced this to be not only wrong, but 
 heresy, and compelled Galileo to recant. He then published 
 
179 
 
 throughout popedom that Galileo’s statement, that the earth 
 was a planet, and like other planets moved round the sun, 
 was not true, but that the sun revolves round the earth, 
 and that all people must believe this. Now all educated 
 people, even children in the schools, know that what this 
 “infallible” pope asserted was the result of ignorance, 
 whilst Galileo’s statement was right. What in this case 
 has beoome of the pope’s boasted infallibility ? 
 
 In the year 1590 pope Sixtus Y. had the Bible transla¬ 
 ted into the Latin language, and this translation was call* 
 ed the Yulgate, and was approved by the Council of 
 Trent. This “infallible” pope Sixtus issued with it an 
 unchangeable mandate, that it should be received and used 
 as authentic and authoritative by the whole Bomish 
 community, and that those who did not so regard it 
 
 V 
 
 should be excommunicated from the Church. But after it 
 had been published, the same “ infallible ” pope found that 
 the book which he had declared to be without a mistake was 
 full of mistakes. Hence two years afterwards, in 1592, the 
 “infallible” pope Clement VIII. caused to be made a new 
 translation, a new Yulgate, very different from the first, 
 whioh contained more than 2,000 errors. With this new 
 translation he issued a decree, that whoever would not 
 accept this as correct and without mistake, should be ex¬ 
 communicated from the Church. Now the question natural¬ 
 ly arises, Whose decision as to the correctness and use 
 of his translation was the correct one? Both popes were 
 considered infallible. Was infallible pope Sixtus wrong, or 
 infallible pope Clement ? Both could not be right, for one 
 condemned the work of the other. Whose infallibility 
 turned out fallible ? Or had infallibility itself become 
 fallible ? 
 
 Taw. History informs us that from Gregory I., who was 
 
180 
 
 bishop of Rome in 604, the popes very often pretended 
 that from time to time they had Divine revelations. This 
 false claim reaohed a great height at the time of pope 
 Gregory VII., in 1073, yet he, though very powerful, never 
 claimed infallibility. But the pride and folly of pope Pio 
 Nono rose to such a degree that he decreed it to be a 
 doctrine of popery, and that every one who would not 
 accept it should be accursed. 
 
 Qaim. It is very easy for any one who has the least 
 common seuse to comprehend that when pope is against 
 pope, and Council against Council, none of these mutual 
 opponents can claim infallibility. But should any person, 
 wilfully shutting his eyes, declare that there is no sun in 
 the skies, nothing can be done with him. And if any 
 one, from private reasons, defend a lie, he cannot be 
 convinced of the truth. That is just the state of the popes 
 and papists. They, or a large majority of the papists, 
 must be convinced in their minds that the dogma of 
 infallibility is not true, but they love darkness rather than 
 light, because their deeds are evil. 
 
 Kal. Yes, and let me mention another passage of Scrip¬ 
 ture,—-“They received not the love of the truth, that they 
 might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them 
 strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they 
 all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had 
 pleasure in unrighteousness.” 2 Thess. ii. 30,12. Brethren, 
 this is a passage particularly applicable to popery and 
 papists. Popery is a strong delusion, the masterpiece of the 
 devil, to delude those who “have pleasure in unrighteous¬ 
 ness,” and are willing to “believe a lie.” There are those 
 among them who know the truth, but may the Lord give 
 them also “ the love of the truth, that they might be saved.” 
 Qaim. To this, dear brother, we all say, Amen. 
 
CHAPTER XXIV. 
 
 JESUITISM. 
 FIRST PART. 
 
 T AW. Brethren beloved; In accordance with brother 
 TaliVs request, let us make Jesuitism the subject of 
 our conversation to-day. I have read a great deal 
 about the Jesuits, and what I have read, and to some extent 
 taken from their own writings into my Note-book, I 
 am willing to communicate to you briefly. I must tell you, 
 however, that the godlessness, wickedness, and unscrupu¬ 
 lousness of this Order of monks, practised under the mask 
 of religion, and their dogmas and principles which contain 
 some of the vilest statements, make it any thing but an 
 agreeable task to me. 
 
 Tal. Kindly tell us first of all the origin and meaning 
 of the word “Jesuit.” 
 
 Taw. The founder of the system of Jesuitism, which I shall 
 explain afterwards, gave to his followers the name of “ Society 
 of Jesus;” and from this they became known as members 
 of the “Society of Jesus,” or “Jesuits.” It is a blasphemous 
 name, if we consider, as we shall see presently, that their 
 maxims and principles of action are as far from the religion 
 of the Lord Jesus, as the East is from the West. By calling 
 themselves so they awfully dishonour that holy name, but 
 as they are universally known by the name Jesuits, we shall 
 
182 
 
 retain that name when speaking of them. 
 
 You are aware, gentlemen, that the great Reformation, in 
 which it pleased the Lord to use the reformers Luther, 
 Calvin, Zwiugle and others as instruments to bring it 
 about, took place in the sixteenth century. Before that time 
 the power of the pope and the system of popery extended 
 over most of the Christian countries of Europe, and 
 consequently popish darkness was rampant in all popish 
 countries. But by the preaching and teaching and holy 
 living of the Reformers, the light of the truth of the Gospel 
 gradually spread, and the darkness of popery was gradually 
 dispelled. A great number of witnesses for the truth 
 proclaimed the Gospel; the Bible was translated into the 
 language of the people, and, besides the Word of God, by 
 the hearing of the Gospel, preached from many pulpits, the 
 eyes of the people were opened. A great religious awakening 
 took place of those who had been sleeping in popish 
 darkness, and large numbers, enlightened by the Spirit of 
 truth, gave up popery, and protesting against the errors 
 of that system of errors became Protestants. 
 
 Then the devil was roused. I do not mean to say that 
 this great fiend ever slumbers or sleeps, or that he is ever 
 for a moment remiss in carrying out his determination to 
 deceive and to destroy; but that, when he saw the work 
 and progress of the Reformation, he felt the necessity of 
 increased watchfulness and opposition. When he perceived 
 that by the zeal of the Reformers and faithful Protestant 
 preachers of the Gospel he had suffered a great defeat, and 
 that many thousands of people, who had been his faithful 
 subjects, were leaving him and popery, and were accepting 
 the blessed truths of the Gospel, he devised new means 
 for regaining and securing those whom he had considered 
 his own. He raised up a host of enemies to the Reforma- 
 
183 
 
 tion, and among them selected a certain person of the 
 name of Ignatius Loyola, who, he thought, would bo a fit 
 leader of that host. And he was not mistaken, for 
 Ignatius Loyola, the founder of the Order, and the leading 
 spirit of the Jesuits, was an able and willing tool iu his 
 hands, to carry out his fiendish designs, by whom he hoped 
 to destroy, or at any rate to injure, the work of the 
 Reformation, and regaiu those whom he had lost. 
 
 It is perhaps not neoessary that I should say much about 
 the life of this man, since you all must know about him. 
 
 Tal. Brethren, you may be well acquainted with the 
 life of Ignatius Loyola, and the Order of Jesuits founded 
 by him, but I know but little of him, and shall feel 
 obliged if our brother Tawariklidan will give us a brief 
 account of the man and his followers. 
 
 Taw. Very well, I will do so. Ignatius Loyola, the. 
 founder of the Order of the Jesuits, was of noble ancestry. 
 He became a monk, or popish fakeer, declaring himself 
 to be a knight of the virgin Mary, and remained so 
 for several years. He was fully determined not only to 
 arrest the progress of the Reformation, and the success 
 of the Protestants, but to destroy Protestantism altogether, 
 restore the power of the pope, and re-establish the popish 
 religion. When he announced his purpose to the papists, 
 many of them not only approved of his design, but they 
 also joined him, so that by degrees a considerable number 
 were ready to assist him in carrying out his scheme. Loyola 
 became their teacher and guide, and after the institution 
 of the Order by the confirmatory Bull of the pope, its first 
 General, Loyola, thought that with the help of his associ¬ 
 ates, the number of whom increased rapidly, he would be 
 able in some way or other to destroy the enemies of 
 popery, and to re-establish and confirm the popish hierarchy 
 
134 
 
 throughout the world. 
 
 You know that the monks of the different monasteries 
 took upon themselves three vows—first that of Poverty, 
 by which they pledged themselves to have nothing that 
 they could call their own property; the second that of 
 Chastity, by which they promised, never to marry; and 
 the third that of Perfect Obedience, by which they promised 
 to yield complete, unconditional obedience to the head of 
 their monastery or community. To these three vows 
 Loyola, in order to secure the powerful assistance of the 
 pope, added a fourth one, that of Complete Submission to 
 the pope’s command, by which the Jesuits were to pledge 
 themselves to do whatever the pope would demand from 
 them, of whatsoever nature it might be; to go without 
 the least excuse wherever the pope would be pleased to 
 send them; and never to exercise their own judgment as 
 to the right or the wrong of that which they were com¬ 
 manded to do. Believing in the doctrine of the pope’s 
 infallibility they were to submit without questioning in the 
 least his orders, whether they liked or disliked them. 
 That fourth vow of the Jesuits was an oath of unqualified 
 obedience to the pope. 
 
 The Jesuits have Training Institutions, in which are 
 four classes—Novices, Scholastics, Coadjutors, and Professed 
 Jesuits. In these institutions they instruct the different 
 classes not only in the arts and sciences, but also in all 
 the doctrines of popery, and particularly of the system of 
 Jesuitism. The class of Novices includes lay-persons of 
 both sexes who are chosen from every rank and profession. 
 They may be lawyers, physicians, schoolmasters and 
 mistresses, hotel-keepers, monthly nurses, servants, police¬ 
 men, &c. They are of the greatest service to the Order, 
 and generally the most dangerous to the truth, because 
 
185 
 
 they mix with all classes of people and are ever intent 
 on seducing Protestants. When men of the first class 
 serve their probation as Novices, they become Scholastics, 
 and may study philosophy, physics, mathematics, or theology. 
 Having passed their examination as Scholastics, and taken 
 the three vows of a monk, they become Coadjutors, or 
 assistants to Professed Jesuits* and thus trained they 
 become a well disciplined host under one General of 
 approved energy and subtilty. They may be found in 
 almost every city, particularly in schools and colleges. The 
 fourth class, that of Professed Jesuits, are entrusted with 
 the more important affairs of the Order throughout the 
 world. Having passed the examinations of these four 
 classes, which are very strict,—and having become well 
 trained in all the popish doctrines and practices, and in 
 the different arts and sciences,—and having become well 
 acquainted with the Jesuitic principles and tactics,—and 
 taken the Jesuitic “Oath of Secrecy,” and the fourth vow, 
 that of complete obedience to the orders of the pope, 
 they are sent forth to places appointed by the General of 
 the Order, to do there the work assigned them. 
 
 Their organization is a military one, directed and com¬ 
 manded by one person, who is called the General, and 
 who, skilfully and constantly aiming to counteract and, if 
 possible, destroy Protestantism everywhere, directs all the 
 movements and actions of the Jesuit-army, emphatically 
 called “ the formidable Militia of the Roman See.” Though 
 scattered throughout the world, they are knit together as 
 one man, with one aim, under the command and guidance of 
 their superior, and the General. The first General was Loyola 
 himself, and after him the ablest, most unscrupulous and 
 most influential Jesuits have been elected to become his 
 
 successors. 
 
186 
 
 The whole body of Jesuits have been taught to submit 
 their will entirely to their superior, and all of them to 
 the mandate of the General. They are never to question 
 what is right, and what is wrong, but merely and entirely 
 follow the order of their superior, and to consider that 
 to be the will of God. The right or wrong in a cause 
 is to rest completely with the commanding officer, and 
 they are to consider themselves merely tools or instru¬ 
 ments in his hand, to carry out his plans. Should they 
 in their own minds think that the order is wrong, they 
 are to leave that to him, their only duty being to be per¬ 
 fectly obedient to their superior, and to carry out his 
 orders. 
 
 Tal. Is it really possible for a man with a conscience 
 to act in such a way? Could he, when receiving an order 
 from the General, or a superior subordinate to the General, 
 do a thing which he knows is bad, because it is opposed 
 to God’s command ? If, for instance, his superior order 
 him to kill a certain person, who is a determined opponent 
 to Romanism, could his conscience allow him to do this, 
 he knowing that the Divine command is, Thou shalt not 
 kill? 
 
 Taw. Conscience ? conscience ? my friend ! A Jesuit is 
 supposed to have no conscience of his own. His conscien¬ 
 tiousness is to move only within the circle of consciousness 
 that he has to the fullest extent performed the order, 
 whatever it may be. He has promised unconditional obe¬ 
 dience to his superior, and if, in obedience to the order 
 of his superior, he has murdered any one, according to 
 Jesuitic principles he has done a meritorious act, because 
 he has been obedient to orders. The sinfulness of the 
 act, absolutely considered, will rest, so he is taught, up¬ 
 on the head of him who ordered it. 
 
187 
 
 Brother Talib t it is one of the rules of Jesuitism that 
 an act, however bad it may be thought to be—to defraud, 
 to bear false witness, to take a false oath, to act the 
 traitor, to utter falsehoods, or to kill, or commit any other 
 crime against God’s law—if it be ordered by the General, 
 or any superior Jesuitic officer, it must be done by the 
 subordinate, and is no sin, but a praiseworthy act of 
 obedience. This is indeed an awful perversion of conscience, 
 but it is nevertheless good Jesuitism. 
 
 Tal. Would the thought not arise in the man’s heart, 
 that on one side there is the superior’s order, to kill a 
 man, and on the other side God’s commaudmeut, Thou shall 
 not kill p Is not God greater than man ? If man’s 
 command be opposed to God’s, should we not obey God 
 rather than man? 
 
 Taw. A Jesuit is not taught or allowed to argue in 
 this way. Their Jesuitic rules tell him that the General 
 is in the place of the Lord Jesus, nay, mor.e, he should 
 be considered to be the Lord Jesus. The General’s com¬ 
 mand must be considered the command of the Lord Jesus. 
 They are taught that if the General or superior is pleased 
 with them, the Lord Jesus is pleased with them; and if 
 he is displeased, the Lord Jesus is displeased. 
 
 Kal. I read in a book that in accordance with Jesuitic 
 rules, a Jesuit must think himself, before his superior, 
 to be, as it were, a dead man. As you may turn a 
 dead body this way or that way, and move its arms 
 hither or thithor, or may put his legs to the right or 
 the left, just so must the mind of a good Jesuit be 
 in the hands of his superior. He must never consult his 
 own wishes but execute the wishes of his superior. The 
 question with him is not, What does the Lord Jesus say? 
 bub, "\Yhat does my superior demand, who is now in the 
 
133 
 
 place of the Lord Jesus? 
 
 Taw. It is important to know that the General of the 
 Jesuit host, and his subordinate officers, place their agents 
 very skilfully iu different countries, and different places of 
 each country, so that they may see and hear and know 
 all that is going on there, and wherever they are placed 
 to break down or check the power and success of Pro¬ 
 testantism, and to establish, re-establish or strengthen the 
 power of the pope and the spread of popery; and every 
 Jesuitic officer communicates all that he sees or hears to 
 his superior, and seeks orders as to his duties under 
 the circumstances; and whatever orders he receives, he 
 endeavours to carry out, in some way or other, whether 
 publicly or privately, as opportunity offers. 
 
 Qaim. We must also remember, that a papist has in 
 his Confession to tell the priest the whole state of his 
 heart, and to answer any question-which the priest may 
 put to him, not only regarding himself, but also regarding 
 things connected with the progress or otherwise of popery, 
 and may hide nothing from him, if he wishes to obtain 
 Absolution. This is a powerful means in the hands of the 
 Jesuit priests for collecting all desired information to 
 communicate to the General. In reality the organisation 
 of the Jesuits is planned and worked with such diabolical 
 shrewdness and farsightedness, that it is no wonder their 
 power and influence have grown up to the degree they 
 have reached almost everywhere. 
 
 The working of this Order may be compared to the 
 circulation of the blood in the human body. It is sent by 
 the action of the heart throughout the body to the 
 farthest extremities, giving life and nourishment to every 
 part; and is brought back by the same power, to be 
 vitalized and sent back again with new stimulating and 
 
189 
 
 enlivening power. 
 
 Thus it is with the Order of the Jesuits. From the 
 General of the Order, who is the heart of the system, and 
 the source of its authority, mandates are sent out to the 
 whole world, stimulating the energies, and directing the 
 movements of every member, from the highest to the 
 lowest. From all these agents go back reports of the 
 effects produced by these energies, and the success of those 
 movements; and the knowledge thus sent back to the 
 central authority and governing power, is utilized in 
 framing new orders, or altering old ones to meet change 
 of circumstances. And the influence of these orders is felt 
 not only among common people, but also in palaces, in 
 parliaments, in courts of justice, in schools and colleges, 
 &c., and their effect has always been, and is, for evil. By 
 their dissimulations, detractions, seditions and secret work¬ 
 ing they have created strife between kings and kings, 
 States and States, raising rebellions, murdering princes, and 
 stirring up seditions everywhere, have caused satanic plots, 
 and done immense mischief in the world. 
 
 I have more to say on this Order of the Jesuits, but 
 we must leave it for our next meeting. 
 
CHAPTER XXV. 
 
 JESUITISM. 
 SECOND PART. 
 
 Q AIM. Brother Tawarikhdan gave us in our last con¬ 
 versation a description of the Order of Jesuits, for 
 which we are much obliged. He then said that he 
 had something more to say about them, which we shall 
 now be glad to hear. 
 
 Taw. The subject of our last conversation was the 
 origin, organization and principles of that wretched Order 
 of papists—the Jesuits, 
 
 History tells us that many of the excellent of the earth, 
 kings, nobles, bishops, ministers and professors of institu¬ 
 tions of learning, who opposed the claims and corruptions 
 of popery, have been murdered by the dark, murderous 
 plots and agents of the officers of that satanic Order. The 
 Jesuits and their emissaries are found almost everywhere, 
 and are all under the appointment and direction of their 
 General or Principal, to watoh and wait for every oppor¬ 
 tunity to carry out his orders. They consider themselves 
 free from submission to any Protestant Government, and 
 subject only to the pope, and the head of their Order. 
 This is clearly professed in the ‘‘Jesuit’s Oath of Secrecy.” 
 I have a copy of it in my book, and will now read 
 it to you. 
 
191 
 
 “Jesuit’s Oath of Secrecy.’* 
 
 “I, A. B., now in the presence of Almighty God, 
 “the blessed virgin Mary, the blessed Michael the 
 “archangel* the blessed St. John Baptist, the holy 
 “apostles St. Peter and St. Paul, and the Saints and 
 “sacred Host of heaven, and to you my ghostly father, 
 “do declare from my heart, without mental reservation, 
 
 “ that his holiness, pope -, is Christ’s vicar 
 
 “general, and is the true and only head of the 
 “Catholic or Universal Church throughout the earth; 
 “and that by virtue of the keys of binding and Joosing, 
 “given to his holiness by my Saviour Jesus Christ, 
 “ he hath power to depose heretical * kings, princes, states, 
 “ commonwealths and governments, all being illegal with - 
 “out His sacred confirmation, and that they may safely 
 “ be destroyed. Therefore to the utmost of my power I 
 “shall and will defend this doctrine, and His Holiness’ 
 “rights and customs, against all usurpers of the 
 “heretical or Protestant authority whatsoever, especial- 
 “ly against the now pretended authority and Church 
 “of England, and all adherents, in regard that they 
 “and she be usurpal and heretical, opposing the sacred 
 “mother-Church of Borne. I do renounce and disown 
 “any allegiance as due to any heretical king, prince, 
 u or state named Protestant, or obedience to any of their 
 “ inferior magistrates or officers. I do further declare 
 “that the doctrine of the Church of England, of the 
 “ Calvinists, Huguenots, and others of the name of 
 “Protestants, to be damnable, and they themselves 
 “are damned, and to be damned, that will not forsake 
 “the same. I do further declare that I will help, 
 
 # i,e Protestant. 
 
192 
 
 “assist, and advise all, or any of His Holiness’ agents 
 “in any place wherever I shall be, in England, Scotland, 
 “and Irelaud, or in any territory or kingdom I shall 
 “come to, and do my utmost to extirpate the heretical 
 “Protestant’s doctrine, and to destroy all their pretended 
 “powers , regal or othenvise. I do further promise and 
 “declare, that notwithstanding I am dispensed with, 
 “to assume any religion heretical, for the propagation 
 “of the mother-Church’s interest, to keep secret and 
 “private all her agents’ counsels from time to time, 
 “as they instruct me, and not to divulge directly or 
 “indirectly, by word, writing, or circumstance whatso¬ 
 ever; but to execute all that shall be proposed, given 
 “in charge, or discovered unto me by you, my ghostly 
 “father, or by any of this sacred convent. All which 
 
 “I, A. B., do swear by the blessed Trinity, and 
 
 “blessed Sacrament, which I now am to receive, to 
 “perform, and on my part to keep inviolably. And 
 “I do call all the heavenly and glorious Host of heaven , 
 “to ivitness these my real intentions, and to keep this 
 “my oath. In testimony hereof I take this most holy 
 “and blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist: and witness 
 “the same further with my hand and seal in the 
 “face of this holy convent.”* 
 
 According to this “Oath of Secrecy,” the Jesuit considers 
 it his duty, to live and labour only for the pope and 
 
 popery, and to regard the oommand of the pope above the 
 
 command of his sovereign. By this oath he binds himself, 
 if the interests of popery and the command of the head 
 of his Order require it, not only to raise rebellion against 
 his sovereign, but to seek the overthrow of his government, 
 
 * Foxes and Firebrands, Usher. 
 
193 
 
 and the destruction of the sovereign himself. He binds ] 
 himself also to use any artifice and to assume any garb 
 of deception, that he may deem necessary for the secret 
 execution of these diabolical orders. 
 
 In accordance with this diabolical “ Oath of Secrecy,” and 
 these Satanic orders from head-quarters, the Jesuits have 
 murdered kings and princes, have overthrown governments, 
 created rebellions, caused massacres, and committed the 
 most nefarious deeds against individuals, both high or low, 
 and against communities, both religious and political. Most 
 if not all of the massacres that have happened have been 
 caused, directly or indirectly, by the Jesuits in the service 
 of popery. Millions of God’s saints have been thus 
 butchered by them. I would call your attention to only 
 one of these massacres instigated by the Jesuits, that of 
 Bartholomew’s Night in France. In that dreadful massacre 
 one hundred thousand Protestants were slaughtered. In 
 Paris heaps of the dead bodies of murdered Christians 
 could be seen in the streets, and the river Seine was 
 reddened with their blood. All this was done by the king 
 and his bigoted mother, who were under the murderous 
 influence of the Jesuits. 
 
 Kal. Brethren, there is in the Word of God a passage 
 which truly and exactly describes the system of Jesuitism. 
 David says in one of the psalms,—“Shall the throne of 
 iniquity have fellowship with Thee, which frameth mischief 
 by a law?” Ps. xciv. 20. The Jesuits have a throne or 
 seat of government . It is a throne of iniquity, and as such 
 has of course no fellowship with, or approval of, God. And 
 this throne, this governing power, has framed, has enacted 
 the greatest mischiefs, the greatest wrongs, the greatest 
 crimes, and, at the same time, justifies these crimes by law! 
 
 The application of this passage to the Jesuits is very 
 
 12 
 
194 
 
 plain. They have a throne, a governing power. It 'is a 
 throne of iniquity, for it has no fellowship with God, takes 
 no counsel from Him. It therefore enacts whatever 
 
 mischief and wickedness as are necessary for the accomplish¬ 
 ment of their purposes, and then ‘justifies themselves and 
 their agents by a code of morals or maxims of their own 
 enactment. One of their Maxims is that “the end justifies 
 the means.” Their chief end is to defend and promote 
 
 the interests of popery. This they consider also their 
 
 chief good. This good end, then, justifies any means, 
 
 however wicked, which may be deemed necessary for its 
 accomplishment. This is a most dangerous and mischievous 
 doctrine. 
 
 Tal. Dear friend, that very Jesuitic maxim is to a great 
 extent brought into practice also by many who are not 
 Jesuits, by many even who have the reputation of being 
 true Christians. For instance, an appeal is made to the 
 Christian community to contribute something toward the 
 support of a hospital, or some other charitable institution. 
 The end or purpose is good, and the simplest way to 
 accomplish it would be to contribute from one’s own 
 money. But very often worldly means, certain kinds of 
 theatricals, or shows, or plays, or fairs, or other worldly 
 means, are used as means to collect the money required. 
 The means are worldly, not Christian, but it is thought by 
 many that they must be considered good, because they 
 are means for a good purpose. Thus the Jesuitic maxim, 
 that the end justifies the means, is acted on by many 
 who in theory denounce Jesuitism. 
 
 Kal. Friend, what you say is but too true, but whether 
 practised by Jesuits, or so-called Christians, the principle is 
 bad, for the end, if ever so good, can never justify bad 
 or unscriptural means. The Jesuits apply this principle 
 
195 • 
 
 extensively, and thus justify many of their wicked doings, 
 and most awful crimes. Let me mention a case to explain 
 what X mean. They hear of a certain Protestant who is 
 zealous in his efforts, in writing, speaking and acting 
 against the spread of popery. They are determined to stop 
 his doings. They consider this end or purpose a right 
 thing to do. They find, however, that merely to warn or 
 intimidate that person will have no effect, and they come 
 to the conclusion that the only way left open to them, in 
 order to sileuce him, is to kill him, by shooting him, or 
 poisoning him, or in some other way murdering him 
 secretly. It is true that to kill a person is considered to 
 be a wicked thing, opposed both to divine and human 
 law, but according to Jesuitic law it is a good thing to 
 silence effectually an opponent to popery, and—“the end 
 justifies the meaus.” Whatever Protestauts may think, 
 Jesuits persuade themselves that they have performed a 
 good act. That passage from the Psalms which I mentioned 
 before is truly applicable to the awfully wicked doings of 
 the Jesuits, testified also by history, that the throne or 
 government of the iniquity of Jesuitism has framed mischief 
 by a law; but the question preceding it, as put to the 
 Lord, is also true, “ Shall the throne of iniquity have 
 fellowship with Thee P ” No; a law framed for wicked 
 purposes is a wicked law, beoause opposed to the justice 
 and righteousness of God. 
 
 Tal. When Loyola established the Order of Jesuits, and 
 laid the scheme before the pope, did the pope approve 
 of it? 
 
 Taw. Paul III. who was pope at the time when the 
 Order was established, after considering Loyola’s plans well, 
 saw clearly that the Jesuits would be a source of great 
 help to him, in restoring and strengthening his power. On 
 
196 
 
 account of the Reformation the power and influence of 
 popery had been greatly diminished. The preaohing of the 
 Gospel -by the Reformers and Protestant ministers, the 
 printed Bible read by the people in their own language, 
 and the many books and tracts published by anti-papists, 
 in explaining and propagating Gospel truth, and in exposing 
 the wickedness of popes and priests, opened the eyes of 
 the people, large numbers of whom renounced popery and 
 protested against it, so that the whole edifice of popery 
 was shaken and threatened to fall. Under these circum¬ 
 stances the pope believed that the Jesuits would be a great 
 help to him; for they, according to their fourth vow, 
 were obliged to be perfectly submissive to him, and to 
 carry out his orders to the whole extent of their power. 
 They consequently received in the year 1540 the con¬ 
 firmatory Bull from the pope, which is the Charter of 
 the “Society of Jesus.” From that time the Society was 
 constituted an organization of extraordinary force and 
 dimension. Their number increased rapidly, and they, in 
 right earnest, made new and increased efforts to put the 
 popish yoke upon the neck of the people. In this way they 
 became a powerful help to Romanists in their efforts to 
 strengthen and propagate popery. 
 
 But gradually popes and papists in general, monks and 
 courtiers, judges and magistrates, Churches and public 
 schools, kings and their subjects, grew tired of them. They 
 saw their treachery, rapacity, ambition and immorality, 
 their efforts to oreate rebellions, instigate massacres and 
 assassinations; and they saw that wheresoever the Jesuits got 
 power in their hands, and the Order became established, 
 there wickedness of every kind was on the increase. They 
 therefore resolved to expel them from their countries. 
 
 Bop© Clement XIV. also, seeing that their iniquitous 
 
197 
 
 dealings were beyond endurance, after a long and search¬ 
 ing inquiry published the following Bull of suppression:— 
 “After a mature deliberation we do, out of our 
 “certain knowledge, and the fulness of our apostolical 
 “ power, suppress and abolish the said Company , abro¬ 
 gate and annul its statutes, rules, customs, decrees 
 “and constitutions, even though confirmed by oath, 
 “and approved by the Holy See, or otherwise. We 
 “declare all, and all kind of authority—the General, 
 “the provincials, the visitors and other superiors of 
 “the said Society— to be for ever annulled and extin - 
 u guished, so that the name of the Company shall be, 
 “and is, for ever extinguished and suppressed. Our 
 “will and pleasure is, that these our letters should 
 ,( for ever, and to all eternity, be valid, permanent and 
 “ eficaeious, have and obtain their full force and effect, 
 “and be inviolably observed by all and every whom 
 “ they do and may concern, now or hereafter, in any 
 “ manner whatever.” 
 
 When the pope had affixed his signature to the Bull, 
 he said: “I know that the Jesuits, on account of my 
 having suppressed and abolished their power, will kill me, 
 but I know that what I have done is right.” What he 
 predicted came to pass. A year afterwards, in 1774, pope 
 Clement was poisoned by the Jesuits. 
 
 *In consequence of this Bull, and of their having, on 
 account of their awful intrigues, been driven out of several 
 countries, the power and influence of the Jesuits were for 
 forty years very much less, but in the year 1814 pope Pio 
 VII. restored that godless Society to their former power. 
 
 Tal. Brethren, how strange, if people would only con¬ 
 sider it, that the “infallible” pope Paul III. should confirm 
 the Order of the Jesuits, and that, contrary to this con- 
 
198 
 
 firmation, another “infallible” pope, Clement XIV., should, 
 by a new Bull, make pope Paul fallible, by suppressing 
 them. And then again, that a third “ iufallible ” pope, 
 Pio VII., should declare pope Clement’s Bull null and 
 void, making him thereby fallible, aud restore the Society of 
 the Jesuits to their former power. Such an “infallibility” 
 is really a mysterious affair. And how the present 
 pope, Leo XIII., oan attempt to declare the pope’s 
 “infallibility” a dogma of their community exceeds my 
 power of comprehension. 
 
 Qaim. Brethren, you have heard that the Jesuits have 
 come also to this country, and have begun their work of 
 lying and deceit, particularly among Native Christian 
 communities. You know that it is a custom of popish 
 . priests to settle down, and establish their own popish mission 
 in the midst of Protestant Native congregations, conver¬ 
 ted from Hindooism and Muhammedanism, and among 
 them do their satanic work of perverting them to popery, 
 and this work of perversion is directed by Jesuit 
 priests. There is plenty of true missionary work that 
 could be done by them, if they were true missionaries of 
 the Lord Jesus, among the Hindoo idolaters and Muham- 
 medans, in preaching the Gospel to them, and trying to 
 convert them, but such work is laborious and toilsome. 
 They therefore prefer stealing sheep from Protestant flocks, 
 and perverting them to popery. 
 
 Kal. Gentlemen, how can you expect them to preach 
 the Gospel? They are themselves ignorant of the Word 
 of God, aud generally do not read it themselves as you 
 say. If they will not allow the reading of the Word of 
 God to the members of their own community, how oould 
 they be expected to preach the Word of God to outsiders, 
 in order to bring them the knowledge of the truth P 
 
199 
 
 All that they generally teach their own members consists 
 in rites, and ceremonies, and idolatrous worship, and that 
 is not the Gospel. The Master’s command is,—“Preach 
 the Gospel; ” but what can they preach, who do not be¬ 
 lieve in the pure Gospel; nay, worse, who very often do 
 not know it at all P 
 
CHAPTER XXVI. 
 
 JESUITISM. 
 THIRD PART, 
 
 T AW. Brethren, in our last conversation we spoke of 
 the mischievous doings of the Jesuits in general , but 
 we must now enter a little more particularly into 
 their iniquitous system of morality, or rather immorality, 
 for it is that in reality. In speaking to you about it, let 
 me tell you that I shall mention only the acts and facts, 
 the statements and testimonies, contained in their own writ¬ 
 ings. In order to bring these statements clearly and concisely 
 before you, I underwent once more the awful trial of 
 reading about them, their doings, their maxims, their rules 
 and dogmas, their perversions of God’s law by their 
 Jesuitic philosophy, and in doing that I felt as if I was 
 walking through an accumulation of filth. I could not help 
 saying, 0 Lord, is it possible that man can sink so deep 
 in sin and darkness! I still remember that when I read 
 about them the first time, I thought that it could not be 
 all true, and that very possibly Protestant writers may 
 have made wrong statements or at least exaggerations, 
 but when I found that the statements of Protestant writers 
 were corroborated by Jesuit authors themselves, I could 
 not doubt their truthfulness and the wilful blindness and# 
 immorality of the Jesuits, 
 
201 
 
 Kal. It is a verification of that passage in Isaiah of 
 which we spoke on a former occasion, where the prophet 
 pronounces a “ Woe unto them that call evil good, and 
 good evil; that pub darkness for light, and light for dark¬ 
 ness.” Isa. v. 20. This is exactly the case with the Jesuits. 
 
 Qaim. What you say is but too true. A few days ago I 
 was reading about the Jesuits and Jesuitism, and I assure 
 you that when I read it, a certain gruesome feeling came 
 over me, and I could not help calling out, May God forbid! 
 
 Taw. And let us now take into consideration the fact 
 that these very ministers of darkness, the Jesuits, who 
 for more than three hundred years have been carrying 
 on their works of darkness, are now in our midst, in 
 Hindustan, trying in their sheep’s clothing, but with the 
 hidden nature of wolves, to enter into Christian congre¬ 
 gations, to seduce them or destroy them, and have met 
 with a certain degree of success. Does it not show the 
 necessity of our own watchfulness, and of endeavouring 
 to open the eyes of our brethren in this country, to show 
 them the real nature of popery, and Jesuitism ? Let us now 
 enter a little into the particulars of Jesuit rules of morality, 
 and the iniquitous principles by which they are guided/ 
 
 These written rules and principles of the Order of 
 Jesuits were for a long time kept secret, but were at last 
 discovered. This volume of rules, called “ Secreta Monita 
 Societatis Jesu," —The Secret Instructions of the Society of 
 Jesus, —was found by Christian , Duke of Brunswic, when 
 he took the city of Paderborn, in Germany, where it had 
 been secreted in the Jesuit College of that place, and 
 the manuscript copy of it is preserved in the library 
 of the British Museum, where it may be seen. In the 
 preface of that volume there are these words,—“ This book 
 is only for. the instruction of Novices.” And it is added. 
 
202 
 
 “ Great care must be taken, that they do not fall into the 
 hands of strangers, because 'they would put an improper 
 construction upon them, out of envy to our Order. But 
 should it happen, which may God forbid, then let them deny 
 that these are the sentiments of the Society, confirming 
 this by members they know to be ignorant of them.” 
 
 Brethren, if any one knows but a little of this book, 
 he will soon learn why it had been secreted so long, for 
 the Jesuits did not wish that their dark deeds and maxims 
 should come to light. 
 
 Not only from these “ Secret Instructions,” but from 
 other documents of the Jesuits also, and from books by 
 different authors held in high esteem by Jesuits, it is 
 clearly seen that the rules and maxims of that Society 
 are extremely vile and abominable, of which I will now 
 give you some specimens. They consist mainly of quota¬ 
 tions made from Jesuit writings, collected by Protestant 
 writers, and copied by me in my book of Notes which I 
 will read to you. They are as follows:— 
 
 “ The pope may depose kings , and deprive them of their 
 kingdoms. He may also decide their differences, that may 
 arise between princes, concerning temporal matters; he 
 may reverse their laws, and supersede their edicts. * 
 
 “If a prince should become a heretic ( i.e ., a Protestant), 
 or schismatic, the pope may use the temporal sword 
 
 against him, and drive him from his kingdom. 
 
 After such king has been declared to be deprived of his 
 kingdom, any man has a right to kill him. "f 
 
 “It is true, it is more magnanimous and generous to 
 declare your hatred, and to assail the enemy of the State 
 openly, but it is no less laudable to seize some favourable 
 occasion, and to use deceit and ambuscades in order to per- 
 
 * Molina. 
 
 + Suarez, 
 
208 
 
 form the act with less peril.” * 
 
 “If a judge has received money, to give an unjust 
 judgment, it is probable that he ought to keep the money, 
 for this is the judgment of fifty-eight Jesuit doctors.” f 
 
 The use of so-called Mental Reservation, in order to 
 deceive, is a common trick among Jesuits. The Jesuit 
 Sanchez says: “A person may swear he has not done 
 a thing, although he has done it really, if he means 
 inwardly that he did not do it on a certain day, or before 
 he was born; or if he partly means some other like 
 circumstance, without the words which he uses having 
 any sense, that might be able to make it known. And 
 this is very right whenever it is necessary or useful.” 
 
 You see, my friends, that according to this trick of 
 Mental Reservation a Jesuit may, though he has committed 
 a crime, state upon oath that he had not done it, by 
 applying a Mental Reservation, as for instance—“ not done, in 
 France ;” or “not done, sitting on the roof of my house." 
 The words, Not done, he would utter so that all could hear 
 it; and the remaining ones, in France, or sitting on the 
 roof of my house, he would add in his mind only , 
 without any one’s knowing them besides himself. If he 
 possesses sufficient rascality to do so, he, according to 
 Jesuit morality, does not tell an untruth but the truth, 
 for Sanchez says, “ This is very right, whenever it is 
 necessary or useful.” 
 
 Brethren, in accordance with this horrid Jesuit maxim, 
 a man may commit any crime, theft, robbery, murder, 
 adultery, &c., and yet be declared guiltless by the judge. 
 The judge may, for instance, put the question to him, 
 whether he had committed rape, of which he is accused, 
 and although he knows that he has commited that crime, 
 
 Marina. f Father Taberna, 
 
204 
 
 he may state on oath that he had not done it, with this 
 addition in his mind— not done it in the public street. 
 This trick of Mental Reservation used by Jesuits shows 
 us what lying and deceitful creatures they are. No one 
 can believe their words, even though they make their 
 statements on oath. 
 
 I will now read again from my book of Notes. The 
 Jesuit Escobar says: “It is allowable to kill by treason 
 one who is proscribed ... It is equally allowable to put 
 to death those who injure us in the estimation of princes , 
 or persons of distinction” 
 
 Escobar was asked, “On what occasion may a monk 
 leave off his monk’s dress, without incurring excommuni¬ 
 cation.” His reply was, “ He may leave it off, if it is for 
 a purpose that would cause shame, as that he may go 
 on a swindling excursion, or in order to go incognito to a 
 place of debauchery ” 
 
 Being asked whether servants may take of the property 
 belonging to their masters, Escobar said: “They may in 
 certain circumstances, as when they are so poor, on applying 
 for a place, that they are obliged to accept the offer made 
 to them, and provided other servants of their sort are 
 receiving more elsewhere.” 
 
 Another Jesuit says: “ Domestic servants may take secretly 
 the goods of their masters, by way of compensation, under 
 the plea that their wages are too small; and they are not 
 compelled to restore them.” # 
 
 “ It is lawful to dissemble the true faith for a while, 
 in consideration of any serious inconvenience that might 
 arise from public profession.”! 
 
 * Treatise on Penitence, by Kaleze Reginald* 
 t Casus Conscienticae, by Qury* 
 
205 
 
 “ Do what your conscience tells you to be good and 
 commanded. If through invincible error you believe lying 
 or blasphemy to be commanded by God—BLASPHEME. 
 There is an implied law, which is this: Obey an invincibly 
 erroneous dictate of conscience. As often as you believe 
 invincibly that a lie is commanded, LIE.”* 
 
 “ If an adulterer, even although he should be an eccle¬ 
 siastic, reflecting upon the danger, has entered the house 
 of an adulteress, and being attacked by her husband kills 
 his aggressor in necessary defence of his life or limbs, 
 he is not considered IRREGULAR.” f 
 
 “If you are preparing to give false evidence against 
 me, by which I should receive sentence of death, and I 
 have no other means of escape, it is lawful for me to hill 
 you, since otherwise I should be killed myself; for it would 
 be immaterial in such a case, whether you kill me with 
 your or another man’s sword, as for instance that of the 
 executioner.” | 
 
 “ If a judge has been unjust and had proceeded (in 
 trial) without adhering to the course of the law, then 
 certainly the accused might defend himself by assaulting, 
 and even by hilling the judge, because in that case he 
 cannot be called a judge, but an unjust aggressor or 
 tyrant.” || 
 
 The same Jesuit says: “It is lawful fora son to rejoice 
 at the murder of his parent, committed by himself in a 
 state of drunkenness, on account of the great riches thence 
 acquired by inheritance.” || 
 
 The following question and answer are from another 
 celebrated Jesuit author: “If you endeavour to ruin my 
 
 * Casnedi. + Henriquez. J Valerius Reginald. 
 || Stephen Fagundez, 
 
206 
 
 reputation by false impeachment before a prince, or judge, 
 or man of distinguished rank, and I cannot by any means 
 avert this injury of character, unless I kill you secretly, 
 may I lawfully do it ? Bauney asserts that I may. The 
 right of defence extends itself to every thing which is 
 necessary for insuring protection from every injury. Still 
 the calumniator should first bo warned, that ho desist 
 from his slander; and if he will not, he should be hilled, 
 not openly, on account of the scandal, but SECRETLY.’** 
 The “ Secret Instructions ” and books by different authors 
 held in high esteem by Jesuits, teach as follows:—(Visit¬ 
 ing Jesuits.) “In order to render themselves pleasing to the 
 inhabitants of a place (which they visit), they are to 
 explain that the object of the Society is to apply its efforts 
 as much for the good of others as themselves; therefore 
 they must undertake the humblest offices in the hospitals, 
 visit the sick, afflicted, and prisoners, and hear confessions 
 indiscriminately, in order that the most influential 
 inhabitants of the place may admire them, because of the 
 extraordinary charity they bear to all.”—“As much money 
 as possible is to be obtained from widows, by constantly 
 setting before them our necessities.”—“ One chief point will 
 be to remove little by little such servants as have not an 
 understanding with our Society , to get in others recom¬ 
 mended by persons depending upon us; for by these 
 means we shall have intimate knowledge of all that passes 
 in the family.”—“Wherever the members reside, they must 
 secure the physician friendly to us, and let him be 
 recommended to the sick, that he in turn, praising the 
 Order above all others may have us called in to the 
 wealthy, and especially to the dying.”—“Let wives who 
 complain of the vices and ill tempers of their husbands be 
 
 # Airault. 
 
207 
 
 instructed, secretly to abstract money, that by matting an 
 offering thereof to God they might expiate the crimes of their 
 sinful helpmates, and secure a pardon for them.” —’‘‘The 
 difficulty being greater to draw the sons of nobles, persons 
 of distinction, and senators, while under their parent’s 
 roof, because of training them for their own situations, 
 persuade them, by our friends rather than ourselves, to 
 send them to remote universities, where our members 
 teach, in order that they may be more securely and easily 
 won over, first transmitting to our professors their rank 
 and station.”—“The greatest discretion must be used in 
 convincing kings and princes that the Catholic faith cannot 
 (in the present state of things) be maintained without the 
 civil power, for by these means our members will get into 
 favour with those high in office, and be admitted into their 
 secret councils.” —We shall derive no small advantage from 
 secretly and skilfully fomenting the animosities that arise 
 among the great, in order to reduce their strength.”—“Let 
 unanimity characterise our members, even in the smallest 
 matters, because by this, whatever confusion arises in the 
 world, we must necessarily strengthen and maintain our 
 ground.” 
 
 Dear brethren, I have here with me also a copy of 
 some of the deceitful transactions of the Jesuits at the 
 time of the Council of Trent, which I will read to you. 
 “ Through one Samuel Mason, who was brought up among 
 the Jesuits at Paris, we learn that instructions were sent 
 from the Council of Trent, in the year 1551, to the Jesuits 
 at Paris. The messenger was Ludovich Be FreaJce, formerly 
 a priest in England. He brought from the Council several 
 kinds of indulgences and instructions for the Society, to 
 undertake, and grant, and teach. Some of the instructions 
 were as follows:—The Jesuits were to take notice of the 
 
208 
 
 confessions of the people of France, especially of the 
 nobles and gentry, and in case they suspected anything 
 detrimental to the Church of Rome, they were to 
 confer with three or more Confessors respecting their 
 suspicions, and take memoranda of certain questions to 
 be asked of the party so suspected the next time he 
 confessed. The instructions also contained the following:— 
 “ You are to associate with all strangers, heretical as 
 well as Christian Catholic; if heretical, to be civil, and 
 not to discover your profession; and for the better pro¬ 
 curement of these designs, or to be accomplished, 
 with leave of any three of the Society, be permit 
 wear what dress or habit you think convenient, p led 
 the Society hear from the party so dispensed. Any ou, 
 
 thus dispensed with, may go with the heretics to of 
 
 their heretical meetings, permitted by acts or contracts of 
 peace between princes. By this contrivance ye may both 
 inform] the Mother-Church , and in case any of you be 
 employed to assist her , to go in' an n ' of the heretical 
 
 villages or territories , you will be ../e co ••• r>'c 
 
 the Holy See of St. Peter, and keep yourselves Jrom 
 suspicion. In case any of you be thus employed, ye are 
 dispensed with either to go with heretics, to their 
 Churches, or as you see convenient; if you own yourselves 
 clergymen, then to preach, but ivith caution , till ye be well 
 acguainted ivith those heretics you converse with , and then 
 by degrees add to your doctrine by ceremonies or otherwise, 
 as yotj find them inclinable. If ye be known by any of 
 the lay-Catholics, you are to pacify them, by saying secret 
 Mass unto them, or by acquainting-other priests (who are 
 not able to undertake this work) with your intentions, 
 who doth generally say Mass unto them. If the laymen be 
 of any parts or of wit, you may dispense with them 
 
209 
 
 also, reserving the same provisoes, and thereby he may 
 acquire an estate, and be the more able to serve the 
 Mother-Church. 
 
 “ In case they scruple in taking oaths, you are to 
 dispense with them, assuring them that they are to be 
 kept no longer than the Mother-Church sees it convenient; 
 or if they scruple to swear on the Evangelists, you are to 
 say unto them, that the translation on which they swear 
 His Holiness the Pope hath annulled, and thereby it is 
 become heretical, and all as one as upon an ordinary story 
 book. 
 
 “In case in strange countries ye be known by mer¬ 
 chants, or others, trading or travelling thither, for to 
 strengthen your designs the more for your intention, you 
 are dispensed with to marry after their manner, and then 
 ye safely may make answer, that heretical marriage is no 
 marriage. 
 
 “Ye are not to preach all after one method, but to 
 observe the place wherein you come. If Lutheranism be 
 prevalent, then preach Calvinism; if Calvinism, then 
 Lutheranism; if in England, then either of them, or John 
 Huss’s opinions, Anabaptism, or any that are contrary to 
 the Holy See of St. Peter, by which your function will not 
 be suspected, and yet you may still act on the interest 
 of the Mother-Church, there being, as the Council are 
 agreed, no better way to demolish that Church of heresy, 
 but by mixtures of doctrines, and by adding of ceremonies 
 more than be at present permitted. 
 
 “ Some of you who undertook to be of this sort of 
 heretical Episcopal Sodiety, bring it as near to the Mother- 
 Church as you can, for then the Lutheran party, the 
 Calvinists, the Anabaptists and other heretics, will be 
 averse thereunto, and thereby make that Episcopal heresy 
 
 13 
 
210 
 
 odious to all these, and be a means to reduce all in time 
 to the Mother-Church.” 
 
 Tal. Brethren, I never thought that there could be so 
 much wickedness under the cloak of religion. From what 
 we have heard from our brother, it is as clear as sun¬ 
 light that the system of Jesuitism is a satanic system 
 of lying and hypocrisy from beginning to end. How sad! 
 
 Kal. We know, however, that though Jesuits may try 
 to deceive people, and to some extent succeed in their 
 wickedness, and though they may try to justify their evil 
 doings on Jesuitic principles, and deceive man, God is not 
 deceived. “ God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man 
 sowetb, that shall he also reap.” Gal. vi. 7. God knows 
 their lawlessness and all their satanic trickeries, and though 
 “ many shall follow their lascivious doings ; by reason of 
 whom the way of the truth shall be evil spoken of;”—yet 
 their “sentence now from of old lingereth not, and 
 their destruction slumbereth not.” 2 Pet. ii. 2, 3. 
 
 Qaim. May the Lord keep us in His holy keeping. 
 These wicked Jesuits are exerting their wickedness very 
 much in Europe and America, and in fact all over the 
 world, and many are caught in their diabolical net. Now 
 that they are also here in India, and are engaged in 
 seducing members of Protestant Churches by their lying 
 and mischievous statements, it behoves us to keep clear 
 of them, and have nothing whatever to do with them. May 
 we by Divine grace be enabled to resist them to the 
 utmost of our power and teach our fellow Christians in 
 this country to be on their guard that they may not 
 be caught in the satanic snares of Pbpery and Jesuitism. 
 
CHAPTER XXVII. 
 
 THE CHARACTER OF POPERY, 
 
 AS STATED IN THE WORD OF GOD. 
 
 Q AIM. There are many portions in the Word of God 
 giving us a description of the apostate Church; and 
 although these descriptions are to a great extent 
 allegorical, yet the allegories are so plain and clear, that 
 an intelligent reader of the Word of God can easily under¬ 
 stand them. The particular description of the apostate 
 Church we find in the 17th and 18th chapters of the Books 
 of Revelation.* 
 
 You will remember, brethren, that at the commencement 
 of our conversations we said that popery, or rather the 
 ' apostate Church, was termed in the Word of God, 
 
 Babylon the Great. 
 
 We read that when the apostle John was in the isle 
 of Patmos, he had a wonderful vision, in which he was 
 shown the state of the Church from the time of the apostles 
 down to the Second Advent, and the reign of Christ. In 
 the commencement of the 17th chapter of the book of 
 Revelation we read that an angel said to John, “Come 
 hither, I will shew the'e the judgment of 
 
 * All the quotations from Scripture in this and the next chapter 
 are taken from the Revised Version, 
 
212 
 
 the Great Harlot 
 
 that sitteth upon many waters; with whom the kings of 
 the earth committed fornication, and they that dwell in 
 the earth were made drunken with the wine of her for¬ 
 nication. And he carried me away in the Spirit into a 
 wilderness: and I saw a woman sitting upon a scarlet- 
 coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven 
 heads and ten horns. And the woman was arrayed in 
 purple and scarlet, and decked with gold and precious 
 stone and pearls, having in her hand a golden cup full 
 of abominations, even the unclean things of her fornica¬ 
 tion, and upon her forehead a name written, 
 
 Mystery, 
 
 Babylon the Great, 
 the Mother of the Harlots 
 and of the Abominations of the Earth.” 
 
 You will also remember, that we then stated it as our 
 conviction, that this Babylon the Great comprised not only 
 popedom, but the whole apostate Church throughout the 
 world. Popedom was the Mother of the apostate Church. 
 In this very chapter she is also called the Great Harlot. 
 Like a woman who, having left her husband, has become 
 a common prostitute, popedom and the popish community 
 have left their Lord and Husband, and given themselves 
 over to spiritual fornication or harlotry, and they are on 
 that account called the Great Harlot. She has her 
 daughters, namely, all the so-called Churches which came 
 out of her, or, if they did not spring from her, have yet 
 the likeness of her own harlot-daughters, possessing the 
 nature and character of their mother, the Great Harlot t 
 and have, as it were, become her adopted harlot-daughters. 
 
 Tal. What Churohes or communities would you count 
 her daughters? 
 
213 
 
 Qaim. If we take the Word of God as our standard, 
 the Greek or Russian Church, the Jesuit body, and other 
 sections or communities which from time to time have 
 sprung from the papists, and who, though for some cause 
 or other they have separated themselves from her, are yet 
 adherents of the popish doctrines and maxims. Among 
 them we must also count those, who, rejecting more or 
 less the principles of Protestantism, have adopted some of 
 the doctrines and practices of the papists, and are known 
 by the name of Semi-papists or Ritualists. 
 
 Tal. You do not mean to say that all Ritualists or 
 Semi-papists are to be counted among the harlot-daughters 
 of the harlot-mother ? 
 
 Qaim. No, brother. There are among the Ritualists, as 
 we said on a former occasion, many who are God’s true 
 people, bub they have committed this great evil, that they 
 
 have mixed up with their Scriptural belief something of the 
 
 ■ 
 
 leaven of the popish creed and practice. This popish leaven, 
 if they retain it, may not only gradually leaven the whole 
 lump of their religion, bub also become a curse to other 
 weak Christians with whom they come in contact, and 
 may ultimately lead them into full-grown popery, and 
 consequent perdition, and their only way of safety is in 
 obeying the apostle’s injunction,—“Be ye separate, saith the 
 Lord, and touch no unclean thing; and I will receive you, 
 and will be to you a Father, and ye shall be to Me sons 
 and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.” 2 Cor. vi. 17, 18. 
 Applied in this particular case, it means,—Ye Ritualists, 
 who are coqueting with Rome, separate yourselves from 
 the community of papists, and from their rites and 
 practice; touch not the unclean thing of popery, and I the 
 Lord will forgive you, and heal your backsliding, and will^ 
 love you freely (Hos. xiv. 4). Ritualism has become to 
 
 \ 
 
214 
 
 thousands the highroad to popery. There are some sins 
 and temptations which we are to fight against and overcome 
 them , as for instance anger, covetousness, &c; there are 
 others, which we are to flee from on account of their 
 insinuating nature. We read,—“ Flee fornication ; " 1 Cor. 
 
 vi. 18; “Flee from idolatry;” 1 Cor. x. 14; “Flee youth¬ 
 ful lusts;”. 2 Tim. ii. 22. To these exhortations we would 
 add,—Flee from Ritualism and popery, as you would flee 
 from the plague! 
 
 Tal. Well, brethren, you have explained who this 
 “Babylon the Great” and her harlot-daughters are, but 
 why is she called in Scripture, “ the mother of the 
 abominations of the earth ? ” 
 
 Qaim. Please consider how many abominable things have 
 come out, and are continually coming out, of that 
 “ Babylon.” Think of the popish idolatry, the worship or 
 adoration of Mary, aud Saints, and Relics, and Pictures, 
 and of the Wafer-worship, &c. Are these not abominations 
 in the sight of God, of which “ Babylon the Great ” is 
 the mother ? Think of the false, abominable dogmas, and 
 rites, and customs established by her! of the Nunneries, 
 of which, according to the testimonies of popish priests 
 and escaped Nuns themselves, many are nurseries of crime, 
 places for gratifying the lusts of priests. Think of the 
 unmarried priests, and the forced Confessions from women 
 aud girls in the Confessional. Think of all this, and say, 
 Are not all these things abominations in the sight of the 
 Lord? And Babylon the Great is the mother of them all. 
 And then think also of the 50 millions of Protestants 
 murdered by her, and of her blasphemously thanking God 
 for enabling her to slaughter them. Think #lso of the 
 popish Inquisition, and wicked Jesuitism, established or 
 sanctioned by papists,—consider all this, and say, whether 
 
215 
 
 in your judgment, and that of every true Christian, 
 “Babylon the Great” does not fully deserve the name— 
 
 “ the mother of the abominations of the earth ? ” 
 
 Tal. We read in that chapter, that she is “the Great 
 Harlot, that sitteth upon many .waters.” What is meant 
 by these “ many waters ? ” 
 
 Kal. We find the explanation of it in the same chapter. 
 The angel, speaking to John, says in the fifteenth verse,— 
 “ The waters which thou sawest, where the Harlot sitteth, 
 
 ' are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.” Or, 
 in other words, the power of that Harlot extends over many 
 naiions and peoples, as it is this day. 
 
 Again it is written,—“ With whom {i.e. the Harlot) the 
 kings of the earth committed fornication, and they that 
 dwell in the earth were made drunken with the wine of 
 her fornicationv. 2; the meaning of which is that people 
 of high rank, kings and princes, as well as the common 
 people have fallen so much into the allurements of 
 spiritual fornication with her, i.e. under the influence 
 of popish idolatry and superstition, that they, as it were, 
 became intoxicated with it. 
 
 Again we read, that that “ Great Harlot ” is very much 
 supported and strengthened by a great and powerful 
 prince. The Word of God tells us of a person who is 
 to appear in the latter days, and will reign as a great 
 monarch over the Roman empire, which will be restored. 
 He is called in Scripture the Antichrist; and the Wicked 
 or Lawless one; and, the Son of Perdition; and the Least , 
 or Wild-beast , &c. He will appear in the latter days, at 
 the time of the great apostacy or falling-away, to which 
 we are approaching, before the Second Advent of the Lord 
 Jesus Christ, and support and uphold the “ Great Harlot ” 
 and her harlot-chil dren, that is popedom, and give great 
 
216 
 
 power unto her, knowing that by her help and instru¬ 
 mentality he will increase his power and influence over 
 the nations. The “ Harlot,” i.e. the great representative 
 of popedom, will see that through the help and support 
 of that powerful prince, -the Antichrist, her power over 
 the people will increase very much. They both will work 
 unitedly, though that union will only rest upon selfish 
 motives, one agreeing with the other to further each 
 other’s purposes—the pope for the growth of popery, and 
 Antichrist for the growth of his secular power. 
 
 The description of this mutual support is given by the 
 apostle John in the third verso of this 17th chapter in 
 the following words,—“I saw a woman sitting upon a 
 scarlet-coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having 
 seven heads and ten horns.” And the explanation of this 
 we find in the seventh verse of this chapter,—“ The angel said 
 
 unto me (John). I will tell thee the mystery 
 
 of the woman, and of the Beast that carrieth her, which 
 hath the seven heads and the ten horns.” Both the 
 Woman, i.e. popedom, and Antichrist will combine for 
 one purpose, to hurt and to destroy. 
 
 Taw. Dear brother, you are, no doubt, aware that there 
 
 are a great many believers, and among them several 
 
 * 
 
 commentators, who say that the Antichrist spoken of in 
 the Book of Bevelation is not a secular prince or monarch, 
 but the pope himself or the representative of popedom. 
 
 Kal. Yes, I know, brother, that some people have that 
 idea, but such an explanation will involve insuperable 
 difficulties, as I believe. I will mention only one of them. 
 All will admit that two different persons are spoken of in 
 this chapter, one who is called the Beast, and the other the 
 Woman sitting upon the Beast. I believe that commentators 
 generally agree that the expression —Babylon the Great, 
 
217 
 
 or the Great Harlot , has reference to one person, namely, 
 the representative of the popedom, or rather of the whole 
 apostate Church. Now if the Beast upon whom the Woman 
 is sitting is also popedom or the apostate Church, then the 
 two, namely, the Woman and the Beast, are no longer 
 two distinct persons, but have become one, and the 
 apostate Church is sitting upon herself, which is, of 
 course, nonsense. 
 
 Again, in the fourth verse we read,—“The woman was 
 arrayed in purple and scarlet.” Scarlet colour is the colour 
 of blood. The woman was thus arrayed in a robe of the 
 colour of blood. All who know the history of the popes 
 and of popery, know also that the great work of popes 
 and priests has always been to slaughter the Lord’s 
 people, and to shed the blood of His saints. Accordingly 
 we read in the sixth verse of this 17th chapter,—“ And I 
 saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and 
 with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And .when I 
 saw her, I wondered with a great wonder.” And in the 
 twenty-fourth verse of the 18th chapter it is written,—“In 
 her (Babylon the Great) was found the blood of prophets and 
 of saints, and of all that have been slain upon the earth.” 
 
 Qaim. There are a few more points to be considered in 
 regard to the Woman. One is, “that she was decked with 
 gold and precious stone and pearls.” It is known that the 
 popes and priests are in possession of great riches, which 
 they have accumulated by their cunning and craftiness. 
 
 Taw. The pope must indeed have great riches. I read 
 the other day in a paper that the bank in which the 
 pope had deposited his money, had failed, and that he 
 thereby had lost 75 lacs of rupees. And it is said that 
 when he received the bad news he said, “ Now we are 
 on the way of becoming bankrupt, and since I have been 
 
218 
 
 on the throne of St. Peter, such great trouble has never 
 befallen me.” Brethren, if a person is able to deposit 
 75 lacs of rupees iu a bank, he must be a very wealthy 
 person. Yes, it is true that the Woman is “decked with 
 gold and precious stone and pearls.” 
 
 Qaim, In the fourth verse wo read also, that John saw 
 the Woman “ having in her hand a golden cup full 
 of abominations, even the unclean things of her fornica* 
 tions.” The meaning of this is, no doubt, that the popes 
 and priests present their unscriptural teaching, their false 
 dogmas and their spiritual fornications in a golden oup, 
 that is, in an externally beautiful and captivating way, and 
 thereby, as it were, put the people into a state of mental 
 intoxication, giving them beautiful lies, instead of realities. 
 
 Tal. Gentlemen, how can you prove that all the things 
 stated in this 17th chapter, connected with the Woman, 
 are to be applied to the pope and popery, or, in other 
 words, to the Roman Catholic Church ? 
 
 Kal. If we consider well the particulars, said of the* 
 Woman in this 17th chapter, in a prophetical or typical 
 form, we cau come only to one conclusion, that it is a 
 faithful description of popery and the popedom. Let us 
 just look at the proofs of this statement. 
 
 1. First Proof, The community of popes and priests 
 are compared to an impute woman, or harlot. The 
 Church of Christ is compared in Scripture to a bride or 
 chaste woman whose Bridegroom or Husband is the Lord 
 Jesus. The apostate Church is also compared to a woman, 
 but an impure or vile one, to a harlot, who lives in 
 uncleanness and harlotry. We know that this is a true 
 description of popedom and popery. 
 
 2. Second Proof. It is written, that the Harlot sitteth 
 upon many waters. And the explanation of it is given 
 
219 
 
 in the following word,—“The waters which thou sawest, 
 where the Harlot sitteth, are peoples and multitudes and 
 nations and tongues.” There is no community who, like 
 the popish one, rules with tremendous power over the 
 kingdoms and nations of the world. 
 
 3. Third Proof. It is written that she has “in her 
 hand a golden cup full of abominations, even the unclean 
 things of her fornication.” There is no community in 
 Christendom who in her teachings and rites and customs 
 has so much corruption and abomination as the popish 
 community. We need only think of the life of many 
 unmarried popes and bishops and priests, of the filth 
 connected with the Confessional, an^l of the hidden things 
 of darkness in many Nunneries. 
 
 4. Fourth Proof. Is is written that this Woman is a 
 persecuting and murderous woman. The apostle John in 
 his vision saw her “drunken with the blood of the saints, 
 and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.” There is 
 only one community, that is, the popish community, to 
 which this awful statement is applicable, that she is 
 “drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood 
 of the martyrs of Jesus.” Only think of the terrible fact, 
 certified by history, that she has shed the blood of more 
 than 50 millions of godly Christian men and women. 
 The popes, and their agents, cardinals, bishops and priests, 
 the cardinals and priests of the infernal Inquisition, the 
 satanic Order of Jesuits, were the murderers of these 
 helpless Christians, who could say, O Lord, “for Thy 
 sake are we killed all the day long; we are counted as 
 sheep for the slaughter.” Ps. xliv. 22. The souls of these 
 martyrs that have been slain by the papists for the Word 
 of God, and for the testimony which they held, are indeed 
 under the altar in heaven, in Divine keeping, but their 
 
m 
 
 cry is going up to the Divine avenger of blood, " How long, 
 O Master, the holy and true, dost Thou not judge and 
 avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth,’* here 
 on these popish murderers? 
 
 5. Fifth Proof. In this 17th chapter a scarlet-coloured 
 
 beast is mentioned, having seven heads. The explanation 
 is thus given in the ninth verse. The seven heads are 
 
 seven mountains on which the woman sitteth. All 
 
 historians know that the city of Rome is called the 
 
 “seven-hilled city,” or “the city built on seven mountains.” 
 
 The residence of the Woman—the apostate Roman 
 Church—was, and still is, upon the seven-hilled city, Rome. 
 
 6. Sixth Proof. The last proof which I shall mention 
 to show that the words contained in this 17th chapter 
 have reference only to “Babylon the Great,” the apostate 
 Roman Church, is that which we read in the last verse of 
 this chapter, expressed there as a kind of prediction or in an 
 anticipatory way. There it is written, “And the Woman 
 which thou sawest is the great city, which reigneth over 
 the kings of the earth.” That great city was Rome, which is, 
 and always has been, the residence of the pope, and the seat 
 of popedom, on account of which the popish community to 
 this day is called the Romish Church, or the Roman Catholic 
 Church, and its members are called Roman Catholics. 
 
 These six proofs evidently show that “ Babylon the 
 Great,” which is also called “ the Great Harlot,” and 
 “ Mother of the harlots and the abominations of the earth,” 
 whose description is in the 17th chapter of the Book of 
 Revelation, is the popish apostate Church. 
 
 Our conversation to-day has been on the character of 
 popery, as stated in the Word of God. When we meet the 
 next time the subject of our conversation shall be the End 
 of Popery, according to the Word of God, 
 
CHAPTER XXVIII. 
 
 THE END OF POPERY, 
 
 AS STATED IN THE WORD OF GOD. 
 
 Q AIM. In our last conversation we spoke of the 
 character of popery, as revealed in the Word of God. 
 We shall to-day speak of the End of popery as 
 stated in the Word of God. We have a description of 
 it in the 18th chapter of the Book of Revelation. 
 
 You will remember, brethren, that, according to the 
 statement in Scripture, the “ Great Harlot,” or popish 
 apostate Church, will be in the 'latter days under the 
 protection, and in union with “the Beast” or Antichrist, 
 and will obtain great support from him in her abomina¬ 
 tions. Our considerations were based upon the contents of 
 the 17th chapter of the Book of Revelation, where she is 
 represented as a gorgeously arrayed Harlot, upon whose 
 forehead was her name written, “Mystery, Babylon the 
 Great, the mother of the harlots and the abominations of 
 the earth.” Rev. xvii. 5. 
 
 Kal. Brethren, since our last conversation I have been 
 thinking a good deal about the popish apostacy being 
 called a Mystery, and I will tell you what passed through 
 my mind. We Christians believe in 
 
 “ the Mystery of Godliness— 
 
 God, manifest in the flesh,” &c. 1 Tim. iii. 16. 
 
222 
 
 The devil has also two mysteries, but they are mysteriea 
 of ungodliness and lawlessness. The one is connected 
 with popery:— 
 
 Mystery, 
 
 Babylon the Great, &c., Rev. xvii. 5, 
 of which we have spoken at our last meeting. The other 
 is connected with the Beast or Antichrist. It is the 
 
 “ Mystery of Lawlessness,” 
 
 the man of sin, the son of perdition, &c. 2 Thess. ii. 3, 7. 
 
 The devil is a great mimic, trying to imitate the Lord’s 
 word and work in a certain way, perverting it really into 
 an infernal parody. 
 
 With the Mystery of “ Babylon the Great ” he has 
 shown his seducing and destroying power during the whole 
 age of the Gospel down to us, deceiving the nations and 
 bringing millions into perdition. 
 
 His second Mystery, that of Lawlessness, has not yet 
 been manifested. However, from the time of the apostles 
 the Antichristian element has been in the Church secretly 
 working. But there is a “hinderer,” as we read in 
 2 Thess. ii. 6. 7., one who withholdeth or hindereth the 
 full manifestation of Antichrist. When he is taken out of 
 the way, then the Wicked one, or rather the Lawless one, 
 Antichrist, will be revealed, and he will then, as it appears, 
 make common cause with the “Harlot” on the seven 
 hills. The Scarlet Beast—Antichrist—will carry the Scarlet 
 Woman—the representative of popery—and, both united, 
 will destroy many, until the Lord will destroy both at 
 His coming. 
 
 Tal. Gentlemen, please explain one difficulty to me. 
 Many prophecies which are to be fulfilled in the future, 
 perhaps after many years, are recorded in many places of 
 the Bible as if they had been fulfilled in the past, or 
 
223 
 
 were being fulfilled at the time when the prophecy was 
 uttered, though they are referring to the future. How do 
 you explain thisP 
 
 Kal. You are right. The prophets, when uttering their 
 prophecies, spoke often in such a way, as if they were 
 just then being fulfilled, or had been fulfilled in the past. 
 The fact is, that when the prophets had a vision, showing 
 what was to come to pass in the future, that vision, as 
 it appears, passed before their minds like a picture or 
 panorama, and the prophets beheld it with the eyes of 
 their mind, or spiritual sight, as if it were just then 
 occurring, or had just then occurred, although it was to 
 be fulfilled in the future. Let us for instance look at the 
 wonderful prophecy in Isa. liii. The prophet beholds in a 
 vision the suffering Saviour, * led as a sheep to the 
 slaughter, and says: “ He was despised, and rejected of 
 men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and 
 as one from whom men hide their face He was despised, 
 and we esteemed Him not. Surely He hath borne our 
 griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem Him 
 stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was 
 wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our 
 iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; 
 and with His stripes we are healed,” &c. Isa. liii. 3-5. The 
 prophet speaks as if these things had come to pass already, 
 although they were to be fulfilled seven hundred years after 
 he had uttered them. Such was often the nature of 
 prophetic utterances. 
 
 Just in this way the apostle John had before him the 
 vision of the “ Great Harlot ”—the apostate popish Church. 
 He says: “ I saw a woman sitting upon a scarlet-coloured 
 beast .... I saw the woman drunken with the blood 
 of the saints,” &c. Rev. xvii. 3, 6. The words are stated 
 
224 
 
 as if the events stated were occurring at that time, 
 although they were to be fulfilled centuries after the 
 apostle saw the vision, and are still being fulfilled. 
 
 Qaim. The Great Harlot, who is supported and upheld 
 by “the Beast” is sitting without care and fear upon it, 
 and “saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, 
 and shall in no wise see mourning.” Rev. xviii. 7. The 
 explanation of this is that the Great Harlot, the apostate 
 Church, will put her trust for help and protection on 
 Antichrist, and considering him, as it were, her husband, 
 will say, boa'stingly, I am not alone; I am no widow, for 
 Antichrist is my husband, and he is alive, and will remain 
 so; I shall never see sorrow. But before she has said 
 this in her heart, the command will have gone forth from 
 the Lord to Antichrist’s power and government, to throw 
 her down. So shall it be in the day of her abasement 
 Antichrist will throw off the “Great Harlot,” i.e. annul 
 the compact with the apostate Church, which he will 
 support as long as it serves his purposes, but throw her 
 off when he needs her no longer. This will cause rejoicing 
 in heaven. John in the vision saw an “angel coming down 
 out of heaven . . . and he cried with a mighty voice, 
 saying, Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, and is become a 
 habitation of devils, and a hold of every unclean spirit, 
 and a hold of every unclean and hateful bird. For by the 
 wine of the wrath of her fornication all the nations are 
 fallen; and the kings of the earth committed fornication 
 with her; and the merchants of the earth waxed rich by 
 the power of her wantonness.” Rev. xviii. 2, 3. This, dear 
 brethren, gives us a description of the awful doom of 
 the popedom and the whole apostate Church. 
 
 Tal. Brethren, I know that whatsoever God doth, or 
 ''vmittetb, in the government of the world, is right and 
 
225 
 
 good, and “None can stay His hand or say unto Him, 
 What doesb Thou P ” Dan. iv. 35. And yet the thought 
 will arise in my mind, could not God, who is Almighty, 
 pour out upon the apostate Church the spirit of repentance, 
 that she, forsaking her wickedness, and turning to the 
 Lord with a penitent heart, might receive forgiveness of 
 her sins? Or to speak more directly and clearly, could 
 not God by His power grant new spiritual light and life 
 to the papists, the Greek Church, and the Ritualistic 
 congregations, yea, to all who are included in the “Harlot” 
 and the harlot-daughters of “Babylon the Great,” so that 
 they, coming out of their state of apostacy, could become 
 members of the true Church of God? 
 
 Qaim. God is certainly able to do every thing which 
 is not opposed to his Divine nature and perfections, but 
 we must remember two things,—first, where God has made 
 known His purpose in regard to certain things, as He 
 has done in regard to popery, He will certainly accomplish 
 that. And the other thing is this, that the Lord has said 
 (in the fifth verse), that “her sins ( i.e. the sins of 
 Babylon the Great,) have reached even unto heaven, and 
 God hath remembered her iniquities,’,’ or, in other words, her 
 measure of sin has become full, for just punishment. When 
 the time of grace and forgiveness allotted to us is passed, 
 then only pure unmixed justice and judgment is left for us. 
 The Word of God states distinctly, that there is no salvation , 
 hut only 'perdition left for the corrupt apostate Church. 
 
 Kal. In her imaginary self-security the word of the 
 apostle is applicable to the “ Woman ” representing popery 
 and the popish community, “When they shall say, Peace 
 and safety, then sudden destruction cometh upon them, 
 as travail upon a woman with child, and they shall in no 
 wise escape.” 1 Thess. v. 3. 
 
 V 
 
226 
 
 Qaim. The 'same sudden destruction of “ Babylon the 
 Great” is expressed in the eighth verse of our chapter,— 
 “ Therefore in one day shall her plagues come, death, 
 and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly 
 burned with fire; for strong is the Lord God which judged 
 her.” 
 
 Tal. You acknowledged in one of our former conver¬ 
 sations, that some of God’s people are also found among 
 the papists. Are they also to perish p I remember 
 Abraham’s prayer to the Lord, to spare Sodom and 
 Gomorrah, on account of the righteous that might be found 
 in them, when he said, “Wilt thou consume the righteous 
 with the wicked ? ” Gen. xviii. 23. 
 
 Qaim. Brother, tell me, did God at that time destroy 
 the righteous with the wicked P We read: He “ turning 
 the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes condemned 
 them with an overthrow, having made them an example 
 unto those that should live ungodly; and delivered 
 righteous Lot , sore distressed by the lascivious life of the 
 iviched.” 2 Pet. ii. 6, 7. Remember the great mercy of 
 the Lord. He was going to save righteous Lot from 
 Sodom, which was to be destroyed. When Lot lingered 
 in coming out of that doomed city, the two angels “laid 
 hold upon his hand, and upon the hand of his wife, and 
 upon the hand of his two daughters; the Lord being 
 merciful unto him : and they brought him forth, and set 
 him without the city .... and said .... Escape to the 
 mountain, lest thou be consumed .... Haste thee, escape 
 thither; for I cannot do any thing till thou be come 
 thither.” Gen. xix. 16-22. The Lord kuoweth His saints, 
 
 .d saves them, and not one of His elect shall ever perish. 
 He knows His own people, who are mixed up with the 
 '-ed members of that doomed apostate Church, and 
 
227 
 
 will not suffer them to perish. When the wrath of God’s 
 judgment is to consume “Babylon the Great,” the -Lord 
 will first bring out His people out of that popish Sodom, 
 and, after they have been brought into safety, will consume 
 the wicked. 
 
 Kal. We read that when the Lord had brought out 
 His own people, then “ the Lord rained upon Sodom and 
 upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of 
 heaven; and He overthrew those cities, and all the Plain, 
 and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew 
 upon the ground.” Gen. xix. 24, 25. As the Lord at that 
 time saved Lot from the destruction of the cities, so when 
 “ Babylon the Great” shall be utterly burned with fire, the 
 Lord will first bring His people out of her, and save 
 them. It is written, “And I heard another voice from 
 heaven, saying, Come forth, My people, out of her, that 
 ye have no fellowship with her sins, and that ye receive 
 not of her plagues ! ” Rev, xviii. 4. 
 
 Taw. It is clear from what we read, that the agreement 
 and harmony which will exist between “ Babylon the 
 Great” and Antichrist will come to an end. It is written: 
 “The ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which 
 have received no kingdom as yet; but they receive 
 authority as kings, with the Beast, for one hour. These 
 have one mind, and they give their power and authority 
 
 unto the Beast.And the ten horns which thou 
 
 sawest, and the Beast, these shall hate the Harlot, and 
 shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her 
 flesh, and shall burn her utterly with fire.” Rev. xvii. 
 12-16. Prom these, and other prophetic passages, it 
 appears that the old Roman empire will be re-established, 
 in a ten-kingdomed form, under Antichrist, who is to be 
 the great monarch of that empire. The agreement and 
 
228 
 
 harmony which afc first will exist between Antichrist the 
 monarch of the ten kingdoms, and “Babylon the Great” 
 will be broken. She will be thrown off and thus the 
 authority and power of popery and the popedom will 
 come to an end. Antichrist and his ten vassal kings will 
 hate her, make her desolate, and burn her with fire. This 
 is her doom according to the Word of God. 
 
 Tal. You read just now about the doom of the Roman 
 Harlot, that “ her plagues shall come in one day . . . 
 and she shall be utterly burned with fire.” Rev. xviii. 8. 
 Is this fire to be real, or must it be explained in a 
 metaphorical sense? 
 
 Taw. There is a passage in Scripture which will throw 
 light upon this point. We read about the cities of Sodom 
 and Gomorrah, as follows: “Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, 
 and the cities about them, having in like mauner with 
 these given themselves over to fornication, and gone after 
 strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the 
 punishment of eternal fire.” Jude 7. We kuow from 
 Scripture that both these cities were burnt with real fire; 
 and again we read, in this passage, that they (the people 
 of these cities) were “suffering the punishment of eternal 
 fire,” that is, the fire of hell. 
 
 Kal. I have no doubt in my mind that the fire in 
 which Babylon the Great is to be burned up, is real fire, 
 and not metaphorical fire. Else what could the meaning 
 of those words be which are mentioned in connection with 
 it, that “ the kings of the earth . . , shall weep and wail 
 over her, when they look upon the smoke of her burning , 
 standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, 
 Woe, woe, the great city, Babylon, the strong city! for in 
 one hour is thy judgment come.” Again: “The merchants 
 of these things, who were made rich by her (by Babylon 
 
229 
 
 the Great), shall stand afar off for the fear of her 
 
 torment, 'weeping and mourning; saying, Woe, woe, the 
 great city! . . . and cried out as they looked upon the 
 smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like the great 
 city?” &c. Rev. xviii. 9, 10, 15, 16, 18 
 
 Tal. In hearing this I atn again reminded of what is 
 
 said of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. We read 
 there: “ Abraham gat up early in the morning to the 
 
 place where he had stood before the Lord: and he looked 
 toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of 
 the Plain, and beheld, and lo, the smoke of the land went 
 up as the smoke of a furnace .” Gen. xix. 27, 28. 
 
 Kal. And the end of Korah, Dathan and Abiram and 
 their company is also called to remembrance. It is 
 written, that the people “ gat them up from the tabernacle 
 of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, on every side: and Dathan 
 and Abiram came out, and stood at the door of their 
 tents, and their wives, and their sons, and their little 
 
 ones.And it came to pass, as he (Moses) made an 
 
 end of speaking all these words, that the ground clave 
 asunder that was under them : and the earth opened her 
 mouth, and swallowed them up, and their households, and 
 all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their 
 goods. So they, and all that appertained to them, went 
 down alive into the pit: and the earth closed upon them, 
 and they perished from among the assembly.” Nura. 
 xvi. 27, 31*33. 
 
 Qaim, Some commentators of the Bible, and other 
 learned Christians believe not only that the apostate Church 
 is to perish, but that the city of Rome also, the centre of 
 popedom, is to be destroyed. They think that the ground 
 upon which the city stands will cleave asunder, and that 
 God will cast it into a lake of fire, which is burning in 
 
230 
 
 the earth underneath her. There are indeed two things 
 that seem to speak in favour of this view,—one, that if 
 we do not believe that Rome will be burned up with 
 real fire, coming up out of the earth, it seems to be 
 impossible to explain that passage in the 18th chapter 
 of Revelation, of which we have spoken, and which ] states 
 that Babylon the Great shall be utterly burned with fire. 
 The other point is, that not far from Rome there are 
 two volcanoes, Vesuvius and Etna, and that there are 
 frequently earthquakes in Italy and Sicily, where these 
 volcanoes are, which seems to indicate that there is a 
 subterranean fire underneath Rome. If it be the will of 
 the Lord that the city is to be “ utterly burned with 
 fire,'’ the earth needs only to cleave asunder at His 
 command, and the threatening will be fulfilled. Rome will 
 go down into a lake of fire. 
 
 But we must not forget, that there are also many 
 Christians who explain the whole contents of the 18th 
 ohapter of the Book of Revelation in a metaphorical way. 
 With them the city, and the fire, and the smoke, and the 
 merchants, and the wailing spectators must be explained 
 figuratively. They call such an explanation giving it a 
 spiritual meaning , 
 
 Kal. I do not trust these spiritualizers. They, by 
 applying “ spiritual or figurative ” meanings to plain and 
 simple statements in God’s Word, can make a passage 
 mean whatever they like, and foist it upon others. It is 
 my belief that by their spiritualizing or metaphorizing 
 process they take the life out of plain passages. 
 
 Qaim. Brethren, although different Christians may apply 
 different meanings to the statements regarding the end of 
 popery and popedom, as stated in Rev. xviii., yet there 
 certain points which are clearly stated in that chapter 
 
231 
 
 and in other portions of the Scriptures, speaking of the 
 subject of popery and the popedom, and which all true 
 readers of the Word of Gfod will admit:— 
 
 First. That the Lord is not in a hurry in punishing 
 His enemies, but bears long with them. When the fixed 
 time arrives, He sends the decreed punishment. 
 
 Second. That there is no salvation prepared for the 
 apostate Church, but, on account of her awful wickedness, 
 she is doomed to perdition, according to the Word 
 of the Lord. 
 
 Third. That the end of all the deceit and wickedness 
 of popes and the papacy is coming on. 
 
 Fourth. That that end will be sudden and terrible. It 
 is described in Rev. xviii. 21 in these words: “A strong 
 angel took up a stone as it were a great millstone, 
 and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with a mighty fall 
 shall Babylon, the great city, be cast down, and shall be 
 found no more at all.” Rev. xviii. 21. 
 
 Fifth. That in the apostate Church there are also some 
 of God’s people, not because they are found within her, 
 but because they belong to God’s people, in spite of being 
 counted members of that so-called “ Church.” 
 
 Sixth. That the Lord knows His own people, and knows 
 where they are, and willeth not that one of them should 
 perish. He came to seek and to save them that are lost. 
 
 Seventh. That God calleth His people, who are scattered 
 among the papists, out of that community, saying, “Come 
 forth, My people, out of her, that ye have no fellowship 
 with her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues: 
 for her sins have reached even unto heaveu, and God 
 hath remembered her iniquities.” Rev. xviii. 4, 5. 
 
 Brethren, there is one thing more that should be 
 mentioned when we speak of the destruction of “Babylon 
 
232 
 
 the Great, the Mother of the harlots and of the abomi¬ 
 nations of the earth.” You know that when the Lord 
 brought forth His people Israel out of Egyptian bondage, 
 and led them through the Red Sea, and brought them 
 safely to the other side of the sea, and drowned their 
 enemies in the Red Sea,—when “ Israel saw the great 
 work which the Lord did upon the Egyptians . . . then 
 sang Moses and the children of Israel this song unto the 
 Lord, and spake, saying, I will sing unto the Lord, for He hath 
 triumphed gloriously: the horse and his rider hath He 
 thrown into the sea.” Ex. xiv. 31 and xv. 1. 
 
 In a similar way the people of God will, at Christ’s 
 Second Advent, rejoice at the destruction of “Babylon the 
 Great,” and sing a song of triumph over her. 
 
 The apostle John says : “ After these things I heard a 
 great voice of a great multitude in heaven, saying:— 
 
 Hallelujah; Salvation, aud glory, and power belong 
 to our God: for true and righteous are His judgments; 
 for He hath judged the great Harlot, which did 
 
 corrupt the earth with her fornication, and He hath 
 avenged the blood of His servants at her hand. And 
 a second time they say, Hallelujah. And her smoke 
 goeth up for ever and ever. Rev. xix. 1-3. 
 
 And we, brethren, who are looking forward to the 
 return of our blessed Lord, we also in expectation of the 
 coming destruction of “Babylon the Great,” will rejoice 
 
 and be glad, aud say, Hallelujah! 0 Lord, Thou sayest, 
 
 “ Yea, I come quickly.” We beseech Thee, come quickly ! ' 
 
 Then the four brethren unitedly said, Amen: come, 
 
 Lord Jesus! 
 
 THE END. 
 
Popery versus is 1 dig * ... 
 
 Progress of Ritualism i anna. T uy vvv^«—, 
 
 Evidence on Convents i anna. Parliamentary T /idence 
 Babylon’s Babes: Reply to attack on India W tchntan ... 
 
 Gift of God .i anna. Why I Left Rome. 
 
 Monasticism Unveiled. Phayre. Pt. I. i anna ; Pt. II 
 Whither are we Drifting*? 2 ans. Q. Victoria or the Pope ? 
 
 Hidden Hand. (Romanism and Pagan Babylon). 
 
 English Convents ; 3 annas. Escaped from the Snare. 
 
 The Jesuits: Origin, &c. 4 ans. Anglican Sisterhoods ... 
 
 Veil Lifted. 11 annas. Personal Experience of R. Catholicism 
 Convent Life Unveiled. 12 ans. Perils of Escaped Nun.... 
 Romanism and the Reformation. G. Guinness 
 Why Priests should Wed. 14 annas. Catacombs of R< 
 
 Historical Tales for Young Protestants . 
 
 The Confessional ... Re. i-g. Manual of Romish Conti 
 Priest, Woman & Confessional. Paper 13 annas ; Cloth 
 Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. 1 anna , 12 annas , 
 
 History of the Reformation. Rs. 3-2. The Two Bab} 
 
 50 Years in the Church of Rome. Chiniquy. Rs. 2-8-_ 
 
 1 • • 
 
 0 
 
 4 
 
 • • • 
 
 0 
 
 2 
 
 • • • 
 
 0 
 
 2 
 
 • • • 
 
 0 
 
 2 
 
 • • • 
 
 0 
 
 3 
 
 • • • 
 
 0 
 
 3 
 
 • • • 
 
 0 
 
 3 
 
 • • • 
 
 0 
 
 4 
 
 • • • 
 
 0 
 
 11 
 
 A GOOD £ ^)CK OF BOOKS AND TRACTS ON:— 
 Holiness ; By Finnev,Mahan,Watson,Pearse, Steele and other authors. 
 Secret Societies- ^posing Signs, Passwords & Errors of Masonry, &c. 
 Miscellaneous; Faith Work, Temperance, Prohibition, Tobacco, &c. 
 
 Postage Extra. Catalogs Free. 
 
 I 
 
 THE INDIA WATCHMAN. 
 
 A Monthly Union Magazine. 
 
 \ 
 
 Scriptural, spiritual, practical and aggrer 
 Opposes Anti-Christ in Romanym, Ritua 1 
 
 Per year, Rs. 2 ; In advance, R r 
 Agent in America : Victor J. Gladwin , 
 Address, Manager, “India Watc 
 
N 
 
 '/ ingle Copies , one anna. 
 
 Ol 
 
 -> 
 
 PEACE. / - 
 
 '•'(ition, From the “ Bombay Gua -^in ’’ 0/ October 15th, 1892. 
 
 y Subscription, Including Postage, 
 
 ->n, Great Bru -.a, China and Straits Settlements 
 
 AND ’ T, STRALIA, Rs. 5, OR JS 6d. 
 
 \BAY GUARDIAN,” Khetwadi Main Road. 
 HERS, *31, i .vrERNOsTER Square, E.C. 
 
r --s ^ ),. • •• 
 
 ■ •-v fjLi ■• ’ . • . • <*••#. y* - •. 
 
 .v:>' r - «>■.. ,\ ' ■ , - 
 
 ' 
 
 r :v-v/ ^ - 
 
 PirJZ'fy ■ ;• ••% v r*% r?- • * . r 
 
 ’ 
 
 .'rfV ••.V' • • ' -• >>••/.-■ -iX Jv ■ V ••■" V-y • ■' • ' 
 
 : T;,• ’7 .'''' -*£•^'.•■ £*is 
 
 ;•••:.•• /!•:•• : - ■ .if ..*■ V •■ :.v* 
 
 U( 't'rfV,-v ., ■'i . v ■ ■ " ■ ' SJf-v . * 
 
 A®t- 74 >aKv -::%'/>7 
 
 V ■■ ■ :•••' -v •."•*:•. .• ' , -r : 7 >«*.• >•**•*/. .7-/ j y.v . • 
 
 •/?■*# Y •;• V • •;?•.. > , v- 7 .•' Vv* 
 
 1 C?' ', !■-' ' • 
 
 ' ? ' ; : ■ , 
 
 : ■ 4 i ivfV' '4 , "V ‘'.-‘'>7^' - 
 
 r.T -tWr- s-' : ; ^ ■ -A . .- 
 
 - 
 
 ■ 
 
 ^ • "<U z :«• r;. ..V • ¥,’4 . ■-V: • /• 
 
 ' 
 
 ■ -v./• .-v : ' ■■ ■ • • --■ • : ■> •. 
 
 ■ 
 
n, Kf 
 
 >1 
 
 jra 
 
 > 
 
 r; ; V;v' v ;|fc< ’v 
 
 ' 
 
 - 
 
 |l«|i 
 
 .-; v■/' ■ -ijBV ;- - -fr 
 
 '• ' WBT *«' - ir > 1 • ■".- 
 
 . ■ ■ v; /-> ; V; 
 
 <:> - $$fys. ^ , 
 
 • •/ £3%£?.: :, 
 
 ru-- ' •. a.; 
 
 
 ,/?,./ ,•-. V 
 
 ■ 
 
 ' •‘tfSreSpT 
 
 
 
 --&-SL 5 
 
 • '..•'••>:•• •;.'• 
 
 ' • ^V^A^-rV v *'/ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 frtV.c’v.i, r. i'- .%>/• 
 : : ^ >■