rPT.'i a 2^ no 121 eyrJea ches

1. "-^^

- A.
D

"XgLveikife^ Baoki
for- tim foMniingif ,a, CoIUg^imif^jCdloi^pi

'Y^LE«¥MU¥lE]^SIIir¥«

WHAT ROME TEACHES

BY M. F. CUSACK
(the hun of kenmare)

NEW YORK
THE BAKER & TAYLOR CO.
1891

Copyright, 1891, by
The Baker & Taylor Co.

CONTENTS.

PAGE
Introduction  5
Chapter I.— Infallibility  35
Chapter II.— The Political, Social and Moral Conse
quences of the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility. . . 48
Chapter III.— The Roman Catholic Church Teaches
that all Protestants Will be Damned, and that
Protestants Have no Religion  62
Chapter IV. — The Plan of Salvation as Taught by
the Roman Catholic Church  75
Chapter V. — The Plan of Salvation as Taught by
the Roman Catholic Church (continued) — The
Confessional  104
Chapter VI. — Salvation Through Mary  131
Chapter VII. — The Moral Effects of the Roman Cath
olic Plan of Salvation  150
Chapter VIII.— The Sacrifice of the Mass— Celibacy
of the Clergy — Purgatory and Masses for the
Dead  161
Chapter- IX. — The Doctrine of Intention  196
Chapter X.— What Rome Does  308

iv CONTENTS.
Chapter Xl. — Rome's Interference in Political Mat
ters  221
Chapter XII. — The Roman Catholic Church's Atti
tude in Regard to the Marriage Tie and the
Temperance Question  245
Chapter XIII. — The Roman Catholic Church on the
Results of Her own System of Education. — Some
Pacts about Roman Catholic Control of the Lib
erty of the Press  260
Chapter XIV.— The Duty of Christian People  273
Appendix. — I. No Salvation Outside the Church of
Rome. II. Tlie Evil of Indulgences. III. Rom
an Catholic Opinion of Protestants. IV. The
Church and the Bible  277

IInTEODUOTIO]^.

I HAVE often been asked where a book could be ob
tained which would give a clear and correct account of
the doctrines taught bythe Roman Catholic Church.
It is very easy to make charges against that Church
which are mere personalities, but wo need something
better ; we need facts, and facts that cannot be disputed.
The question is not what does some priest say, of whom
we have asked a question as to the teaching of his
Church, but what does his Church say in her authorized
formularies. There is no Church which teaches so
clearly and so positively as the Church of Rome ; and in
fact Rome prides herself on this very poiiit, and with
reason. Hence there can be no difficulty whatsoever in
knowing what the Church of Rome teaches, if we go to
the right sources of information.
Unfortunately for the cause of truth, misrepresent
ations have been made by ignorant, though well-inten
tioned persons, and unfortunately also, when Roman
Catholics are asked about the religious teachings of
their Church, they do not always reply by telling the

6 INTRODUCTION.
plain truth, for they are well aware that the plain truth
would shock and scandalize Protestants. This is es
pecially true when there is question of the practice
of devotion to the Virgin Mary. Roman Catholics will
tell you that they do not look to her as a mediator ;
but we can prove from authorized books of the Church
of Rome that they do look to her as a mediator, and
pray to her as such.
I may add that it would be well if in controversy, or,
as I prefer to say, in conversation with Roman Catholics,
Protestants would confine their statements to what is
actually to be found in the authorized books of the
Church. This is more important than might be sup
posed ; your case is seriously weakened if you make a
charge which you cannot prove, and there is no neces
sity for such charges. There is quite enough unscript-
ural teaching in the authorized formularies of Rome,
without making charges which are open to dispute.
I would add also, that it is necessary to present these
matters from a Roman Catholic point of view, if you
hope to benefit Romanists ; otherwise they will not un
derstand your point of view, or they will find some loop
hole of escape from your argument ; and though they
may know that you are quite correct in your state
ments, they will in some cases take advantage of your
ignorance. The whole question is far too important to admit of
anything but the most serious treatment. Rome is
advancing in power in this country with giant strides.
She has her organized camps, her well-drilled militia,
both spiritual and temporal. AVe must be ready to
meet her advances. How little is being done to pre
pare a future generation for the fast-coming time when

INTRODUCTION. 7
Rome will control the country politically! It will then
be only the affair of a brief moment to establish the
Inquisition, and to put your children in prison if they
demand an open Bible. See what is done to-day in
Mexico, where Francis Penzotti has been thrown for six
months into a horrible and loathsome dungeon for no
other reason than because he circulated the Scriptures.
Rome does not do this to you now, because she is not
yet strong enough ; but you can judge what she will
do in America when she has power, by what she is
doing at the present time elsewhere. You have been
warned in time. God will surely hold you accountable
if you do not give heed to the warning !
There is another matter also which should be con
sidered. While Rome denounces every effort on the
part of Protestants to enlighten each other as to the
true teaching of the Church of Rome, and declares
that it is "uncharitable" to speak of such things she
does not think it uncharitable to teach that every
Protestant will be eternally lost. She teaches this
doctrine, as I will show presently, as an infallible truth,
which none may dare to deny ; if they deny it, they do
so at the peril of their own salvation. "Who then is
uncharitable ? Rome, who sends all Protestants to eter
nal flames, or Christians, who warn all whom they can
that this is not the teaching of Christ ?
Every day in the year, in this free country, Rome
teaches the youth of her Church that every Protestant
]s doomed to eternal death when he departs this life.
She denounces the religion of all Protestant Churches
carefully and repeatedly in her catechisnis, and turns
it into ridicule in every way possible. Now is it not time
to hear the pthey si4e ? Is it not tinie fo,r Protestants

8 INTR OD UCTION.
to learn a little of what Rome teaches ; and while Rome
is teaching her children to avoid and abhor the Prot
estant religion, should not Protestants be taught to
beware of Rome ? No doubt if Protestants denounced
Rome as systematically as Romedenounce^ Protestants,
there would be a mighty outcry, and we would hear
endless complaints of the " uncharitableness " of Prot
estants. Every Roman Catholic bishop takes an oath at his
consecration, which binds him to persecute Protestants.
(See infra., p. 59.) If any minister took a similar oath
to persecute Romanists, what an outcry there would be !
The reader will see that I have been very careful in
this work to give authority which cannot be disputed.
There is no point on which Rome insists more strongly
than on her right to educate the young. She is wise.
When the mind of the young has been carefully filled
with the doctrines of Rome, and taught, as only Rome
can teach, that it is a deadly sin to reason or think,
then the work is accomplished. It is a very miracle of
grace if a Roman Catholic in latei years ever leaves
the Church, so terrible are the fetters in which he is
bound; and alas! Protestants are every day helping
to bind these fetters closer, instead of helping to break
the bonds asunder !
At the earliest dawn of reason the Roman Church
begins her distinctive teaching. The first prayer the
little child is taught is the ' ' Hail Mary ; " the first
image it looks upon is the image of Mary ; it is taught
to trust in Mary, to look to Mary, and to believe in
Mary, before it can realize that there is a God. Prot
estants seldom estimate the immense power of early
religious teaching. Rome knows it but too well

INTRODUCTION. 9
Would to God that every Protestant child was as well
taught from the dawn of infancy to love God as every
Catholic child is to love Mary ! So strong is the power
of early impression, that it is almost impossible for the
Roman Catholic to realize that there is even the least
harm in devotion to Mary ; on the contrary, he is con
vinced from early instruction, that his only safety for
eternity lies in his devotion to her. Remember that all
his earliest predispositions and prejudices are in favor
of trusting his salvation to Mary. All this I will
presently prove from the authoritative statements of the
Roman Catholic Church.
I now proceed to show from what sources I prove
what I have said, or will yet say ; and as my object
is to compress as much as possible in a short space,
I will be as brief as the nature of the subject will
allow. The first religious instruction which the Roman
Catholic child receives is from pictures, and the next
from the catechism. The object to be gained by pict
ures is very important ; the mind of the child is im
pressed through his seeing, before he can understand
fully what he hears. I do not say that the image of
^lary is the only devotional object shown to the child,
but most assuredly it is the principal one. Of course
the Catholic would justify this by saying that the
mother and child cannot be separated, for the child is
shown as a helpless infant, taken care of and dependent
on his mother.
Thus the young are impressed from the first with the
superior power of the mother ; thus they are prepared
later to say the indulgenced and therefore infallible
prayer, "Sweet heart of Mary, be my salvation."

10 INTRODUCTION.
The child must ask the mother of the Saviour to in
tercede with her hcljoss offspring, so the habit of
looking first to Mary is formed, and her power im
pressed on the mind*Erom infancy.
No time is lost in teaching the catechism. The cate
chism first taught is called a "Catechism of Christian
Doctrine." It was published by order of the Third
Plenary Council of Baltimore, was authorized by the
late Cardinal MuCloskey of New York, and was approved
by Cardinal Gibbons, April 6, 1885, as Apostolic Del
egate. This makes the catechism the authoritative
explanation of the doctrine of the Roman Catholic
Church, and no one dare dispute what it teaches It
is published by Sadlier & Co., the Roman Catholic
publishers of New York.
This catechism is the first which is taught to the
children in parochial schools. Before I proceed to the
next book of authorized instruction, there is an im
portant remark to be made. It will have been ob
served that this catechism is called a " Catechism of
Christian Doctrine." The tit^e is noteworthy for
more than one reason. It is absblutely misleading to
Protestants, and I fear it is intended to be such. It is
not long since a Methodist minister had a dispute with
a Roman Catholic priest on the teaching of the Church
of Rome. The priest retorted that all his Church de
sired was to teach "Christian Doctrine." The minister
was delighted, and so expressed himself ; but the min
ister's idea of Christian Doctrine and the idea of the
priest were as far asunder as heaven and earth. Thus
it is that Protestant honesty is no m.atch for Roman
Catholic duplicity, and hence it is absolutely necessary
for Protestants to study for themselves what Ronie

INTRODUCTION. 11
teaches, so that they may not be deceived either in
tentionally or unintentionally.
In this very catechism of so-called " Christian Doc
trine," children are taught to trust in the "super
abundant satisfactions of the Virgin Mary and the
Saints "' (page 40). But the minister in question
did not know this ; the priest relied on his igno
rance. The next catechism goes a little further, and is in
tended for more advanced pupils. This book is, if
possible, more fully endorsed ; it is called a " Catechism
of Catholic Doctrine." Why the Christian is left out I
do not know. This catechism is especially approved
for parochial schools by the Pope and Sacred Con
gregation of the Propagation of the Eaith. Thus the
reader has the advantage of seeing for himself exactly
what the Church of Rome teaches in those parocliial
schools of which we hear so much. It is indeed de
sirable that the American people should study this
matter carefully ; they will then know just what would
be taught in the public schools if Rome could control
them. They will also learn why American bishops and
priests object to the public schools.
In the authorization given by the Sacred Congrega
tion (in Rome), the words are, " Pro scliolis parochiali-
bus ; " so there can be no mistake about the matter.
I wish also to call attention in a special manner to
the approbation of Cardinal Gibbons ; it is very im
portant in view of certain statements which he has
made lately in an ex-officio manner. In his authoriza
tion of this catechism, dated Baltimore, January 3,
1888, he says that these catechisms are " strongly
rnarked by soundness of doctrine, simplicity and plain-

12 INTRODUCTION.
ness of language, a spirit of faith and devotion, and pre
cision in defining and expressing Catholic truths."
Cardinal Gibbons is therefore bound by every word
contained in these catechisms. This should be noted,
because there is a remarkable difference between some
of his public utterances and the opinions, or rathei the
doctrines, taught by his authority. That his real opin
ions are stated in these books no one can deny. His
other statements are a sort of society mantle, to be
put off or on as occasion serves, and which are used to
cloak what could not be openly proclaimed.
The third catechism from which I will quote is a
large volume, and is intended for quite advanced
pupils. This is a most important work for our present
purpose ; I therefore give the title of this work in full.
It is called "A Familiar Explanation of Catholic
Doctrine for the Family and more Advanced Students
in Catholic Colleges, Academies and High Schools ; for
Persons of Culture, Old as well as Young, with a
Popular Refutation of the Principal Modern Errors."
The copy of this work now before me is dated 1888,
and bears the same imprimatur and recommendation of
Cardinal Gibbons. The importance to Protestants of
a careful study of this catechism as a sure guide to the
true teaching of Rome cannot be overestimated. I hope
to save ministers and students much time and labor by
giving copious extracts from this work, about the
authority of which there cannot be a moment's ques
tion. I have also the advantage of knowing just how
it is explained, where explanation is needed, in Roman
Catholic schools ; though indeed, as Cardinal Gibbons
has truly said, the "plainness " is so great that expla
nation is scarcely necessary.

INTRODUCTION. 13
This catechism bears also the strongest commenda
tion from nearly every bishop in the United States.
The great point is not these approbations of bishops,
however valuable, but the fact that the teaching of
this catechism, as well as that of the other catechism,
is infallible, because it is the authorized teaching of the
Roman Chm-ch. What they say, the Pope says ; and
what the Pope says, God says. One bishop expresses
the hope that it will be " thumbed by every hand.
Catholic, Protestant and Infidel."
The author of the catechisms, the Rev. Father Miil-
ler, has written a long and elaborate preface to that
last mentioned which demands a passing notice. He
strongly urges that the catechism should be taught in
English in this country, no matter what may be the
nativity or language of the learner, and gives the very
sensible reason that business is done in English,
through the medium of the English tongue, and that
later in life the catechism will be forgotten if it is not
learned in the language with which the learner must
eventually become familiar. He states that many Ger
mans ask to have their " religion " taught to them in
English, having learned it in their youth in German,
and having now forgotten in great part the use of their
mother tongue (Preface, p. v.). I will call attention
to some points in this catechism, later, which are of
great importance for the better understanding of what
Rome teaches, and what is scarcely less important, what
she teaches at the present day.
I will call attention to only one point in regard to
infallibility. The writer says (p. xi.): "Nor can a
discussion of doctrinal points be of any great use to
one who is not thoroughly convinced of the Divine

14 INTRODUCTION.
authority of the Church. This being once accepted,
everything follows logically, as a matter of course.
Hence no one should be admitted to the one fold of
Christ who does not firmly hold and declare that the
Roman Catholic Church, ruled by the successor of St.
Peter, is God's whole and sole appointed teacher of
the Gospel on earth. However familiar persons may
be with doctrines, or however much they may believe
our dogmas, without holding this the fundamental
truth of Catholic faith they should not be allowed to
join the Church."
This statement is further enforced in suggestions for
teaching children the doctrines of the Roman Church.
And here I may say that as one of my objects is to write
a book which shall contain in as small a space as possi
ble all that is taught by Rome, I will use the word
Rome, or Church of Rome, as an abbreviation. Indeed,
in this catechism and elsewhere, the words "Roman
Catholic " are seldom used by the Romanist compilers
of the catechism. Hence it should not be a cause of
offence (which I am desirous to avoid), if we use the
same term.
In the preface (p. vii.) we flnd the following : "A
Catechism of Catholic Doctrine is intended for chil
dren, who are naturally inclined to believe what they
are taught. " Surely all children are naturally " inclined
to believe what they are taught." " Let them be taught
flrst what they are to believe," he continues, opposing
the plan of another compiler of catechisms, who flrst
explains the doctrine to be believed. I wish to call
special attention to this, because it is in this way that
Rome teaches so effectively. She takes the child at the
very dawn of reason, and before the child has received

INTRODUCTION. 15
any other religious ideas she impresses her teaching.
Hence it is that a Romanist so seldom forsakes his
religion. All that can be done (and we know what
that all means) by early impression is done, and done at
the very moment when the doing is most effective to
make the child believe this religion, and still more, to
terrify it as to the future consequences of disbelief. In
deed in teaching the Roman catechism, sisters and other
teachers are desired to make the children learn the
question as well as the answer ; so important is it con
sidered that verbal accuracy should be secured.
The next source of the information which we have
prepared for the reader is the authorized " Books of
Devotion of the Roman Church." These books are of
the utmost importance. For example, if a priest telL
you that the Roman Church does not worship the Vir
gin Mary, you have only to look at her authorized
" Books of Devotion " to know whether he speaks the
truth or is wilfully deceiving you. I regret to say
that there is a great deal of wilful deceic on this and
other subjects ; but evidence of this is so easy to ob
tain, if we only know where to look for it, that we
are inexcusable if we are deceived when we have access
to reliable sources of information.
There is no devotion more widely practised in the
Church of Rome than that of wearing the scapular.
A book has been published, and is in the widest circu
lation, which fully and clearly explains the teaching
of the Church of Rome on this subject. It is not a
matter on which there can be a moment's doubt, or a
moment's hesitation. The book is now before me. It is
called "The Scapular Book." It is published with the
approbation of the Most Rev. John Hughes, D.D., late

16 INTRODUCTION.
Archbishop of New York. But even if this book had
not the approbation of an archbishop, it would be in
valuable as an evidence of the infallible teaching of the
Church of Rome ; for the doctrines which it sets forth
have been approved by no less than four Popes : these
Popes are Alexander V., Clement VII., Pius V., and
Gregory XIII. (" Scapular Book," p. 97).
Further : Pope John XXII. issued a Bull March
3, 1523, which, according to the teaching of Rome,
is of course infallible. In this he says : " I accept then
this Holy Indulgence. I corroborate it, and conflrm it
on earth, as Jesus Christ, by reason of the merits of
his glorious Mother, has conceded it in heaven. "
This book, the title of which is "The Scapular
Book," is published by the Roman Catholic Publish
ing House of P. J. Kennedy, New York. We can
also know what Rome teaches by the Indulgenced Pray
ers used by Roman Catholics. These prayers are im
portant as evidence of authorized Roman Catholic teach
ing. They may be found in all Roman Catholic Prayer-
books and Books of Devotion. These prayers are of great
importance, as evidence of the authorized teaching
of the Roman Catholic Church, for they are carefully
considered before they are authorized, and a grant of
an "indulgence" for repeating them invests them
with even a verbal infallibility, for Rome would not
declare that they would bring such grace to the soul
if they were not an accurate expression of her doctrinal
teaching. I do not propose to make much use of these
prayers, because I do not wish to make this volume too
large, and any one who has Roman Catholic friends
can easily see a Roman Catholic Prayer-book ; but I
would emphasize the fact that such prayers as are "in-

INTRODUCTION. 17
dulgenced " are authorized by the Church and are
therefore a true expression of her dogmatic teaching.
I say this because I have often found, when Roman Cath
olics are pressed with the manifest idolatry expressed in
these prayers, that they excuse it by saying that they
are not obliged to believe the expressions used in them.
It is important that Protestants should not be deceived
by such a statement. They are authorised by the
Popes, past and present, and hence they express the
faith of the Church ; indegd it would be a strange thing
if a Church published and authorized prayers for the
use of her children which were of a doubtful char
acter. Hence such prayers as this : " Sweet heart of
Mary, be my salvation," which is indulgenced, and a
favorite prayer of the devout Romanist, is a very plain
expression of the faith and teaching of the Roman
Catholic Church as to the power of Mary to save the
sinner. I might quote hundreds of other prayers ex
pressing a similar faith in Mary as a saviour, but one
will suffice. The word " indulgenced " will be fully
explained later. Here I may say briefly, that when a
prayer is "indulgenced" the saying of it lessens the
time of punishment in purgatory.
There is one more book from which I will quote as
an authority of great importance. This book is culled
"Faith of Our Fathers," :nd the author is Cardinal
Gibbons. Nothing more need be said therefore as to
the authoritative character of its teaching. This book
has had a circulation of probably a million. Roman
Catholics, always, alas! far more zealous than Protestants
to propagate their religion, have lent, given and sold
thousands of copies of this .work to Protestants, and
probably more harm to the cause of truth has been

IS INTRODUCTION.
done oy this book than will ever be undone by any
Christian publication. The position of the writer, his
supposed liberal tendencies, and the Jesuitical manner
in which the book is written, form a combination
difficult to combat. The Bulls of Popes may also be
quoted. The originals are not easy of access, but in
every case they can be verified through Roman Catho
lic sources.
Before I proceed to the substance of this work, I
wish to say a few words ; few, but very important, as
to what the Roman Catholic Church does not believe.
Serious harm has been done to the cause of truth
by writers and speakers who have not verifled their
quotations, or who have been so ignorant of the very
doctrines which they were condemning that they have
made the most ludicrous blunders. It should be
remembered that educated Roman Catholics in this
country understand the chief doctrines of their relig
ion; hence, if a blunder is made, they detect it at once.
It should also be remembered that the lower classes
of Romanists do not always understand their religion.
Hence in arguing with such persons a different line of
presentation is needed. For the lower classes Rome
simply requires a verbal knowledge of the catechism.
They are to believe what they are taught and dare not
question it, or if they do so, they are taught it is at the
peril of their eternal salvation. There is not a Church
in the world which requires unreasoning submission,
except the Church of Rome. The value to the Church
of exacting this unreasoning submission is obvious. The
result is before the world in the tenacity with which
the fear-dominated Romanist refuses to discuss the
subject of religion with any one whom he has been

INTRODUCTION. 19
taught is already damned because he does not believe
in the infallibility of the Church.
At the prosont age Rome has found it necessary to
provide some catechisms such as those from which I
quote in this work, in which there is some explanation
of her doctrines. But even in these catechisms the
learner is plainly told that he must accept the explana
tions as well as the doctrine without question.
The Romanist who is beginning to see the light of
truth is discouraged when he hears violent denuncia
tions of opinions which he never held, and which his
Church never taught. Again there are certain doc
trines of the Romish Church which are looked at
from one point of view by Protestants, and from quite
another point of view by Romanists. It is worse than
useless to argue with a Romanist from your point of
view, for you are simply charging him with believing
what he does not believe, and what he knows he does
not believe. You lose your influence with him, and
perhaps make him lose his temper with you, and griev
ous harm is done ; indeed it is far better to drop the
subject for the time when there is evidence of any
heat on either side. There are few of us so advanced
in Christian love as to be able to enforce the Master's
doctrine in the Master's way. It is much easier to
denounce than to explain. It is much easier to call
down fire from heaven than to kindle the sweet flame
of divine love in the heart. It is true that our dear
Lord did denounce in the severest language the Scribes
and Pharisees, but the denunciations were few, and
the loving entreaties were many. It maybe a supreme
duty to denounce Rome at times, but the times are not
of frequent occurrence. It is always the duty of every

20 INTRODUCTION.
Christian to win souls to Christ, and we can always try
to win by explanation, by loving words and by earnest,
faithful prayer.
The principal points on which Protestants are apt to
make serious mistakes in denouncing Roman doctrines
are, first, on the question of the infallibility of the Pope.
Protestants think, and not indeed v\ithout some reason,
that infallibility means that the Pope cannot sin. This
is not the Roman Catholic doctrine. We shall discuss
the doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope, with expla
nations and proof from Roman sources, in the first
chapter of this book, so that only a few words need be
said here as to what Rome does not teach. The lives
of some of the Popes have indeed been so notoriously
wicked that it would be impossible for Rome to claim
sinlessness as one of the qualifications of a Pope. A
Pope may be a very wicked man, but he is infallible all
the same ; and what we have to do is to combat the
real errors of Rome, and not those which do not exist.
To persons of ordinary intelligence it will be obvious
that, in a case like this, the more clearly we understand
the theory of our opponent the better for us, as well as
for him. Nothing weakens a good cause so much as a
poor defence ; above all, if arguments are brought
forward which are of no value, and which can easily be
shown to be of no value. I speak on this subject
from personal and painful experiences. It is not my
intention to allude in any way to my past history in the
present work, but there is one point on which I will
say a word.
In my early years I heard a great deal of discussion
on the errors of the Church of Rome. For the most
part the accusations which I heard against Rome were

INTRODUCTION. 31
not accurately stated, because they consisted of exagger
ated representations of real evils, or of accusations of
evils which did not exist. In later life this was very
unfortunate for me. When I learned for myself that
much which I had heard asserted with such vehemence
was untrue, I came to the not very wise conclusion that
all that 1 had heard against Rome was false ; and I
believe that such conclusions from such results are far
more common than is generally supposed. If facts had
been stated and carefully proved, then indeed I would
have been well prepared to meet the arguments of
¦ Rome. If the great and real evils of the Church of
Rome had been stated calmly and dispassionately, then
indeed I would have been forewarned Unhappily it
was not so. I have lived to see the same mistake made
at the present day. I have heard some lecturers, and
often I have heard persons in private life, denounce
evils which do not exist, and make assertions about
the creed and teaching of the Church of Rome which a
Roman Catholic child could have refuted. My object
therefore in the present work is to give facts, and, as I
have said, to give authority for statements about the
teaching of Rome from Roman Catholic sources. More
over I have the advantage of knowing how Rome
explains her dogmas — not a small advantage, as I well
know, for I have heard the most serious mistakes made
in this matter also. To give one example : I have
often heard Protestants accuse the Romanists of wor
shipping a piece of bread or a "wafer god." Now the
Romanist does not do this, and he knows that he does
not do it ; so that all accusations to this effect are
simply worse than useless. II is true that what is
called "The Host" in the Roman Catholic Church is

22 INTR OD UCTION.
a piece of bread, but it should be remembered that the
Romanist believes that it has been changed into the
body and blood of Christ before he worships it. The
difference is immense. We who do not believe in this
change know that what Rome bows down before is
bread, but it is not wise to put the argument on this
ground, and to accuse the Romanist of worshipping
bread when he does not believe what he worships to be
bread. What we have to do is, not to charge him with
doing what he does not do, but to show him that he is
mistaken in his belief, which is a very different matter.
When worshipping the host Romanists are unconscious
idolaters ; and it is shocking to hear, as I have heard,
Protestants call what Romanists consider so sacred "a
pancake god." I wish Protestants know how they
drive Romanists from them by such outrages on their
most sacred feelings, and how much wiser as well as
how much more Christian it would be to say that we
know they do not think they are worshipping bread or
wine, but that all the same they really do so, because
they have no proof that the bread or the wine has
ceased to exist, except in what Rome calls its " acci
dents." But I will return to the controversial aspect
of this matter later.
With regard to worshipping the Virgin Mary, there
is no excuse for Rome ; but as she denies doing it we must
only point to the books authorized by her, in which she
expressly teaches this creature- worship. The case is
quite different from that of the worship of the Host ;
in the one case the worshipper does not adore the bread,
for he believes Christ to have taken the place of the
bread. In the worship of Mary, there is no such
excuse possible. Rome teaches distinctly that Mary is

INTRODUCTION. 23
a mediator, and cannot deny this when brought face to
face with her own teaching. Nor should we forget that
Rome holds many Christian truths. She believes in God,
she believes in the Trinity, she invokes the Holy Spirit
of God in all her offices ; she has simply added a new
religion of her own manufacture to the old religion of the
Gospel. I have found that there is no better way of
arguing with Romanists than to remind them of what
they do believe. For example : When showing them
the sinfulness of the worship of Mary. I would say, does
not your Church teach, and teach truly, that Jesus is
your Saviour ? If this is so, what do you want with
Mary, or any other saviour ? Again — if I may be par
doned for making another suggestion — never push an
argument too far. It is better to let people do as much
as possible of their own thinking; leave something to
God and to conscience If you see that you have
made an impression, then is the time to stop speaking,
and let the impression remain. The old proverb,
"Convince a man against his will, he's of the same
opinion still," is truer in theological argument than in
any other, simply because our theological opinions are
happily our strongest and most cherished opinions.
Remember that your opponent is as sure that he is
right as you are that he is wrong, and let us imitate
the patience of our dear Lord.
All this by no me^ns implies that we should avoid
controversy,. or practise an easy indifference to the sal
vation and enlightenment of our fellow-creatures under
the plea of charity. Surely Christians will have a terri
ble account to give if they do not use every means in
their power to enlighten the ignorance which is at their
very doors ! Surely those who know and love Jesus

24 INTRODUCTION.
cannot be indifferent to the advancement of his king
dom. Surely, to put the matter on lower ground, but
on ground which we ought to consider, those who have
even a spark of love for, or pride in their country,
should leave no means unused to save it from the depths
of degradation which has been the inevitable result in
every country which has been under Papal rule.
None of us may excuse ourselves. We arc all respon
sible in a certain degree for the well-being, spiritual and
temporal, of those around us ; and we are all responsi-
sible for a future generation who may rise up and
ask why we aUowed them to be the prey of a power
which shows no mercy to the heretic, which only needs
opportunity to persecute to the death all who do not
submit to its teaching and obey its commands.

WHAT ROME TEACHES,

CHA.PTER I.
IXFALLIBILITY. *
The doctrine of the infallibility of the Church is the
flrst and foundation doctrine of Rome. This is obvious.
If Rome is infallible, there can be no argument with
her. If she sits in the temple of God, exercising the
very authority of God, there can be no question as to
our obedience. Hence it is necessary first to under
stand what Rome means by infallibility, and then to
know what are the consequences of this doctrine. Nor
must we forget that Rome bases her claim to infalli
bility on Scripture teaching ; that is, on her interpreta
tion of Scripture But in order to do this, she must
first prove that she is the only authorized interpreter of
Scripture. The whole argument runs in a vicious circle. Rome
bases her claim to infallibility on certain texts of Script
ure, and then when we dispute her interpretation of
these texts she bases her right to interpret them on her
infallibility. But first we will consider what Rome says on the
subject of her own infallibility — how she defines this

26 TT-K.-ir ROME TEACHES.
doctrine. And here we come face to face with facts for
which there can be neither denial nor excuse, and which
at once overthrow her whole claim to infallibility. Un
til the Vatican Council held in 1S?0. the Pope was not
infallible ; if he had been infallible, there was certainly
no need to convene a council to make him infallible.
It is amazing how Roman Catholics with even ordi
nary common sense can fail to see the inconsistencies of
their position. The fact is that they do not think, be
cause from the e irliest dawn of reason they have been
taught that it is treason against the Church to think.
1 am sure that this is the reason why so many remain
in the Church of Rome notwithstanding her contradic
tory dogmas. Romanists say that the de^al was the
founder of the Protestant religion, so it is not unfair to
retort that if the devil wanted to found a religion which
should endure, he could not have contrived a more
effectual plan than that of forbidding men to discuss
their belief, or to question it for even a passing moment.
We have then to deal with the fact that the Clmrch
was infallible until the year 1870, and that in this year
the Church handed over its infallibility to the Pope.
To have said at any previous date that such a stupen
dous change could have been made,' would have been a
bold prediction. For nineteen centuries, according to
the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, the Church
was infallible ; learned treatises were written and much
zeal was expended on this f undtimental doctrine of the
Church ; attention was drawn again and again to the
grandeur and magnificence of the idea. The whole
Church was to meet to decide points of doctrine, and
what she decided was the will of God. Perhaps only
those who, like myself, joined the Church when this

INFALLIBILITY. 27
teaching was given, could understand all that was made
of it. Certainly there was some grandeur, if there was
not much truth in the idea of a harmonious Church
deciding what the faithful were to believe. But how
great was the change ! The Church handed over her
infallibility to the Pope, and the teaching authority of
which so much was said ceased to exercise its power ;
its last act being to execute a sort of " happy despatch "
at the command of a then fallible individual.
This marvellous change in the Roman Church has
not met with the consideration which it requires. The
deed was done in the very face of Europe and in this
enlightened nineteenth century. The present genera
tion have almost forgotten this stupendous act, but it
should not be forgotten. I have spoken to Catholics
again and again, who did not seem even to know that
such a change had taken place, and who were per
plexed and amazed beyond measure when it was ex
plained to them. It is just here that the stern disci
pline of the Roman Church comes in for its protection.
No discussion is allowed ; hence all interest in such
subjects dies out quickly. The downward course of
error is easy, when no hand may be raised to prevent a
fall. It is scarcely twenty years since this change in
the religion of the Roman Church was made. It is
scarcely twenty years since Newman expostulated against
it, and Archbishop Kenrick denounced it, and Bishop
Moriarty assured the present writer that he did not be
lieve it ; yet the controversy it occasioned is forgotten as
if it had never been. The generation in whose day the
stirring events occurred have ceased to think of a sub
ject which they were told it was treason to discuss, and
about which they were not allowed to express any

38 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
opinion. The younger and rising generation learn
their catechism, and there all ends. They scarcely
know that the teaching of the Church has changed on
this momentous question, or if they do know, it is no
business of theirs; their duty is to learn what they
are taught, and to believe whatever they learn.
Before the change of belief R )me was used t ) assert,
most vehemently, that such a change could never take
place ; to-day she asserts as vehemently that she will
never make the temporal power an article of faith. But
I am convinced that very few years will pass before this
last outrage on the religion of Jesus Christ will be
accomplished and accepted with unreasoning submis
sion by the Catholic world. It is far easier now than
it was formerly for Rome to add a new doctrine to her
Creed. It is no longer necessary to summon bishops
from the most distant parts of the earth, or to spend
weeks and months in deliberation of a foregone con
clusion. Now all that is needed is for the Pope to
declare that the Church must believe what he asserts,
and the thing is done ; to-morrow, if he so pleases, the
present Pope may say that it is an article of the Chris
tian faith to believe that the Pope must be a temporal
as well as a spiritual sovereign, and behold the change
of creed is made and must be accepted. Every Catholic
will then be obliged to believe this just as much as he
IS obliged to believe that there is a God. To-day every
Catholic is obliged to believe that the Pope has the
power to do this ; and do not let this be forgotten in
discussing this subject with Romanists.
But to return to the teaching of Rome on the subject
of her infallibility before the year 1870. As I have
said in the preface, there were many Protestants who

INFALLIBILITY. 29
thought that infallibility and impeccability were one
and the same thing. There were others also who, not
without cause, were very uneasy at the growing power
of the Pope. It was the object of the Roman Catholic
Church to soothe all this excitement, and to lull Protes
tant minds into a fatal security ; hence they almost
made light of the personal authority of the Pope.
Certainly the fathers who formed the teaching body of
the Church, and presided in all the once infallible
General Councils, never dreamed of such a thing as the
personal infallibility of the Pope, and their own conse
quent undoing ; hence strong expressions were used
to satisfy Protestants that the Church never taught — as
certainly she never did teach — the personal infallibility
of the Pope ; and further, it was loudly and authori
tatively declared that the Church never would teach
this doctrine.
In the Rev. Stephen Keenan's " Controversial Cate
chism " (which was taught to Roman Catholic children,
and to all who needed instruction), in all editions
printed before the Vatican Council, there was the
following question and answer :
"Q. Must not Catholics believe the Pope himself
to be infallible ?
" A. This is a Protestant invention ; it is ho article
of the Catholic faith. No decision of his can bind on
pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by
the teaching body — that is, by the Bishops of the
Church." In all editions printed since the Vatican Council
this question and answer is omitted, and without a
word of explanation. This catechism had the appro
bation of the late Archbishop Hughes of New York,
and was in general use. And yet Romanists say that

bO WHAT ROME TEACHES.
the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church never
changes ! Here certainly is a change, and a stupendous
one, since what was once condemned as " a Protestant
invention" is now the received doctrine of the Church
of Rome, and one moreover which Roman Catholics
are obliged to believe, under pain of sin, as much as
the doctrine of the Trinity.
Do not let it be forgotten that Rome requires all her
doctrines to be believed, and that they must be be
lieved under pain of eternal damnation.
One of the difficulties which Protestants have in
understanding Roman Catholic doctrine is caused by
the evasiveness and trickery of Roman Catholics when
they are asked any question about the belief of their
Church. Protestants are not prepared for statements
which are deliberately misleading, and which do mis
lead, to the infinite hurt of those who are so deceived.
If I could in any degree succeed in arousing Protes
tants to this danger, then this work would not have
been written in vain. So plausible are some Catholic
statements that it is little wonder people take them
for facts, when they are really falsehoods. It is not
difficult to know what Rome teaches, if we judge from
what she says, in the books which she uses to teach
her own people. Books written for the benefit of con-
flding Protestants never tell the plain facts, because
the plain facts dare not be told. As an example of
this we may notice the serious difference between the
statements made by Cardinal Gibbons.
I will give one or two more extracts from well-known
Roman theologians, to show that the infallibility of
the Pope was not a doctrine of the Roman Church
previous to the year 1870 ; but in truth it is scarcely

INFALLIBILITY. 81
hecessary to do this. If the Church had taught and
believed that the Pope was personally infallible pre
vious to this period, clearly there would have been no
necessity for the assembling of a council to make him
infallible. Dr. John Milner wrote a very celebrated work in
defence of the Roman Church called " End of Relig
ious Controversy." In this work he says : " It is no
article of Catholic Faith to belieVe that the Pope is in
himself infallible, separated from the Church, even in
expounding the Faith. By consequence. Papal deflni-
tions or decrees, iu whatever form pronounced, taken
exclusively of a General Council or acceptance of the
Church, oblige none, under pain of heresy, to interior
assent." Veron, the Jesuit, in his celebrated work, " The
Rule of Catholic Faith," which Dr. Murray, the Ro
mish bishop, in his examination before a committee of
the House of Commons (Report, March 23, 1835),
classed among others as one " in which is found the
most authentic exposition of the faith of the Catholic
Church," says :
" The Pope, in whatever character, or however sol
emnly he may give his opinion, even in scholastic
phraseology ex cathedra, is not the universal Church,
and consequently whatever may be his private opinion,
and however declared, such opinion is not, on that
account, propounded by the Catholic Church as an
article of faith. ... In fact, it is clear from
Bellarmine himself that it has never been deflned
by the Church that the Pope is infallible when un
assisted by a General Council, nor that any doctrine
advanced and proposed by him is, in consequence of
such a proposal, an article of Catholic faith. All
divines consequently are agreed, as Bellarmine allows,

33 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
that Papal infallibility is no doctrine of the Catho.io
Church, and this is certain beyond all controversy"
(pp. 13. 14).
" It is not of faith that when the Roman Pontiff
teaches anything, either assisted by his own private
council or by a provincial synod, even though he ad
dressed the Universal Church, or, as it is termed, speaks
ex cathedra, in a word, so long as he is not the supreme
judge of controversies, he is not infallible, nor would a
decree passed under these circumstances be of faith,
unless the opinion of the Church were, from other
sources, clearly ascertained to have been pronounced in
his favor" (p. 133).
" Dr. I'urcell, Bishop of Cincinnati, in his contro
versy with Mr, Campbell, said, ' No enlightened Cath
olic holds the Pope's infallibility to be an article of
faith, I do not, and none of my brethren that I know
of do.'"
We have now given Roman Catholic authority to
prove that the new doctrine of the Pope's personal in
fallibility \\ as not the doctrine of the Church of Rome
until the present century ; surely this fact alone dis
proves the very infallibility which it seeks to maintain.
The great cry of Rome is, that she never changes, that
her creeds never vary, that she is above all relig
ious discussion, and many thoughtless Protestants
have entered the Church of Rome under the delu
sion that the creed of that Church never changes.
It has changed within the last twenty years, it has
changed in previous ages, and it will probably change
before the present century closes, for active efforts
are already being made to prepare the world for
the announcement that the temporal power of the Pope
must be believed as an article of faith. And yet our
dear Lord has said, " My kingdom is not of this world."
What a terrible fall it will be for the Church of Rome

INFALLIBILITY. 83
when she acts in direct opposition to the very words of
Him whom she claims to be her Master.
There is a remarkable quotation in Cardinal Gibbons'
book " Faith of Our Fathers." He quotes from the
very highest authority, to prove that "no Catholic
claims that the Pope is inspired, or endowed with
divine revelation properly so called.
"For, the Holy Spirit was not promised to the suc
cessors of Peter in order that they might spread abroad
new doctrines which he reveals, but that, under his
assistance, they might guard inviolably, and with fldel-
ity explain, the revelation or deposit of faith handed
down by the Apostles," And in order to show that
this is the teaching of the Church, he quotes from the
bull of the Vatican Council. " Faith of Our Fathers "
(p, 147).
All this is very well for American Protestants who do
not know Rome, and for uneducated Catholics ; yet
shortly before the Vatican Council Cardinal Wiseman
wrote : " The essential principle for which we (Roman
ists) are contending is no modern invention whatever,
but as old as (Roman) Catholic theology itself. The
principle is that the Church (of Rome) possesses the
power, and has from time to time exercised it, of rais
ing into the rank of doctrines of faith propositions
which previously to her definition were not such."
The above statement is a self-evident fact. One
knows not which to marvel most at, the simplicity of
Protestants who believe such patent sophistries, or the
ingenuity of the Romanists who invent them. Here
we are told on the very highest authority possible, that
the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of
Peter that they might spread abroad new doctrine;

84 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
they are only to guard and explain what has already
been revealed; and yet we have given the highest
authority of the Roman Church to prove that the new
doctrine of the personal infallibility of the Pope was
not believed nor enforced for nearly -nineteen hundred
years. How could it be said, then, that this doctrine
was "handed down " from the time of the Apostles and
only now " explained " ?
I proceed to give extracts from the catechism now in
use and which gives the present teaching of the Roman
Church on the subject of infallibility.
The first catechism, intended for the youngest children
and for confiding Protestants who need to be gradually
introduced to the tenets of the Roman Church, is a re
markable production when viewed in the light of a
knowledge of the purposes of the compilers. The
questions on the subject of the infallibility of the Pope
are a model of caution and mystification. It is evident
that it would not do to make too sudden a change, so
the infallibility of the Church and the Pope is judi
ciously mixed.
" Q. What do you mean by the infallibility of the
Church ?
"A. By the infallibility of the Church I mean that
the Church cannot err when it teaches a doctrine of
faith or morals.
" Q. When does the Church teach infallibly ?
" A. The Church teaches infallibly when it speaks
through the Pope and bishops united in general coun
cil, or through the Pope alone when he proclaims
to all the faithful a doctrine of faith or morals.
" Q. In whom are these attributes found in their
fulness ?
"A. These attributes are found in their fulness in
the Pope, the visible head of the Church, whose infal-

I\FALLrBTLITY. S.-)
lible authority to teach bishops, priests and people iu
matters of faith or morals will last to the end of the
world," Now it will be observed from this series of questions
that the new doctrine of the personal infallibility of
the Pope is very deftly introduced, and an impression is
left ou the mind that the Church also is infallible.
The absurdity of two infallible authorities would not
strike those who are not permitted to reason, nor
would Protestants be at aU likely to see it. The ques
tion, "When does the Church teach infallibly?"
is merely left in as a " blind " for the benefit of those
who may ask. Why, has the Church ceased to be infalli
ble? It certainly has so ceased since the Pope was
made infallible ; for Rome can hardly maintain that
there are two infallible authorities. The Pope being
infallible without the Church, as wo shall show presently,
the Church ceases to be infallible, as it cannot speak
without the Pope, and in fact is no longer able to
speak, having signed away its own rights; rights which
were so long and loudly proclaimed.
Before noticing the definition of infallibility given in
the catechism for advanced pupils, it may be well to
place before the reader the exact words in which the
infallibility of the Pope was proclaimed by the Vatican
Council. It is certainly a curious document, and de-
ser\es far more attention than it has ever received.
Romanists are of course obliged to believe it without
the least attempt to understand it ; indeed it is possi
ble, we might say certain, that not one Romanist in
five thousand has ever seen it. They are taught in the
catechism that the Pope is infallible, and there is an
end of the matter ; the why, or the how, or the when.

86 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
or the where, is no concern of theirs. We. may note
here also that the doctrine of the Immaculate Concep
tion of. the Virgin Mary, of which we shall speak later^
had been proclaimed some time before by a general
council, and there was not one word of its bemg the
duty or privilege of the Pope to proclaim this doctrine.
Such are the inconsistencies of Rome. The very
same Pope holds a council in Rome to proclaim a cer
tain doctrine, and the next time a council is convened
he practically compels that council to declare that it
has no more authority, and that he can proclaim any
doctrine without any council. It should also be ob
served that in this carefully prepared statement the
Pope is credited not only with the power to proclaim
doctrines, but he is also made the infallible judge of
" morals." Where in Scripture is there even the faint
est hint of the possibility of such a power being vested
even in an inspired Apostle ?
Observe also the expression, " not from the consent of
the Church." This is very important as being a dec
laration of its own abdication of power by the Church.
Observe also the expression that the Pope has this new
power by "the Divine assistance promised to him in
blessed Peter." Surely the Church took a long time
to find out this promise. In what this promise con
sisted we shall show presently.
The following is the declaration of his own infalli
bility, made by Pius IX., adopted by the Vatican Coun
cil of 1870 :
" Wherefore faithfully adhering to the tradition re
ceived from the beginning of the Christian Faith, for
the glory of God our Saviour, the exaltation of the
Catholic religion, and the salvation of the Christian

INFALLIBILITY. ;!7
people. We, the Sacred Council, approving, teach and
define that it is a dogma divinely revealed : that the
Roman Pontiff, when speaking c.r cathedrd — that is,
when, discharging the office of pastor and teacher of
all Christians, by virtue of his supreme authority, he
defines a doctrine regarding faith and morals to be
held by the Universat Church— he, by the Divine as
sistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed
C'f that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer
willed the Church should be endowed in defining doc
trine regarding faith or morals ; and that, therefore,
such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable
of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church.
But if any one — which may God avert — presume to
contradict this our definition, let him be anathema."
Now there is one other point worthy of special note
in this connection. If the Pope was " always infalli
ble "' as an individual, and if it did not require the
" consent of the Church " (see above) to make his de
cisions infallible, how was it that he asked the consent
of the Church to make him infallible ? If the Pope
was infallible without the Church, why did he find it
necessary to ask the Church to make him infallible?
The truth is that the whole business was the greatest
farce ever enacted in the sacred name of God.
Scripture tells us that, at the flrst Council of Jerusa
lem, St. Peter was not the infallible decider of the sub
jects discussed, and that at Antioch a decision was
given against him. But how can a Roman Catholic
know this when he is not allowed to read the Bible
which would teU him this plain truth ? No Roman
Catholic book or catechism will tell him what the Bible
tells him, that St, Paul "withstood'" St. Peter to the
face, because he was to "be blamed."' Imagine the
fate of a bishop to-day who should follow the example

88 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
of St. Paul and dare to blame a Pope. It is true he
would only be excommunicated at the present day, but
he would escape death merely because it would not now
be possible for the head of his Church to burn him
alive. Moreover, this rebuke of Peter was made in the
most public manner possible. It was made, St. Paul
himself tells us, "before them all" (Gal. ii. 14).
Before the whole Church assembled at Antioch St.
Paul denounced St. Peter. It would seem indeed very
plain that the great fault of St. Peter at that time was
dissimulation — a curious coincidence in view of all the
dissimulations of the Church of Rome which claims
him as its founder. He said one thing before the
Jews, and another thing before the Gentiles. The
Church of Rome has followed him in his dissimulations,
but, alas ! not in his repentance.
St. Paul knew better. Ever bold and brave for
truth, what a clean sweep he would have made of the
tergiversations of the Roman Church of to-day. Were
he in the flesh there would be no mental reservations
or perverted quotations of Scripture, or of the much-
maligned fathers.
The next question in the catechism is, " What
special gift did Christ ask for St. Peter as the teacher
of his whole Church ? " Is it necessary to point out
the diplomacy of this question and its effects on a con
fiding mind — the mind of one who has been brought
up to look on the priest who teaches him as of so
saintly a life that it would be absolutely impossible
for him to lie or equivocate ? Study this question
carefully and you have the key to many subjects which
would otherwise be perplexing. First, you see it is

INFALLIBILITY. 39
taken as an accepted fact that Christ made St. Peter
the head of the Church, It is taken as a matter of
course about which there can be no doubt. The idea
is flxed flrmly in the mind of the young and ignorant
child as an eternal verity. The answer is a piece of
the most audacious falsehood, may I say, which has
ever disgraced Christian teaching : " Christ asked his
heavenly Father to bestow on St, Peter the special gift
of teaching infallibly his whole doctrine." l^et St.
Peter was not asked to teach when he assisted at the
Council of Jerusalem. But what Roman Catholic
child can ever know this when the Bible is so carefully
kept out of sight ? Then with marvellous audacity a
text is quoted to prove this necessary doctrine ; for
unless it could be shown that Christ made St. Peter
infallible the claim of his successor falls to the ground :
" I have prayed for thee, that faith fail not ; and thou,
being once converted {sic), conflrm thy brethren."
Surely by no stretch of argument can one word be
found here which implies that the gift of infallibility
was conferred on Peter.
Our dear Lord, knowing Peter's weakness, prays
that " his faith may not fail. " He does not say that
it will not fail, nor has this prayer the least refer
ence to any one or anything but St. Peter's own
personal state before God. It is his faith that our
Lord prays for ; and yet Rome declares that it was the
faith of the "Church" that was prayed for. Alas!
notwithstanding that prayer, the faith of Peter failed
within a few short hours ; for he who prayed for Peter
would not compel Peter to accept the grace which he
mercifully asked for him, since Peter had to stand or
fall by his own will for good or evil. Certainly there

40 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
is not one word here of "teaching his brethren," either
infallibly or otherwise. But the child, accustomed to
believe that whatever is taught must be true, believes
the interpretation without question ; and the end of
Rome is gained. Again and again the same suppressio
veri and the same begging the question is used. It is
taught that St. Peter was infallible, and that the Pope
is his successor and also infallible, and all by the ex
press act of Christ himself. The cool assurance with
which it is stated, as a matter of fact, that "Christ
asked his heavenly Father for the gift of infallibility
for St. Peter " would be amusing if it were not so little
short of blasphemous. The Pope, says the catechism,
is "infallible by the special assistance of the Holy
Ghost promised him in {sic) St. Peter."' One asks in
amazement. When and where was this promise made ?
But it is reserved for the conclusion of this chapter to
make a deliberate misquotation from Scripture. The
catechism teaches that " the Catholic Church is to
last to the end of the world ; for Christ says, ' The
gates of hell shall not prevail against my Church.' "
Is it not a logical sequence, if these promises are granted,
that the next chapter should be headed, ' ' No Salva
tion out of the Catholic Church '" ?
In the second catechism of which I spoke in the in
troduction, the learner is taught thus : In the chapter
on the Holy Catholic Church the question is asked,
" Whom did Christ appoint the visible head and chief
pastor of his Church ? " and the reply is " St. Peter."
Here we have for the first time an attempt at Script
ural proof, as follows : " I say to thee. Thou art Peter,
and upon this rock I will build my Church." So far
there is apparent Scripture authority. The child is

INFALLIBILITY. 41
not to know that the text is interpreted according to
Rome, and never suspects that the rock on which
Christ built his Church was the truth expressed in
Peter's confession.
The value to Rome of this kind of instruction will
be easily seen. Neither then, nor at any later period of
life has the Roman Catholic any opportunity of know
ing that any other interpretation has been or could be
put upon this text other than that which Rome puts
upon it. So Rome, arguing in a vicious circle, bases
her authority not on the word of God, but on her in
terpretation of the word of God, which is quite an
other matter. The child thus taught is simply left in
helpless ignorance.
But Rome has a further point to gain. She must
not only prove that St. Peter is the divinely appointed
head of the Church, but she must prove also that the
Popes have equal power.
" Q. What power had St. Peter as supreme head of
the Church?
"A. Peter had the power to govern the whole
Church of Christ, the pastors, and the faithful, make
laws for thenx. and enforce these laws."
(Observe the claim of power to "enforce." This
is the first note of the Roman Inquisition.) There is
no text quoted to prove all this, probably because by
no possible amount of distortion could such a text be
found. "Q. What special gift did Christ ask of his heav
enly Father for St. Peter, as the teacher of his whole
Church ?
" A. Christ asked of his heavenly Father to bestow
upon St. Peter the special gift of teaching infallibly

42 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
his whole doctrine. 'I have prayed for thee,' said our
divine Saviour to St. Peter, ' that thy faith fail not ;
and thou, being once converted, confirm thy breth
ren'" (Lukexxii. 32).
Now for a sample of special pleading this is certainly
unique. Everything is taken for granted ; nothing is
proved. The word "confirm " is used instead of the
word " strengthen : " another evidence of how Rome,
when she appeals to Scripture, changes its meaning to
serve her purpose. But even as the text is quoted by
Rome, there is not one word in it to support the mon
strous assertion that "Christ asked for Peter the
special gift of teaching infallibly his whole doctrine."
There is not even anything approaching such an ex
pression. But Roman Catholic children who are taught
this catechism are not allowed to reason about the
matter or to discuss it ; their duty begins and ends
with learning the words of the catechism.
Let it be observed that St. Peter is always called the
first Pope and the "first Bishop of Rome ;" thus the
minds of the young are familiarized and impressed with
this idea. The dishonest use of the expression about
Peter being the first Pope is naturally accepted by Roman
Catholics, and often by inquiring Protestants, as quite
sufficient proof of the supposed fact that there were
always "popes." The use of words and expressions
which were never heard of for long centuries after the
times in which they are alleged to have been in com
mon use, is not honest; but it answers the purpose for
which it is intended. For skill in what logicians call
suppressio veri, or the concealing of truth to answer a
purpose, Rome is unsurpassable.
We now proceed to consider what is taught in the

INFALLIBILITY. 43
catechism for more advanced pupils, for persons of
"culture," for the advanced pupils of colleges, etc.
As might be expected, doctrine is elaborated in these
catechisms ; and if it is not explained, its effects and
bearings are very plainly pointed out.
This catechism in fact deals with the consequences
of the doctrine of Papal infallibility, a matter of the
gravest importance to the Protestants of this country.
Here the plain naked truth is told without gloss or
subterfuge, and the authoritative nature of these state
ments cannot be questioned. It is a grim contrast to
the sweetly flowing sentences of Cardinal Gibbons'
"Faith of Our Fathers," where everything is toned
down to please the Protestant reader and to conceal the
stern truth. Again let me remind the reader that the
catechism from which I am about to quote bears the
imprimatur of Cardinal Gibbons ; he is therefore
bound by every word in the book.
As the consideration of the consequences of the new
doctrine of Papal infallibility is of great importance, I
reserve its discussion for a separate chapter. Before
turning to another subject, we will note a few more
points in regard to the teaching given in this catechism.
One bishop says he wishes he had "' money enough
to send a copy to every house in the United States,"
and wishes he could "see it thumbed by Protestants
and infldels." So zealous is Rome to spread her faith.
It has a long and elaborate preface, in which the
following noteworthy statements are made. The writer
insists strongly that the fundamental doctrine of Rome
is her infallibihty, "divinely conferred on her," and
declares truly that it is " no use to discuss controversial
points unless this doctrine is flrst accepted." This is

44 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
obvious, for once you admit the infallibility of the
Church there is nothing to discuss ; you have only to
be told what you are to believe. This is the reason, he
says, why it should be plainly stated that there is no
salvation outside of the Roman Church. Further he
says : " The child must have learned before he leaves
school that only the Catholic Church is the teacher
from God, and the reasons why salvation out of her is
impossible." This is also the teaching which Cardinal
Gibbons requires to be given to the young. He pro
vides a very different expression of opinion to be
perused by Protestants in his widely circulated " Faith
of Our Fathers."'
All the statements in the previous catechisms are
again reiterated. Rome knows well the value of rep
etition, and of continuing to impress the same idea
on the minds of the young. The subject of the head
ship of St. Peter is elaborated, and the authority of
the Pope is pressed on the learner by every possible
argument. Here again the priest has the advantage.
He can quote or misquote, and his learner can never
be the wiser. Quotations are now given from the
fathers, which also must be taken for granted by the
pupil. How could he verify them, or know whether
their accuracy has ever been disputed ?
The question is asked, " Did St. Peter exercise his
power as head and chief pastor of the Church ? " And
it is answered in the affirmative with the happy reck
lessness of one who speaks infallibly, and therefore
cannot be contradicted. It would be impossible to give
all the reasons adduced for the statement that the
other Apostles recognized St. Peter as their head. One
must suffice as a sample of what is taught to the youth

INFALLIBILITY. 45
of this country : "It is because the Evangelists always
name St. Peter flrst I "
In this advanced catechism the supremacy of the
Pope is the one great topic of instruction. The pupil
is taught that he is " cursed who does not believe that
the Pope is the successor of St. Peter." Indeed even
if Rome had not especially taught, in her most solemn
decrees, that every Protestant is already damned, she
would have proved that such is her teaching by her
anathemas on those who differ from her. It is greatly
to be regretted that Protestants do not know, or, if
they do know, that they are indifferent to all this. An
elaborate instruction on the infallibility of the Pope
comes next, and a construction of all that is in
volved in that claim. It was well indeed to have
preceded this instruction with the infallible assur
ance of the eternal damnation of those who would not
believe all these things. Here the author goes a step
further in misquoting the words of Christ. How ter
rible is the blindness of those who thus bring on
themselves not the anathema of man, but the very
anathema of God : " Add not unto his words lest he
reprove thee, and thou be found a liar " ( Proverbs
xxx. 6).
Note well the evasion of truth, and remember once
more that those who are thus taught may never have
even one opportunity of knowing how they have been
deceived. The question is asked : " How do we know that the
Pope as successor to St. Peter possesses the gift of
infallibility?" The answer is: "We know it from
Christ's own words ; for he told St. Peter that by his
prayer to his heavenly Father he had obtained this

46 WHAT R OME TEA CHES.
gift of infallibihty for him and all his successors." Is
it not amazing that human credulity could be so im
posed upon in this enlightened age ? How is the hap
less student to know that Christ never said this to St.
Peter ? Well may Rome secure that her people shall
be kept in ignorance before she begins to teach them,
and well may she forbid them to " search the Script
ures," lest they should find that such words were never
uttered or even implied by our divine Lord.
Then follow the most important instructions for the
youth of this country as to the power of the Pope,
which is taught to be supreme in everything. " The
Pope could not discharge his office as teacher of all
nations unless he was able with infallible certainty
to prescribe and condemn doctrines, logical, scientific,
physical, metapihysical or political of a7iy kind." (The
italics are as given in the catechism.) But there is yet
more. It is obvious that the Church must not only
have authority, but also her authority must extend to
the decision of what subjects she can control and de
cide. Hence the learner is told that " the Church only
can judge how far her authority goes." " Whatever
she teaches we are bound to believe."' It is indeed self-
evident that once the doctrineof infallibility is accepted
as a doctrine declared by God himself, there could be
no more limit to its authority than there could be to
the authority of God. In fact the Roman Church
knows no difference between the authority of God and
the authority of the Pope. Practically, however, the
authority of the Pope is the highest, for he can always
speak and compel submission, while God leaves us to
learn from the voice of conscience. In matters that
are not of sin the Christian has a choice. In the re-

INFALLIBILITY. 47
ligion of Rome the Romanist has no choice ; he is
obliged to submit to the authority of the Pope even in
matters indifferent in themselves. Is it any wonder
that Rome succeeds as a temporal power until in very
wantonness she exceeds all moderation, and her own
people revolt from her intolerable tyrannies ?
We do not wish here to enter into a disputed ques
tion of prophecy, but surely it looks as if the Pope was
indeed sitting in the temple of God showing himself as
God. Again in this catechism the outrageous statement
is made that " the divine assistance (infallibility) was
promised (by Christ) to St. Peter, and in Peter to his
successors, independent of the Church." One is al
most inclined to exclaim : Poor Peter ! How utterly
unconscious he was of all the honor and dignity which
his so-called successors claim ! Then an apostolic letter
from the Pope is quoted, which desires that students
should have "the Summa of St. Thomas open on their
desks to seek therefrom guidance and theological con
clusions." What a poor substitute for the living word
of God ! But it is safe to allow students to read and
seek guidance from St. Thomas ; the Bible would be
very dangerous !
The expression " independent of the Church " is
almost amusing, when we consider that the Pope was
not declared to be infallible "independent of the
Church" until the present century. If Christ made
this promise to St. Peter, why was it not known sooner,
and when and where was this promise made ?

CHAPTER II.
THE POLITICAL, MORAL AND SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES
OE THE DOCTRINE OF PAPAL INFALLIBILIT ?.
We now proceed to consider the consequences of
belief in the doctrine of the personal infallibility of
the Pope. It is a matter of the gravest moment. We
are not left in any doubt as to the claims of the Pope,
and if the people of this country find later that, to
their grievous hurt, they have been ignorant of these
claims, they cannot plead the excuse of want of oppor
tunities of knowledge. There is only this to be observed,
that books have been published and words have been
said which we must say have been put forward with
the evident object of misleading those who, as we have
said elsewhere, would turn away in indignant disgust if
they knew what Rome really teaches.
We see that the infallibility of the Church in previ
ous ages, and still more the infallibility of the Pope
to-day, demands the absolute and unconditional sub
mission of every human being on the face of the earth
to the Papal power. Look at it for a moment ; not as
you view it, but as Rome teaches it. Suppose, for the
sake of argument — or rather for the sake of better
understanding the case — that Rome was right : that
Christ himself had, to use the words of this catechism,
" promised the divine assistance (infallibility) to Peter,
and in Peter to his successors, independent of the
Church " (the italics are in the original), would not we

CONSEQUENCES OF INFALLIBILITY. 49
be bound to submit ourselves body and soul to this
absolutely divine power ? Remember that Rome claims
that the Pope occupies the very place of God on earth,
and what limit could there be to the obedience due to
such a person ? We can only allude here to the serious
divisions by which the Church of Rome was rent when
the Pope insisted on having himself declared infallible.
All that could be done was done and has been done, to
conceal these divisions ; but all the same the evidence
of them remains. Hence in this catechism and in all
such books intended for the more educated class of
Romanists, every care is taken to put forward the new
doctrine as if it had always been believed in the Church,
Again and again it is said that the Pope cannot pro
claim any new doctrine ; that he can only define what
the faithful should believe. This is a most specious
argument. It is obvious that it would be too great
a strain even on the blind obedience of the Romanist,
if he was obliged to believe that the Pope could make
a new religion. That the Pope has done so there is no
question to any intelligent mind ; but what matter is
it to the Romanist whether he has done so or not, for
he is obliged to believe whatever the Pope says, and the
Pope says he has not. It matters little whether black
is black or white is white ; Rome speaks, and there the
matter ends.
We now jjroceed to show what this doctrine of infalli
bility involves. It involves this : That whatever the
Pope says on any subject, no matter what that subject
may be, the whole world is bound to believe it; and
no matter what the Pope requires to be done, the
whole world is bound to do it. A great effort
is made by Romanists to conceal from Protestants

50 WHA T R OME TEA CHES.
all that is involved in this doctrineof Papal infallibility,
Protestants would shrink with horror — and they ought
to shrink with horror — if they only knew what is the real
and infallible teaching of the Church of Rome, But
there is no excuse for not knowing. We give here, not
the opinion of this or that bishop, nor the statement of
Protestant controversialists, but the very authorized
words of the Church of Rome herself. No clearer
proof can be given. The statements are incontroverti
ble. At page 136 of the third catechism mentioned, we
find the following question and answer :
" Q. In what matters is the Pope infallible ?
" A. The Pope is infallible in all matters of faith and
morals," The consequence of this teaching is that no Roman
Catholic can tell to-day what religious belief he may
be called upon to profess to-morrow. For example, as
we have said, the Pope may at any moment declare,
and probably will declare, that it is a doctrine which
must be believed under pain of eternal damnation,
that the Popes should have temporal power. It is said
of course that each new doctrine is not new, that it was
always believed in the Church, that the Pope only
says it was always so believed ; but surely a child could
refute such a fallacy. If it was always believed, what is
the use of saying now that it must be believed ? What of
the millions of Roman Catholics who have died without
believing what you to-day must believe or be eternally
damned ? If they are not damned for not believing it,
why should you be damned for not believing it? If
they are not in the flames of eternal torment for teach
ing that the infallibility of the Pope was a Protestant
invention, why should you be damned for following

CONSEQUENCES OF INFALLIBILITY. 51
their e.xample ? To such folly are men driven when
they stray from the plain Gospel of Christ.
On the same page we find the following question
and answer :
' ¦ Q. Is the Pope infallible only in matters of revela
tion ?
" A, The Pope is infallible not only in the matter
of revealed truths ; he is indirectly infallible in all
truths which, though not revealed, ae so intimately
connected with revealed truths that the deposit of faith
and morals cannot be guarded, explained and defended
without an infallible discernment of such unrevealed
truths." This question and answev must be carefully consid
ered by those who wish to understand the faith of the
Roman Catholic Church, whether they are Catholics or
Protestants, There is some show of Scripture brought
forward for the claim of the Pope to infallibility in doc
trine, but where is there one word in the Bible of this
almost ludicrous claim of "indirect infallibility " ? It
is very far from being " indirect ;" it is in the plainest
and most direct language a claim that the Pope is as
God on earth, for there is nothing on the earth which
he has not the power to control and direct, and no sub
ject whatever on which he does not claim obedience.
Until this bold step was taken of proclaiming the Pope
infallible, there was some little show of liberality in the
Church of Rome ; but observe how the chains of men
tal slavery are wound around the unhappy victim of
this new doctrine. Not only is the Pope infallible in
doctrine, but he is universally infallible, and of this I
will give further and stronger proof if possible. The con
tradictions to which- Roman theoiogians commit them-

62 WHA T ROME TEA CHES.
selves are remarkable. In the question and answer given
above, it is said that the Pope is " infallibly able to
discern unrevealed truths," and yet in a previous page
we are told that he cannot do this ; that he can only
"define" truth which has already been revealed.
Truly the infallible Pope would need some fallible per
son to point out his inconsistencies and fallacies.
So long as the infallibility resided in the Church,
this multifarious infallibility could not be claimed.
The Church could not be assembled at every moment to
decide some trifling "political, metaphysical or scientific"
subject ; nor indeed did the Church claim any such ex
ceptional authority. But now all is changed. An in
dividual can do what a body of men could not do ; but
what a revolution in the religious belief of a Church
which is continually boasting that she is unchangeable !
We are told in one breath that the Pope teaches no
new doctrine and in the next that he can infallibly dis
cern " unrevealed truths ; " both statements cannot be
true, and yet Rome expects us to believe both state
ments. The next question is :
" Q. Explain this truth more clearly ?
"¦ A. The Pope could not discharge his office as
teacher of all nations, unless he were able, with infalli
ble certainty, to prescribe and condemn doctrines, logi
cal, scientific, physical or jiohtical of any kind." (Note
that the italics are in the original.)
Now do not let us hear any more of the farce that
Rome does not interfere in politics or in science. Car
dinal Gibbons has especially authorized this catechism,
and even if he had not done so the Papal authorization
of it makes its teachings binding on the conscience of
every Romanist in the world. In- the commencement

CONSEQUENCES OF IXFALLIBILITY. 53
of this work. Cardinal Gibbons has especially com
mended it for " plainness of language,'' and certainly he
has done so justly. No language could be plainer. It
is a grand contrast to his evasive and, we fear, altogether
misleading works. He did not intend this book for cir
culation amongst Protestants ; if he thought about the
matter at all, he probably concluded that it never would
fall into the hands of Protestants; but all the same, or all
the more, it is the authorized teaching of Rome.
There is one remark in a foot-note to this page of the
catechism which is very sad to read. The writer is
arguing that all these new doctrines are not new,
that it is merely that the Pope or the Church says they
must be believed now, as articles of faith ; but all the
same that they were always believed. It is difficult to
understand how a man of ordinary intelligence can be
so deluded or so ignorant ; but so it is. The author
then proceeds to give an example of how a doctrine that
was always believed is at last declared (by the Church)
to be true. He says (p. 133), " The existence of God
has always been an article of faith," and yet it was
deflned only a few years ago in the Vatican Council.
So, according to the teaching of the Church of Rome,
no one was obliged to believe in the existence of God
until the " Church " said that he existed, and now that
the Church has said so, it is an infallible truth, and
stands on the same level as the infallible truth that the
Pope is infallible. Further, this very catechism proves
what Rome has strenuously denied, that the new doctrine
of the infallibility of the Pope was not declared by the
unanimous consent of the Church. A great many
Roman Catholic bishops, who saw that it was as absurd
as it is false^ were very unwilling to vote for it ; for

54 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
strange to say, though Rome now teaches that the Pope
was always personally infallible, the Pope had to get the
Church to say so before he dare act upon the doctrine.
Many Roman Catholic bishops, and I know some of
them personally, refused to have anything to do with
this new doctrine. They were afraid, however, of the pen
alties which Rome can so easily inflict on the i ontuma-
cious, and they made the excuse that it was not " oppor
tune " to proclaim the doctrine at the time; that is, not
that the doctrine might not be true, but that even if it
were true, it was not a seasonable time to declare it to be
true. This made Pius IX. very angry, and he showed
his anger even after he had got the bishops assembled
in Rome to proclaim him infallible.
There were many in France and Germany who stout
ly resisted the doctrine, and refused to believe what
the council had decreed; to these. Pope Pius IX, ad
dressed a brief, dated Nov. 6, 1870, in which he
said, "The definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irre
formable of themselves, and are not in virtue of the
consent of the Church." Again we may ask, for it is
important, why did Pius IX, need the consent of the
Church to proclaim himself infallible if it was not nec
essary ? And yet he here states infallibly that it was not
necessary. Then he adds that ' it is still more absurd
to say that we (the Romanists who refused to believe
the doctrine after it was proclaimed) accept the defini
tion, and persist in saying that it is 'inopportune.'"
Now it will be noted that we have here, for I quote from
the same catechism (page 129), a statement, not of a
Protestant, but of the very Pope himself, that a consid
erable number of the Gorman priests and bishops
objected to this new doctrine, even nine years after it

CONSEQUENCES OF INFALLIBILITY. K
had been promulgated, and that the Pope himself was
obliged to publish a bull to compel their acceptance
of it. So much for the boasted cry of Papal unity.
I would advise Cardinal Gibbons respectfully to have
this part of the catechism cut out before the issue of
the next edition. There is another remarkable state
ment in this catechism.
In the answer to a question, the learner is taught to
say: "The efficient cause of infallibility is the divine
assistance promised to Peter, and iu Peter to his suc
cessor, independent of the Church, which promise of
our Lord was in the minds of some obscured for two
hundred years," The meaning of this I do not pre
tend to explain. Certainly the Roman Church taught
for a great many hundred years that the Church was
infallible, and that it was to the Church that the prom
ise of infallibility was given. It is a new discovery that
this infallibility was "promised to Peter and in (sic)
Peter to his successors, independent of the Church."
We may ask, when and where was this " promise "
made ?
In the chapter on Tradition the following remark
able statement is made. It is said that there were
thousands of Christians who, during 325 years (that is
until the Council of Nice declared the Old and New
Testament to be the Word of God), had no means
of knowing how they were to be saved : " Thank God
it was not necessary to have a Bible ; otherwise all
would, inevitably, have been lost,"
A church that can teach in an authorized catechism
for the young that we may thank God that it is not
necessary to have the liible, is scarcely worthy of the
name of a Christian church. As the present work is

56 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
intended for a simple manual of instruction, it will bo
impossible to enter here into all the points of contro
versy between Christian churches who rely on Christ
only for salvation, and the Church of Rome which re
lies on man both in theory and practice ; but there are
a few points more connected with this claim of infalli
bility of such grave importance that we must notice
them. •
This claim gives the Pope supreme and absolute au
thority over every human being on earth to-day. He
may, accordingly, control you body and soul. It is
taught, as I will presently show, that he may extermi
nate the heretic ; and this means destruction of the soul
as well as the body. The Pope has also a right to govern
your country, to control your legislation, to dictate your
policy and to regulate your literature ; in fact there is
no subject whatever on which the Pope does not claim
a right to control, and that actively. Not one jot or
tittle of Papal claims has ever been abandoned ; they
may be held in abeyance, but that is a very different
matter. The Pope is waiting until you give him the
power to do what he tells you frankly, if not brutally,
he has a divine right to do. If you give him the
power, you have only to blame yourself if he uses it to
your hurt.
If I dwell on the control which the Pope claims in
political matters, it is because this is of far more im
portance than appears at first sight. It makes the
Pope, for the time being, whether he is good or bad,
weak or powerful, the absolute arbiter of the destinies
of the whole human race. That the Pope claims a
divine right to be such, we see from the plainest dec
larations of the Roman Catholic catechism,

CONSEQUENCES OF INFALLIBILITY. 57
The temporal power of the Pope and his (divine)
right to depose princes, and absolve their subjects from
their allegiance, is very plainly stated. At page 195
you will find a section headed :
" Popes deposing Sovereigns and interfering with
Civil Governments."
" St. Thomas Aquinas asks the question : ' Can the
Pope deprive a sovereign of his temporal power if he
becomes an apostate from the faith ? ' And he repJie^i
to this question as follows : ' When a sentence of ex
communication is judicially pronounced against a sov
ereign for apostasy, his sub-'ects are by the very fact
free from all allegiance.' "
But there is yet more ; Cardinal Gibbons in this
catechism teaches that " As the Church has a right
to punish one of her members for wilful murder or
adultery, so she has a right to punish a Catholic sov
ereign for abandoning the faith; she can dispossess him
of his states if she judges this punishment useful for
the good of her children " (page 195).
Let us hear no more of the Church having changed ;
here is the plain declaration of her right to punish, to
use the temporal as well as the spiritual sword. Again
I say that Rome only needs power to punish every Prot
estant nation for not being Catholic, and any Prot
estant nation which places power in the hands of Rome,
knowing what her teaching is and what her practice has
been, deserves a future retribution. In England to-day,
with the help of a minister who ought to know Rome
better, she is making political gains and steadily advanc
ing toward obtaining governing powers. In America,
Rome already rules.
But here is another statement of his Erninence, for

58 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
what he has so strongly approved may with justice be
called his own declaration :
" We must never confound right with fact. For
certain reasons it may not be advisable for you to use
your rights ; but for all that your right is not less cer
tain. In the time of that apostate it was not advisable
nor possible for the Church to use all her rights. She
therefore allowed her children to obey that apostate
emperor in all that was not contrary to faith, in order
to avoid a greater evil, but her moderation and pru
dence did not destroy or lessen in the least any of her
imprescriptible {sic) rights."
Nothing could well be plainer than these statements
made with the authority of so high a dignitary as Car
dinal Gibbons. The Church does not use her temporal
power to depose the Protestant rulers of nations to-day,
simply because she cannot do so, but she does and she
will use every effort to obtain the power, and the first
step is to secure temporal power for the Pope. If the
people of America like to provide the Pope with the
fagots to burn their children, and the power to de
pose their presidents, it is surely their own affair.
When Agag could no longer destroy the Israelites by
fire or sword he came " delicately " to Samuel and said :
"Surely the bitterness of death is past." He would
not destroy the Lord's people then because he had not
the power to do so. But Samuel knew that he wanted
the power only ; that his will was unchanged. The
American people have before them the will of the
Church of Rome very plainly expressed ; they know
that she has said, it may not be ' advisable " to use her
rights, but the rights are none the less certain.
Later the catechism says (p. 200), " She (the Church) is

CONSEQUENCES OF INFALLIBILITY. 59
bound to promote all good legislation and reprobate bad
law-making ; to do this she must speak out, ' meddle '
[the inverted commas are in the original], if you will, ' in
politics.' ''
This is plain language. This is what is taught to
Catholics with the authority of the Pope But a very
different story is told when some newspaper correspond
ent goes to a priest or bishop and asks him if the Church
interferes in politics ; a torrent of righteous indignation
is expended on the very idea that such a thing could be
supp sed possible, while at that very moment perhaps
despatches are arriving from Ireland telling how suc
cessfully the Irish bishops and priests are carrying out
the instructions of their catechism in this respect. If
Rome only would speak the truth, but she dare not !
Rome loudly cries out against you if you will not give
her liberty to punish and persecute you ; to save your
self a momentary inconvenience you yield, and Rome
rejoices and soon finds a pretext to compel you to yield
a little more.
Furthermore, every bishop in the Roman Catholic
Ciiurch, at the most solemn moment of his consecration,
takes an oath that he will, to the utmost of his power,
persecute and destroy Protestants. The very words
are : " I will to the utmost of my power persecute and
attack all heretics, schismatics and rebels against the
same our Lord (the Pope) or his aforesaid successors.''
Now this oath is no private affair, the Latin original
is contained in the " Pontificale Romanum," the book in
which all the authorized ceremonies and oaths for the
ordaining of a bishop of the Church of Rome are con
tained. Suppose for one moment that every Protestant
minister took such an oath for the destruction of

60 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
Romanists, what an outcry there would be ! Is it not
time for Protestants, rather I should say for Christians,
to have a little courage for God, and to denounce these
things as they deserve ? But such is the power of
Rome, that while she privately plots to destroy Protes
tantism, and declares every Protestant eternally damned,
Protestants are afraid even to discuss these terrible
facts in public. Meetings may be held for the con
version of the Jews, or for the conversion of the Chinese,
but not a word must be said of the conversion of
Catholics, lest "the Church" should be offended. We
see our brother fallen into a deep pit, but we must not
try to draw him out, lest he should be displeased at
our boldness. He may denounce us, and teach his
children that we are accursed, as indeed he does, but we
must be silent. When will Christians be aroused to
the interests of Christ? When will they cease to be
ashamed to confess him before Romanists? To-day in
America Protestant families dare not, or will not speak
before their servants, because they are Romanists, of
the grace of Christ and his Gospel, or censure those
who disobey the gospel of truth, no matter how kindly
the words may be spoken. Rome rules the dining-
room and the nursery, in the person of one poor ser
vant girl. No wonder that Rome is proud of a Church
which has such power !
Furthermore, Rome tells you plainly that you ought
to bo and would be if possible delivered over to the
secular power controlled by Rome, to be executed, if
you are not obedient. Rome has at present only got so
far as to compel you to be silent about the doctrines
which she teaches, or the evils which she does. This
is a great gain, and Rome knows it- Screen every evil

CONSEQUENCES OF INFALLIBILITY. 61
deed, do not let in the light, and the fungus growth will
be rank and rapid. Y'^ou are keeping out the light
through a mistaken charity, or through a pusillanimous
fear. It matters little to Rome what is your motive, so
as she obtains the desired result. \"ou are afraid to
come and hear a lecture or address from any one who
has left the Church of Rome ! You are afraid to sup
port a mission to the Roman Catholics ! But they are
not afraid to tell in their missions, or to teach in their
catechisms, that eternal flames await you, and that if
the Church had temporal power she would punish you
in this world, as well as in the next. She teaches to
day in all Catholic seminaries, colleges and universities,
through the " Summa Theologica" of Thomas Aquinas
(vol. iv,, p. 90): "Though heretics must not be toler
ated because they deserve it, we must bear with them,
till by a second admonition they may be brought back
to the faith of the Church. But those who, after a
second admonition, remain obstinate to their errors.
must not only be excommunicated, but they must be
delivered to the secular power to be exterminated."
Here is one of the many reasons why Rome claims
the right of temporal sovereignty. She needs the civil
power to enable her to compel submission to her teach-

CHAPTER III.
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHES THAT ALL
PROTESTANTS WILL BE DAMNED, AND THAT
PROTESTANTS HAVE NO RELIGION.
It is very important for Protestants to know exactly
what Rome teaches on the question of the salvation of
those outside of her pale, for there is scarcely any sub
ject about which there has been so much deliberate
deception. As I have said elsewhere, and it is no harm
to repeat it, we must judge Rome by her authorized
teachings, and by them only. This is justice both to
ourselves and to Rome. We have no right to take the
mere word of any individual, whether Roman Catholic
or Protestant, on such grave subjects, and we do not
propose to do so. What Rome teaches is what she
believes, and her teaching on this point is as plain as
her teaching on the subject of infallibility. Indeed it
is obvious that if Rome is the only infallible Church,
she must be the only Church in which you can be
saved. Every doctrine which the Roman Church
teaches is consistent and logical, if you once admit that
she is infallible, and that she is infallible by the au
thorization of God himself.
This is the reason why I have dwelt so much on this
one point. To expose the errors of Rome on other
points is of little value, except in so far as by doing
so you can loosen the hold which the doctrine of in
fallibility has on the mind of Romanists. I, knowing

ROME'S TEACHINGS AS TO PROTESTANTS. 63
what Romanists believe, and the grounds of their belief,
and how mistaken Protestants often are in their mode
of dealing with them, rather wonder that Romanists
are ever converted. Errors which are very plain to
you are not so to them, for you and they are looking
at the matter from an entirely different standpoint.
But if you understand their religion even on the one
point of infallibility, with the help of God's grace,
which is indeed needed, you may make an impression
and save souls.
The doctrine of persecution, of punishment for
heresy, the right which Rome claims to kill the body
of the heretic, to prevent him from promulgating his
" heresy," is the direct outcome of the doctrine of in
fallibility. What could be more merciful than to pre
vent the spread of a deadly disease ? Hence Rome,
looking at heresy as a deadly spiritual disease, is pre
pared to kill the body in order also to kill the dis
eased soul. This is the teaching of Rome by which
she vindicates the right which she claims to destroy
Protestants. And let it be remembered that she claims
the right now as much as she ever did in past
ages. Plain language is best in such matters. It is the
supreme duty of the Romanist to destroy the Protes
tant who will not submit to the Church which claims
to have been founded by God, and endowed by him
with the power to teach and to compel obedience.
Happily for humanity, Rome cannot always carry out
her teachings, but she does carry them out whenever
she can. History proves that, even the history of to
day. In the face of Europe and her present crippled
position, she cannot execute Francis Penzotti in Mexi
co, but she can imprison him and let him languish in

64 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
a loathsome dungeon, while the Pope in Rome and the
cardinal in America talk platitudes about their love of
liberal institutions. They are indeed very much m
love with such institutions and such liberality, and will
continue so, until you enable them to throw off the
mask. Why did not the Pope order the release of this
good man ? Why does not the Roman Catholic press
in this country, which so much admires our liberal in
stitutions, demand his release ? Why, I may ask, are
Protestants so easily deceived ? Rome cannot at pres
ent close Protestant churches in this country, or im
prison Protestant ministers, but she can control your
hom.es and oblige you to remain silent even in your
own houses, when a servant girl of her creed is present.
And to this intolerance American Christian women
calmly submit. Their children will probably have to
submit to silence even in their churches. To-day
American Protestants are not allowed by the dominat
ing power to have addresses or lectures reported which
explain the teachings of Rome. The infldel may
speak in public freely, the Socialist may deny Christ
on the public platform ; but if one voice is lifted to
say one word of experence of Rome, so-called Christian
men and women are afraid to come and listen, or to
help such an undertaking for fear of Rome. Is this a
free country or does the Inquisition rule it ? Practi
cally it is ruled by the Inquisition, when such things
can be.
But Rome is, I had almost said, gloriously consistent.
Only yesterday a Romanist said to me, " I am proud
of belonging to a Church which, even when it has not
full power in this country, has full political control and
full social control. These women," he said, with a

ROME'S TEACHINGS AS TO PROTESTANTS. 65
contemptuous air, naming some Christian ladies of
prominence in New York, "must submit to our ser
vants and to our priests. They support all our institu
tions liberally ; but what have they done for you ?
They dare not hel^ you to discuss our teachings." I
must admit that he had reason and facts on his side,
and I knew not what to answer. If I went to any
Protestant in New York, as a Roman Catholic sister,
to ask for help for charitable work, I was sure of a
good reception ; when I went as a convert from Rome,
I have been refused help. It is better to have facts
plainly stated, and it needs some courage to state
them. I now proceed to give proof as to the teaching of the
Romanists on the subject of the damnation of every
soul who is not a member of their Church, and I will
also call attention to a point which should be noted,
and which has not been noted : the Roman Catholic
teaching that "Protestants have no religion." The
effect of the teaching of the Roman Church on this
latter point is most serious. I had often heard, before
I visited Europe, that Rome taught her Italian subjects
that English people were all "infldels." I have found
this to be literally true, when by personal contact with
all classes in Italy I made inquiries on this point. The
Italian peasant is as surely persuaded that every one
who is not a Romanist, above all that English-speaking
people, are not "Christians," as he is that the sun
shines. You see the tremendous leverage that all this
affords to Rome. Why dare to listen to people who
have no faith ; who do not believe in God ?
It will be said that this is an exaggerated statement,
that it cannot be true : yet this very doctrine is taught

66 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
to-day and is believed to-day in New York, by educated
Romanists. It is taught by Cardinal Gibbons in the
catechism which the Catholic children in his Church
are obliged to learn. Could there be better proof?
It is believed to-day by educated people in New Y^ork,
for I had an evidence of this myself yesterday in an
interview with a Roman Catholic professional gentle
man of high standing, who holds an official position in
this city. He asked me how I could have left the
only Church which has any religion. It was in vain I
pointed out to him that Rome was the fertile mother
of infidel nations ; that wherever Rome ruled the re
sult was that her own children turned against her and
became infidels. He looked amazed, but could not deny
a fact patent to the whole world. Would that at least
the Christian world would realize it. But still deep in his
heart, as in the heart of every Romanist, was the one
thought which he expressed : "If there is a God, the
Church of Rome must be the true Church, because it
is the only Church which has power : look how even
Protestants support it and are afraid to oppose it."
The doctrine of the eternal damnation of Protestants
is taught to the lisping child, and impressed with all
the power of the Church's authority in later life ;
hence the terror which besets the Romanist when he
is even inclined to a momentary doubt as to any doc
trine of his Church, or when he sees, as he cannot fail
to see, its evils. He is afraid to think, lest he should
find what will oblige him to condemn. He will not
run the chance of imperilling his salvation by leaving
"the Church." No one but a Romanist can have
even an idea of the hold which Rome has upon her
people through spiritual terror. No matter how care-

ROME'S TEACHINGS AS TO PROTESTANTS. 07
less or indifferent a man may be, there are moments in
his life when he feels that he has a soul, that there is
a future, and that he must do his best to secure happi
ness iu that future. He does not like to run any risks.
He has heard but little of Christ as a Saviour, but he
has heard a great deal of the Church, and of Mary.
A young Roman Catholic lady said to me once, "Is
it possible that Christ can save you by himself?"
The Romanist must approach Christ through the
Church, and even then he must ask Mary to help him.
I will give proof of this later. How is he then to dare
forsake the only channel through which he can reach and
satisfy an offended God ? Would to God that my words
would bring a pla'ner understanding of the difficulties
of Romanists to Christian minds, and rouse their sym
pathy and their active help.
A Romanist who believes in the infallibility of the
Church does not look to Christ to save him except
through the medium of the Church; he must "hear
the Church," by which he has been taught to under
stand the Church of Rome, and then he may come to
Christ. A clear understanding on this point would
save much useless and irritating controversy with Ro
manists. It is useless to say to them, "You do not
believe in Christ," for they will tell you at once that
they do believe in Christ ; but you must be prepared
to reply, "Yes, I know you believe in Christ, but you
believe in Christ through the Church, and approach
him through Mary ; now this is not what Christ him
self has taught." It is no wonder that in this very
catechism the writer "thanks God that the Bible is
not necessary."
Here are the words of the catechism on the subject

68 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
of the eternal damnation of all Protestants. There ia
a' chapter devoted to the subject (page 161). It is
headed :
" Reasons why no Salvation is Possible Outside of the
Roman {sic) Catholic Church."
This use of the word Roman at once sweeps away
any hope that members of the Episcopal Church,
which calls itself the " Catholic Church," might find
favor with Rome and come within the pale of salva-
tion. In this chajoter we find the following question and
answer :
"Q. Must then all who wish to be saved die united
to the Catholic Church ?
" A, All those who wish to be saved must die united
to the Catholic Church; for out of her there is no
salvation, "'
It would occupy many pages to point out the illogi
cal absurdity, and I might almost say blasphemy, of
this book, approved by Cardinal Gibbons, and expressly
prepared for the education of the children taught in
the parochial schools. The writer starts with the syl
logism that there is no salvation outside of the Roman
Catholic Church. He then proceeds to prove his
major by his middle term, which runs thus :
" Now Jesus Christ said to his Apostles, and to all
their lawful successors : ' He that heareth you heareth
me, and he that despiseth you despiseth me, and he
that despiseth me despiseth him, the heavenly Father,
that sent me.'
" Hence all those who do not listen to Jesus Christ
speaking to them through St. Pete - and the Apostles
in their lawful successors, despise God the Father ;
they do not do his will, and therefore heaven will
never be theirs."

ROME'S TEACHINGS AS TO PROTESTANTS. 69
We then find the following, which proves the second
charge against Rome, which I have made in the heading
of this chapter, namely, that she teaches plainly and
emphatically that Protestants have no religion.
" Q. Have Protestants any faith in Christ ?
" A. They never had.
"Q. Why not?
"' A. Because there never lived such a Christ as they
imagine and believe in.
" Q. In what kind of a Christ do they believe ?
"A. In such a one of whom they can make a liar
with impunity, whose doctrine they can interpret as
they please, and who does not care what a man believes,
provided he be an honest man before the public.
" Q. Will such a faith in such a Christ save Protes
tants ?
" A. No sensible man will assert such an absurdity.
" Q. What will Christ say to them on the Day of
Judgment ?
" A. I know you not, because you never knew me.
'¦ Q. Are Protestants willing to oonfess their sins to
a Catholic bishop or priest, who alone has power from
Christ to forgive sins? 'Whose sins you shall forgive,
they are forgiven them. '
"A. No ; for they g nerally have an utter aversion
to confession, and therefore their sins will not be for
given throughout all eternity.
" Q. What follows from this ?
"A. That they die in their sins, and are damned."
The contents of this chapter should end, once for all,
every doubt as to the teaching of the Church of Rome
on this subject. The heading of the chapter allows of
no second meaning ; the teaching is equally explicit.
In the commencement of the chapter there is a cate
chetical dissertation on the subject of bad Catholics
who fell from the Church ; Luther, who founded the

70 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
German Lutherans; Henry VIIL, who founded the
Episcopal Church — what a compliment this last to a
Church which so often seems to imitate the religion of
those who so rudely denounce her. Here we find the
question : " What have these apostate Catholics always
been called?" Answer: "They have always been
called Protestants, because they have always protested
against the Roman Catholic Church."
Another matter to be noted in this catechism is the
absolutely reckless manner in which the Bible is quoted,
and in which words are put into the mouth of Christ
himself which he never used. If Protestants took such
liberties with the sacred text, what an outcry Romanists
would make. Here is an example, and let the reader
remember once more that those to whom this catechism
is taught are bound to believe that these very words
were uttered by Christ and that they have no means
whatever of knowing how they are deceived. On the
contrary, it would be a sin for them to suppose that they
could be misled by such persons as the Pope and Cardi
nal Gibbons.
" Q. Is it not all the same to God which religion a
person professes ?
"A. If it were all the same to God which religion a
person professes, God would not have forbidden in the
first commandment to worship him in any other but
the true religion ; nor would Christ have solemnly de
clared that ' He who will not hear the Church, let
him be to thee as the heathen and the publican.'
" Q. Who then will be saved ?
"A. Christ has solemnly declared that only those
will be saved, who having done God's will on earth as
explained, not by private interpretation, but by the in
fallible teaching of the Roman Catholic Church,"

ROME'S TEACHINGS AS TO PROTESTANTS. 71
Now be it remembered that the child believes that
these were the very words of Christ himself ; how then
dare he even think that any Church could be safe, but
the one which Christ has named as the only one which
can teach him ? It would require far more space than
can be given to this subject here, to enter into and ex
pose all the miserable subterfuges and fallacies of this
remarkable production. Enough has been said and
proved to show what Rome teaches to-day in this
country. Apostasy, or the falling away from the " true faith,"
is also declared to be an unpardonable sin, so that the
young mind is terrified at even the possible danger of
leaving a Church which Christ himself has founded.
"Such persons are excommunicated, and can never
enter heaven." So are the Free Masons by name (p.
167) ; and in view of the repeated statements that Rome
does not excommunicate those who send their children
to the public schools, we may quote the following,
which is given as one reason why Free Masons are
especially excommunicated :
It is "because they are guilty of establishing public
schools for the infidel education of youth."
The writer then quotes from a bull of Pius IX., con
demning Protestantism in all its forms as "the great
revolt against God.''
Again, at page 174 the holy name of Jesus is used
witr- scandalous effrontery to prop up the figment of
Papal supremacy ; the catechism says :
" Jesus Christ has declared Peter and every successor
{sic) to St. Peter — the Pope — to be his Vicar on earth,"
and then adds that Protestants deny this and call the
Pope Antichrist. There are some concluding remarks

72 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
at the close of this chapter which show that the tacts
of history fare no better at the hand of the authors
than the words of Jesus Christ. The question is asked,
where the reference is clearly to Protestants :
" What else keeps many from becoming Catholics ?
" A. What keeps many from becoming Catholics is :
they know very well that if they become Catholics they
must lead honest and sober lives, be pure and check
their sinful passions, and this they are unwilling to do."
In view of the criminal statistics of every country or
part of a country where the Roman Catholic religion
is the predominating religion, this is a bold statement.
But what matter? It is intended for those who must
swallow it, and who dare not dispute it, and have been
so well taught not to reason or think that they simply
believe it. I have often heard Romanists make this
very assertion without having the least doubt of its
veracity. But there is another and still bolder statement ;
there is a section of this catechism in which such sub
jects are discussed as the Inquisition, the Crusades, the
condemnation of Galileo, etc. In this the learner is
told that "the Catholic Church is indeed opposed to
heresy, but the only weapons which she uses to extirpate
it are to explain her doctrine to all non- Catholics, and
to be charitable and meek to them." Surely the
writers must have forgotten that, a few pages previous,
they declared that the Pope had power to excommuni
cate kings and sovereigns who were displeasing to him,
and to excommunicate any one who did not obey him.
The process of excommunication, even as mitigated at
the present day, can hardly be called ""charitable and
meek." At page 196 we find the following instance of the

ROME'S TEACHINGS AS TO PROTESTANTS. 73
meekness of Rome : "As the Church has the right to
punish one of her members for wilful murder or adul
tery, so she has the right to punish a Catholic sovereign
for abandoning the faith."
We may conclude this part of our subject with an
extract from a leading authorized Roman Catholic
paper, which shows what is the actual result of all this
teaching. 77*6 Catholic Weekly, Albany, N. Y., says: "Our
career is to enlighten Catholics of every nationality,
and to defend the Church against every comer, no
matter who or what he is. We are not, we humbly
admit, endowed with that intellectual finesse that, like
our friend's, can draw a hard pud fast line between the
Church and the Pope, and put him on one side and the
Church on the other. To our child-like and simple
intellect both are the same. When the Pope speaks,
the Church speaks, and when the Church speaks, God
speaks. We have been always trained to think in this
old-fashioned groove, and now that nve have grown to
manhood we cannot shake it off. The Church would
be in a sorry plight if it did not live in the Pope {sic).
Like a football, it would be kicked about by every po
litical tyrant or intellectual crank. We do not even
make the distinctions of the learned between infallible
and non-infallible utterances. We are in such awe of
his name, his office and his functions, that to us the
least official of his pronouncements is freighted with
the will and voice of God.
" To betray him would be the basest of betrayals ; to
be disloyal to him is a treachei'y, the blackest among
men, to our thinking. Every other consideration is
subservient to his authority and the welfare of the
Church. What lies beyond this territory is secondary
and incidental. Though we love our country dearly,
we love our Church more, and the Pope more. We
cannot recognize any aid which our country may give

74 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
us to reach heaven, and we do recognize that we cannut
reach that blessed goal without the Church and the
Pope." What miserable, what unchristian words are these.
The Church would be in a sorry plight if it did not
live in the Pope. One marvels if the man who wrote
these words ever read the Scriptures, which tell us that
the joy and privilege of the Christian is to live in Christ.

CHAPTER IV.
THE PLAN OF SALVATION AS TAUGHT BY THE ROMAN
CATHOLIC CHURCH.
The Roman Catholic plan of salvation is simply
this : that we must seek for salvation through the
Church, and through the Church alone. In a work
like the present, in which we must confine ourselves
to the principal fallacies of Roman Catholic teaching,
it is not possible to give all the information which we
would wish, in the space into which it must be com
pressed, but it is not necessary to go into details on
subjects outside of the one main question, What shall
I do to be saved ? The Holy Scriptures give us in
deed the one sublime and inspired answer : " Believe
on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved "
(Acts xvi. 13). The Roman Catholic Church says,
Believe in the Roman Catholic Church, and you
shall be saved. I often wish the Acts of the Apostles
were more carefully studied by Christian people ;
they are full of the Holy Ghost; if we may use
this expression more of one portion of Scripture
than another. They give us the first history of the
Christian Church. Every question of Church policy
and practice finds here a record, an explanation and
a decision. For myself, I can only say that this por
tion of Scripture is to me a mine of wealth, and an
unceasing delight. Let us look, for example, at the
history of Philip and the Eunuch. Look at the scene

76 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
in the jail at Philippi. What can be grander than that
marvellous history ? Paul and the devoted Silas preach
Christ, for they never preached Mary, and we can well
picture to ourselves what would be their indignation,
with their burning lo^e of the Master, if they entered a
so-called Christian church, and heard the people cry
out, as I have heard them, " Sweet heart of Mary,
be my salvation." Who, they would ask, is this new
god, to whom these poor people pray ?
But let us return to Philippi. We are told how the
Apostle and his companion were abiding in the city
certain days. All the time their talk was of that dear
Jesus whom Paul had once persecuted, and whom he
now so dearly loved. But this talk did not please all
the people. Some of them made money by divination,
as, must we say it, the priests of Rome make money
by masses for the dead, which I will show later, from
their own teaching, are useless. Paul drives out the
evil spirit which has possessed the girl, and must be
made to suffer for the good he has done ; yes, he suf
fers ; for a moment, it seems as if God had forsaken
him, but it is only for a moment. The pains we suffer
for doing good are the birth-throes which precede a
glorious victory.
The Apostles are thrown right into prison, and the
jailer is charged to "keep them safely" (Acts xvi.
33). Indeed he did his best, but they were in other
keeping than his, though he knew it not. They were
troublesome people, the magistrates said, and must be
silenced. Rome, too, cries out loudly if any one dares
to speak of her evil doings, or to expose, no matter how
tenderly, her unchristian creed ; and she would fain
have such persons silenced also. As she cannot, yet,

CATHOLIC PLAN OF SALVATION. 77
oast them into prison, she gets her work done by, alas,
willing Protestant hands, and cries out for "liberty"
and that she must not be criticised because it is unchari
table, and Protestants, either indifferent to Christ, or
anxious to please the party in power, acquiesce, and
the voices of those who expose evil in the interest
of Christ are silenced. If the Apostles had acted as
Christians do to-day, when would the world have heard
the Gospel ?
It is midnight 4n the prison ; but it is not midnight
in the hearts of the Apostles. No, for Jesus is there,
and where he is, it is always light. The Apostles are
singing ; singing praises to God. They are glad — why
should they not be? — and they are shouting Christians
and say so. The prisoners hear them. What sort
of men, they say, are these, who shout and sing in
very gladness of heart when they are thrust into a
loathsome prison, and when they have been so sorely
beaten that they can scarcely move their poor bod
ies. But their souls are not beaten. That is some
thing which no tyrant can reach. Presently the jailer
comes; he has come to see what has caused all the com
motion, God has spoken : a terrible earthquake shakes
the building, and penetrates down into the deep dun
geon. All the doors are opened, and all the prisoners
are freed from their chains. Then, indeed, the jailer
is alarmed ; he was alarmed first for his prisoners, he is
now alarmed for himself. He knows that no mercy
will be shown to him if his charge escape ; but Paul
comforts him. The man in chains comforts the man
who is free ; the man in disgrace has a word of cheer
and helps the man who holds the post of authority.
Oh marvel of Divine love ! Oh mystery of Divine power!

78 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
The keeper of the prison draws his sword to kill him
self ; better to do this, he thinks, than to be put to
torture by his masters, but Paul cries out to him :
"Do thyself no harm, for we are all here." Oh
blessed words ! Oh joyous cry ! Do thyself no harm,
we are all here, God is here too ! Then comes the ques
tion of questions. The jailer no doubt had heard that
Paul and Silas had come to preach a salvation which
was new to him, and to others. Now he had seen and
heard the mighty power of the Saviour of whom Paul
had preached. The truth had come home to him ;
blessed for us, if it has come home to us also And he
asks the question of questions, " What must I do to be
saved?" (Acts xvi, 30).
Would to God that all our dear Roman Catholic
brethren would ponder on the reply of the Apostle.
Never was there a moment of more solemn import.
Never was there a time when all the truth of the Gos
pel was demanded with greater earnestness. Never
was there a time when the Apostle was bound in a more
solemn manner to tell this man the whole Gospel of
Christ. What would be said if he kept back even one
truth, or concealed one mystery. But Paul just
preached what had been preached to him. His preach
ing was as simple as it was sublime. " Believe on the
Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, thou and
thy house" (Acts xvi. 31).
Thus at the midnight hour began the most marvel
lous work of conversion, that work which is the work
of works, before which all the works of man are as a
vapor which passes, as a dream which is gone in the
morning light. Believe in Christ, that is just all you
have got to do.

CATHOLIC PLAN OF SALVATION. 79
There was not one word about the " Church," for
the Apostle never dreamed of such a Church as Rome
has invented. The Church was everywhere. In every
Christian household there was a Church, for the
Church of Christ is not made up of popes, or priests,
or bishops, but of God's own chosen people. Then
the good jailer, regardless of all consequences to him
self, took the suffering Apostles and "washed their
stripes," doing his first act of Christian charity, and
thinking of others first and for himself afterwards.
This done, he was ready for more grace. There
was no baptism in apostolic times, except believers'
baptism. It was necessary first to believe, and then
to be baptized. There was no baptism of unconscious
infants, who knew nothing of what was being done.
Baptism is a Christian rite, and a believer"s privilege ;
and so this man was baptized when he believed, he
and his whole house, says the Holy Scriptures, and he
rejoiced. Well he might, for this holy joy is a special
grace which follows believers' baptism ; how can we
help being full of joy when we have risen with Christ,
whose life is our life ?
Now I have dwelt on this narrative at some length,
because I hope this book will fall into the hands of
many Romanists, and they need only look at the
Douay Bible, which their own Church authorizes, to
see that I have stated the plain facts as they are con
tained in the Roman Catholic version of the Bible.
Here is God's plan of salvation, as it is taught by the
Apostles, But how very different it is from the Roman
Catholic plan. We do not hear a word in this narra
tive about going to confession, or about the " Church,"
or about St. Peter's being the head of the Church. It

80 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
is just believe in Jesus and you are saved ; but it must
not be supposed that if you believe in Jesus you can live
an evil life. If you live an evil life you do not believe
in Jesus, for you do not keep his commandments.
It comes ill from the Roman Catholic Church to inti
mate, as we have already shown, that Protestants are
unwilling to become Catholics, because they know, if
they do so, they must lead good lives. It does not
become them to abuse the liberty which they have here
to suggest such a thing in a work of instruction, the
teachings of which must be believed as a matter of
faith. Yet if Protestants show the evil of this teaching
they are scarcely allowed a hearing. Would to God
that this work might be the means of arousing both
Protestants and Catholics to the consideration of facts.
It is a serious imputation upon the great body of Chris
tian people of this country which the following question
and answer contain — a part of the teaching of those
who are seeking still greater opportunites to teach. I
quote from the third catechism which I have mentioned,
at page 180, where the reference to Protestants is clear.
" Q. What else keeps many from becoming Catholics ?
" A. What keeps many from becoming Catholics is :
they know very well if they become Catholics, they
must lead honest and sober lives, be pure, and check
their sinful passions ; and this they are unwilling to
do." I have called attention to this question before, but it
can scarcely be too much noted. The obvious unfair
ness of it, directed as it is toward a large body of Chris
tian people ; and the advantage which is taken by those
standing in the position of teachers to create prejudice
in the minds of youth and innocence cannot be too

CATHOLIC PLAN OF SAL]'ATION. 81
Strongly reprobated ; and certainly we need no further
examples of Rome's methods. The whole of the chap
ter from which this is quoted is equally calculated to
mislead the young and confiding mind.
And if we again say this is the authorized teaching
of his Eminence Cardinal Gibbons, we must believe
that he is prepared to abide by it. He cannot have
one teaching for the Roman Church, and another for
the Protestant public. It is at least certain that what
he teaches under his solemn approbation is what he
believes. It is too well known for contradiction, except where
contradiction of even a falsehood is a crime, if the
falsehood emanates from the Church, that Rome is the
only Church in existence which does not require a
good life as a condition of membership, so that we could
almost afford to laugh at the sophistry ; but it is no
laughing matter for those who are thus deceived to
their eternal hurt. In this chapter we find also the
following :
" Q. Will those heretics be saved who are not guilty
of the sin of heresy, and are faithful in living up to the
dictates of their consciences ?
"A. Invincible ignorance or inculpable ignorance
of the true religion excuses a heathen and a Protes
tant from the sin of heresy, but such ignorance has
never been the means of salvation. From the fact
that a person who lives up to the dictates of his con
science, and who cannot sin against the true religion
on account of being invincibly ignorant of it, many have
drawn the false conclusion that such a person is saved
or is in the state of sanctifying grace, making thus
invincible ignorance a means of salvation or justifica
tion."

83 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
Now this statement is of the utmost importance, for it
at once knocks the favorite argument of liberal Ro
manists to pieces. Whenever a Protestant says to a
liberal Romanist — and, thank God, there are many
such — that his Church teaches that every Protestant
will be damned, he replies that Protestants who are in
what Rome calls "invincible ignorance" will not
perish eternally. This is like the statement, so often
repeated, that the Pope would never be made infallible.
It answers a purpose. I do not doubt that many of
those who say this believe it ; but it is not the teach
ing of their Church, and this catechism plainly says it
is not. Nothing can be plainer than the words given
above, and nothing can be stronger than the approba
tion given to this work, rather, I should say, the au
thority given to it by the Pope and Cardinal Gib
bons. The language, as he says, " is remarkable for
its clearness." It should be known that the Pope, as
we have said elsewhere, has ordered the works of St.
Thomas Aquinas to be the study of every Roman
Catholic student ; and the compilers of this catechism,
like good Catholics, call attention to the teaching of St.
Thomas on this subject. The quotation is too long to
give here, but I give the substance.
It is simply this : that if any rne, n • matter whether
heathen or Christian (I say Christian, though St. Thomas
would not consider any one a Christian except a Roman
ist), was so good that he deserved it — had in fact lived up
to the light of nature — God would send an angel to him
to instruct him in the Catholic faith. As such an event
has never yet happened, we may conclude of how little
help this is for those outside the pale of Rome. The
outcome, to use no circumlocution, is just this : that

CATHOLIC PLAN OF SALVATION. 83
every human being, whether Protestant or heathen,
will be eternally damned, no matter how good his life
may be, because he is not a Roman Catholic ; because
he does not believe that the Church had power to hand
over the infallibility which, as she says, God gave her,
to the Pope ; and later we shall have the Protestant and
the heathen damned, because they will not believe that
the Pope should be the sole temporal ruler of the entire
world, whether Christian or Pagan.
The next question is :
" Q. But is it not a very uncharitable doctrine to say
that no one can be saved out of the Church ?
"A. On the contrary, it is a very great act of charity
to assert most emphatically that for no one out of the
Catholic Church is salvation possible, for Jesus Christ
and his Apostles have taught this doctrine in very plain
language. He who sincerely seeks the truth is glad to
embrace it, in order to be saved."
Here again is divinity made to vouch for a claim of
distinctly human origin. It is all very well for the
Protestant who has an open Bible to be told this, for
he knows that there is no such doctrine in the Bible ;
but the Romanist unacquainted with the Bible does
not know how he is deceived, and may never know in
this world. We then come to the point to which I have
been leading up, that the Church is the medium of
salvation for the Romanist. Rome complains very
loudly if any one attempts to expose the inconsistencies
of her teaching even in the most charitable manner ;
but look at what she teaches about Christians. Pages
of this work for the instruction of Romanists contain
much plain language which is derogatory to the last
degree to Christian people. I give a few examples, for

84 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
it would be impossible to do more ; but it is very im
portant that Christian people should know what their
Roman Catholic servants have been taught about them,
what the officials of most of the great cities of America
have been taught, and what they are bound to believe
under pain of being themselves considered heretics, and
damned with their Protestant fellow-citizens. I would
also call attention to the fact that this doctrine, that
every Christian who is not a member of the Church of
Rome is predoomed to hell, is the ground on which
Rome claims the right to persecute and to destroy the
heretic. It is clear that heretics are a moral pestilence
in the sight of Rome ; that she is only following her
own principles and doing a duty which is most praise
worthy, if she rids the earth of such persons. Rome
knows no difference between the destruction of the
body and the destruction of the soul. The heretic is
the destroyer of his own soul, and Rome is bound to
see that he does not destroy the souls of others. Would
to God that Christian people Would realize what Rome
is, and see how she is obliged by her own principles to
persecute. All history has told that she does persecute
when she has the much-craved temporal power to do so.
Here are two examples of the instruction which is
given to children and' to youth in this catechism in the
parochial and in all Romanist schools and colleges.
"Jesus Christ says : 'I say to you that whosoever
shall put away his wife, and shall marry another, com-
mitteth adultery.' 'No.' says Luther and all Prot
estants {sic) to a married man ; ' you may put away your
wife, get a divorce, and marry another.'"
What Romanist may not know that Rome permits the
commission of wrong, if a sufficient sum of money is paid

CATHOLIC PLAN OF SALV^iTION. 85
for the permission to commit it, as in tho recent famous
case of a nobleman, who was allowed to marry his own
niece on payment of $50,000 to the Pope. The mat
ter was too public to admit of contradiction, and many
such cases happen in private ; but it is here that the
infallibility of the Pope comes in. The Catholic will
be told that the Pope, being iufallible in everything, has
the power to allow whatever he thinks right, and you
have no right to criticise his actions. Certainly, infal
libility is a very convenient doctrine for the Church.
According to the teaching quoted above, it is plain
that Protestants are only accused of sinning because
they have not obtained a "dispensation " or permission
from the Pope to sin. Rome arrogatec to herself tho
power to abrogate the laws of Gotl and to control the
laws of man. It is a sin for a Protestant to commit cer
tain acts, but it is no sin for a Catholic, if he has (paid
for) the permission of the Pope.
Here is another example : ' ' Jesus Christ says to every
man, 'Thou shalt not steal.' 'No,' says Luther to
secular princes, ' I give you the right to appropriate
to yourselves the property of tho Roman Catholic
Church. ' " The first Protestants are described in terms
as glowing as they are misleading, as characters worthy
only of the severest reproach. And this is the teaching
of the politic Gibbons, who in his pulpit and m his pri
vate life appears to be such an admirer of Protestants !
One marvels how inconsistency can go further. But
there seemed so little chance that this, the real teach
ing of Rome, whould ever be brought before the world,
that it was safe to tell the truth here and conceal it
elsewhere. Martin Luther is held up for special reprobation,
which is natural. Hcn:-y VIII. is held up also as the

86 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
"first English Protestant, and the wicked founder of
the Episcopal Church, " which so fondly traces her suc
cession from Rome ; and thus is history falsified and
manipulated for the purpose of exalting the Church.
Unless the compilers of this catechism arc grossly igno
rant themselves, they must know this to be untrue.
But can we suppose even by a stretch of charity
that Cardinal Gibbons can claim this ignorance in
excuse ?
It will be observed, then, that the plan of the Roman
Catholic Church in teaching her children is, first,
to terrify them so that they will have the utmost
dread of all people who are classed as " Protes
tants," or persons who fight against or protest against
God's Church. In controversy with Rome we must
never forget the persistence with which a Romanist
has been taught that the Roman Church has been
founded by Christ, that all other religions are the in
ventions of men. We need to realize this strongly.
It should teach us great joatience with those who have
been so cruelly deceived, and it shows just where the
first great difficulty comes in. They do not know that
what Rome calls Protestantism is based on belief in
the Holy Scripture, and that Rome is the Church of
man. One acts on the principles of the Church which
Christ founded, and the Church which alone can stand
the test of Scripture ; the other is the Church of
human inventions, and is one which dare not let itself
be tested by Scripture. Protestants arc not all prac
tical Christians, but they at least permit an open
Bible. I think the best way to enlighten a Romanist is to
call his attention to the changes made by his Church

CATHOLIC PLAN OF SALVATION. 87
in doctrine, even in this present century. No one can
deny it. The proofs are given in previous pages of this
work, so they need not be repeated here. Rome can
only get out of the charge of having foisted a new doc
trine on the world by declaring that the doctrine was
not new, but that it was always believed, though not
declared as an article of faith. To this almost child
ish sophistry the answer is plain. If the doctrine of
the Pope's personal infallibility was always believed,
why was it necessary to have this council assembled to
procla m it ? Why should it be now a question of
a man's eternal salvation whether ho believes it or
not ? In the year 1869 any Catholic could believe that
the Pope was not infallible without risk of eternal
damnation, but he was bound to believe that the
Church was infallible. After tho year 1870 the same
person would be eternally damned if he did not believe
that the Pope was infallible, and that the Church had
ceased to be infallible. Would to God that Romanists
would consider the quagmire of absurdity into which
they are led by the. pretensions of Rome. It took tho
Church nearly nineteen hundred years to flnd out that
the Popo was infallible. What a specimen of the
wisdom of the " Church " ! Now it is taught that all
the Popes who lived before the present Pope were
equally infallible, though they did not know it ; but if
so, what becomes of all tho people who denied this, of
all the Romanists who never heard of such an article
of faith?
Though the Roman Church practically ignores the
Bible, still it has to make some show of decency in quot
ing from it. The one text which concerns St. Peter
and the promises of our divine Lord to his Church is

88 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
made to do duty for all the rest of the many texts
which show just what was meant by the word church.
It is indeed no wonder that Rome insists on interpret
ing the Bible for herself.
But here is another subject for consideration. It is
c^ear that there cannot be two separate powers, or two
equal rulers, and in such a grave matter the absurdity
and the impossibility of such a state of things is ob
vious. Both the Pope and the Church cannot be in
fallible; if it were so, you would have two infallible
powers, and who could tell which of the two to follow ?
But according to this new doctrine, the Pope and the
Church were infallible in past ages, though they are
not both infallible now. And it is to such absurd and
self-contradictory teaching that the Church of Rome
claims obedience. Surely there could not be a more
serious warning as to the danger of departing from
Scripture teaching.
The Roman Catholic plan of salvation is, that we
can only be saved through the Church. If, as I have
said, we can prove that Christ never authorized any
such plan of salvation, then this argument falls to the
ground. It is founded solely on the one text of
Scripture, and Roman Catholics are taught that the
" Fathers " of the Church all believed the present
Roman Catholic interpretation of thi:; text. Now I
give here extracts from some of the most eminent
Fathers, who did not believe anything of the kind;
who, in fact, taught just the opposite. To these
Fathers, trusting as they did in Christ for salvation, it
would most certainly have been a subject of pain to
have it stated on their authority, that they trusted in
the Church.

CATHOLIC PLAN OF SALVATION. 89
Now we cannot interpret any document, above all a
document of such importance as the Holy Scriptures,
without comparing one passage with another. In other
words, we must use Scripture to explain itself. Noth
ing could be more reasonable than this kind of inter
pretation. If we have any doubt as to the meaning of
a certain passage in the Bible, all we have to do is to
see what is said on the same subject in another part of
the Bible. We often think that certain parts of Script
ure are difficult to understand, when there is no dif-
ficul y, except that we ourselves have made it by
wishing to interpret a certain passage or text according
to our own preconceived ideas. We cannot blame the
Romanist for doing this, for his Church tells him that
he has no right to decide or investigate for himself.
He must take the interpretation which the Church
puts on the word of Scripture. How far-fetched or
how false these interpretations are, we have shown ; but
if our dear Roman Catholic brethren must decide, as ob
viously they must, to let the Church interpret for them,
surely they should first understand very clearly what
claim the Church has to such obedience. It is a seri
ous thing to place all our hopes of heaven on any per
son or on any theory. It is, in fact, almost the act of
a lunatic, to take for granted that a certain statement,
involving the most tremendous consequences, is true,
without any inquiry ; yet the great mass of Romanists
take it for granted that the Roman Church is in
fallible merely because they were taught so when they
were children. AVill this excuse them in the sight of
God from making inquiries for themselves when they
come to years of discretion? And in order to make
such inquiries they should have every facility for doing

90 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
so ; yet this is just what the Roman Catholic Church
will not allow. Y''ou may listen to all the arguments
and statements which the Church brings forward to
prove her point, but you must not on any account hear
or reason on the other side. If Rome is so very sure that
she is right, why is she so fearful of argument or in
quiry? Who would sign a deed binding him to a most
important line of action without having first carefully
studied the deed ? It may be said that this would be
necessary in temporal affairs, but not in spiritual
things. The Scripture expressly says that we are to
"search the Scriptures," and praises those who did so ;
why, then, should we not do what the Bible itself
commands ? A good cause does not fear investigation.
It is only when the title to an estate is doubtful that
the lawyer objects to inquiry. Why should you take
it for granted that Rome is infallible ; above all, when
she has changed her doctrine on this very point in the
present century ? If after an investigation which shall
be a real investigation, you decide that Rome is the in
fallible Church, then you are justified in obeying it as
infallible. But to do this without any investigation,
and only because you were told so when you learned
your catechism, this is not the act of a wise man, nor can
you offer it in justification before God at the last day.
God may well say to you, '' Why did you not first make
sure that Rome had this authority ? " It is not mak
ing sure to take this or that for granted, and without
the most careful inquiry.
Now I have said that we must interpret the Bible by
the Bible. Rome says that what our Lord meant when
he said, " Thou art Peter; upon this rock will I build
my Church," was, that Peter was the rock on which

CATHOLIC PLAN OF SALVATION. 91
the Church was built ; but we flnd iu another part of
the Bible that Christ was the rock (1 Cor. x. 4), and
it is stated in such plain language that there can be no
mistake about the matter. Therefore, unless we are
determined to take a meaning which is not the Script
ure meaning of the text, we must believe that Christ is
the rock, and that it was Peter's confession of Christ
which was the foundation of the Church. Indeed the
words are plain enough . There had been a discussion
as to who Christ was. Our Lord asked his disciples,
"But whom say ye that lam?" (Matt, xviii, 15). Peter,
always impulsive and loving, replied at once : "Thou
art the Christ, the Son of the living God,"' To this
our Lord replied : " Thou art Peter, and upon this rock
I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall
not prevail against it." Now there are several points
in this expression which explain our Lord's meaning,
even if there was not other evidence. In the flrst place,
if our Lord had intended to found the Church on
Peter he would have said so. He simply says : " On
this rock I will build my Church." Even the Roman
Catholic translators of the Bible have not ventured to
alter these plain words Christ does not say I will
build my Church on you, but on "this rock." The
confession of Peter that Christ was the Son of God is
the rock on which the Church is built, because it is the
fouudation doctrine of Christian truth.
Even in the original Greek in which this gospel is
written the meaning is far plainer, for the word rock
which Christ used is feminine, while the name Peter is
masculine. This fact sets the controversy at rest for
ever, but how are the uneducated to know what is care
fully concealed from them ? But there is quite suffi-

92 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
cient for the uneducated in the plain words, whether
they are read in the Protestant or the Roman Catholic
translation of the original Greek. Christ does not say
he will build the Church on Peter, but on '• this
rock," Peter's confession ; and as for the expression
"the gates of hell shall not prevail against it," most
certainly the gates of hell^the powers of evil — prevailed
against Peter in a few short honrs afterwards ; for he not
only denied his Master, but he even cursed and swore
against him. What a specimen of an infallible Pope !
There is one thing that Peter did, and would to God
that those who claim to be his successors would imitate
his example— he went out and wept bitterly, repenting
immediately and truly for his denial of his Lord.
We have now to show from the Scriptures themselves
how this passage should be interpreted, for surely no
one can deny that if we can find any statement in the
Bible which shows what is meant by the '"rock" on
which the Church is built, there can be no more con
troversy on the subject. We find just the very expla
nation needed in the Epistle of St. Paul to the Ephe
sians. Writing to his converts he says : ' ' Now therefore
ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-
citizens with the saints and of the household of God ;
and are built upon the foundation of the apostles
and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief
corner-stone ; in whom all the building, fitly framed to
gether, groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord ; in
whom ye also are builded together for an habitation
of God through the Spirit " (Eph. ii. 19-22).
No words could be plainer than these. If St. Peter
had been made head of the Church, or, to use the
Roman Catholic word. Pope ; and if he had been the

CATHOLIC PLAN OF SALVATION. 9:1
rock on which the Church was built, most assuredly
St. Paul would have said so ; but here is a plain contra
diction to this claim in the very words of the Bible itself
and from the very pen of the great Apostle Paul. It is
no wonder that Rome keeps the Scriptures so carefully
from the people, and insists that she alone is authorized
to explain it. If you give any one authority to explain
the wording of a will, there is an end to all justice, for
obviously the document will be explained in the interest
of the party explaining it. It is a very simple way to
end all controversy, but is it an honest way ?
Jesus Christ is then himself the " rock " on which
his Church is built, and it would be indeed a poor thing
for the Church if it was built on any other foundaiion.
And let it be noted, not only do we find that St. Paul
never says a word about St. Peter's being the rock on
which the Church was founded, but he joins the
" prophets " with the Apostles as founders of the Church,
as indeed they were. It seems almost unnecessary to
say more. If St. Paul had preached this doctrine in the
Roman Catholic Church to-day, he would suffer a second
martyrdom. If he knew — and he must have known
it, if it had been revealed by Christ — that St. Peter
was the head of the Church, and infallible also, what
an injustice it would have been if he had concealed
this great truth from those whom he was instructing.
The fact is that the Apostles knew nothing whatever
about this claim of Peter's supremacy, so it would have
been difficult for them to have said anything about it.
On the contrary, they took very short methods with
Peter when he preached what they did not approve ;
for they opposed and rejected him on one memorable
occasion (Gal. ii. 11-14) :

94 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
" But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood
him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
" For, before that certain came from James, he did eat
with the Gentiles : but when they were come, he with
drew and separated himself, fearing them which were
of the circumcision.
" And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him ;
insomuch that Barnabas was carried away with their
dissimulation. " But when I saw that they walked not uprightly ac
cording to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter
before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after
the manner of the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews,
why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the
Jews?" Surely this passage of Holy Scripture is quite suffi
cient to silence forevei- all claims of popes and prelates,
AVho could have known better than St, Paul the pre
cise authority which St. Peter held in the Church ? And
if the authority of St. Peter had been supreme and in
fallible, how would St, Paul have dared to blame him,
or denounce him for his conduct to his very face?
Further we find that St, Paul plainly denounces those
who claim any headship over the headship of Christ
himself (Cor, i, 12, 13). Once more let it be said, it is
no wonder that Rome forbids the reading of the Bible.
Neither did St. Peter himself know anything of his
own supposed infallibility, nor did he understand that
he was the "rock" on which the Church was built.
Surely we cannot go to better authority than to St,
Peter himself for the interpretation of a passage which
¦has only been made difficult because of the determina
tion of those who had an end to gain by misinterpret
ing it. This is what St. Peter said himself on the sub
ject ; and again we quote God's own book, St. Peter

Catholic plan of salvation. 95
being "filled with the Holy Ghost," as the inspired
writer declares (Acts iv. 10-12) :
" Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of
Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth,
whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead,
even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
" This is the stone which Was set at naught of you
builders, which is become the head of the corner.
"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is
none other name under heaven, given among men,
whereby we must be saved, "
Here, then, is the interpretation of St, Peter himself.
Christ, he says, is the rock, the corner-stone on which
the Church is built, and Peter too declares the way
of salvation : " Neither is there any other name
under heaven, given among men, whereby we must
be saved." Most surely Peter would have denounced
it as simple blasphemy if he had been told that
a Church pretending to derive its authority from
him would authorize and command its people to pray
to Mary to save them in these words, used every day
and millions of times a day by the Church of Rome,
'• Sweet heart of Mary, be my salvation." No. He
would have cried out against it with holy indignation.
There is but one name to which we must look, but
one Saviour in whom we must trust. Mary cannot be
your "salvation." You dishonor Christ when you in
voke any other name but his.
But even Peter himself tells us, and that also in his
Epistle to the Romans, for he knew not of any Roman
Catholic Church which should be above all churches.
He who knew his Master's meaning never said, as those
who claim to be his successors do to-day, " I am infal
lible; I am head of the Church. If you do not obey me,

96 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
I have power to cast you, body and soul, into hell.'*
Peter knew nothing of such doctrines, he knew only of
the headship of Christ. Christ is, according to Peter,
the corner stone on which the Church is founded, and
most certainly Peter knew of no other.
But we have now to see what is meant by the
" Church." Do we find in Scripture that there was
any special body to which the name of ' ' Church "
was applied as a distinctive appellation more than to
any other body of Christians ? I have in this expression
in fact implied an impossibility, but it is difficult to
know how to make the matter clear to those to whom
it has been made a subject of the utmost confusion.
Again, we must obey the Divine command and search
the Scriptures to understand what the Scriptures teach
on this important subject. And certainly, if the Script
ures were searched patiently and with prayer, there
would be very few points which remain unexplained.
If we turn to the last book in the Bible, the Rev
elation of St. John the Divine — the writing of him
who, it is believed, was nearer and dearer to our dear
Lord than any of the other disciples — we find a full
clearing up of any difficulty on the subject of the
Church. St. John knew nothing of the Roman Catho
lic Church, or of any church, as having a pre-eminence
over all other churches. If there had been any such
supremacy or special authority given either to the
Apostle Peter or to any church which was to be or had
been founded by him, St. John would have been indeed
guilty of a grievous sin if he had not declared it. But
must we not conclude that there never was in the life
time of the Apostles any hint of such a supremacy, for
we flnd that they at least knew nothing of it, and never

CATHOLIC PLAN OF SALVATION. 97
taught it, yet they were the divinely authorized teachers
of the Church, and had their instruction from the very
lips of Christ himself ? They had the giving of the Mas
ter's message to the people, how then could they have
failed to give what would have been so important a part
of his message ? If they knew that every one would be
lost for all eternity who did not believe that St. Peter
and all who succeeded him were infallible, as Rome
teaches, what a fearful guilt would have been theirs
for not saying so.
But this doctrine was unknown to the Apostles, as all
Scripture clearly proves. Let us then not dare to
believe what they never taught, and what they never
even imagined.
But to return to the word church, a word of so much
importance. We flnd that St. John knew nothing of a
particular church which should rule all Christians,
but that his idea of a church was simply a body of
Christians living in a certain place, and worshipping
together. Moreover, we say it reverently, God himself
knew nothing of such a church, except in his Divine
foreknowledge of the evils which should come to his
people in later years, for we flnd that our Lord himself
sent messages of reproof and commendation to seven
different Christian bodies, each of which was addressed
as "the Church" which was in some place named.
Here is the word of God (Rev. i. 10, 11) :
" I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard
behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,
'¦ Saying, 1 am Alpha and Omega, the first and the
last : and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it
unto the seven churches which are in Asia ; unto Ephe
sus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto

98 WHAT HOME TEACHES.
Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and
unto Laodicea."
Now in these messages given by Christ himself we
have the clear explanation of what is meant by the
Church, of what God means by the Church, and woe
to him who changes what God himself has said. The
churches are simply the Christian people living and
worshipping together in each town, as if we might say,
the church in New York, the church in Philadelphia,
and in fact, one of the churches is named by the
divine Spirit the " church in Philadelphia." There
is no Roman Catholic Church, as the Roman Catholic
would call their Church to-day, in Philadelphia. See
how very different this teaching of the Scriptures is
from the teaching of the Church of Rome. At verse
23 we find these words, which strengthen the argument,
if it were necessary to do so. Our Lord says, "All
the churches shall know that I am he which searches
the reins and the heart ; and I will give unto you, every
one of you, according to your works." Now plainer
language could not be used. We find that our dear
Lord himself never founded a Church which was to
rule all the other churches, but that on the contrary
he called all the different bodies of Christians churches,
naming merely the place in which they lived.
But it will be said, perhaps, that the Apostles had a
special power to "bind and loose," which must have
been transmitted to those who succeeded them. I would
ask why must it have been transmitted to those who
succeeded them when we do not find one word in the
Bible about any such transmission ? In such an im
portant matter the Holy Ghost could not have been
silent. The Apostles were to preach the gospel to the

CATHOLIC PLAN OF SALVATION. 99
whole world, and should have been informed of such
an important matter, but there is not even one little
hint on such a subject.
Now, as regards the text, here are the words (Matt.
xvi. 18-19). These words were addressed to St. Peter :
"And I say 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 ; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth
shall be loosed in heaven."
But in chapter 18 of the very same Gospel the very
same words are addressed to the "disciples," and it is
evident that by the disciples were meant all who were
around Christ and listening to his instructions ; so
there was no authority given to St. Peter which was
special to him. In the 20th chapter of St. John, verse
23, the very same power is given to all the disciples after
our Lord had risen from the dead. The question then
is,_ What was this power ? We must again return to the
wise and Scriptural method of interpreting Scripture
by Scripture. There could be no better or wiser plan.
We find first that Scripture is full of metaphors and
allusions which were well understood when they were
uttered, but while they are not now obscure they re
quire some explanation. Our Lord calls himself the
way, the door, and so on. Here we have the natural,
familiar expression for authority in a household, the
keys. We find the metaphor of the key used in Revela
tion and other places, over and over again, as simply
a symbol of opening a place or location. Here we
have the explanation of the keys of the kingdom of

100 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
heaven. The Apostles were the especial openers of the
kingdoiji of heaven by their preaching, and they were
the first to open the doors of the kingdom by their
preaching. Hence the peculiar appropriateness of
the words addressed to them by our divine Lord, but
whatever may be the exact meaning there is no trace
whatever of this power or privilege having been con^
ferred on any one else.
There is another passage of Scripture which is much
quoted by Romanists in support of their theories, and
this is the word, or rather the command, to " hear the
church." Here again the matter may be decided sim
ply and most effectively by the same process of inter
preting Scripture by Scripture. We find in the Bible
that the Church invariably means a body of be
lievers in Christ Jesus, and that there were as many
' ' churches " as there were places where Christian con
verts were to be found. We have shown that there were
no less than seven churches in Asia especially mentioned
by name in Holy Scripture. Now not to go further,
for it is useless to spend time on self-evident facts, we
see that no one of these seven churches had any power
or superiority over the other churches. There is no
word of the supremacy of the Church of Rome or of
St. Peter. It is just the same in the Acts of the
Apostles. The importance of the narrative of what
was done in the early Church under the direct control
of the Apostles who knew the mind of Christ is too
obvious to need comment. The Roman Catholic
Church, at its best or its worst, has not claimed
to be greater than Peter. It is in fact bound by the
actions and the opinions of Peter, the first infallible
Pope ; and yet where do we find St. Peter claiming or

CATHOLIC PLAN OF SALVATION. 101
exercising any authority above the other Apostles ?
On the contrary, we flnd that he was rebuked by them
and subject to them. We see, then, that there was
no such thing as a " Church,'' in the exclusive Roman
Catholic sense of the word, which we are bound to
hear. The Church which we are bound to hear is the
Church of the ever-living God, which exists now, as it
did in the times of the Apostles, wherever there are
Christian people. Some of these churches, like the
churches described in the Book of Revelation, are
more spiritual than others, and some are in decay, and
almost lifeless. We are to hear what they teach, when
their teaching corresponds with the teaching of Script
ure, and we flnd this very direction given by St Paul
himself (Gal. i. 8). No words could be plainer ; yet
Rome claims to have authority which St, Paul says no
one has, not even "an angel from heaven." No one
has authority to preach any other gospel than that
which was preached by St. Paul. And most assuredly
there is no mention in the gospel which he preached
of any other way of salvation except that of going
direct to Christ himself for pardon of sin. Nor is
there one word of the peculiar method of salvation
adopted by the Church of Rome in the Epistles of St,
Peter, who never claims infallibility for himself nor for
any successor.
It is difficult to decide which to consider flrst of the
many additions to the gospel of Christ which Rome has
made. Thi re are so many things required by Rome to
which the Scripture never alludes, and which most
certainly were unknown to the Apostles, that all are
alike to be condemned, since they are not a part of the
deposit of faith once delivered to the saints ; nor do we

103 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
wish to make this book too long for ordinary study ;
hence we pass altogether by the question as to whether
St. Peter ever visited Rome or not. It is a mere matter
of interesting historical detail. The real question of
importance is, whether St. Peter did or did not teach
those doctrines which Rome teaches. The question is.
Did St. Peter ever address such a prayer to the Virgin
Mary as this which we have already quoted, and we shall
quote many others presently. Did St. Peter ever pray
to the Virgin Mary as his "salvation " ? Surely even
a Romanist must shrink with horror from such a sug
gestion. And yet the Pope to-day uses, as all good
Romanists use, this prayer, and authorizes its use ; and
what he does he says Peter does. Would St. Peter ever
have taken money to say mass ? Would St. Peter ever
have said mass in the Roman Catholic sense of the
word ? Would St. Peter have allowed men to kneel
down before him, and practically to worship him ?
That we know he would not have done, for we have
proof how he abhorred any such worship. We read in
the Acts of the Apostles just what Peter would have
done if he lived to-day, for he could not change. Here
is the simple story of the manner in which he acted
when the kind of worship was offered to him which the
Pope, who professes to be his successor, expects, and re
quires every day and from every one who approaches
him. We read the history in the Acts of the Apostles.
A certain good man, a Roman soldier, sent three
men to St. Peter to ask him to go with them to Joppa,
the city where the good soldier lived. St. Peter went.
When Cornelius saw him, he knelt down to worship
him. Here are the words of Scripture (Acts x. 25-26) :
"And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him,

CATHOLIC PLAN OF SALVATION. 103
and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But
Peter took him up, saying. Stand up : I myself also am
a man." Now observe the words of St, Peter, " Stand up : I
myself also am a man. " No one should receive this kind
of homage except God ; yet we see that the Pope does
not follow the example of Peter, and that even priests
and bishops require this homage to be paid to them as
if they were more then men.

CHAPTER V.
THE PLAN OF SALVATION AS TAUGHT IN THE ROMAN
CATHOLIC CHURCH (CONTINUED).
THE CONFESSIONAL.
When once the infallibility of the Church is taken
for granted — and it is merely taken for granted by the
vast majority of Romanists, for they have no opportunity
of investigation afforded to them — all the rest comes as
a matter of course. The plan of salvation is elaborate,
and is daily being made more and more elaborate. This
is a fact very easy to prove. Every new doctrine which
has been added to the articles of faith in the Church of
Rome is an addition to the plan of salvation, because
people are obliged to believe it or imperil their sal
vation. How different all this is from the plain and
simple Gospel. In the present century the plan of
salvation has had two notable additions to it. The
first of these was the declaration that the Virgin Mary
was conceived without sin ; the second was that the
Pope was personally infallible, and that all the past
Popes, who knew nothing of such a doctrine, were also
personally infallible. It is clear indeed that it was
necessary to make all the past Popes infallible in order
to be consistent. Now I have said these and many
other things are additions to the original plan of sal
vation, even in the Church of Rome, and I can prove
it. You cannot be saved now in this nineteenth cen
tury unless you believe new doctrines ; hence it is very

CATHOLIC PLAN OF SALVATION. 105
plain that they are additions to the plan of salvation,
as in order to be saved you must believe them. Surely
it ought to have been equally necessary for dead and
gone Romanists to believe them, yet not only did they
not believe them, but some of the most famous theolo
gians of the Roman Church positively wrote against
them. The Popes who were living when they wrote
were infallible, but neither they nor the Pope knew it.
In the nineteenth century it is taught that the Virgin
Mary was born without sin, yet for all the past cen
turies even the infallible Popes did not teach it, and
Catholic theologians wrote learned treatises against the
belief. After all. Catholics can never be sure of their
religion, for it is changed so often, and that in the most
serious matters.
Now we go on to consider a few of the many things
which Catholics are obliged to do, or believe, in order
to be saved. They must believe in the Mass, They
must believe, in direct contradiction to the very words
of Christ himself, that they are not to receive his blood,
but only his body. They are to believe that it is nec
essary to trust for salvation chiefly to Mary. I am well
aware that this statement will be vehemently contra
dicted, but there is ample proof of what I assert, and
I will bring forward this proof in due course. They
are to believe that they will go to purgatory when they
die, and that their getting ou t of purgatory and into
heaven depends on prayers, masses and the power of
the Virgin Mary. All this I will prove later.
We now proceed to consider the Confessional, or, to
use the correct Roman Catholic term, the Sacrament
of Penance, as a means of salvation. It will be re
membered that I quoted on page 69 from the Roman

106 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
Catholic Catechism to the effect that one of the spe
cial reasons why Protestants cannot be saved is, "that
they will not confess their sins." Now we must con
sider this doctrine of penance, not from our view of it,
but from the teaching of the Church of Rome, I
therefore begin with quoting from the catechisms
already mentioned, and approved so specially by Car
dinal Gibbons. In the " Catechism for Beginners " the
matter is put quite simply :
" Q. What is the Sacrament of Penance ?
" A. Penance is a sacrament in which the sins com
mitted after baptism are forgiven."
Now to the Bible student this is at once contradictory
to the teaching of our divine Lord, even in the sense
in which the Roman Church understands confession.
It must never be forgotten that Roman controversialists
quote Scripture for those who are obliged to take what
ever interpretation the "Church" is pleased to put
on what they quote, and who have no opportunity of
knowing whether the quotations are correct or not.
This latter is a very important point, I have already
shown the way in which Scripture is quoted with the
authority of Cardinal Gibbons. I am very sure if any
Protestant controversialists quoted the Bible as he
quotes it, that he would denounce them with no ordi
nary indignation. Additions are made to texts of
Scripture in such a way as to leave the reader to sup
pose that the additions are part of the text.
The question of next importance is as follows :
" Q, How do you know that the priest has the power
of absolving from the sins committed after baptism ?
"A. Because Jesus Christ granted that power to the
priests of his Church when he said, ' Receive ye the

CATHOLIC PLAN OF SALVATION. 107
Holy Ghost : whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven
them ; whose sins ye retain, they are retained,' "
Now we have here again a specimen of the Jesuitical
fashion in which Rome teaches the young. The child
has been well impressed with the supposed truth that
the Church is the Roman Catholic Church, and that
no other ever existed, or is possible. Then there is the
bold assertion that "Jesus Christ granted this power
to the priests of his Church." How is the child, or the
ignorant adult, or even one who has been educated only
in Catholic schools, to know how much suppression of
truth there is in these few words ; and how very much
of positive false statement ? Place yourself in the posi
tion of that child, reflect for a moment on the force of
early impressions, and you will see at a gjance how very
difficult it is for a Roman Catholic to be undeceived.
A whole chapter follows which treats of the different
" kinds " of sorrow which a person should have for sin.
In this human scheme of salvation everything is elab
orated and pushed to the utmost limits of metaphysical
ingenuity. Then comes the question as to the different
kinds of contrition which you should have. How many
a poor soul is driven to despair by all these human
devices for salvation who would be filled with joy and
peace if allowed to hear the plain and simple good news
of the gospel of Christ. It is telling a lie to the Holy
Ghost if a mortal sin is concealed in confession, and God
help the poor soul who often cannot tell which sins are
mortal and which are venial !
The result of all this examination of conscience and
elaborate preparation for obtaining the forgiveness of sin
is too often either entire disgust with religion, or insanity,
or a niiserable state of super-sensitiveness which is

108 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
as great a torment to the priest as it is to the penitent.
It will be observed here that it is made a sin against the
Holy Ghost if a sin is concealed in confession. This
claim of the priest to represent the Holy Ghost — to be,
in fact, in the place of the Holy Ghost actually and
really — is the source of the power of the priest in the
confessional, and it is the means by v\ hich a wicked priest
can easily accomplish his evil desires. It is but a few
days since there was evidence of this in the public press.
A woman with whom a priest had taken liberties actu
ally declared that she believed it was no harm because
it was done by a priest. I know that it is quite com
mon for uneducated Romanists to think that a priest,
being in the place of God, cannot do wrong, and does
not do it, even if the wrong of his conduct is self-
evident. I do not say for a moment that the Roman
Church teaches any such doctrine, but this is the
practical result of what she does teach, and certainly
she is bound by the result of what she teaches ; but
the poor Romanist, even after he has confessed to the
priest as God, and has told all his sins, cannot yet be
sure that he is forgiven. In the first place there is
the great question on the subject of Intention. The
priest may, or may not, have had the right kind of
Intention when he has given him absolution ; but even
if the priest has done his part well, the penitent may
fail to obtain forgiveness because the priest may not be
a priest, and may not have had the power to give the
absolution. We will show later that this no mere con
jecture or Protestant invention, but a well-founded
possibility ; and what a terrible one it is for those who
are taught to look to man for forgiveness ! Of God, if
you come to him, you can be always sure ; some Roman-

CATHOLIC PLAN OF SALVATION. 109
ists admit that it is quite possible the priest may fail to
give you a true and valid forgiveness.
But there is still more. Rome teaches that if you
have perfect contrition — which is rare indeed — you will
be forgiven even if you have been prevented by un
avoidable circumstances from going to confession. But
there is another kind of contrition called "attrition,"
which is simply sorrow for sin from fear, which is sup
posed to be the most common kind, and this kind of re
pentance or contrition will not save you, note it well, un
less you also go to confession. Such is the miserable men
tal and spiritital confusion of man's plan of salvation.
As the vast majority of Romanists call for the priest on
their death-beds, to get a chance of reconciliation with
a God whom they are conscious in life of having of
fended, and as their motive is simply fear of coming
judgment, they certainly have not the kind of contrition
which, according to Rome, will save them. And as
many of these unhappy sinners do not live till the ar
rival of the priest, they are as sure of hell as any Prot
estant, But when all has been accomplished, even in
the most perfect manner, the poor sinner has by no
means ended his efforts to obtain salvation. What is
called " satisfaction " has to be made, and penance has
to be done. The finished work of Christ on the cross
is ignored, and man has to try and save himself from
the wrath to come. All this opens the door to the
worst part of the Romish system of salvation. Rome
teaches that the temporal punishment due to sin must be
borne bythe sinner either in this world or in the next,
and here comes in the doctrine of Purgatory.
Before taking up this subject, however, I will say a
few words more on confession. There is abundant

no WHAT ROME TEACHES.
Roman Catholic evidence to prove that the practice of
confessing privately to a priest was not known, and
therefore was not practised, until the thirteenth century.
Indeed we may say once more it is no wonder that
Rome demands the education, even in temporal things,
of her people. If they got to know how they are de
ceived, Rome would soon have few believers.
We read in the Acts of the Apostles that when Paul
was preaching in Ephesus certain men who had been
practising magical arts were converted, and that as a
consequence of their conversion they confessed their
sins publicly, and burned their books before all the
people (Acts xix. 18). Now this is the only kind of
confession which is mentioned or commended in the
Holy Scriptures. AVhen men have sinned publicly,
and have given public scandal, it is their duty to con
fess before all men that they have sinned, and so to
remedy at least some of the evil of which they have
been the cause. But what a difference there is be
tween this and private confession to a priest ! In the
case of private confession to a priest there is every
thing to encourage and facilitate the continuance of
evil. The priest is bound to secrecy, and the man or
woman may go on sinning, if he or she pleases, and no
one be the wiser. But if a public confession of sorrow
for public sin is made, then indeed we may believe there
is true repentance ; for the sinner is, as it were, bound
before the whole world to reform. In the early ages
of the Church this kind of confession was much prac
tised, and no doubt it was the origin of the modern prac
tice of private confession. But see how entirely different
were the circumstances. The early Church was mostly
composed of men and women who had been idolaters.

CATHOLIC PLAN OF SALVATION. Ill
and who were converted from idolatry to Christ. Now
amongst these were many persons who were sincere,
but weak. Persecution raged, and these weak Chris
tians saved themselves at the expense of their con
science. It seemed to them such a little thing to burn
incense for a few moments in honor of some pagan
divinity when they might thereby save themselves from
death and, what was harder to bear, from the most
terrible torture. But when the time of peace came
again and they desired to return to the Christian
Church, it was necessary that they should show some
public sign of repentance. They had fallen publicly,
and had given scandal to every Christian who knew of
their fall ; it was necessary that they should as publicly
repent, and show that they had truly returned to
Christ. Thus was the custom of public confession intro
duced. These people were obliged to do some kind of
penance. At first there was no idea of anything beyond
making a distinction between the Christian who had
always remained faithful and the Christian who had
fallen. But human nature lives in the best of us. It be
came some satisfaction to the good to make the fallen suf
fer, and the idea of inflicting suffering and bearing it
as an atonement came into the Christian Church with
many errors. Indeed the Apostles had predicted that
such should be the case. St. Paul had predicted that
after his death grievous wolves should come into the
flock of Christ and devour it. It was an easy step from
the simple placing of the repentant Christian at the
door of the building where the Christians assembled to
worship to make him do some far more severe pen
ance. Indeed it was quite necessary in the early

112 WHA T n OME TEA CHES.
Church that a distinction should be made between
those who had fallen and those who had remained
steadfast, for at any moment new persecutions might
arise, and the weak men and women who had once re
turned to their idols might not only do so again, but
they might also betray their brethren.
Now let it be well noted that it was not until the Fourth
Council of Lateran, which was held in the year 1215,
that Rome made private confession of obligation. And
what Roman Catholic knows this important fact ? I am
quite sure that the generality of Roman Catholics do
not know this, nor would they be allowed to know it.
But what kind of religion is it which is obliged to keep
the people who belong to it in ignorance ? The famous
Roman Catholic historian, Fleury, says that compul
sory oral confession was first established by Chrodeg-
gang, Bishop of Metz, in the year 763, for his monks.
It is certainly a very convenient form of convent disci
pline, but no Roman Catholic was bound bythe Church
to confess his sins to a priest, or to any one, until the
beginning of the thirteenth century ; so late are some
of the inventions of Rome, which her people fondly
imagine are of apostolic origin. Let us now see, briefly,
what is the position of the Roman Catholic who hopes
to obtain salvation through the priest. In the first
place he is, as has been proved, very doubtful if the
priest has the power to forgive him his sins. But even
if he is sure that the priest has the power, he is still in
a state of uncertainty. He does not know, and even
the priest cannot tell him, whether he has the kind of
contrition necessary to obtain forgiveness. He is in
terror, if he is at all scrupulous, as to whether he has
said his penance properly ; for if he has not, here is an-

CATHOLIC PLAN OF SALVATION. 113
other hindrance to his obtaining forgiveness. And then
comes the terrible purgatory which he must go through
when he dies. Instead of finding himself safe in the
arms of Jesus when his last moment arrives, he is told
to consider himself very fortunate if he finds himself in
the torment of purgatory. No Protestant can tell the
dread which every Romanist has of purgatory — a dread
which is purposely fostered by the Church, so as to
compel the poor sinner to spend money in masses for
his deliverance, or the deliverance of his friends. Thus
come in all the evils of indulgences. He must get an
"indulgence " to save him from the .punishment which
is so certain. What will not men do to save themselves
pain ? and what a cruelty it is to teach such a doc
trine, and extract from the poorest the last cent they
possess, in the hope that they w;ll suffer less in the
next world. There are some things in the Roman
Catholic system which should arouse the indignation of
every honest man, and this system of buying immunity
from future suffering is one of them.
For myself, when I was a Romanist, I never had this
fear of purgatory. I always said to myself, " \Vell,
the Church teaches that I am certain to go to heaven
some time or another. If I go to purgatory after my
death, I do not care what I have to suffer if I get there
in the end." But I know, from long years of personal
and confidential intercourse with all classes of Roman
Catholics, that dread of purgatory is the very bane of
their existence, and that they will make any sacriflce to
escape its punishment. And then how easy these sacri-
flces are ! It is only to give a great deal of money to the
priest here, and you obtain all that you desire hereafter.
It is only to leave a large sum of money which you can

114 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
no longer use, to have masses said for you after you ai'o
dead, and you may escape all punishment. But the
serious part of the matter is that the Church, with all
her power, cannot tell you how much money you must
pay for masses to escape purgatory ; so that in your
uncertainty you may have to suffer, no matter what
money you pay. Besides, this doctrine of " intention "
leaves you in the most terrible predicament. If the
priest who says the mass is not a priest — and, as will be
seen later, only God can know whether he is or not —
you lose your money and you have to bear the suffering
all the same. I believe that the uncertainty about es
caping pain and this uncertainty about salvation is
the direct cause of the devotion to the Virgin Mary, a
subject of which we shall treat in the next chapter,
I must now say a few words of the nature of these
indulgences. Rome has been accused again and again
of taking money and giving in return permission to
commit sin, and she has expended a great deal of virtu
ous indignation on those who have accused her. But
one moment's reflection ought to convince any intelli
gent Protestant that Rome is far too wise to do anything
of this kind. She accomplishes her purpose, but be
very sure that she accomplishes it without committing
herself to anything that cannot be openly repudiated.
Rome most certainly takes money and permits sin in
return, but she has her own way in carrying out the
transaction. It would be far wiser for Protestants to
flnd out Rome's way of doing business, and then to face
her with it, than to make charges which Rome can
easily refute, though they may be practically true,
I have said often, and I say it again here, for I do
not think it can be too often repeated, that Protestant

CATHOLIC PLAN OF SALVATION. 115
honesty is no match for Roman Catholic duplicity. In
the complicated and cumbersome system of the Church
of Rome, chicanery and trickery are of absolute neces
sity. It is also of absolute necessity that Rome, like
the spiritualistic medium, shall not allow you to look
too closely into her proceedings. She is infallible,
therefore you have no right to investigate, for investi
gating is heresy, implying the possibility of doubt ; and
to doubt is to be a heretic and insure your eternal con
demnation. The Council of Trent teaches that " one person can
make satisfaction to God for another." The Bible says
exactly the reverse, but then you are not allowed to read
the Bible, and you are bound to believe the Church,
so that ends the matter. As a matter of common sense
I do not see that there is any difference between buying
something which will deliver you from the punishment
of a sin, and paying something for the permission to sin.
I can quote Roman Catholic authority to prove that in
the mind of the ordinary Roman Catholic there is no
difference.* Such is the miserable result of taking the salvation of
the sinner out of the wounded hands of the God who
died for him on the cross, and placing it in the hands
of men who make it a shameless traffic.
Rome says she does not sell indulgences ; but what
is it but a sale, when money is given for them ? To give
one example, and I could give hundreds such, we have
the case of the nobleman, of which I have already spo
ken, who, within the last year, through the payment of
fifty thousand dollars obtained the consent of the pres
ent Pope to marry his own niece. Even the Roman
* See Appendix II.

116 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
Catholic press in this country cried out in horror against
this deed ; but those who did so were soon silenced.
It is a crime to criticise the Pope. He is infallible in
morals (be this well understood) as well as in faith.
He is practically the God of all the earth, before whom
all must bow, and who cannot do wrong.
Here is another case of sale of indulgences. The
Rev. Mother of the Convent of Norwood, England,
wanted to raise money for her institution. She pro
ceeded on the usual plan, namely, to sell tho grace of
God for money. Now this expression may look harsh,
but it is true. This is what the late Father Drumgoole
did for his Protectory ; and, as far as I know, the same
sale of indulgences is carried on to-day by his successor.
You pay a certain sum of money towards the support of
an orphanage or a church, and, in return, you receive an
"indulgence'' of so many days, the barter being self-
evident from the fact that, as in anj' other purchase,
the more money you give the more value you get.
So, even what Rome declares to be divine things are
sought and sold openly and unrebuked. Moreover all
this is done infallibly by an infallible Pope. In the
case of the Norwood Orphanage, every subscriber of
one pound ($5) got an indulgence for a whole year, and
every one who gave a donation of twenty pounds got an
indulgence for his whole life. In fact, it is simply a
policy to protect you against the pains of purgatory,
and you can save yourself money by paying a lump sum.
How infinitely sad all this is, and how absurd it would
seem if it were not so wicked. Surely the Apostle Peter
would have said in regard to such traffic in spiritual
things, as he did to Simon Magus, " Thy money
perish with thee." Nor can it be denied that it is

CATHOLIC PLAN OF SALVATION. 117
a traffic in spiritual things, for it claims to be a grace
for the soul which is thus purchased, and it matters
little whether the Church of Rome sells this " spiritual "
gift to help the living or the dead.
There is no question, however, that indulgences were
openly sold at one time which did a great deal more
than remit the punishment for sin which had been com
mitted. The history of the interference of the German
princes at the time of the Reformation proves this.
But enough has been said on this subject. It may be
asked, If the Pope holds the key to all these wonderful
indulgences, and to the treasury of the merits of the
saints, which he dispenses so freely for a consideration,
why does he not, like a good father, give them freely, at
least to the poor who cannot afford to pay for them ?
It is marvellous that Roman Catholics are not struck
with the inconsistencies of the system in which they
have such faith; but if we consider all the circumstances
in which they are placed, it will be seen that they are
at a terrible disadvantage. If a Catholic has even a
passing doubt, it is a sin which he is obliged to confess
to the priest without a moment's delay; the priest then
uses every argument t J terrify him, and to prevent him
from thinking. Why, has he not been taught that the
Church is infallible [I forgot ; I should now say the
Pope], and how can he dare to put his opinion
against the opinion of the Pope ? Then again there arc
men who never go to confession — indeed, the great
majority of men never do — but they are, if possible, still
greater slaves to Rome. They always expect to have
the priest at the last moment to forgive them ; then, if
they give him plenty of money to say masses for them,
they will be all right. How can they venture to ques-

118 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
tion such an easy and satisfactory religion ? So they also
crush at once the slightest doubt, and the darkness of
the shadow of death lies over this Church, and Rome
calls it unity I
Jubilees are another source of enormous income to
the Church of Rome, and an unfailing source of sin.
At the Jubilee the Popes offer special indulgences —
sometimes for money, and sometimes for works of
piety — but who gave the Pope the " key " to all this
wonderful treasure which he gives away so liberally ;
and why does he not use his key at once, and give it
all away to the poor and needy ?
There is one matter connected with the confessional
on which I have not touched. The question of ques
tions is, first. Is this God's plan of salvation ? Can sin
be forgiven only by the priest ? If this is true, of
course it follows that any evils which arise from
the practice of confession must be endured. But if
the priest has claimed a power which belongs to God
alone, can we be surprised if the most fearful evils
arise from such an assumption of Divine authority ?
And, as a fact, we find that the confessional has been
a source of deadly evil, and is to this day.
In preparing this book my great object has been to
place the doctrines of the Church of Rome in the
plainest form possible before both Protestants and
Roman Catholics. It may seem a strange and doubt
ful assertion to say that both are often equally igno
rant of what Rome teaches. .Hence I have given in
every case the very words in which the Church of Rome
teaches her doctrines, so that there can be no charge
against me of false statements or misrepresentation.
To misrepresent under such crcumstances would be a

CATHOLIC FLAN OF SALVATION. 119
grievous sin, and also a great mistake. Protestants do
not understand clearly what Rome teaches, because
Rome has so mystified the simplest matters that they
cannot understand what is really taught, and also be
cause they have been misled by adventurers who have
lectured or written on this subject, though they were
comparatively ignorant of the real teaching of Rome.
These persons thought if any statement was made that
was very much against the Church of Rome it must
therefore be true, and had neither tho education nor
the honesty to investigate before they made assertions.
Roman Catholics, who are positively forbidden to
reason or argue or even think about their religion,
and who must beheve just what they are told, are
naturally ignorant, and I have often been amazed my
self at the statements of Roman Catholics who were
in other respects well informed. To give an example :
There are few Romanists indeed who know that the
Church of Rome declares solemnly that every Protestant
will be eternally damned ; but we have already given
proof that this is the plain teaching of Rome. The
doctrine is so repulsive that Romanists may well be
excused for doubting it when they hear of it. And
there are thousands of unconscious Protestants in the
Church of Rome to-day who do not believe this and
many other doctrines of their Church, but this fact
does not make the existence of these doctrines less true.
It is true that Romanists have been taught this doc
trine when learning their catechism in their childhood,
and that they have in consequence a general impression
that all Protestants will be lost, but they are amazed
all the same when the plain truth as to the teaching of
their Church is put before them.

120 WHA T R OME TEA CHES.
So it is with Protestants who have been deceived by
false representations, and who imagine that Rome
teaches what she does not teach, or who take wrong
views of what she does teach. It is not that there is
less evil in Rome, but that the evil is not understood.
And this misunderstanding is no little gain to Rome,
for it gives her an opportunity of denying what is true ;
hence it is my great desire to prove every point, and to
make it as plain as possible, even at the risk of repeti
tion. Now it is commonly believed by many Protestants
that the confessional is made use of by the priests for
improper purposes. I shall never forget the indignant
cry of a young Roman Catholic girl who was speaking
to me of the violent and false statements made by a per
son who has been a very fire-brand of hatred to Roman
ists, because of his repulsive and often false charges :
"How could he say such evils of priests," she said,
" when I so often got such good advice from them ;
and they only tried all they could to help me to be
good ? "
It should not be forgotten that Rome has two faces ;
one face is for Protestant countries where she dare not
do evil ; the other face is for Mexico and such countries
as she can control — and no doubt eventually she will
do as she pleases in the United States. She keeps a
comparatively sharp look-out after her priests here.
They dare not openly sin against morahty, such is the
power of public opinion, and such is the grace of an
open Bible. But in Mexico, for example, where the
Bible is a forbidden book, and where a minister of the
gospel can be and continue to be imprisoned for
reading the Bible, all the evils of Rome are enaoted

CATHOLIC PLAN OF SALVATION. 121
before the world. The world of Mexico has no public
opinion enlightened by the gospel of Christ, hence
deeds of evil are passed by without condemnation.
I have said that there are evils connected with the
confessional which are misstated, and there are evils
which exist. It by no means follows that an evil is
proportioned to our idea of its enormity. We are
shocked at public crimes of violence, but if the same
crimes are committed privately we do not feel so much
concerned. It is quite as great a crime to lead a poor
ignorant person to believe that the priest can forgive
his sins as it is for the priest to lead an innocent girl
astray on the strength of his sacred character. In
both cases the immortal soul is imperilled ; but one
seems much more wicked to us than the other, because
we have considered the subject from only one point of
view. Protestants may be well assured that in this country
priests will be very careful how they ask questions in
the confessional which might be asked with impunity
under other circumstances. Just as priests iu this
country would not dare to live with women openly, as
they do in Mexico, and as they did in the early ages
when the Roman Church legislated against it. But
the tendency to both evils exists as a direct result of
an unchristian system, and only needs the opportunity
to break out. A clear understanding on this subject
would save a great deal of misapprehension. The
Roman Church teaches that in the confessional tho
priest sits as God and acts as God. It teaches that
the priest cannot forgive sin unless he knows it in its
minutest details. It can well be imagined what a hor
rible necessity there is for even the best priest to descend

123 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
into the deepest depths of the degrading miseries of
the human soul, and how a demoralized priest might
act ; nay, how even a conscientious priest would be
obliged to act. It follows of course that priests must
have a vast literature of evil to guide them in under
standing all the evil which they must meet; and such a
literature they have, and are compelled to study. The
demoralizing tffect on their minds may well be con
ceived. A great deal has been said about immoral lit
erature, but there is no literature so immoral as that
which the Roman Catholic student is compelled to
study day after day, as a preparation for his min
istry. In this connection I must say a word of warning as
to the desire amongst a certain class of Protestants — I
am afraid I might say Christian women — to become
acquainted with these books, and to listen to addresses
from persons who simply make a trade of such work.
A woman who has fallen, unless she has very sincerely
repented, will feel no degradation in speaking of these
things in public, and may make it a source of immense
income. But for Christian women such subjects should
not be named, much less spoken of openly, or, as I have
known it done, even before very young girls. It is
quite sufficient for Christian women to know that the
priests have a literature of immorality which they are
obliged to study ; to ask for details is certainly not the
part of those who desire purity, and places those who
do so under the very same condemnation which they
utter against the priest.
A great deal has been said of the safety of confession,
and the relief it is to criminals to confess to some one.
Now I believe that people very seldom confess with

CATHOLIC PLAN OF SALVATION. 123
this end in view. Men especially confess because it is
an easy means of making sure of heaven. No matter
what their lives have been, if they " send for the priest "
ou their death-beds he will make it all right for them ;
and poor human nature looks for safety everywhere
but where God himself has placed it. The gospel
scheme of salvation is too easy. Man wants to have a
share in his own salvation, and will not trust to Him
who alone can save him.
In concluding this part of my subject I will give
some extracts from the Book of Theological Instruction
which forms the basis of all others used by Romanist
priests. There are some points in it which deserve
special mention.
The book from which I proceed to quote is no rare
nor scarce work. It is the authorized Moral Theology
of the Church of Rome, compiled and prepared for the
use of Roman Catholic ecclesiastical students by Peter
Dens. In this book the student is taught how to act
in every possible case of conscience, in order that he
may teach others. There is a chapter on the obliga
tion of the clergy to submit to the laws of the country
in which they live, which should have been headed The
Immunity of the Clergy from all Law, except the laws
of the Church. It is amazing how easily Protestants are
deceived by Rome on this and kindred subjects. They
should remember that Rome considers that they have
no rights, and indeed there are daily instances of how
Rome acts on this principle in this country.
Here is not only the teaching of Peter Dens, but the
teaching of the greatest of modern Roman Canonists,
the Jesuit Suarez : ' ' Because a layman has no author
ity over the persons of priests, therefore they are only

134 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
indirectly obliged by the laws of the State." In fact a
little reflection would show that the freedom of the
'•¦ Church" from all dependence on the State involves
the freedom of every member of the Church from all
civil jurisdiction. And the Church plainly teaches and
declares that the State is merely her servant to do her
bidding. It is only a question of power for her to
compel the State to obey her. From this power of the
Church two important obligations follow, as a necessary
consequence. The Church having power over the
State, can compel the State to act under her direction ;
in fact she can do to the multitude what she does to
the individual. She can compel the individual to re
frain from all discussion of the doctrines of the Church.
This should be well noted. Rome cannot bear discus
sion. What kind of religion is it which cannot bear dis
cussion, even of the most friendly character ? Hence it
is that those who employ Romanist servants will flnd
often that, while they may listen to them at flrst when
they begin to talk to them of Jesus, they will soon re
fuse to listen; and this will be done by tho command of
the priest, who dare not allow his penitent to speak
to any one on the subject of all others of the greatest
importance to the human race. Rome cannot bear the
light, nor permit her followers to enjoy it.
Next follows the claim of Rome to compel the State
to kill the Protestant or heretic ; for to Rome the
names are the same, and indicate the same condition
of mind.
This awful claim is simply the vested right of a
Church which declares that there is no salvation out
side her pale. Why should she not kill the Christian
(heretic) whom she accuses of killing souls with the

CATHOLIC PLAN OF SALVATION. 135
poison of gospel light, as well as the poisoner who
commits physical murder ?
This power is very plainly claimed in this Book of
Instruction for Priests, as we shall show later.
The chapteT " Concerning the Intercourse of the
Faithful with Infidels " is well worthy of consideration.
In this chapter there is a curious distinction made be
tween the Infidel (Christian) and the Jew, to the
advantage of the Jew, In this chapter we find the
following authorized teaching of Rome, which I am
sure is as plain as the catechism which Cardinal
Gibbons has so strongly approved for "plainness of
language." Here are the words: "It is forbidden
to any lay person either publicly or privately to
dispute concerning the Catholic faith ; and whoever
shall do so shall be excommunicated." Now it will
be said that Catholics do sometimes discuss their
religion with Protestants. This is true ; but it would
be well to observe that they rarely do so unless they
have some hope of converting the person with whom
they are discussing, and in this case they would have
had the leave of the priest. He would very carefully
examine them in the confessional, and would at once
compel them to silence if he feared that they were
being in any way influenced against any doctrine of
the Church. We flnd now that there are some who
really are but nominal Romanists who are ready to
discuss the conduct of the bishops and priests in this
country. It is the flrst step in their emancipation
from Rome, for this also is forbidden.
In the next section the subject as to whether " in
fldels" — and by the context this word is shown to in
clude, or rather indeed to apply exclusively to Chris-

126 WHA T R OME TEA CHES.
tians — may be allowed to worship God according to the
dictates of their conscience. Here is the decision :
" The religious services of pagans and heretics are not
to be tolerated, because they are so bad that no truth
or advantage for the good of the Church can be thence
derived." Now the expression "advantage for the
good of the Church " deserves consideration. If it is
for the good of the Church, any evil may be tolerated ;
but it is quite certain that the individuals used for the
advantage of the Church will not be themselves bene-
flted. It is said, later, that the Jewish worship may
be tolerated " with moderation ;" and the reason given
is because the Romanist religious ceremonies are so
much like the Jewish that it may beneflt the Catholic
Church to point to them. Curious indeed : the Catho
lic may not search the Scriptures for evidence of the
truth of the Church to which he belongs, but he may
learn from the ceremonies of the Church which cruci-
fled Jesus ! There is another reason, however, well
known in history, why the Jews are sometimes tol
erated. They have been successful merchants, and
their immense wealth has been a great source of reve
nue to the Catholic Church, which imposed flues of
enormous sums of money on that hapless race for
permission to live. Hence the toleration (always for
a very liberal consideration) of the Jews.
In the next chapter is discussed the question as to
the punishment of heretics (Christians) by death, and
the well-known passage is quoted from St. Thomas,
on whose writings the present Pope has set the seal of
his special approbation. The answer is a plain " Yes ;"
for "all heretics (Christians) who do not obey the Pope
are justly punished with death," and in proof of the

CATHOLIC PLAN OF SALVATION. Vii
divine approval of this, the text is quoted from Deut.
xvii. 13.
Now let us suppose for one moment that some
Protestant college — say, for example, the Union Theo
logical Ssminary of New York City, taught that it was
the duty of every Protestant to compel every Roman
Catholic to become a Protestant, and to punish him
with death if he refused, what an outcry Rome would
make. But if Protestants point to these teachings of
the Church of Rome they are at once denounced as
illiberal and unchristian. Is it not time that facts
were better Understood ? It is not long since it was
announced in the press that a Protestant gentleman in
Minnesota had given $500,000 to found a Roman
Catholic college for priests. Did he know, or even sus
pect that it is only a question of time till these same
priests will exercise the rights which they claim of
killing every heretic, and if he has children they will
not be spared ? Further, it is stated that the Church
has the right to conflscate the property of heretics,
and that they should not be allowed to hold " any
public offices or employments." This right of the
Roman Church has been always claimed and exercised
whenever the Church had sufficient temporal power to
do so. But if Protestants ask even a fair share of
representation for themselves, and place any limitation
to the greed of the Romanist for office, they are at
once denounced as unjust and illiberal In fact, the
only " justice" which will satisfy Rome is to allow her
absolute power, both temporal and spiritual, and to
place her in such a position as will enable her to
deprive Christian people of all liberty, spiritual or
temporal ; then indeed she will be content. Every

128 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
concession to Rome is a step, and a step that can very
seldom be retraced in this direction, and she knows it.
I will conclude this part of my subject with some
extracts from Roman Catholic books, which will show
the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on the sub
ject of lying and equivocation.
There are few Roman Catholic doctrines which have
been made the subject of such fierce discussion as that
of the permission to lie or equivocate ; yet the permis
sion is plainly given. The whole Roman Catholic
system of salvation is certainly of the most curious char
acter. It is so evasive, so prolix, and so difficult to un
derstand without some practical knowledge of the work
ings of Rome, that it is no wonder that Protestants
make mistakes. Of course Rome hotly declares that
it is a horrible calumny on her Church to say that she
permits lying, or even equivocation, and also she is very
indignant when she is accused of worshipping the Virgin
Mary. Yet, if words mean anything, she is guilty of
both charges.
In this Book of Instruction for the Rom.an Catholic
Student we find the following remark. It is an example
of the way in which Rome deceives others, if she does
not deceive herself.
In Section 343 of this work ("Dens' Moral Theol
ogy " ) we find the plainest and most emphatic condem
nation ; so that Rome, if accused of permitting lying,
can point to this triumphantly and say that she is
calumniated, and naturally Protestants believe her.
Section 244, however, treats of " mental restriction, "
which is simply lying as a fine art ; and in this section
lying is distinctly permitted, and the student is told
how to manage to lie with the least possible appearance

CATHOLIC PLAN OF SALVATION. 129
of doing so. I give the exact words in the book. " John
being in the market, and wishing to speak to Peter,
asks Paul, Have you seen Peter ? Paul says, I have
not seen him, although he had seen him a few hours
before," And this is given as a specimen of permissi
ble equivocation. Now it is self-evident that this is
lying, pure and simple. How easily a murderer might
escape justice in this way. One who had been a wit
ness to the crime, and had seen the murderer fleeing
from justice, might say that he had not seen him, if a
short interval had elapsed between the time when he
was asked the question and the flight of the murderer.
In Section 343 the very words of Christ himself are
used to defend lying. If, says the author (and the
Church which has endorsed him), a question is asked
or a matter stated which bears two interpretations or
appears to do so, you may use the one which suits you
best, even if it be a falsehood, because it is merely an
equivocation. Then Father Dens quotes the words of
Christ when conversing with the disciples going to
Emmaus, when he asked them "what things," saying
that our Lord spoke as if he did not know what had
happened, though he himself was the actor of the sad
scenes of which they spoke. But how absurd is this,
and how blasphemous. What possible occasion could
there be for equivocation in such a plain matter of fact ?
But the poor Romanist who is obliged to take the in
terpretation of the Church must believe that these words
of our divine Lord are a justification for equivocation.
But Rome not only permits but requires, on certain
occasions, that her children should not only lie, but
that even they should affirm their lie by an oath. One
wonders that they have not (juotod the example of Peter

180 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
when he denied his Master, to justify this outrage on the
divine law.
In Section 159, which treats of the Seal of Confession,
or the obligation which the priest is under of secrecy
as regards what he hears in the confessional, the fol
lowing doctrine is laid down : " What must a confessor
reply when he is asked concerning anything which
he has learned through sacramental confession alone ?
He must reply that he does not know it ; and, if it is
necessary, he must confirm the same with an oath.''
Observe, the confessor is not told to refuse to tell on
account of having heard it in the confessional ; he must
simply swear a lie. Such are the results of substitut
ing the ordinances of men for the commandments of
God. Rome never hesitates to declare that the com
mands of the Church must be obeyed first, and the
commandments of God after. But there is still more.
Rome indignantly denies to Protestant controversialists
or inquirers that she puts men in the place of God.
But here is proof that she does. The question is
asked, if this false oath is not a lie ? The answer is
"No; for though the confessor knows this of which
he is asked as a God (sitting in the place of God in the
confessional) , he docs not know it as a man, and so can
swear that he is in ignorance." What a tremendous
assertion, and what a very plain statement of belief.
You may lie under certain circumstances, if the Church
requires you to do so. How easy to stretch such per
missions. And the priest takes the place of God in the
confessional. On this very same principle thousands,
I might say millions, of Romanists believe that the priest
cannot sin, above all in the confessional, because he is
there as God, and whatever God requires must be right.

CHAPTER YI.
S.\LVATIOX TlIllOrGH MARY.
The title of this chapter may seem at first a severe
charge against the Church of Rome ; but as I am pre
pared to prove that it is through Mary, principally if
not exclusively, that the Romanist is taught to look for
salvation, I believe that my choice of a title will prove
but too correct. There is no charge against the
Church of Rome which that Church denies with greater
indignation than that of worshipping the Mother of
Jesus. Ct-xdinal Gibbons has devoted a whole chapter
in his "Faith of Our Fathers,' to prove that the
Church of Rome only " honors " Mary, and that Prot
estants do not honor her ; that they do not even
call her blessed, as Scripture does. Now one of these
statements is as wrong as the other. Every Protestant
honors and respects the Virgin Mary, but they do not
consider that it gives her honor to invoke her as their
"salvation," when her divine Son has declared that
he alone is our salvation. It is not honor, it is mock
ery, to place any person in a position which does not
belong to him. AVe find in the Gospels, that Mary
had so little supernatural knowledge of her Son when
on earth, that she was for three days looking for him,
and could not find him, yet now the Romanist prac
tically teaches that she has more power than he has.
Again let me say that I will prove this grave assertion.
But what is to be thousfht of the obvious unfairness

132 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
of one in the highest position in the Roman Catholic
Church who never even hints at the devotions prac
tised by the authority of the Church when he is writ
ing largely, as it is understood, for Protestants ? Such
suppression of the truth on these most vital subjects is
an abomination to the Lord, and as likely to deceive
readers as statements deliberately intended for that
purpose. If it is true that Rome teaches that Mary, as a medi
ator, can obtain salvation for the sinner, so far as she
does this she displaces Christ. If Rome does not give
Mary a share in the redemption of the human race
she is unjustly accused and should be exonerated.
How is this point to be decided?
I repeat again what I said in the beginning, it is
not unjust to judge the tenets of a Church by those
statements which it puts forth officially. If the
Church of Rome has published any statement which
gives to Mary the place of a mediator between God and
man, with the full and infallible authority of the Pope,
then Rome proves herself guilty of idolatry of the worst
kind. But Rome has done this ; she does it to-day,
and she glories in doing it.
Before I give proof of this I wish to call attention to
the diplomacy with which Rome covers much of the
evil which exists in her creeds and in her practice. If
you ask any Romanist if Mary is put in the place of
Christ, still more if you accuse any Romanist of doing
this, you will be met with an indignant denial. You
will hear the oft-repeated statement that the Romanist
only "asks the prayers of Mary " as he would ask the
prayers of any good person. If this were all we might
say, Why do you require the prayers of Mary when you

SAL 1 -A TION THR OUGH MARY. VV.l
have Christ, and how can you prove that Mary can
hear you ? A Romanist may say, AVe would ask any
friend to pray for us ; Protestants ask the prayers of
each other. But the question comes at once : Mary is
dead ; how do you know she can hear you ? What
warrant have you for praying to the dead ? And here
the Romanist can only fall back on the authority of the
Church, which is the basis of every evil. If the
Church has authority to assure you that Mary can hear
your prayers, it also has authority to tell you just to
what extent she can help you.
Here Rome must be met at once on the solid ground
that the Church has no such authority, else you may
be lost in a maze of useless argument as to the extent
to which she practises Mariolatry. It is of the greatest
importance that Protestants should understand very
clearly just what the Roman Catholic Church teaches,
and this is far more difficult than the ordinary Prot
estant supposes. Much useless controversy would be
saved, and much triumph of evil would be prevented,
if care were taken in controversy with Rome not to
make accusations which, though they may seem correct,
are capable of a very different interpretation when
manipulated with the skill which Rome uses in her
controversies, a skill which is too often sadly wanting
in honesty of purpose.
In discussing the question of Roman Catholic "de
votion " to Mary, they will lead you into a maze of sen
timental theory which may be very poetical and attrac
tive to human nature, but which is none the less very
dangerous. This devotion to Mary is one of the most
dangerous of all Roman Catholic doctrines, because it
appeals to the best feelings of humanity, because it seems

134 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
simple and comparatively h irmless to those who do not
know what it really is. How far from harmless it is
you may know if you will remember that it is the very
first step taken in convent and parochial schools to
attract the young. There is a confraternity in the
Roman Church called "The Children of Mary," the
special object of which is to instil into the minds
of the young that "devotion to Mary" which is prac
tically worship of Mary as the one great means of
salvation. In the catechism great care is taken to guard against
any expression which might imply that anything is
allowed in the Church of Rome beyond a simple in
vocation of Mary. It teaches that Rome only allows
you to ask her to pray for you. In the catechism first
we find this question and answer :
" Q. Is it wrong then for any one to say that Cath
olics by praying to the saints substitute them for Jesus
Christ'? " A. The idea that Catholics by praying to the saints
put them in the place of Jesus Christ is utterly false, be
cause Catholics do not ask the saints to grant them
any graces, but to obtain them from God."
Now if this were all, as I have said, which Rome
taught authoritatively on the subject of the interces
sion of the saints, we could not accuse her of direct
idolatry. But this is far from being the plain teaching
of Rome.
In the second or advanced catechism, we find a chap
ter on Indulgences, in which are the following question
and answer :
" Q. How does the Church by means of indulgences
remit the temporal punishment due to sins ?

SALVATION THROUGH 3IARY. 135
' ' A. By applying to us the merits of Jesus Christ
and the superabundant satisfactions of the blessed
Virgin Mary and of the saints."
Could words be plainer ? The merits of Jesus Christ
must have added to them the " superabundant " satisfac
tions of !Mary. Is this Christianity? Is this simply
asking ilary for her prayers ? Is this treating Mary as
a woman whose prayers, because she is good, may bene
fit ? No ; her superabundant satisfactions are required
to be added to the merits of Christ for the salvation of
the children of the Church.
But here is another and far plainer statement of the
necessity of obtaining the help of Mary in order to be
saved. The Roman Catholic Church has instituted a
devotion called the "Devotion of the Scapular." The
statements which I am about to make in regard to this
devotion might well be questioned if I could not say that
every one is taken from the authorized " Book of the
Scapular"' now before me. It is a book which is in the
hands of every devout Catholic who can read, and there
is not a " good Catholic " in America to-day who does
not believe, and give practical proof of his belief, in this
scheme of salvation through Mary. But all this is care
fully kept out of sight of Protestants. The scapular of
the Virgin Mary is a piece of brown cloth which has
strings attached to it so as to enable the wearer to keep
it between the shoulders. On this piece of cloth pict
ures are fastened which represent Mary in all sorts
of grotesque fashions. The wearing of this scap
ular was " revealed to St. Simon Stock, on the 16th of
July, 1251, by the Virgin Mary, who presented him,
with one and told him, among other things, that whoever
shall be so happy as to die wearing this garment shall

136 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
not suffer in the flames of hell." What words could bo
plainer ? Mary will save the one who wears this scap
ular. There is not one word of the blood of Jesus
Christ. In fact in the whole narrative Christ is abso
lutely ignored.
But this is not all. In the year 1523 Pope John
XXII. had* a vision of a similar character, and was
assured by the Virgin Mary that she had made him Pope,
and that, in return, she expected him to support her
dignity and authorize this devotion. She also informed
him that she, the "glorious mother," would descend
into purgatory on each Saturday and take out of the
flames of torment those who wore this scapular when
they were on earth,and take them to the "mountain of
eternal life." Now Pope after Pope has issued bulls,
which are infallible according to the teaching of Rome, in
which they proclaim this doctrine of salvation through
Mary, On March 3, 1532, Pope John XXII. pub
lished the bull in which he tells of this apparition of
the Virgin Mary to himself, making it of obligation on
every Catholic to believe- this. Alexander V., Clement
VII., Pius V. and Gregory XIII. each officially declared
their belief in this doctrine, so that it cannot be doubted
by the faithful Catholic. But it may be said all this
relates to the past. By no means. Once infallible,
always infallible. No one can deny the doctrine thus
proclaimed of salvation through Mary ; and no one is
inclined to deny it, though it may be concealed from
heretics. The book from which I have made these quotations
and given the names of the Popes who have infallibly
authorized this doctrine is published in New York, and
bears the full episcopal approbation. Furthermore,

SALVATION THROUGH MARY. 137
every good Catholic believes all this to-day as much as
those who lived in the ages when these Popes set their
Eeal to the truth of these things ; and every good
Catholic to-day wears the scapular and expects Mary
to save him if he wears it. It is not so long since the
world at large had a proof of this, if only the world
would heed what passes before it on such vital subjects.
AVlien the unhappy Dr. Croiiin was murdered in
Chicago, the men who did the foul deed stripped him
naked, but they did not dare to touch the scapular,
which remained round his neck, an evidence of his
faith in Mary and their superstitious fear of offending
her. Powerful, indeed, must have been this feeling
for !Mary which controlled those who did not hesitate
to offend God by committing murder,
AA'hcn I was in Rome, some few years ago, the priests
complained bitterly to me that they had lost their
power over the people; that now they blasphemed
Mary. It was of course wrong that they should pro
fane the name of God, but when they went so far as to
blaspheme Mary then they were indeed past all hope.
So completely evident was it that Mary held the first
place in their respect. But as the subject is of so
much importance I will say a few words more. In
the Roman Church no book can be published without
the permission of a bishop. Lives of saints are
especially subject to ecclestiastical scrutiny, so that
any statement contained in them is, if not absolutely
infallible, at least a fair proof of the belief which Rome
desires to teach and impress on her subjects. In the
life of a saint. Father Champagnat, now before me, I
find the following: "When we see that so many
Christians obtain salvation because they have been

138 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
faithful to say a little prayer to this powerful Virgin,
how- could a brother be lost who daily recites her
rosary ? "
With one more proof that Rome inculcates salvation
through Mary, not merely as a possibility but as a
fact, I will add evidence which admits of no disproof.
There are certain prayers which are especially enjoined
by the Catholic Church. In order to give an additional
weight to -the injunction, what is called an indulgence
is granted for reciting them. No indorsement could
be higher or more authoritative. A book is published
called the " Racolta," in which all these prayers are
found; but so careful is Rome that even the translation
of these prayers is authorized. That is, the original
prayers are composed in Latin, but for the benefit of
those who do not understand Latin they are trans
lated into English, and a guaranty is given that the
indulgence applies to the reciting of the words in
English as well as to the reciting in Latin. I might
quote many of these authorized prayers to show that
Rome teaches her children to invoke Mary as a saviour.
I will however give only one for the present ; many
others will be found later. There is a special indul
gence for repeating this prayer, "Sweet heart of Mary,
be my salvation." While Rome professes that she
does not teach that Mary is a saviour, she does so in
fact, and in the very plainest language possible. In
deed it is no exaggeration to say Rome teaches
that, while you may be saved by trusting in Christ,
you will certainly be saved if you place the care of
your salvation in the hands of Mary.
The object of wearing the scapular is plainly stated ;
it is to obtain salvation through Mary, and in this

SAL VA TION THR OUGH MAR Y. 1 b9
nineteenth century this book is as fully approved and
as strongly recommended by the Roman Catholic
Church as it was in the dark ages.
But there is another book, also approved and used
to-day in New Y^ork, called the "Glories of Mary,"
which, if possible, exceeds the Scapular Book in idola
try. A new edition of this book is before me now,
published in New York, by the Excelsior Catholic
Publishing House, 1891. Further, this edition has
the following ecclesiastical approbation :
" This new and improved translation of the ' Glories
of Mary ' having been duly examined is hereby approved
of. t John, Archbishop of New Y'"ork."
When considering the extracts which I give from this
book, remember that it has been " duly examined " and
after this examination "approved." Hence, no Cath
olic dare question or dispute any doctrine contained
therein. Now if these two books which I notice here were
merely books put forth by individuals, the case would
be bad enough. Yet even then Rome holds so strong
a grip on the souls of those whom she claims as her
subjects that she would never even tolerate the circu
lation of books of devotion that she did not fully
approve. We must remember how promptly she has
recently suppressed the circulation of the Bible in
France. But there is something far more than tolera
tion here, there is approbation, and approbation of the
very highest character. And what is the teaching of
these two books? Plainly and clearly — as plainly
and as clearly as words can express it — Rome teaches
that we must look to Mary for salvation. That our dear
Lord is the angry judge, and that Mary is the merciftil

140 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
saviour. I have before me both the edition of this work
published in this country, and the edition published in
England. There is no difference except in the greater
literary fitness of one of the translators. In both
translations almost the same words are used, the same
sense is always expressed. Here is one extract which is
sufficient for the present, though the subject is so im
portant I intend to give others. In the preface to this
work St. Alphonsus says, "God has ordained that all
graces should come to us through the hands of Mary."
AVhen and where God "ordained" this, it need scarcely
be said, is not stated. It is enough for the poor Roman
Catholic that the " Church" has authorized this — must
we not say blasphemy ? — and that it has been uttered
by a canonized saint. Indeed the authors of both the
" Book of the Scapular " and this book of the " Glories
of Jlary '' are both canonized saints, whose writings are
approved by the Church, so that Rome is bound twice
over to their doctrines.
At page 389 we find the following: "When the-
devil wishes to make himself master of a soul, he makes
her abandon devotion to the holy Mary. AVhen this
channel is closed she will at once lose the light and the
fear of God, and finally eternal salvation." Could
words be plainer ? Indeed I think the solution of the
difficult question as to why among the criminal classes
in our great cities there are found, alas, so many Roman
Catholics, is that these poor people do not pray to God
for grace, but only to Mary, who cannot give it to them,
and so they are without help in time of trial. But
how awful is the responsibility of those who teach such
sinful doctrine, and who teach it in the name and
claiming the authority of God. I now give another

SAL 1 -A TION THR O UOH MARY. 141
example to show that Mnvy is taught to the people to
be abounding in mercy while Jesus acts as a stern
judge. A vision is described which a " devout canon "
saw in a church. Two thrones were erected, one for
Jesus Christ and one for Mary. (Through the whole
of this book Jesus and Mary are treated generally as
equals in power ; the preference of authority, however,
if any, being given to Mary.) A certain sinner was
brought into the church that justice might be inflicted
on him. This sinner was no less a person than a bishop,
and a bishop with a curious history. He had been very
devout to Mary when young, and she in return had got
him made bishop. He proved ungrateful to his bene
factor, and finally was such a wicked bishop that he
sinned ceaselessly and forgot to pray to Mary. One
night when in the society of a "wicked companion"
he was warned by a voice that he had " sinned enough ;"
but he had still kept on in his evil course. The
judge, Jesus, orders that the criminal should be
brought forward and justice executed upon him. But,
says the narrator, "Before the sentence was executed
(see how great is the mercy of Mary), she, the kind
Mother, that she might not be present at this tremen
dous act of justice, left the church." ["Glories of
Mary," page 391, approved and authorized by John,
Archbishop of New York, and published (new edi
tion) this year, 1891, in this city, and by his Eminence
Cardinal Manning, London, England. Edition pub
lished in London.]
At page 106 a story is told which is unsurpassed
for absurdity and ignorance ; but this also must be be
lieved by the devout Catholic.

142 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
St, Bridget is said to have seen the death, of her son
in a vision. He had led a very bad life, but like the
rest was saved at the last moment, as the dissolute bish
op would have been if he had continued his devotion to
the Virgin Mary. St. Bridget saw in a vision — for this
book is full of visions — the soul of her son before Christ,
the judge, and the devil accusing Mary of having saved
him because she " presented his soul to his judge, and
thus had it saved without giving him (the devil) an
opportunity to expose the reason why he claimed it as
his own."
This, in plain English, means that Mary could de
ceive Jesus, and smuggle (we do not know any other
word for it) a soul into heaven which was so wicked
that it deserved hell ; and this is the doctrine of the
Roman Church and its teaching, as approved by Popes
and cardinals to-day. Yes, and Christian men and
women will help by their influence, and even support
by their money, institutions where this doctrine is
taught to the young and ignorant, with all the authority
of an infallible Church. God is a jealous God ; can
Christian people expect that he will not hold them
accountable ? You have an open Bible ; you are not in
compulsory darknessasto the plan of salvation. Chris
tian men and women. Christian ministers, there are all
about you men and women who know no other way of
salvation except through Mary, as this book plainly
shows. What will you do for them ? Your country is
full of misery through the conduct of men and women
abandoned to habits of debauchery like this unhappy
bishop, and ruined in temporal affairs through the curse
of drink. To what religion do they belong ? Your pub
lic affairs are largely administered by men who are a

SAL 1 -A TION THR O I 'GH 3IARi '. 143
disgrace to civilization, not to say to Christianity. Has
it ever occurred to you that there is a close connection
between their religious belief and their actions ? Why
should they not make what they consider the best of
both worlds? If they are quite sure — and they are
sure, because their infallible Church teaches it to them
— that if they are but "devout to Mary," they will go
to heaven, no matter how they live in this world, why
should they not do as they will ? But will not God
judge you for your support of a system of iniquity ?
You have no excuse, for you know what " Rome
teaches," and you know what is the result of her teach
ing, for it is before you every day.
It is stated distinctly in this book that Mary is a
partner with Christ in the salvation of mankind ; no
Scriptural authority is given for this assertion, but
Scripture does not count in the teaching of the Roman
Church. It is enough that the Church has spoken,
and all men must believe.
At page 189 we find this statement without any qual
ification whatsoever : "No one can be saved except
through thee" (Mary). St. John of Damascus did
not hesitate to say, "Oh pure and immaculate queen,
save me, deliver me from eternal damnation." Yet we
are told that the Roman Catholic Church does not in
voke Mary as a saviour ; if she does not, then the Eng
lish language has no meaning. But undoubtedly the
worst feature in this devotion, as it is called, to Mary,
is the strong assurances which are given by the Catholic
Church, that salvation will be obtained at the last
minute, no matter what kind of life the person has
lived, if only he has continued to invoke Mary by say
ing, "only one Hail Mary" every day. Surely, if ever

144 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
sinning was made easy, it is by this arrangement.
Again I give proofs, for mere assertion would be both
foolish and unjust in such a case. Here are the exact
words : " A notorious robber lived in the mountains of
Trent ; he was advised by a religious to make a vow to
fast on Saturday, in honor of Mary, and on that daydi.
no harm to any one. He made the vow, and Jiept it.
For six days in the week he lived as he pleased, but on
the Saturday devoted to Mary he fasted, and did not
rob or fight. He was executed for his crimes all the
same, but after his death the Virgin Mary came with
four angels, took up his body from the felon's grave,
and carried it to the gate ot the city, and told the guards
to tell the bishop that he should give this man honor
able burial, for he was my faithful servant ; and this was
done, and from this time all persons in that region be
gan to fast on Saturdays. " No wonder, when certainty
of salvation and permission to sin could be so easily
combined. The above narrative is recorded at page 689 ; at page
691 we find the following, which I have condensed :
In Germany a criminal who was condemned to death
refused the ministrations of the priest, who at last said,
"Let us say a Hail Mary," when the man was at once
converted. Not one word is there of the blood of
Christ, or of Jesus, as the Saviour of sinners. In fact
this is a religion of its own. In Spain, a man who had
sold himself to the devil, who lived an evil life, and
worst of all, " had never been to confession," neverthe
less said a Hail Mary every day, and at the last moment
of his wicked life the Virgin Mary appeared to him,
and so changed him that he sent for a confessor.
It is noteworthy in this book that the crimes and

SAL VA TION THR O UOH MA R 1 '. 14.-.
criminal lives of priests are spoken of quite frankly ;
in fact, the evil lives of the priests were a matter of
notoriety at that time, when Rome, having absolute
power, did not need to discipline her clergy, or to con
ceal their evil deeds. The same state of things exists
at present in Mexico, where Rome has absolute power.
At page 91 a story is told of a woman of Cologne
who had sinned with an ecclesiastic. He committed
suicide, and she went into a convent. " Here the devil
assailed her in bodily form, and she could not get
deliverance from him till a companion told her to say a
Hail Mary, when he fled."
At page 703 a story is told of a sinful man who
knelt at the foot of the cross and prayed in vain to
Christ for pardon, but when he turned to the image of
Mary he at once obtained what he desired. But of
what use to say more ? Page after page is filled with
stories, all of which have the same moral — if you
want to be saved hereafter, and to live a sinful life
here, pray to Mary every day. One Hail Mary will do,
and at the last moment you will be safe. What a
difference between this and the religion of Christ,
' ¦ Go, and sin no more." The devotion of the scapular
is also noticed in this book, and of course approved,
and the statement authorized by the Pope reiterated :
" Any one who wears this scapular at death shall be
delivered from eternal flames." May God pity and
help those poor souls who are trusting their eternal
salvation to the wearing of a bit of cloth I
In this book, also, it is distinctly claimed that we
are indebted for our salvation to Mary, as much
as to Jesus. Practically it has been shown that
Rome teaches her children to expect salvation from

146 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
Mary, and not from Jesus. Excuses, apologies or ex
planations maybe made, but the plain words are these ;
and other books authorized by the Roman Church state
precisely the same thing.
At page 43 (" Glories of Mary") we find the follow
ing words : "It is true that in dying for tho
redemption of the world Jesus wished to be alone ;
but when God saw the great desire of Mary to de
vote herself also to the salvation of men, he ordained
that by the sacrifice and offering of the life of this
same Jesus she might co-operate with him in the
work of our salvation, and thus become Mother
of our souls." Could words be plainer? Not one
word is said of when or how God made Mary " co
operate in the work of our salvation," but it is clear
that the Romanist, who must believe whatever the
Church teaches without any doubt or examination,
needs no higher authority for his confidence in Mary.
According to Rome there are two saviours, Jesus and
Mary ; of the two we are most certain of salvation if
we try to obtain it through Mary. In fact, according
to this book, there is no comparison. Jesus may save
us, but Mary certainly will, and on such easy terms
that it is far safer to trust to her. Do I exaggerate ?
Have I not given sufficient proof that it is the true
teaching of Rome ? And if so, what a subject for the
prayers of Christian people who love their Master, and
know that he, and he alone, can save us.
I add here an extract from the translation of this
book, published in England ; the original is in Italian.
It will be seen that there is little difference, as in
deed there could not be, both claiming to be faithful
translations.

SALVATION THROUGH MARY. 147
" It is the will of God that all graces should come to
us by the hand of ]\Iary " (p. 3).
" To honor the Queen of Angels is to gain eternal
life" (p. 6).
" All who are saved are saved only by means of this
divine Mother " (p. 8).
" As many creatures as there are who serve God so
liiany there are who serve Mary, for to thee (Mary) be
long dominion and power over all creatures" (p. 12).
" The Eternal Father gave the office of Judge and
Avenger to the Son, and that of showing mercy and
relieving necessities to the Mother" (p. 14).
" We believe that she opens the abyss of the mercy
of God to whomsoever she wills, when she wills, and as
she wills ; so that there is no sinner, however great,
who is lost if Mary protects him " (p. 16),
" Let us fiy to thy feet, and always fly to the feet of
this most sweet Queen, if we would be certain of sal
vation" (p. 19).
"We can say of Mary that she has so loved us as to
give her only-begotten Son for us, when she granted
him permission to deliver himself up to death " (p.
34). " Thou hast all power to change hearts ; take mine
and change it "(p. 43).
"My only hope, Mary, behold at thy feet a miser
able sinnei. Thou art proclaimed and called by the
whole Church, and by all the faithful, the refuge of
sinners, thou hast to save me " (p. 60).
" He falls and is lost who has not recourse to Mary"
(p. 67).
' ' God has placed the whole price of redemption in
the hands of Mary that she may dispense it at will."
" Thou, 0 Mary, art the jjrojntiatory of the whole
world " (p. 85).
"Thou art the only advocate of sinners" (p. 95).
" But now if God is angry with a sinner, and Mary
takes him under her protection, she withholds the
avenging arm of her Son and saves him " (p. 98).
" The only hope of sinners " (p. 102).

148 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
" I worship thy holy heart, through thee do I hope
for salvation " (p. 105).
" Often we shall be heard more quickly, and be thus
preserved, if we have recourse to Mary, and call on her
holy name, than we should be if we called on the name
of Jesus our Saviour " (p. 113),
" Many things are asked from God, and are not
granted : they are asked from Mary and are obtained.
And how is this ? It is because God has thus decreed
to honor his Mother" (p. 113).
"To thee does it belong, says St. Bonaventure, to
save whomsoever thou wiliest to be saved. Oh then help
me, my Queen; my Queen save me; 0 salvation of
these who call upon thee, do thou save mo" (p. 116)
"In vain shall we seek Jesus, unless we endeavor to
fii-d him with Mary" (p, 138).
" Mary co-operated in the salvation of man " (p. 141).
"Mary was made the mediatrcHS of our salvation"
(p. 128).
" The way of salvation is open to none otherwise
than through Mary." " No one is saved but through
thee " (p. 143).
" Our salvation is in the hands of Mary ; he who is
protected by Mary willbe saved ; he who is not, will be
lost ; our salvation depends on thee " (p. 144).
" There is no one, 0 most holy Mary, who can know
God, but through thee" (p 145).
" She is the whole ground of my hope " (p. 175).
" Mary is the whole hope of our salvation ' (p. 148).
" All power is given to thee in heaven and on earth,
and nothing is impossible to thee '' (p. 154).
" By right she possesses the kingdom of her Son "
(p. 214).
'' It is impossible for any sinner to be saved without
the help and favor of the most blessed Virgin " (p. 197).
"Thou art omnipotent to save sinners" {p. 251).
The like " She effected our salvation in common with
Christ" {p. 293). .
" We are all God's debtors, bid he is a debtor to time "
[Mary] (p. 252).

SAL 1 '.4 TI ON THR 0 UGH 3IAR Y. 149
" There /.s- no one saved but by thee ; no one who re
ceives a gift of God but through thee " (p. 354).
'• Moreover as she is the universal advocate of oilmen,
it is becoming that all who are saved should obtain sal
vation by her means " (p. 570).
'• Ow salvation is in her hands " (p. 576).
"At the command of Mary all obey, even
God '¦ (p. 155),

CHAPTER VII.
the moral effects of the ROMAN CATHOLIC PLAN
OF SALVATION.
And what is the result of this system of salvation ?
Let every ( atholic country answer. We need not liave
recourse to arguments, we need only point to facts.
There is no country in the world where Rome has ruled,
that she has not ruined, both morally and politically.
It could not be otherwise. An unchristian system
must have unchristian results. Rome is the graveyard
of the human soul, for she will not allow the God who
died for the soul to have even the first share in its
salvation. The eternal silence of the tomb broods
over her children, and hides the rottenness and corrup
tion which is within. Men who are taught that they
can secure salvation by wearing a scapular, and by
calling in a priest to hear their confession at the last
moment of life, are likely to take all the license of evil
living to which they are inclined, and to make what
they consider the best of both worlds. We know
the state of the Italian colony who come to this coun
try from the very arms of Rome. AVhy does not the
Pope compel his clergy to teach these people instead
of complaining as if they had been neglected by others ?
Why are not these unhappy people taught even the
common rudiments of religion or education by a Church
which professes here to be so desirous of education?

EFFECTS OF THE PLAN OF SALVATION. 151
Rome must be judged, as others should be judged, not
by what she says, but by what she does. Rome must
be judged as other institutions should be judged, not
by her public professions but by the manner in which
she acts when she has power. Not one word would
be said of the ignorance of the Italian emigrant,
nor would one effort be made to enlighten him,
if Rome had not been shamed into it by fear of
American public opinion. Rome is too often taken
at her own valuation by Protestants, who are ac
customed to hear from Roman Catholic sources that
all her clergy are learned, and that all her religious
orders are fountains of benevolence.
Yet even the very children of the Roman Church
have risen up again and again to protest against the
Church, which in the next breath they have called
infaUible. There are several reasons why Protestants
do not take sufficient note of what is said from time to
time, even by members of the Church of Rome, as to
its moral, intellectual and religious failings. In the
first place, so few dare to speak that their voices are
hushed, almost before they are heard. It is strange,
indeed, when a voice is uplifted to denounce the evils
of Rome, from a source which should command special
attention, that this attention is not given. But there
is more than one reason which will account for this
unfortunate state of things. In the first place, Prot
estants have been so often deceived by priests who
have left the Church of Rome, and who have brought
all the evil which they learned there with them, that
they begin to mistrust every one who leaves them.
Now this is wrong. Because some have continued the
disgraceful life they lived in a corrupt Church, it does

152 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
not follow that others are equally discreditable. The
good priests who have left Rome, and who are to-day
ministering in many Christian churches with great joy
to themselves, and with great benefit to the churches
of which they are in charge, are overlooked, and any
bad priest is held in everlasting remembrance. Better
to have been deceived by the bad than to have rejected
the good, for in rejecting the good you not merely do
them a grievous wrong, but you greatly discourage
those who would leave Rome, if they were not fearful
that they would have not only to meet with the perse
cution of the Church they have left, but also with the
indifference of Christian people.
We have here before us to-day in the United States
the consequences which result when any conscientious
priest dares to lift up his voice in even most respectful
manner against known evils. A Protestant public may
well be assured that if even one priest dares to speak
in defence of truth, he is the mouthpiece of many who
will support him secretly. The case of Dr. McGlynn is
sufficient evidence . It is not only the one who speaks
who is indignant at evil which he is powerless to reform ;
others listen to his denunciations with an approval
which they have not the courage to express. It must
be remembered also that the power of the ecclesiastical
superior to crush and punish in the most cruel manner
any one who differs from him, is an infliction of little less
torture than the rack of the Inquisition. It is in fact
the modern form of the ancient Inquisition. Or rather
we should say it is the modern substitute for the In
quisition which the Church uses until she has the tem
poral power to practise physical torture, and indeed
the mental torture is scarcely less cruel than the physi-

EFFECTS OF THE PLAN OF SALVATION. 1.>J
cal torture ; and tho mental torture is freely applied in
this so-called " free country."
A McGlynn is cast out altogether, and the gentle and
long-suffering Burtsell is put through a course of mental
torture which is as cruel as the thumbscrew or the
flames of the stake. Who will dare to speak with such
examples before him ? Let not Protestants suppose for
one moment that all the priests of this country acquiesce
in or approve of existing evils. No ; but they are
silent because they will not dare the consequences of
speaking. In Italy the Jesuit Curci has spoken, and be
assured has voiced the opinions of hundreds less cour
ageous than himself. A bishop even dared to express
his opinion on the question of the temporal power of the
Pope, but he too paid for his temerity. And these
men have even to bear the pressure of Protestant ad
verse opinion, and they feel it keenly. They are
taunted by the Protestant press with not being con
sistent Catholics, and with not obeying their superiors.
They do obey, they never express an opinion against
the doctrine of the Church. But that is not sufficient,
they must not even express an opinion on any subject
which is not indorsed by their bishop, for each bishop
has come to be a Pope in his own diocese.
And so the evils not only remain, but increase, for
there are none to protest against them, or to expose them,
and thus to secure a remedy. Even the press in this free
country is now controlled, and must only give the pub
lic, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, the side of
any question approved by ecclesiastical authority. Free
discussion is not permitted, and the next step will be
to forbid discussion altogether, and to demand Protes
tant support in so doing. If this is attempted it will

1 54 WHA T R OME TEA CHES.
not be one whit more outrageous than what has been
done already.
The Roman Catholic laity are placed in the same
position as the priest. It is considered a sign of being
a "bad Catholic" if even the lightest criticism is ex
pressed on any subject which is contrary to the opinion
of ecclesiastical superiors, no matter whether the sub
ject is literary, jjolitical or social, and yet we are told
that Rome does not enslave the mind.
A Roman Catholic bishop dared to question in Rome
itself the claims of the Pope to temporal sovereignty.
But he was crushed and silenced as an example to others.
To obtain peace he was obliged to apologize for having
stated what he believed to be true, and for having vent
ured even in political matters to express an opinion dif
ferent from that which is held by the Pope, One more
evidence, if such were needed, of the fact that the only
liberty which Rome allows is the liberty to agree with
her. And unhappily Protestant opinion, with rare ex
ceptions, sides with the Papal power in all such cases.
Witness the case of Dr, McGlynn, who was denounced
by the Protestant press of this country, even though it
was well known that he had, and still has, the ardent
support of many of his brethren in the ministry who
would openly show their sympathy if they did not know
too well what would bo the penalty of their boldness.
AVe speak of what we know, and of what we ourselves
have been made to suffer. AVe speak in behalf of many
to-day who dare not leave Rome because they know
that Protestant indifference will be their reward, and
in many cases Protestant opposition. How will Chris
tians answer to God at the last day for all this, for their
indifference to the souls who are perishing around

EFFECTS OF THE PLAN OF SAIA'ATION. \X,
them ? Protestants are to-day forging the fetters which
will soon chain their own children, and they may rest
well assured that Rome will be none the more lenient
to them for their liberality to her.
I wish that Christian people would ask themselves
sometimes if they are not ashamed of Jesus. Are
they not ashamed of Jesus when they give any sup
port or countenance to a religion which, as we have
shown, places Jesus second to Mary as a Saviour ? Is
there not sufficient proof of this grave charge in the
present volume ? If, then, knowing these things, you
encourage or support those who teach them, are you
not really ashamed of Jesus ? For you will not bear
testimony for him by condemning what he abhors. It
is very easy to stand up in church surrounded by a
sympathizing crowd and give our testimony for the
Lord. But what of giving this testimony where we are
sure that it will not meet with approval ? The idle
excuse that we must not "antagonize" Catholics is
just an excuse and nothing more. It is an excuse that
most surely Christ will not accept at the day when no
excuses will avail. Bearing a calm, holy testimony for
Christ is not "antagonizing" those from whom we
differ, and if it is considered such, it is our duty to use
this antagonism. Let me ask, Have you ever yet given
testimony for Jesus, when by so doing you have had to
bear the least reproach ? Have you ever yet been
" made a gazing stock both by reproaches and afflic
tions," or have you ever made yourself "companions
of those who were so used " ?
It is very easy to admire the heroic courage of the
martyrs at a safe distance, but what of bearing ourselves
a touch of the martyr's pain ? Have we ever borne even

156 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
the least little share of the "reproach of Christ,"
which is the certain lot of every one who honestly
leaves the Church where Mary is worshipped and Christ
is scarcely known ? AVe can work very earnestly for
the conversion of the Jew and the Chinese. All this
brings no social reproach to us ; it cannot injure us iu
business On the contrary, we gain thereby a character
for charity ; but to stand by the converted Catholic is
quite another matter. This might injure our business
or alienate some Catholic friend, or bring on us the re
proach of "illiberality," a reproach which Rome is
so fond of casting up at others, while she herself is the
real offender in this matter. If you have the spirit of
Christ you should make every sacriflce for the man or
woman who has had the courage to do what you have
never done — sacrifice all things for his sake.
Are you deliberately supporting a religion which
does not exalt Christ, which does not love the word of
God, which forbids its use ? Are you supporting those
who are the enemies of Christ, in so far as they do
these things ? Do you not fear that he will find you
far more guilty than they are, for you have a light
which they have not ?
You leave your Christian brethren unhelped and
give your support to those who invoke Mary as their
"salvation." How can you expect God to bless your
households when you encourage such things ? Once
more let me give you some 'extracts from this volume
of Catholic devotion, the " Glories of Mary " :
" And I consider it indubitably true that all graces
are dispensed by Mary, and that all who are saved are
saved only by means of this divine mother ; it is a
necessary consequence that the salvation of all depends

EFFECTS OF THE PLAN OF SAL\'ATION. 157
upon preaching Mary, and exciting all to confidence in
her intercession.
" We must consider the glory of the son not only as
common to, but as one with that of his mother. And
if Jesus is king of the universe Mary is also its queen,
and as queen she possesses by right the whole kingdom
of her son. Hence as many creatures as there are who
serve God, so many there are who serve Mary ; for as
angels and men and all things that are in heaven and
on earth are subject to the empire of God, so are they
also under the dominion of Mary (p. 13). The king
dom of God consists in power and mercy. Reserving
power to himseU he in some way yielded the empire
of mercy to his mother.
" When the blessed Virgin conceived the Eternal
Word in her womb and brought him forth she ob
tained half the kingdom of God, so that she is Queen
of Mercy as Jesus Christ is King of Justice.
"Let us then fly, and fly always, to the feet of this
most sweet queen, if we would be certain of our salva
tion ; and if we are alarmed and disheartened at the
sight of our sins, let us remember that it is in order to
save the greatest and most abandoned sinners who rec
ommend themselves to her that she is the Queen of
Mercy." Would you deliberately prefer to give the sanction
of your influence and the assistance of your money to
an idolater who worshipped the great goddess Diana,
or some heathen idol, and would you leave you Chris
tian fellow-creature to starve ? Practically this is
what the great, the overwhelming majority of Chris
tian people are doing to-day in this country. No
doubt you have some excuse for this (folly, shall I call
it, or sin ?). But excuses will not avail.
There is a confraternity in the Roman Catholic
Church which is called the " Servants of Mary."
These servants of Mary vow themselves to be her

158 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
slaves, and some wear, with the approval of the
Church, little chains round their wrists or arms, as a
sign of their "slavery." Besides, there is the Confra
ternity of the "Children of Mary," to which every
child educated by sisters is practically obliged to be
long. I have sat at table with a company of Christian
women who have kept a deliberate silence on the
great truths of the gospel because one little m^iid who
waited was a Romanist. I have been told by more than
one minister of the gospel that he has actually been
silenced at table by the lady of the house because he said
one word on the subject of the distinctive beliefs of Ro
manists. I think the readers of this book must know
well that I abhor anything like violence or offensive
controversy, but this is very different from saying the
word in season which may save a soul. At least we need
not give Rome the additional triumph of knowing that
we are ashamed of our religion, or afraid to speak of it
before those who differ from us. If one servant girl
can control the conversation of a whole household, is
it any wonder that Rome is triumphant, and that
these poor girls point with pride to their Church,
which can exercise such power ? Many people are
making all sorts of sacriflces (by proxy) for the con
version of the heathen at a safe distance, but they
will not dare a frown from the heathen at home. I
am not advocating violence or denunciation. Leave
that to Rome ; she cannot exist without it. She can
only live by stern suppression of inquiry or investiga
tion of her deeds. Rome needs an arm of flesh, and
says so, for the maintenance of her power ; but for
you, what do you need ? You need to confess Christ

EFFECTS OF THE PLAN OF SALVATION. 159
openly and in a Christian manner, if you expect that
Christ will know you at the day when excuses for
denying him will be of little avail. Rome is persecut
ing those who leave her to-day ; what active, self-sacri-
flcing interest have you shown in those whom she is
persecuting ? Rome is extending her power in every
direction to-day ; what are you doing to extend the
kingdom of Christ and to prevent the extension of tho
kingdom of Mary ? Surely the blood of the poor and
the ignorant will be demanded at your hands, if you
not only will not help to save them, but even try to
keep them in bondage.
The poor little Israelitish servant, captive in the
house of Naaman the Syrian, should put many a Chris
tian woman to the blush. Alone in her religion, and
even a captive, she is not afraid to speak of the power
of her God to those around her ; and yet she at least
would have had many excuses for silence. The Irish
servant girl, in her bold and fearless practice of her re
ligion, should put the Christian woman to the blush.
Is not she far more faithful than you are ? She will
not yield, you do yield.
I have known many cases where Romanists have
been converted simply by hearing the word of God read
without note or comment in Christian families ; and
it is clearly an act of duty to invite the attendance of
servants at family worship, no matter what their re
ligious views. There would of course be no savor of
persecution about this, but the mere carrying out of the
holy resolve of Christian people to be as consistent in
their religion as Rome is in hers. But unhappily there
are too many Christian families where family prayer is

160 WEUT ROME TEACHES.
unknown. Is it any wonder that a disorganized state
of society is the certain result ?
I heard but lately a remarkable instance of the effect
of Bible reading in the conversion of a Catholic. Two
young men whose health was not all that a loving
mother d esired were sent to the country some few years
since in charge of an old and faithful Irish servant.
The two young men, having been accustomed to family
prayer at home, determined at least to read the Script
ures together every morning. The servant, who was
devoted to them, marvelled at the piety of these boys,
and thought she would like to hear what they were
reading. Not one word was said to her of controversy
or argument, but she simply listened to the reading of
the word of God. The result was her conversion. The
lady who gave me this information is the sister of one
of the most respected ministers in this city, the Rev,
Dr. Howard Crosby. I have his permission to state
the facts. God grant some at least may be found to
follow his happy example. [Even as I write I hear that
he has passed from death unto life. Truly he will not
be less happy in the mansions of the blessed from his
youthful piety and fldelity to his Lord.]

CHAPTER Yin.
the sacrifice of the mass — THE CELIBACY OF THE
CLERGY — PURGATORY AND MASSES FOR THE DEAD.
As this book aims only at being a simple manual of
explanation of the principal doctrines and practices of
the Church of Rome, I do not intend to go into minute
details on these subjects.*
This will, I hope, be of some service to those who are
seeking for truth and desirous of knowing more of the
Church which shrouds so much of its doctrines, as well
as of its doings, in mystery. We find the teaching of
the Church of Rome on the Sacrament of the Altar
in each of the catechisms from which I have already
quoted. In the first catechism the following simple
explanation is given :
"Q. What is the Mass?
"A. The Mass is the unbloody sacrifice of the body
and blood of Christ."
Now in view of the fact that Rome declares and jn-
sists on it that the bread becomes the actual flesh and
the wine actual blood, how can they call the sacrifice
* I may- say here that I will have pleasure in replying-
to any communications which may be made to me by
letter, but I would ask correspondents to remember that my
time is valuable, as I have to work to support myself since
I left the Roman Catholic Church, I can, however, flnd
time for a brief reply to any reasonable question, and will
gladly do so.

162 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
an unbloody sacrifice ? Such are the inconsistencies of
a Church which proclaims itself the teacher of all man
kind. Further, Roman Catholic authorities have again
and again put in evidence that the "wine" is seen
and'tasted as blood in these visions of saints, and the
bread changed to flesh, which bled and on which actual
blood was seen.
The following question is common to all catechisms :
" Q. Are both the body and blood of Christ under
the appearance of bread, and under the appearance
of wine ?
"A. Yes. Christ is whole and entire, true God and
true man under the appearance of each."
Now before I call attention to the palpable absurdity
of this statement, and to the fact that Transubstantia-
tion, which is thus taught, is a comparatively new doc
trine in the Church of Rome, I wish to say a word on
the mistaken manner in which controversy with Rome
is sometimes conducted. Protestants, naturally and
rightly, look with horror on the practical idolatry
which is involved in the worship given to the sacra
mental bread and wine by Roman Catholics ; but let
us be just to ourselves and to them. It should be re
membered that the Roman Catholic would shrink, as
much as we would, from worshipping mere bread or
wine ; hence the accusations against Rome of worship
ping "a piece of bread," which some controversialists
are fond of bringing, are simply an injustice to Roman
ists and an injury to the cause which they desire to
beneflt. I have seen, myself, in times of hot polemical contro
versy, large placards or posters on walls denouncing
" wafer gods," and I have known the bitterest feelings

SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 163
arise in consequence. 1 believe the injustice which
Protestants sometimes exhibit from ignorance has
militated seriously against the conversion of Roman
ists to the Gospel. When you accuse a man of doing
what he does not do, and denounce him as a blas
phemer when he is but acting according to his con
science, hoAvill not have much respect for your opinions
or for your arguments. The wiser and the Christian
way is to show that what the Romanist "ignorantly
worships"" does not exist. He does not worship bread
nor wine, because he does not believe that either bread
or wine is there to worship. There is just all the
difference between doing what you accuse him of that
there is between idolatry and faith. AA^hen the Roman
ist believes that the bread is not present at all, and that
it is only there in appearance, and that the wine is not
present — that it is only there in appearance — we may
grieve over his blindness, but we cannot truly accuse
him of idolatry. He worships not bread but a God
whom he believes is there upon the altar.
It is difficult to look at things from the standpoint
of another, yet, unless we do so, we need not hope to
change that other. We are arguing that he does what he
knows he does not do ; hence he either laughs at our
argument or becomes indignant. In either case we are
simply wasting our time. I know that some controver
sialists, even persons who have themselves left the
Church of Rome, will bring bread and flour on a pub
lic platform and make wafers, to show their audience
what Romanists worship. I do not believe in holding
up the most sacred religious beliefs of any man to ridi
cule either in public or private. Such exhibitions may
amuse the ignorant, and obtain a passing applause for

164 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
the lecturer, but they are seriously injurious to the very
cause which they are supposed to advance. It is not
true that the Romanist Worships bread; why then ridi
cule him for doing so ? It is true that he worships God,
whom he supposes has taken the place of the bread; why
not, in all Christian love, show him that he is mistaken,
and that he is ignorantly worshipping what is not there
to worship? AA^e must have clear ideas ourselves on
these subjects before we can hope to influence others.
The words of Christ are very plain (Matthew xxvi,
26-t29): " And 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 shed for many for the remission of sins."
Now in order to understand Scripture, as I have sug
gested elsewhere, we must interpret Scripture by Script
ure. It is quite clear that the words of Christ were
symbolical, as indeed his words were frequently. In the
sixth chapter of the Gospel of St. John we find this
symbolism explained by Christ himself. He tells
his disciples that he is the living bread, which came
down from heaven, and that he who would live for
ever must eat of this bread. He tells them also that
this bread is his flesh,which is " meat indeed," and thus
the metaphors are varied, but perfectly plain ; the sim
ple meaning being obviously that we need the spiritual
bread, which is Christ, in order to feed our souls for
eternal life.
But this does not satisfy Rome. It is indeed marvel

SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 165
lous what efforts she makes to confuse tho plainest words
of Scripture and to improve on them. After our Lord
has declared that the bread is his flesh, he again returns
to the word " bread."' " This is that bread which came
down from heaven ;"' so that practically the words
" bread '" and " flesh " are used interchangeably and in a
manner which shows that they are used metaphorically.
In the larger catechism there is a long explanatory
passage, from which I give the following extract :
'• Q. In what words did Jesus Christ give this power
and command to the Apostles [to say mass] ? "
Then follows one of those frequent misrepresentations
which can only be classed as a deliberate effort to deceive
the young and innocent, who have no means of verify
ing Scripture quotations for themselves.
" Q. What is the meaning of these words [do this
in commemoration of me] ?
"A. Our Saviour meant {sic) to be thus understood:
I took bread and brake and gave it you, saying. This
is my body, and really and substantially made it my
body, which is given for you, [Observe how this
statement is put forward by Rome, as if Christ him
self had said these words; the object being to support
her theory of transubstantiation.] I took the chalice
and gave thanks and said: This is my blood, and really
and substantially made it my bloOd."
Now, how is the child, or even the adult, to know
that Christ never said this, nor anything even approach
ing to it? And what an awful presumption it is for any
human being to invent words for Christ which he never
uttered, and to place this invention in the hands of
Ignorance which dares not question it, but must believe
that Christ himself used these very words, "So do

166 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
you (priests) take bread, and blessing it, make it my
body; and taking wine bless it, and make it my blood."
Here is an amount of " make believe " which would
be amusing if the subject were not so grave. The
learner is told constantly as facts and as Scripture
what is pure invention, and has no existence except in
the imagination ot the author of the book and its
authorizer. Cardinal Gibbons. Either he must know
that many of these statements are pure inventions to
prop up a theory, or he must be ignorant. One doubts
whether his ignorance, if it exists, or his knowledge, is
the more culpable.
Then comes another piece of "make believe."
" The Apostles," says the veracious compiler, " obeyed
this command ; " that is, the command which is in
vented above, and made to appear as if our Lord had
uttered it. It follows as a mere circumstance to add
" as we can clearly see from the Acts of the Apostles."
Let us give the words of the catechism again:
" Q. Did the Apostles obey the command of Jesus
Christ to offer up the unbloocly sacrifice ?
" A. The Apostles obeyed this command, as we can
clearly see from the Acts of the Apostles, chap. xiii. 2,
where St. Luke informs us that as the Apostles were
' ministering ' — that is to say, as they were sacrificing
to the Lord — the Holy Ghost said to them, ' Separate
me Barnabas and Saul.' The same sacriflce that the
evangelist distinguishes by the term ' ministration,' we
Catholics at the present day call the mass. St. Matthew
the Apostle, as history informs us, was pierced with a
lance while celebrating the holy sacrifice of the mass."
Is it necessary to call the attention of the reader to
all this unfair statement of pretended facts, and to
the piost painful part of the matter, which is, that

SACRIFICE OF THE 3IASS. 167
the learner is obliged to receive these statements with
out question, and to believe that every word of this
is absolutely true ? What wonder that Catholics have
the reverence which they certainly have for mass,
when they are thus assured on authority which they
cannot doubt, that the Apostles said mass ; and when
they are told that Christ said the words given above
when he instituted the mass? Surely Rome will be
very accountable at the last great day for this deliber
ate and officially sanctioned publication of words pre
tended to have been uttered by Christ, for this state
ment put before the child, and even the adult, that he
had said such words.
We have shown that just the same kind of reasoning
is made to prove that Christ made St. Peter head of
the Church and infallible. Truly we need another
Luther to cry out on this daring presumption and say :
But Christ never uttered these words which you presume
to declare he " meant " to say. AVho are you, to dare
to alter the words of Christ, and to invent new ones ?
But the Church is infallible; and if the Church chooses
to say that Christ " meant " to say this or that, then
no Catholic dare to dispute or refuse to receive the
statement of the Church,
The object of putting words into the mouth of
Christ is to prove that the mass was said by the com
mand of Christ and by the Apostles, The sort of
proof which is given would only satisfy those who are
kept in ignorance of both Scripture and history. No
wonder that Rome objects to both. One asks in amaze
ment where "history" informs us that St. Matthew
was pierced by a lance when he was celebrating mass ?
But for the Catholic there is no amazement, there can

168 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
only be belief. Has not Cardinal Gibbons authorized
the statement, and has not Rome ratified it? Then
comes another question :
"Q. Has any enemy of the Catholic religion ever
been able to prove that a Pope or bishop introduced
the sacrifice of the mass ? "
And the answer is, of course, " No. It follows from
this that we have received the sacrifice of tho mass
from Jesus Christ through the Apostles." Certainly
if Christ had said what this catechism affirms he
" meant " to say, and if it was an historical fact that
the Apostle St. Matthew not only said mass but also
was pierced by a sword when he was saying it, the
above assertion would not admit of dispute.
Another question framed on the same line of pure
assertion follows, and has a most attractive show of
fairness, for it actually makes the admission that
Christ did not offer up mass in the manner in which it
is celebrated at the present day.
"Christ," the catechism says, in an explanatory
paragraph, " instituted only the principal parts of the
mass, which are : 1. The Offertory ; 2. The Consecra
tion ; 3. The Holy Communion. The Church pre
scribes the manner of celebrating it." Nothing is
plainer in Scripture than that Christ and his Apostles
gave both the bread and wine to those who received
the communion, and nothing is more easily proved
from history than that Rome presumed to contradict
the teaching of Christ and the practice of the Apostles
on this subject ; a point which we now proceed to show.
The Scripture proof of the giving of bread and wine
to all may be found in these texts — St. Matthew
xxvi. 27 ; "And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and

SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 169
gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it." St. 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." St. John vi. 53 : " Then Jesus said unto them.
Verily, verily, I say unto you. Except ye eat the flesh of
the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life
in you."
If apostolic usage is asked for — and Rome is very fond
of quoting it when it suits her purpose — Rome dare
not quote it in this case, for no words can be plainer
than those used by St. Paul (1 Cor. xi. 26, 27) :
"For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this
cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come.
'¦ AVherefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, and
drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty
of the body and blood of the Lord."
And yet, when Rome has dared to put words in the
mouth of Christ which he never used, we cannot
wonder that she dares to act in direct contradiction to
the commands of Christ and the expressly declared
practice of the Apostles.
But Roman Catholic historians have told us in plain
est language when and how Rome departed from the
express command of Christ, and invented the absurd
doctrine that Christ was " whole and entire " in the
wine and in the bread. Another statement which ex
pressly contradicts the words of Christ and the teach
ing and practice of the Apostles. In order to support
the new doctrine of transubstantiation, Rome was
obliged to make it appear that each part of the sacra
ment was complete in itself. Now we flnd, from Roman
Catholic authority, that the Council of Constance, which
was held as late ^s June, 1415, was the flrst authority

170 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
for the separate administration of the bread and the
wine ; or rather, forbidding the wine to the people. Nor
is it only to the people that the wine is forbidden ;
no priest, except the priest who says mass, is al
lowed to receive the wine. Surely this is the most
direct opposition to the command of our divine Lord
which could be possible . Rome excuses herself, when
hard pressed on the subject of denying the cup to the
laity, by saying that when Christ instituted the Last
Supper there were only the Apostles present. Hence
she argues, in defiance of apostolic usage, that the
cup was intended only for the priests, and that the
expression "drink ye all of it" referred only to
the Apostles (priests). But even here she shows a
real departure, for she forbids the priests to re
ceive the cup unless they are actually saying mass.
Rome also writes her own condemnation, for in the
very decree in which she forbids the cup to the laity —
in which she in fact invents a sacrament of her own,
for Christ did not establish such a sacrament as she
has made — she says, " Christ himself administered in
both kinds to his Apostles ; and in the primitive Church
this sacrament was received in both kinds by the
people." Thus does Rome, even when she alters her religion,
proclaim that the alteration is contrary to the teaching
of Christ. In the decree of this council she further
orders " that any priest who should administer the cup
to the laity should be handed over to the Inquisition,
and by the Inquisition be handed over to the secular
power to be burned." Hence the cry of Rome for
temporal power, so that she may have some one to
execute her decrees upon the objects of her condemna-

SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 171
tion. So that Rome, where she has power, declares
that she will put any one to death who dares to obey
an express command of Christ. Christ says, "Drink
ye all of it." Rome says, " If ye drink ye shall die, as
a punishment for disobeying the Church."
Now it will be observed that in every place where
our dear Lord speaks of the sacrament, he mentions
the bread and wine separately. There is not one word
to show that he taught that it was all the same whether
you received the bread or the wine, or that either the
bread or the wine was himself complete. He says
"He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood."
The wine was the symbol of his blood oufcpoured for us,
which we are told to "drink," and the bread was the
symbol of his body, which we are told to " eat." Noth
ing can be plainer than the distinction between these
two things, which Rome, for her own purposes, makes
as if they were one. The words of Christ are so plain
that no one can be justified in contradicting them.
I suspect that few Romanists even know of the texts
of Scripture which so plainly contradict the doctrine of
men, as taught by the Church founded by men ; for
all these novel ordinances of the Church of Rome are
the work of men. It would be a revelation to many to
know that as late as the fifteenth century this decree
was first issued which obliged the people to disobey the
command of Christ.
But Rome has again and again contradicted herself
in the most important matters, and certainly it would
require all her infallibility to put herself right. Pope
Leo the Great, in his homilies, has declared that " to
receive in one kind only is a Manichaean heresy. Here
are his words ; his homilies may be found in every

172 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
library where the writings of the Fathers are preserved:
" They (those who refused the cup) receive Christ's
body with unworthy mouth, and entirely refuse to
quaff the blood of our redemption ; therefore they are
to be expelled by priestly authority from the fellowship
of the saints."
We might give some hundreds of proofs that the
Church of Rome and her infallible Popes have over
and over again denounced as heretical what they
now teach as divine truth. We conclude with one
more proof of this. At the Council of Clermont, pre
sided over by Pope Urban II. m person (1095), it was
decreed m its 28th canon that "No one shall communi
cate at the altar without he receive the body and blood
separately and alike, unless by way of necessity and for
caution." In 1118 Pope Paschal wrote thus to the Abbot of
Cluny : ' ' We know that the bread was given separately
and the wine given separately by the Lord himself ;
which custom we therefore teach and command to be
always observed in Holy Church, save in the case of
infants and very infirm people who cannot swallow
bread." In the days which followed apostolic times there
were serious departures from the faith, as the Apostle
foretold. Amongst other new practices was the one of
giving communion to children, and of dipping the
bread into the wme, to give the communion to those
who could not take the wme separately.
When one sees all the dangers and false doctrines
which followed from even the least disobedience to our
Lord's commands, we surely should learn a lesson of
the wisdom and duty of obedience,

SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 173
Those who venture to improve on what Christ or
dained open the flood-gates of error, and must take
the consequences.
No wonder that Rome also contradicts the divine
command to search the Scriptures, and imprisons, even
at this very day, wherever she has control, those who
dare to read them.
In this country, as yet, she has only power to keep the
Bible out of the public schools. In Mexico she has
power to imprison and punish the Bible-reader ; and it
should be remembered that it was at the instigation of
a priest that Penzotti was imprisoned.
It should also be well understood that there is
scarcely any difference between the translation of the
Bible made by Rome and the Protestant translation; so
that when Rome objects to the Protestant translation
it is a mere quibble ; her object is simply to interdict
the reading of the Bible altogether.
What would be thought of a Protestant minister or of
a Protestant government which acted towards Rome as
Rome has acted toward Protestant states and ministers ?
But it may be said — indeed, it is said by priests — that
they preach the gospel to the people, so that they do
not need to read the Bible. Never was there a more
misleading statement. Here are the words of Father
Curci, the famous Itahan Jesuit, whoso opportunities
to know what priests do are indisputable. He says :
" The sermons delivered on the Gospels are poor stuff,
full of all kinds of saints and Madonnas, past, present
and future ; of all sorts of miracles, possible and impos
sible ; of politics and controversy ; but the one thing
that is never in them is Jesus Christ, his works, his
miracles and his teaching."

174 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
I can say the same from long years' experience of
sermons in the Church of Rome. The one thing which
is not preached is Christ. Indeed, the more pious the
preacher, the more he insists on the necessity of look
ing to Mary for salvation, and the more he dilates on
the power of the saints. To preach Christ would be
to overthrow the power of Rome, which is built on
saints and the Virgin Mary, and not on Christ. Bible
study is almost unknown amongst the clergy, whose
time is fully occupied with the traditions of men,
curious questions of metaphysical theology, and lives
and legends of the saints. We shall return to this
part of the subject later.
It would seem indeed, sad as it is to say it, as if Rome,
in very wantonness of power, changed every ordinance
of Christ. Now I would ask both Roman Catholic
and Protestant readers to note that when I give ex
tracts from the works of the Popes, or other Roman
Catholic authorities, they are invariably taken from
Roman Catholic authorized publications. I have had
occasion to say many times that Catholics do not know
their own religion. If they did, tli re are thousands
who would shrink with horror from what their Church
teaches. But they are carefully prevented from know
ing it. Yet it is a deliberate act of their own to remain
in ignorance, for no man can compel them to refrain
from inquiry when these subjects are brought before
them. The writings and decrees of the Popes have
been published from time to time by Roman Catholic
authors and canonists who are in full communion with
the Roman Church, They are all in Latin, and hence
it is safe to have them published, as they are almost
inaccessible to the great majority of the people. But

SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 175
there have been both Roman Catholics and Protestants
who have studied them, and who know from Rome her
self what Rome teaches.
It has been declared, as you know, that not only are
the present and all future Popes infallible, but also that
all the dead Popes were equally infallible. Of course
this follows of necessity, because if only the present and
future Popes were declared infallible, every one would
say this is a new doctrine. Hence Rome stultifles her
self, as she has done over and over again.
Now the doctrine of infallibility involves this other
doctrine, that everything which the past Popes have
decreed is infallible. But past Popes have decreed
many things which flatly contradict what was decreed
by other Popes. How then can Rome be infallible?
How then can it be said that she has always taught the
same doctrine ? The Roman Catholic canon law was
published long years since, and is accessible to scholars
in those libraries where rare books are to be found. Of
its authenticity and value there is no question. It is a
part of the infallible teaching of the infallible Church.
In this body of canon law we find the following in a
letter written by Pope Gelasius to the Bishops Major-
icus and John (Corp. Jur. Can. Decret. III., ii., 12) :
"We have ascertained that certain persons having re
ceived a portion of the Sacred Body alone, abstain from
partaking of the chalice of the sacred blood. Let such
persons either receive the sacrament in its entirety or
be repelled from the entire sacrament, because the
division of one and the same mystery cannot take place
without great sacrilege." Here we have a Pope, quite
as infallible as the Pope of to-day, declai ing that what is
done in every Roman Catholic Church to-day is a "sac-

176 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
rilege." Note, too, the expression which distinctly
declares and draws the distinction between the bread as
the body and the wine as the blood. There is here a
positive denial of the modern Roman doctrine that the
bread is both the body and blood of Christ, and that
the wine is also both the body and blood of Christ ; a
doctrine so plainly contrary to Scripture that the Church
does not defend it from Scripture, but falls back on her
authority as above that of Scripture, which enables her
to do away with Scripture authority for whatever she
decrees. It is a sacrilege, says Pope Gelasius, in a letter ad
dressed to his bishops, not to receive the bread and the
wine, the body and the blood of Christ ; plainly showing
that he taught that the bread was the body and the wine
the blood, and not that both were contained under one
form. Now for an instance of the way in which Rome
alters what she does not wish to admit. In the an
cient edition of these canons, before the modern doctrine
of receiving under one kind was invented, the Pope's
letter was headed, " No one is permitted to receive the
communion of the body of Christ without the blood."
This was very inconvenient, so Rome had it changed as
she has had the fathers changed ; for is she not infalli
ble, and therefore able to revise what they have said,
and to know what they ought to have said ? In the
modern editionis the heading is made to read thus :
" The priest ought not to receive the body of Christ
without the blood." But even if this was the true
reading it avails little, for it condemns the priest who
receives without receiving the chalice; yet Rome to-day
compels the priest to receive without the blood, unless
he is saying mass. Out of her own lips she declares

SACRIFICE OF THE 3IASS. 177
her own perversion of both Scripture truth and of the
teaching of her Popes who lived in purer ages.
So by degrees, step by step, Rome has continued to
add to the commands of God her own precepts and iii'
ventions, and to make them not only of equal weight,
but even more binding.
Father Curci, the distinguished Jesuit who has
lived and died a member of the Roman Church, al
though of necessity a much persecuted one, has written
thus on the way in which Roman Catholics are kept in
ignorance of the Bible. Probably he did not realize
all that would necessarily follow from a free perusal of
Scripture. He says, in a preface which he made to a
translation of the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles,
afterwards suppressed: "The New Testament is, of
all books, that which is least studied and read amongst
us, insomuch that the greater part of the laity, even
such as are instructed and practical Catholics, do not
so much as know that such g, book exists in the world ;
and the majority of the clergy themselves scarcely
know more of it than they are obliged to read in the
Missal and Breviary." This was written, not in the
last century or the dark ages, but in 1879 ; not by a
Protestant criticising the Church of Rome, but by a
learned Jesuit father. No wonder, then, there is so
little Christian teaching in Italy that many Italians live
more like savages than Christian people.
Cardinal Gibbons published a book, to which I have
referred before, called "Faith of Our Fathers," In
this book he says (p. 117) : " Every priest is obliged
in conscience to devote upwards of an hour each day
to the perusal of the word of God." Now this is a
clear evasion of truth, not to speak more strongly, and

178 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
one that is certainly most reprehensible ; first, be
cause Catholics are bound to believe it, as it is declared
to be true by a bishop ; next, because Protestants, for
whose special benefit this book has been written, will
never suspect that the statement is untrue. This book
has had a circulation of probably 100,000 copies in
this country, and, if we calculate the number of per
sons who have read each copy, we may estimate tho
number who have been deceived. How sad it is that
while Rome circulates such works by the hundred thou
sand. Christian people trouble themselves very little to
provide an antidote for it.
Now, what are the facts ? No priest is obliged to
devote upwards of an hour every day to the perusal of
the word of God ; but he is obliged to devote upwards
of an hour every day to reading his Breviary — a very
different matter. What a cruel wrong to represent
these two utterly different things as one. It is true
that there are a few Psalms and a few texts of Scripture
in the Breviary which ho recites, but most assuredly
this is not a " perusal "' of the word of God. The words
taken from Scripture are the same day alter day, and
they are repeated in Latin, and as fast as ever they can
be said. Would to God that Protestants could know
how Rome deceives them ; and here, most assuredly, is a
striking example.
The Breviary which priests are obliged to recite is
full of the most ridiculous stories about the saints, and
the wildest romances as to their doings. I have heard
priests complain again and again of the obligation which
they are under of reciting- all this nonsense, or it might
be more properly called blasphemy. But why should
the cardinal make any attempt to give Protestants

SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 179
the idea that priests read the Bible, when, a few
pages before he makes this statement, he says plainly
that the Bible is not necessary, and practically slights
it ? If this one chapter in this book was read with
care by any true Christian, I think he could not
fail to see where all the evil of Rome comes in. At
page 86 he says : "It will not suffice to tell me that wo
have an infallible Scripture as a substitute for an infal
lible apostolate of the first century ; for an infallible
book is of no use to me without an infallible inter
preter, as the history of Protestantism too clearly dem
onstrates." Thus we find the cardinal declaring that the Bible
is of "no use "' without the Church, and placing the
Church above the word of God. Protestants differ
in their interpretation of certain passages of Scripture,
but they all agree en the one great truth of the Chris
tian faith, that we can only be saved by Christ. There
is no difference of opinion on this, the vital point in
the Christian religion. The religion of the " infallible "
Church, which makes such a claim to certainty and
unity of belief and taunts the Christian with not follow
ing her example, is actually the only so-called Christian
Church on earth which is perpetually changing her
religious belief. It is the Roman Catholic and not the
Protestant who changes his religion, and believes one
thing is necessary to salvation to-day and another
to-morrow. Even in the last few pages we have shown
how Rjme has changed her teaching on the most
important points within the last few years, and how
she has been perpetually changing. AVhen Rome
ceases to put the burden of new doctrines on her fol
lowers, it will be time for her to say that private inter-

180 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
pretation of the Bible leads to religious discord. AA^e
have at least far less division of opinion than Rome
has, with her claim of infallibility.
It would require a volume to take all the points of
this book and show how thoroughly misleading it is.
Let one more specimen suffice. At page 86 it says :
" Christ made a solemn prediction that no error shall
ever invade his Church." We may well ask in
amazement when and where this prediction was
made. The reply would be, " When he said that the
' gates of hell should not prevail against it.' " Rome
is pleased to interpret this as a " prediction " that
there should be an infallible Church which should
never err. The Romanist must believe this to be
the true interpretation of this text, no matter what
the text may appear to him to prove. But for us who
are at liberty to think for ourselves surely nothing
could be more absurd than such an interpretation.
There is not one word about the Church being "free
from error," though it is declared that it shall not be
overcome by evil. It is one thing for a beleaguered
city to be promised that it shall not be " prevailed
against " by those who attack it, and quite another to
declare that the citizens shall not make any mistake
in their mode of warfare. But in truth, even if the
promise implied that the Church should not err, we
may admit it, for the true Church of Christ has never
erred. But the Bible itself disproves the bold assertion of
Rome, for we find in the Book of Revelation, and in the
Roman Catholic version as well as in the Protestant,
that the divine Spirit had to reprove the various
churches for the errors into which they had fallen even

CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY. 181
in the times of the Apostles. Once more let it be said
that Rome is wise in keeping the Scriptures out of the
hands of her people, and still more wise in demanding
that they shall not interpret it for themselves, or take
any interpretation except that which she places ou the
sacred text. Poor Peter ! if he was the "infallible"
rock, he made a sad show of his infallibility when he
denied his Lord with oaths and curses. Do his succes
sors expect to be better than he was ? Alas, they also
deny the Lord, but they do not repent, as he did, with
many tears. Roman controversialists make a great
point out of the fact that the Scriptures were not
written for some time after the death of Christ. But
they were written in the lifetime of the Apostles, and
this is a very important point which should not be
overlooked ; and we read in them exactly the value
which the Apostles put on them — another very impor
tant point, above all for a Church which makes such a
boast of being founded on the Apostles. In the Acts
of the Apostles we find that those who searched the
Scriptures daily are called "noble." Rome classes
them with the wicked in her excommunications of Bible •
readers. Let no one be deceived. A cardinal may
tell you that Rome, or that he, approves of reading
the Bible, but that cardinal knows that Rome has pro
nounced a curse on Bible reading and Bible Societies ;
a curse which, coming from her, is infallible.
With regard to the celibacy of the clergy very little
need be said. Rome does not pretend that it is of divine
institution. It is simply a command of the Church ;
but, like most of the commands of the Church, it is
directly opposed to the commands of the Bible. Rome
does not act without reason when she forbids the read-

182 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
ing of the Bible. Even in the book of which we have
spoken above, we find that while Cardinal Gibbons ap
pears in one place to commend the reading of the Bible,
in another he distinctly declares that the Bible is at best
unnecessary, and that it is useless without the Church.
One would like to know which of the seven churches
spoken of in the inspired word of God he would con
sider tJie Church. Each had sinned, some more, some
less, and certainly none were considered infallible.
Now both Scripture and antiquity are opposed to the
celibacy of the clergy ; and it is remarkable that in the
holy Scriptures we are not only told that the priests'
should marry, but we are given a definite reason why
they should marry. AVe know that St. Peter was a
married man, and that our Lord showed his approval
of St. Peter's marriage by healing his mother-in-law.
If St. Peter, the head of the Church according to
Rome, was a married man, why should not his succes
sors marry ? The truth is, that as soon as Rome began
to crave and obtain temporal power, she needed to keep
her priests as a class aj)art, and hence she bound them
to a man-made law of celibacy. This is a subject that
has not met with sufficient consideration, A man who
is vowed to celibacy, and who has no ties to his country,
is easily made the tool or slave of his ecclesiastical
superior. I believe that the celibacy of the clergy has
been the main support of Rome, for it has placed the
priesthood, through whom she rules, at her mercy.
These men are alone, isolated from their fellows ; they
have severed themselves from all ties of kindred, and
the rulers of their Church are the only power to which
they can look for advancement, or for punishment if
they disobey. Hence their unhappy state of slavish

CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY. 183
submission, from which there is no release for them but
death. I have heard priests speak of their bishops
with the utmost contempt, yet the next moment they
were abjectly kneeling at their feet begging their
blessing. The amount of hypocrisy and insincerity
which flows from this system should be known to bo
believed. But so well does Rome conceal her secrets
from those who arc without, that it is not even suspect-
el. No priest dare express his real sentiments in re
gard to his bishop or other ecclesiastical superior ; even
Protestant opinion would be, and is, against him if he
dares to be honest. There is not another Christian
body in the whole world whose members are so en
slaved, or whose clergy are compelled to silence, no
matter what they may know of those who are placed
over them. If the ministers of other denominations
concealed the evils which they knew, bitter indeed
would be the condemnation which would be heaped on
them for so doing. But where Rome is concerned
there must be the silence of the grave to cover her
rottenness of corruption. No wonder that when Roman
Catholics at last turn from their Church, as they have
done in France and Italy, forever disillusioned with
evils which they were powerless to expose, that they
become infidels.
Now it can scarcely be denied, even by Rome, that
the Apostles knew what our Lord intended should be
done in regard to the Christian ministry. AVhatever
they have said, therefo o, on any subject must be taken
as the express will of Christ ; and woe to him who
ma'Kes himself wiser than his Master ! AVe are not left
in any. doubt as to the kind of men God would have
for the teachers of his Church. Here are the words

184 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
of the Apostle St. Paul, who must have known the
mind of Christ, and had far more authority to declare
it than any Pope or priest could have to-day (1 Tim. iii.
1-12): 1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office
of a bishop, he desireth a good work,
3 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of
one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to
hospitality, apt to teach ;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy
lucre ; but patient; not a brawler, not covetous ;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his
children in subjection with all gravity ;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house,
how shall he take care of the church of God ?)
6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he
fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7 Moreover, he- must have a good report of them
which are without ; lest he fall into reproach and the
snare of the devil.
8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not double-
tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy
lucre ;
9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure con
science. 10 And let these also first be proved ; then let them
use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slander
ers, sober, faithful in all things.
12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, /
ruling their children and their own houses well.
Now I would ask any Roman Catholic who may read
this book to look at the Douay Bible, which their
Church admits to be correct, and they will see just the
same words there. How could any Pope command priests
not to marry after such an express declaration of the
inspired Apostle ? It is all the more important, as Rome

CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY. 185
claims St. Paul as well as St. Peter as her patron saint.
The reason which is given why priests should marry
should also be carefully noticed, as indeed we should
carefully notice every word that comes from God to us,
through the holy Scriptures. This reason should remove
the least objection that could be made to the marriage
of the priest. This reason takes the very ground from
under the feet of Rome in forbidding to marry. " If,"
says the Apostle Paul, " a man knows not how to rule his
own house, how shall he take care of the Church of God ?"
No words could be plainer. It is simply stated that he
who has had experience in ruling his own house is best
fitted to rule God's Church. And yet Rome pretends
that God's Church can be better served by an unmar
ried clergy. Disobedience to the divine precept, and
even to a precept which is so fully explained, could go
no further. It is remarkable also that St. Paul proph
esies in the next chapter exactly what Rome has done.
¦'In the latter times," he says, "some shall depart
from the faith . . . forbidding to marry, and com
manding to abstain from meats"' (1 Tim. iv. 1). No
words could more plainly describe the apostasy of
the Church of Rome, She alone of all churches for
bids those to marry for whose married lives the very
Apostle has given especial directions, and she alone com
mands " to abstain from meats."
We now proceed to show that it is indeed in the "lat
ter times " that Rome has fulfilled this prophecy, for it
was not until the year 1074 that the Popes made it com
pulsory on the priest to abstain from marriage. If only
Romanists knew the facts of history as well as the truths
of the Bible, how different their lives would be ! No
wonder that Rome claims the right to educate and to con-

186 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
trol education even in secular things. She dare not
allow even the truths of history to be known, for the
light of truth would dispel the darkness of her false
teaching. But what shall be said of Protestants who
will not allow the Romanist to share in the light of
truth which they enjoy, and who will help to keep them
in ignorance, to please the priest, or to save themselves
the trouble of maintaining God's truth ? We will see
later by what a clever device the married clergy were
driven to leave their wives. But there is one thing
which we have not yet noted, and it is important. I
believe there are very few Roman Catholics who know
anything about the Greek Church, for ignorance is
their normal and compu'sory condition, even according
to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. I'he
Greek Church is to-day a part of the true Church. It sep
arated from the Roman Catholic Church because the
Patriarchs of this Church would not submit to the exac
tions of the Popes, whose infallibility was never even sus
pected then, but whose pretensions this great body of
Christians denied. Rome has found herself in this pre
dicament, that if she denied the orders of the Greek
Church she must flrst deny her own orders. Hence, if a
priest of the Greek Church should join the Church of
Rome, he is not re-ordained, as the ministers of other
churches would be, but he is allowed to say mass just
the same as any other priest.
This is a very important point for Roman Catholics
to know, as it shows that there are priests outside of
the pale of the Church of Rome who even she admits
are priests, and who can administer the sacramen s as
well and as validly as she can. It is true that Rome
declares the Greek Church is in "schism," because

CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY. 187
she does not submit to her rule, but she cannot deny
her the validity of her sacraments. In tho Greek
Church the ancient and Scriptural custom of tho
marriage of the priests still continues. Hence Rome
is the only Christian Church wiiich is guilty of the
apostasy from Christ which the Apostle Paul predicted.
Surely this should make every Romanist think care
fully. But this is not all. In tho Greek Church both
the bread and the wine are given to all, so that Rome
stands alone also in depriving the people of what God
himself commanded them to receive.
The decision of the Council of Trent is worth not
ing here, and comparing with the contradictory decis
ion of Pope Gelasius :
Gelasius, a.d. 492.
"Certainly the sacrament
of the body and blood of our
Lord, which we receive, is
a divine thing, because by
these we are made partakei-s
ot the divine nature. Never
theless, the substance or na
ture of the bread and wine
cease not to exist; and, as
suredly, the image and simili
tude of the body and blood ot
Christ are celebrated in the
action of the mysteries."
The Council of Trent teaches the whole substance of
the bread is converted into the body of Christ, and the
whole substance of the wine into his blood. How then
can there be bread or the body of Christ in the wine or
blood, and wine or the blood of Christ in the bread ?
Now, this deserves more th-an a passing notice. It
is amazing what an amount of pos.tive contradiction,
and self-evident contradiction, there is iu every dogma
of the Church of Rome. That Church simply and

Decree of Trent, a.d. 1551.
"By the consecration of
the bread and wine the whole
substance of the bread is con
verted into the substance of
the body of Christ, and the
u-hole substance of the wine is
converted into the substance
of his blood ; which conver
sion is suitably and properly
called by the Catholic Church
Transubstantiation ,' '

188 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
effectively saves herself from destruction by the deter
mination with which she forbids free discussion.
AVhere there is no discussion there can be no contradic
tion. It is not within the plan on which I am writing
the present work to enter into any personal remarks
or experience, but I think in justice to myself, or —
what is far more important — in justice to the cause of
truth, I am bound to say one word on this subject.
As long as I was a member of the Church of Rome
I dared not discuss any doctrine of that Church. There
is one answer to every discussion or question. You
must not even think of it if a doubt presents itself.
Remember that the Church is infallible, and that it is
a daily sin to question her infallibility, and you do this
whenever you entertain for even one second a doubt
as to any doctrine which she has authorized. Would
to God that Christian people would only realize to
themselves the chains by which Rome has bound her
victims. Remember that the priests are quite as much
bound as the laity. They may become altogether infldel ,
as many do, as many of the laity have done, as in fact
whole nations invariably do, as the result of the absence
of Scripture teaching. But as long as the priest or the
layman or woman has the faintest belief in Rome, they
dare not allow a doubt to rest in the mind for a single
moment. How then could they pause even to consider
carefully any question which might arise to trouble
them ? AVe, when in doubt or trouble, spiritual or
otherwise, pray to God for light ; the Romanist dares
not utter such a prayer. He is supposed to do wrong
if he wishes for any light, because he has the Church
to guide him. And then doubt is troublesome and
painful, and if we can persuade ourselves that doubt is

CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY. 189
also sinful, we relieve our minds from a heavy burden,
and find a rest which, if it is not the rest of God, is
supposed to be such. To pray for light would be to
doubt the Church, All that the doubting Romanist
dare do, or will be allowed to do, is to ' ' make an act of
faith in the Church." Here are the very words: "I be
lieve all things which the Holy Catholic Church teaches
all nations to believe, because she is taught by thee."
Who dare doubt a Church authorized by God himself
to teach ? This is the almost impregnable position of
Rome, and the plain secret of her power. But I know
well how difficult it is for any one to understand this
who has not been a Romanist of at least many years'
standing, as I have been. It is only when some doubt
comes with crushing and overwhelming force that
touches on the question of infallibility that there is
hope for the Romanist. AVhen the Church shows her
greed too openlj', as she ever has done when she
has unlimited power, and misuses that temporal power.,
which she so wildly craves at present, then the people
cannot but see the sin which follows, and they recoil
from the thought that such a Church can be of divine
origin. But they know nothing of Christianity except
to fear it, and naturally they lapse into more or less
open infidelity,
Rome has another argument also. She is infallible ;
therefore she has a right to compel the submission of
those who differ from her. At present she has not
sufficient power in this country to kill the heretic, but
she claims that she has the right to do so, and she will
do so as soon as the American people have given her
sufficient strength to enforce what she teaches. At
present she can only persecute in a quiet way ; but that

190 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
quiet way is very effective, Rome never spares when
she has the power to inflict punishment ; why then
should she be so tenderly dealt with ? She claims the
right to persecute. Why should she not be obliged at
least to tolerate those who discuss her rights? Yet to
day it is almost impossible to find a Christian Church
which will venture or care to allow the injustices of
Rome to be discussed in her pulpit. Soon Rome, em
boldened and intoxicated with power, will bo able to
forbid the preaching of the gospel in these same pulpits.
Even the very churches whose missionaries have been
thrown into loathsome dungeons by the power of Rome
dare not or will not come out boldly and denounce the
Church which has been guilty of this cruelty, and of this
insult to God ; for surely an insult to the preacher of the
eternal gospel is an insult to God himself, Rome knows
how to deal with any infringement on the rights of the
Church, What are we doing about the rights of the
everlasting gospel ?
The admission of the validity of the sacraments of
the Greek Church by the Church of Rome is a matter
of far greater importance in the controversy than
Protestants would suppose.
In order to understand it at all it must be remem
bered that Rome makes the sacraments absolutely
necessary to salvation, and claims that she is the only
Church which can administer them lawfully. Yet in
the face of this she is obliged to admit that the sacra
ments of the Greek Church are as valid as hers. This
is a point to be brought before Romanists, as they are
kept carefully in ignorance on this subject.
It will have been seen that the Greek Church, which
Rome admits herself to be a part of the Christian

PURGATORY AND 3IASSES. 191
Church, and whose very sacraments she cannot deny to
be valid, contradicts Rome on the two vital questions of
the celibacy of the priests and on the giving of the cup
to the laity. Now I do not suppose there is one Romanist
in a thousand who knows anything about this. I knovf
that my own astonishment was great indeed when I found
that the Greek Church had orders which Rome could
not, and in fact did not, deny. Rome has so long
appeared before the public as the "one and only"
Church, that it is an amazement when it is discovered
that there is another Church, from which even she differs
only in that this Church will not submit to her demand
to rule it. If Romanists knew tho truth about the
Greek Church, its extent — for it has as many members
as the Church of Rome — and its history, I have no doubt
that many Romanists would 'pause and ask. Why is it
that Rome has so long deceived us into believing that
she, and she alone, has the power of the keys ? The
priest of tho Greek Church has just the same power
to absolve, according to the teaching of the Church of
Rome, as the Roman Catholic priest.
But again, the compulsory ignorance in which the
Church of Rome keeps her people is to her own ad
vantage. She knows that where ignorance is strength,
she is wise to enforce ignorance, and she does so.
AVe now proceed to consider briefly the subject of
purgatory and masses for the dead ; and here again a
little common sense would help to dispel many errors.
But here also Rome can and does protect herself by
enforcing the suppression of every doubt.
Rome teaches, as we all know, that very few people
go to heaven when they die. The presumption is, in
fact, that no one goes there except the very few whom

193 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
she has canonized ; and even some theologians have
dared to say that all canonized saints do not go to
heaven ; or, in other words, that Rome sometimes canon
izes those who are not saints. Few persons have an idea
of the terrible uncertainty of the whole Roman Catho
lic system of salvation. And how could it bo otherwise ?
Salvation is certain only when we seek it through Christ,
who alone can save us. When we go to other sources
of salvation we are lost in a maze of doubt and despair.
At best the dying Romanist can only hope that he may
go to purgatory. The death-bed of the poor Romanist,
if he has even a glimpse of truth, is a pitiable sight.
The ignorant simply believe that the priest will do every
thing for them, and they die in a sort of stupid con
tent. Their salvation need not concern them, for the
j)riest has all this in his charge. There is no tender
longing to see Jesus, for Jesus is scarcely thought of
except as a stern judge, who will condemn them,
while Mary is the merciful Mother, who will certainly
save them. Even the death-bed of the educated Cath
olic is a sad one, for he looks just the same to a terri
ble coming purgatory, ^^ here he is told his sufferings
will be as great as the sufferings of the damned in hell.
The only difference between hell and purgatory is that
he may shorten the time of suffering in purgatory by
giving money to the priest to say masses for him. I
have seen many Roman Catholic death-beds, and I never
saw a really happy death. How can death be happy
when the poor soul knows or believes that it is going
from a bed of pain here to a bed of torment in the other
world; when at best it can only hope for salvation, and
when it does not look to Jesus for salvation ? Y'"et the
Church boasts that every one who belongs to her is cer-

PURGATORY AND MASSES. 193
tain of salvation. Such is her theory ; but most certainly
there was never such a system of self-contradiction as
the system of salvation as taught by Rome. Let us
examine the matter a little further, and let us also,
while we examine it, have a little pity and say a little
prayer for those poor souls who dare not examine
whether these things are so, and whether they are true
or false.
In the flrst place, nothing can be plainer than the
teaching of Rome as to the certainty that the blessed
Virgin goes down into purgatory every Saturday and
takes from it all who have worn her scapular dur
ing their lifetime. Here are the exact words, taken
from the infallibly authorized " Book of the Scapu
lar." To those who wear the scapular during life the Vir--
gin makes this promise : "I, their glorious Mother, on
the Saturday after their death, will descend to purga
tory and deliver those whom I shall flnd there, and take
them up to the holy mountain of eternal life, " Words
could not be plainer, and, as we have said before, there
is no dogma of the Church of Rome better authenti
cated, for no less than four Popes have placed the
seal of their infallible approval on this promise. And
this is the consolation which the dying Romanist is
offered. It is true that a show is made of placing the
cruciflx in the hands of the dying ; but it is Mary, and
Mary only, who is invoked by the dying. Why should
it not be so when the Church teaches so positively that
the dying must look to her for salvation from purga
tory, which they have been taught to dread with such
a terrible apprehension ? In fact the only use made
of the name of Jesus in this matter is to declare that

194 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
he has conceded this favor in heaven ; that he has
placed the release of the souls from purgatory in the
hands of his Mother ; and this is affirmed by Pope
John XXII,
But nearly all the prayers of the dying are addressed
to Mary, A favorite ejaculation is, " Sweet heart of
Mary, be my salvation!" This prayer is authorized
and indulgenced by the Roman Catholic Church ; and
yet we are asked to believe that this Church does
not teach her people to look to Mary for salvation.
Another favorite prayer, both for the living and the dy
ing, is what is called, from the first words of the prayer,
the " Hail, holy Queen." In this Mary is invoked as
"the life, the sweetness and the hope" of the poor
Romanist. She is called " Our Advocate; " and yet the
Scripture tells us that we have an advocate with the
Father who is not Mary. Another prayer also in
dulgenced is this : ' ' Leave me not, my Mother, in my own
hands, or I am lost." It is useless to say more. These
and hundreds of prayers which are in every-day use in
the Roman Church prove that when a priest, or any
one, declares that Romanists only ask Mary to pray for
them, and that they do not look to her for salvation,
they either do not know the meaning of language, or
they are terribly deceitful, Liguori says, " He who is
protected by Mary will be saved ; he who is not will be
lost." But if Mary has all this power, and if she can and
does release from purgatory, on the Saturday after they
die, all those who wear her scapular, what is the
use of having masses said for them ? Here is one
of the many inconsistencies and absurdities of Roman
ism, which would be at once discovered if Rome did

PURGATORY AND MASSES. ]!t5
not forbid, under the most terrible penalties, her sub
jects to think.
The Roman Catholic Church, in common honesty,
should cither declare that tho Popes who have au
thorized the statement that Mary will release after
death the souls who have worn her scapular in life
were mistaken, or they should cease to say masses for
them. Taking souls out of purgatory when they are not
in purgatory! As for the doctrine of indulgences only
one word need be said. Of what use are they when an
infallible Pope has decreed that any one wearing the
scapular will be released from purgatory so soon after
his death? AA'hy trouble to get them, or gain them,
when a much easier plan is at hand, and you have only
to wear the scapular ? AA'^c may well ask. Is this a
Christian religion, in which every mode of salvation
that man can devise is practised, and God's salvation
is practically set aside ?

CHAPTER IX.
DOCTRINE OF INTENTION.
It is somewhat difficult to decide which may be con
sidered the principal means of salvation in the Roman.
Catholic Church. The first condition certainly is that
you believe in the infallibility (now) of the Po^oe.
Formerly, as I have shown, this doctrine was unknown,
and even repudiated by many of the most eminent
divines of that Church ; but we take things as they are.
In the year 1869 you could not be saved unless you be
lieved the Church infallible. So far the Pope has not
altered any material doctrine of the Church, though
there are plain indications that he is prepared to do
so when it is more convenient, by making the temporal
power of the Church an article of faith.
The Church, or the Pope, teaches that there are seven
sacraments, the sacraments being the substitution for
salvation through Christ alone. It might be said
truly that belief in the Virgin Mary is a sacrament of
the Roman Church, for it is so strongly enforced in
every way, and on the infallible authority of the Pope.
These seven sacraments are : Baptism, Confirmation,
Holy Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Holy Or
ders, and Matrimony,
In a volume such as the present it will not be neces
sary to treat of these sacraments individually, nor at
great length. The Roman Catholic accepts them, with
the distinctive teaching belonging to each, solely on the

DOCTRINE OF INTENTION. 197
authority of the Church ; and wo trust the reader has
seen that there is no foundation whatsoever for this
authority ; that our Lord never gave to St. Peter the
gift of personal infallibility ; and if St. Peter never had
such a gift, certainly no Popo has it, for the Popes
claim to have received it through St. Peter.*
But there is one subject not generally known which
must be considered here. It may seem amazing and al
most incredible to some of myrea'eis, but it is neverthe
less true. No Roman Catholic can bo sure that he has
been baptized, nor can he be sure that he has been ab
solved, nor can he be sure that the Pope is lawfully the
Pope ; and I doubt if one Roman Catholic in a thou
sand knows this ; yet here is plain Roman Catholic
proof that this state of things exists. I must add also
that I knew nothing of this terrible fault in the Roman
Catholic plan of salvation until some little time after
I had left the Church of Rome. Thus does Rome
keep her people in the darkest and most fatal igno
rance, Alas ! what shall be said of Christian people
who have the light themselves, and who will not try to
help those who are living in this worse than heathen
darkness ?
No Roman Catholic can deny the authority of the
Council of Trent. The Roman Catholic Church based
all her faith on the decisions of this council; at least she
did so until the Pope was made infallible. In this
council one of the most momentous subjects which
was discussed was the doctrine of " Intention." The
word is simple enough; the consequences are tremen-
* See page 165 and following pages for the extracts from
the Koman Catholic catechisms and note the misleading use
which is made of perverted texts of Scripture.

198 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
dous. As I have said, I never heard even one word
of this doctrine until some time after I had left the
Church of Rome. My attention was called to it almost
accidentally. I was amazed, and I may add, also, I was
more thankful than words can tell, that I had left a
Church in which, given all the advantages possible, you
can never be sure of your salvation. And what a tre
mendous contrast is all this to the gospel of Christ,
where you have him only to trust. " He whocometh
unto me, I will in no wise cast out," Rome says. Go to
the priest; but after you have gone and done all that
the Church demands, you may still be lost forever,
because the priest to whom you went may not have
the right " intention " in administering the sacraments,
and the bishop who made him a priest may not have
had the right intention in making him a priest, so
he may not be a priest at all. In fact it is a question
if there is really any priest or bishop or Pope in the
Church of Rome, so doubtful does this doctrine of in
tention make every sacrament. Dear Roman Catholic
readers, come to Christ. There is no doubt about his
intention. He intends to save to the uttermost all who
COME unto him. What more can you want ? What
more can you desire ? What a difference between this
divine certainty of salvation and all the doubt and un
certainty of salvation in the Roman Catholic Church,
even when you have complied with all her demands!
The question of intention was started at the close of
the second century, when Gregory VIII. was Pope. It
began with his efforts to compel the clergy to celibacy ;
a compulsion which they resisted very bitterly. It is
not generally known, either to Roman Catholics or to
Protestants, how gradual has been the growth of

DOCTRINE OF INTENTION. 199
Roman Catholic teaching. From age to age some new
doctrine or practice has been brought in, and when
there has been any question as to the power to change
religious belief So often, Catholics are silenced with the
infallibility of the Church, I was about to write; now
we must say with the infallibility of the Pope, since the
Church is no longer infallible. The married clergy died
hard, and many were the legislative enactments of Rome
on this subject. I will, however, return to this point
later, for the present we are only concerned with it as
regards this amazing doctrine of intention. Gregory
knew well how to compel obedience. He did so by the
very simple method of cutting off the supplies of the
priests who persisted in marrying. He forbade the
faithful to attend the masses said by married priests ;
those who kept concubines were not disqualified.
Thus was the law of God defied, and the law of the
Pope placed above it. Is it any wonder that some have
declared the Pope Antichrist ? Who shall say that
they are without some foundation for the charge, terri
ble as it is ? Of course the people were afraid to attend
masses which were pronounced invalid, and the married
priest had to face poverty, which soon brought submis
sion. But what an utter state of demoralization for a
so-called Christian Church !
Priests of the Church of Rome, not being allowed to
live according to the light of the Holy Ghost instructing
their consciences, and being obliged to submit in every
thing to the Church, have been driven, from sheer want
of an outlet for intellectual occupation, to invent the
most absurd and abstruse scholastic theology. Rome
lets them amuse themselves, since she knows that any
moment she can silence whichever side she wishes ;

200 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
hence a fierce discussion arose for several centuries ou
this subject of intention. It would be quite useless to
enter into details here ; it is sufficient to say that the
Council of Trent, whose decisions are deemed infal
lible by the Church, and St. Thomas, whose decisions
are deemed infallible by the present Pope, all unite iu
declaring that the priest who administers baptism, for
example, must have some intention in order to admin
ister it validly ; but the question remains. In what does
this intention consist ?
St. Bonaventura, one of the greatest authorities in the
Church of Rome, declared that, even if the Church
pronounced the baptism invalid, God might consider it
valid — that is, God might supply the defect in the in
tention of the priest ; but what an absurditj', and we
may add, what an irreverence ! But the two great
authorities with regard to this doctrine of intention,
which is of such supreme importance i o every Catholic,
are these : The decision of the Council of Trent, and
the decision of Pope Alexander VIII. We give flrst the
decision of the Council of Trent. Rome is a cursing
Church. We know that under the old law a curse was
pronounced on those who sinned ; but in the law of
love of Christ Jesus, old things have passed away, and
Rome shows how little she has of the spirit of Christ
by her ingistanoe of her right to persecute, and by the
fearful Piloses vhich she pronounces on all who differ
from her. '.fhe Council of Trent has declared it to be
an article of faith that the sacraments are not valid
unless the priest who administers them has a right in
tention. Thus the hapless sinner who seeks to obtain
pardon of his sins is placed at tho mercy of one who
may be a far greater sinner than himself, and can

DOCTRINE OF IXTENTION. 201
never be sure whether this man to whom he has gone
for absolution has the power to absolve him.
There can be no dispute on the part of Romanists as
to what I say in regard to the Council of Trent and
Pope Gregory, for I give below the authorities for these
statements from Roman Catholic sources. The fathers
of the Council of Trent, in their list of curses pro
nounced on those who dare to dispute their teachings,
curse every one who says that it is not necessary for a
priest to have an intention when he administers the
sacrament. It is no wonder that Bellarmine has said : " No one
can be certain, by the certainty of faith, that he re
ceives a true sacrament, since a sacrament cannot be
celebrated without the minister's intention ; and no one
can see the intention of another. '' But he has still
more to say on this all-important subject. " We have
no moral certainty that they (the bishops of the Roman
Catholic Church) are true bishops " What an awful
decision from such an authority ! The poor Roman
Catholic is taught by his Church that he cannot be
saved unless he receives the sacraments. His Church
further teaches that, as the validity of the sacraments
depends on the intention of the priest, he can never
know wliether he has received them at all or not.
Further, though the intention which the priest had
who administered the sacrament to him may have been
valid, that priest himself may not be a priest, because
his ordination, or the ordination of the bishop who or
dained him, may have been invalid.
When the subject of intention was under discussion
at the Council of Trent, Ambrogio Caterino, Bishop of
Minori, said, in a speech before the assembled fathers :

202 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
" But supposing the necessity of mental intention — if
a priest charged with the care of four or five thousand
souls was not an unbeliever,but a hypocrite who, whether
in the baptism of children or in the absolution of peni
tents or in the consecration of the eucharist, had no
intention of doing what the Church does, we must say
that all the children were damned, the penitents not
absolved, and all those who have received the com
munion have received no advantage from it."
And he added :
"If any said that these cases were rare, would to
God that in this corrupt age there were no cause to
think that they are very frequent. But, even admit
ting them to be very rare, or even unique, yet suppose,
for example, a bad priest, who is a hypocrite and who
has no intention of administering true baptism to a
child, and that afterwards this child should become
bishop of a great city, and during a long succession of
years he has ordained a great number of priests ; we
must admit that, this child not being baptized, will not
have received ordination, and consequently, all those
whom he may have ordained will have received noth
ing ; and that thus there will be in this great city
neither sacrament nor penance nor eucharist. since
these cannot exist without ordination, nor ordination
without a true bishop, nor any bishop, if he has not
been previously baptized ; and thus, by the malice of
a single minister, a million sacraments will be rendered
nugatory." Comment on the above is unnecessary. Instead, then,
of the Roman Catholic Church being an ark of safety
for those who take refuge therein, those who do so
should rather ask themselves. Is there even the least
hope of my salvation ?
On the 7th of December, 1690, Pope Alexander VIIL
issued a bull, in which he not only cursed, but even
excommunicated every one who should say that bap-

DOCTRINE OF INTENTION. 203
tism is valid if the priest declares internally that it is
not his intention to do what the Church does. This
bull is contained in the "Bullar : Rom,," T. XII,, p.
67. Now the further question arises as to what is the in
tention which the priest must have in order to make
his administration of the sacraments valid. And here
comes in another tissue of senseless disputations— just
those kind of disputations which St. Paul has so plainly
condemned — and the salvation of the poor Roman
Catholic has to depend on the intention of the priest,
while no one knows exactly in what this intention con
sists. At best, all that Rome says is, that it is so
doubtful that we- must trust to the mercy of God to
make right what the priest does wrong. This at least
appears to he the way in which the best theologians try
to get out of what they cannot deny to bo a stupendous
difficulty ; and after all, why not trust in the mercy of
God first, instead of last ?

WOTE ON
THE EOMAN CATHOLIC DOCTRINE OF INTENTION.
The Roman Catholic doctrine of Intention is of such
grave importance that I add this note here instead of plac
ing it at the end of the volume, where it may not be so
carefully noticed. When Mr. Lea had concluded his series
of papers on the Roman Catholic doctrine of Intention
which were published in the Independent, Professor Mess-
mer, of the Roman Catholic University of Washington,
replied in the same paper. Now this reply is notable. In

204 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
the first place it is notable on account of the author. Rome
always puts up her best man to meet a formidable opponent,
and it is clear that a professor in this new university is a
man of weight. Professor Messmer says that Mr, Lea "has
missed his mark," but how or in what manner he does not
say. In fact this article is simply an admission of a fact which
cannot be denied, and a reiteration of the old story that we
are not to argue such subjects or any subject, but simply to
believe what the Church teaclies, and to trust our salvation
to her. Here are extracts verbatim from the professor's
reply, which will prove what I state. He says:
" Neither the real difficultj^ of the case (the doubt
whethe..- any Roman Catholic priest has orders, or is a priest),
nor Mr. Lea's exaggerated conclusion's are anything new to
Catholic theologians. In fact the main difficulty in regard
to the being certain of the valid ministi-ation of the sacra
ments is as old as the sacraments themselves — as old as the
Church." What an amazing admission ! No one then can be sure
whether he has or has not received absolution, or any other
sacrament of tlie Roman Catholic Church, because no one
can be sure that the priest or the Pope is a priest or a Pope.
And yet the eternal salvation of the poor Romanists depends
on this tremendous uncertainty. Looking at the matter
from a mere common-sense point of view, there is certainly
a strong probability that there is not to-day one priest or
one bishop in the Roman Catholic Church who is really
such. Look at the far-reaching consequences of even one
lapse in the link. Remember that it has nothing to do with
a mere succession which could be proved historically. Only
God can know whether a priest has the intention which the
Church of Rome declares to be necessary to the valid ad
ministration of the sacrament. If even one fails, look at the
result. His failure affects generations yet unborn, to the
very end of time. Let us suppose, for example, that one
priest in the sixth century failed to have the right intention
when he baptized a child — a matter very likely to have hap
pened — and that this child eventually became a priest and

DOCTRINE OF INTENTION. 205
theu a bishop. He had no orders, and every priest whom he
ordained was not ordained, because his ordainer had not
orders ; and of coiu-se all the priests ordained by the bishops
who had been made priests, or received any sacrament from
a man not capable of giving it, were all equally disabled
from administering the sacraments. And look how far-
reaching and how absolutely conclusive tliis is, and say,
can you be sure that any individual priest is a priest, when
he may have been ordained by a bishop who was incapable
of administering the sacraments ? And this is what comes
of departing from the simple gospel of Christ, which sends
us direct to him who can never fail us.
The only answer to this difficulty which the professor
admits — for indeed he could not deny it — is this (I give his
own words here also) : "Do you think that in the Church of
God her divine Founder left no safeguards, or that in his
omniscience and infinite power he cannot remedy the harm
possibly done by an unfaithful minister?" Now this is
merely begging the question. The Church of Rome teaches
in the plainest and most positive manner that no one can
administer the sacraments which are necessary to salvation
unless the person has been validly ordained. It is not a
question of the power of God, but of the teaching of the
Church, The Church teaches a certain doctrine. It is no
use for the Church to fall back ou the mercy of God when
she declares that he will have no mercy, except under cer
tain conditions which she has expressly specified. Either
the sacraments are necessary to salvation, or they are not
necessary. Rome should be consistent. But in every diffi
culty Rome falls back on that entity of her own manufacture,
the Church. The professor admits the truth of Mr. Lea's
statements and even confirms them, but he simply uses that
style of evasion which is the one and only refuge of Rome
when she is called ou to explain her many inconsistencies.
It is amusing also to note with what ingenuity the pro
fessor evades the real question at issue. This is a common
resource with Roman Catholic controversialists, and it is
one against which Protestants should be warned. Indeed,
there are few who are fit to cope with Rome, for there are

206 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
few who would suspect her many devices for concealing'
facts which she knows will tell against her, and which
nevertheless she cannot deny, because they are so plain, if
she is brought face to face with them.
The question here is j ust this, that if it can be proved that
even one priest has not been lawfully ordained, because his
consecrator had not a right intention, the consequences are
so far-reaching that they must ipvalidate the sacraments
in the case of thousands, and in generations yet unborn.
In answer to this the professor simply argues that such
cases are rare, and that if they happen the Church will in
some mysterious way supply for them. But this is just
what the Church teaches she cannot do ; and one case of a
priest, as we have said, is fatal to such an extent that it
would be impossible even to estimate the consequences ;
consequences wliich are all the worse because the cause is
unknown, and therefore there cannot be a remedy. And it
is to such a system as this that the Romanist intrusts his
eternal welfare I
It must be remembered that Rome insists, before all
things, on the necessity of her sacraments ; and if they are
not validly administered they are not sacraments. If the
child is not validly baptized he is simply a pagan ; and he
cannot receive any other sacrament, even if the other sacra
ments are validly administered. If he becomes a priest his
orders are not valid, and all the sacraments which he ad
ministers are invalid. The whole question deserves a care
ful study, if only as a warning as to the results of human
interference in divine things. When man would flnd a
scheme to save himself he only makes a scheme to destroy
himself. No Roman Catholic can tell to-day whether the
Pope is lawfully Pope or not, simply because he cannot tell
whether the Pope was lawfully baptized or not. If the
priest who baptized the Pope had not the "intention" which
the Church requires, the Pope was not baptized. If he was
not baptized, no matter what right intention he may have
had in becoming a priest, and no matter what right inten
tion the bishop who ordained him may have had, he is not
a priest, and of course he is not Pope.

DOCTRINE OF INTENTION. 207
The origin of all this difficulty dates far back. It was a
Donatist heresy that baptism was invalid when administered
by those who returned to paganism, the value of the rite of
baptism being thus made to depend on the character of the
person who administered it. St, Augustine combated this
with all his eloquence. It was really the beginning of the
curious Roman casuistry on the subject of the inteution of
the ministrant of any sacrament. The Council of Trent
declared under an anathema that "intention" is essential
for the validity of a sacrament. That is, baptism, for ex
ample — which is the foundation of all the sacramental system
of Rome — is not valid unless the person who baptizes has a
right "intention," wliich is the "intention" the Church
requires. Let me add one earnest word to Christian people. Here
you have in your midst a vast multitude of your fellow-
creatures, of those for whom Jesus died. What are you
doing to help them to a knowledge of Christ ? Do not, I
pray you, say, "Am I my brother's keeper?" God says
you are. God has given you a light which they are denied ;
yet it is in your power to give them this light. Are you
keeping them in darkness by your silence, or by your fears
of some imaginary evil to yourself if you speak openly for
God ? I am very far from advocating aggressive attacks on
our Roman Catholic brethren, but there is a wide difCerence
between aggressive attack and faithfulness to truth. Will
not God require from you an account of these souls, some
of whom may be of your own household, if you refuse to
enlighten them in the darkness in which they are perishing?

CHAPTER X.

what ROME DOEI

The title of this chapter may seem singular, but a
brief explanation will show the necessity of the contents.
It is often said, and the idea is naturally very much
encouraged by Rome, that the Roman Catholic Church
is not what it once was. Even Romanists who are dis
posed to be liberal, as many are in the present day, tell
their Protestant friends that Rome has changed ; that
she cannot now do, and would not do if she could,
what was done in the "dark" ages. In view of this
constantly reiterated statement it is very important
to show from well-authenticated sources what Rome is
doing to-day ; to show that she has not changed her
mode of action.
It must be remembered that Rome acts on the prin
ciples which she claims to be infallible. She always
has declared, for example, that she has a right to tem
poral sovereignty. She will soon declare that she has
a divine right to rule all nations, and to be the king of
all peoples. In fact, though this doctrine is not yet
taught as positively of faith, it would be easy to show
that it is practically believed to be such. Now the acts
which proceed from the enforcement of this doctrine,
which is at once so absurd and so' contrary to the
Christian religion, are simply the acts which Rome
must do in order to act up to her creed. When Rome
interferes in politics, for example, she is simply carrying

WHAT ROME DOES. 209
Out that which she teaches in her catechism, as I have
shown, where she claims the right to rule all matters,
political and social as well as religious. But Rome
knows well that the Protestant public, while willing to
go to extremes in meeting her demands for religious
freedom, will draw a line at her claim for political
power. Hence the extreme anxiety of the wily cardi
nals of that Church which is above all things a Church
of diplomacy, to hide from Protestants her political
doings. It is my object to bring them to light. This
is a question on which, for several reasons, I am anx
ious not to be misunderstood. I do not intend, when
speaking of the power which Rome wields in politics, to
refer to mere party politics. I do not mean that Rome,
for example, works for the Liberal or the Conservative
in England, or for the Democrat or the Republican in
the United States. What Rome aims to do is some
thing very much more important. She aims to use all
parties for the advancement of the Church ; and in
doing this, again let it be said, she is only acting on the
principles which she has again and again announced.
Hence, if the world is deceived by Rome, the world has
only itself to blame for the deception. Certainly Rome
does her best to deceive the world, but at the same
time Rome has never denied her dogmatic assertions as
to her right to rule. She believes practically that the
end justifies the means. She tells you that she has the
right to govern you. She may choose her own means to
obtain this right. Instances are passing daily before
our eyes which prove all this, if only men and women
would pause a moment to consider them.
Rome interferes openly and boldly in politics in coun
tries where she can do so because of the ignorance or

210 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
fears of the people ; and it is not a compliment to
our boasted civilization that Rome finds her most obe
dient slaves in those countries where there is an open
Bible, or at least where there should be an open Bible,
because the Christian religion is, at least by courtesy,
the religion of the governing powers. Nor is it to our
credit that Rome is able to do the most daring deeds
of political interference just in those very lands where
liberty is supposed to flourish most largely, while in the
countries once debased by the imperious government
of Rome, she dare not interfere with a vote or denounce
a voter. In some very plain and ringing words Lord Salisbury
has called attention in England to the outrageous con
duct of the Roman Catholic bishops and priests in Irish
politics. Here are his words ; they are well worth put
ting on permanent record . But it may be asked, if such
attempts were made in the United States, is there even
one public man who would dare to utter such a protest ?
Rome does not need to interfere in politics in this coun
try, because she has it well under control through her
many wire-pulleis in the saloon and the senate.
At the annual meeting of the Primrose League, held
in London, April 21, 1891, Lord Salisbury made the
following indignant protest against the interference
of Rome in politics :
" Could they imagine,'' continued Lord Salisbury,
" the Archbishop of Canterbury summoning the Protes
tant clergy to resolve upon a change in leadership of the
Conservative party ? (Laughter.) He would certainly
demur at such an exercise of influence, and he would
not be alone in demurring. Imagine an English
clergyman denouncing from the altar every liberal in
his parish, and the London clergy leading their submis-

WHAT ROME DOES. 211
sive flocks to the polls under threats of spiritual conse
quences in case they refused. In Great Britain this
was impossible. Yet the English electorate was asked
to place Ireland under this hybrid secular-ecclesiasti
cal power. In so doing they would place their breth
ren of the north of Ireland under a novel, monstrous
power from which they would receive no mercy."
I am afraid it will be thought a hard saying if I
place it on record, that one of the things which Rome
" does " is to deceive deliberately those who ask what
are her teachings. If I can prove that this is true —
it is indeed necessary that it should be known, and tliat
Protestants should be warned, and warned earnestly,
against such deception — if I can prove that this
statement is true, it adds one more to the many grave
charges which we are obliged to make against Rome ;
and it is one more reason why Christian people should
be warned, lest, if they encourage her, they may be
made partakers of her plagues.
Now it is but natural for Protestants, when they
wish for information as to the real teaching of the
Church of Rome, to ask a Roman Catholic friend, or
servant, to read some Roman Catholic book which is
recommended to them by a Roman Catholic friend as
a sure exponent of the teaching of Rome. Yet noth
ing is more thoroughly deceptive than such sources of
information. The deception is all the more dangerous
because there is no reason to expect it. But the same
principle which necessitates the refusal to read the
Bible, necessitates concealing the real teaching of the
Roman Catholic Church, because such teaching, if
clearly explained to Christian people, would at once
make them denounce the doctrines of Rome. Roman
Catholic priests who speak in public insist very strongly

212 WHAT R03IE TEACHES.
on the necessity of " Christian " education for their
people. The conflding Protestant believes that the
distinguished prelate is sincere, and that by Christian
teaching he means the teaching of Christ and his
Apostles. But his meaning is far otherwise. It need
only be asked if Christian people can call the teaching
which we have quoted above Christian ; and yet this is
what these prelates call Christian teaching, which they
must and do teach to their people.
Again, such persons are very emphatic in their ex
pressions of admiration for liberty, as granted by the
Constitution of the United States. But the liberty to
which they refer is the liberty which this Constitu
tion allows them to exercise in actually and very
practically controlling the liberty of Protestants. I
have said before, but the importance of the subject
justifles me in some repetition, that Romanists deny
that they put Mary in any way or in any sense in the
place of Christ ; but I have given proof that they do so,
and that doing so is an essential part of their religious
belief, and a most important part. Now many of the
statements in Cardinal Gibbons' book are either half
truths or a distinct concealment of truth as regards the
teaching of his Church. Hence, Protestants are
thoroughly deceived, and the deception is all the more
effectual because they have no reason to suspect it ; be
cause, in fact, it is just the very last thing which they
have a right to expect.
I believe myself that the great majority of Roman
Catholics honestly believe that they do not worship
Mary, and yet a glance at the books which they use
and at the practices in which they indulge, will show to
any mind which is not self -deceived or blinded by early

WHAT ROME DOES. 213
prejudice, that Mary is very really and unmistakably
worshipped by tho Roman Catholics. There are many
persons who do not realize what they believe, because
they have all their lives taken certain things for grant
ed, and have never investigated or examined for them
selves. It is undoubtedly a great kindness to the Ro
manist to call his attention to what Roman Catholic
teaching really is ; to ask him to see for himself if
you are not justified, for example, in saying that Rome
teaches him to look to Mary as a saviour. But in such
discussion you must be firm and keep strictly to facts.
If you begin to discuss you will find that your friend
will do his best to evade and change the subject of dis
cussion. You must gently and with Christian love
keep him to the point.
For example, yon can say " Here is the Scapular Book.
Do you wear the scapular ? Has not your Church
authorized the statement that the Virgin Mary will
save every one who wears it ; that she will descend
into purgatory the Saturday after his death and release
him ?" You must call his attention to the statements in
the " Glories of Mary," extracts from which we have
given in this book, and ask him, " Is not this putting
Mary in the place of Christ ?" Then let the question
remain and sink into his mind, and you will do far
more to help him to the truth than by violent argu
ment or denunciation.
Remember what a terrible wrench it is to the poor
Romanist when he first begins to doubt his Church.
The firm ground on which he stood is shaken under
him, and for a time, until he realizes how he has been
deceived, and finds his rest and his refuge in Christ,
he will suffer more than you can ever know.

214 WHA T R 03IE TEA CHES.
When he can no longer deny the statements which
you place before him, he will say that Roman Catholics
are not obliged to believe all these things. This is a
favorite way to evade a difficulty. But you must point
out to him that this is not true. If he does not believe
in the infallibility of the Pope he is not a Catholic.
If he does believe it, he must believe and accept all
these doctrines as true, and as infallibly true, because, as
we have shown above, these doctrines and this devotion
to the Virgin Mary are solemnly declared to be true by
several popes.
You must bear in mind also that the Roman Catho
lic has not been allowed to reason about or investigate
his religion. He is simply taught that he is to believe
so and so, and that if he does not believe he will be
damned. Hence it is difficult indeed to get a Roman
Catholic to make even the least investigation, or to in
quire for himself what the doctrines are to which he has
given all his life a passive and unintelligent acceptance.
We have alluded to the untrustworthy character of
the statements made in Roman Catholic books, and
most surely Cardinal Gibbons has been a great offender
in this matter. His book is written for Protestants
who had a right to expect better things from him.
We give one sample of what Rome " does ' in this
matter from his ''Faith of Our Fathers." He knows
well, none better, that if Protestants suspected that
Rome worshipped Mary, as she does, there would be an
end of their toleration of Rome. His explanation at
once misleads the Protestant and denies the doctrine of
the Church. We must suppose that he considered that
the end justifies the means. Certainly the end has been
gained to an extent that he could scarcely have hoped,

WHAT ROME DOES. 315
for his name has become a household word for liberal
ity and beneficence, and it is supposed naturally that
whatever doctrinal statements he makes must be cor
rect. At page 382 of his famous book we find the following
statement: "There are expressions addressed to the
saints in some popular books of devotion, which to
critical readers may seem extravagant. But they are
only the warm language of affection and poetry, and
are to be regulated by our standard of faith. A heart
tenderly attached to the saints will give vent to its feel
ings in the language of hyperbole, just as an enthusias
tic lover will call his future bride his adorable queen,
without any intention of worshipping her.'' A more
disingenuous argument could scarcely have been framed.
The cardinal says that such expressions are to be regu
lated by "our standard of faith." Be it so; this is
just what we have said. Prayers addressed to the Vir
gin Mary which are authorized by the Church are most
certainly the expression of her faith, and it is just such
prayers which are most plainly idolatrous, because they
invoke Mary as a saviour. There is no "hyperbole"
here ; the words are as plain as words can be, and cer
tainly there is no possible comparison between language
used by a "lover" and language authorized in the
most solemn manner by the Church What we con
tend is, that the Church has authorized this idolatrous
worship of Mary, and we have proved this. It is a cruel
deception for Protestants to have such statements as
the above placed before them, on the authority of one
whom they could have no reason to doubt.
Again he declares that only Catholics "honor"
Mary. I maintain that only Protestants honor her, for

216 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
it is not giving her honor to put her in a position in
which God has never placed her, and to claim for her
¦ the authority and power which belongs only to her
divine Son. The Scripture tells us plainly that there
is only one mediator. Does it give honor to Mary to
give her a place which Scripture declares she cannot
take? St. Paul sa,ys, in his Epistle to Timothy : " For there
is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the
man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. ii. 5).
Which is right ? Which shall we accept ? The dec
laration of the inspired Apostle or the declaration of. the
Church of Rome ? There is one mediator, so there is
neither place nor need for another. One mediator, so
it is an insult to his power and to his love to put any
other in his place, or to teach that there is a need for
any other.
Yet Rome has dared to teach her children to say,
"0 my Queen, be my advocate with thy Son, whom I
dare not approach" ("Glories of Mary," New York
edition, page 153). Is this " hyperbole " ? If it is, it
is blasphemous hyberbole, which Rome should be
ashamed to authorize. If it is not hyperbole, then it
is divine truth. What a predicament for an infallible
Church ! On the same page there is a prayer called the
Memarare, from the first word of the original Latin. This
prayer the cardinal has repeated probably thousands of
times. It is a prayer said every day by Catholics, and
given daily by priests as a penance to their penitents.
This prayer commences thus : " Remember, most merci
ful Mary, that no one in any age was known to have fled
to thee for help and found himself abandoned." Thus
is Mary put in the place of God, as the one to whom the

WHAT ROME DOES. 217
poor sinner can never appeal in vain. Is this hyper
bole ? If it is, how awfully responsible is Rome for
allowing her people to recite it, day after day, as a
solemn truth. If it is not hyberbole, what shall be
said of the excuses made by the cardinal for Roman
Catholic worship of Mary ?
Before I pass to another subject I would call atten
tion to the poor excuse made for putting Mary in
the place of Christ. This excuse is very plainly stated
in the words quoted above The sinner is taught by
the Church to ask Mary "to be his advocate with her
Son, whom he dare not approach." What a blasphe
mous contradiction to the express words of Scripture !
The sinner is told that he dare not approach Jesus,
who died for him, and who lives forevermore to make
intercession for him.- It is to Mary he must go to make
intercession for him ,
Yes, Rome does well to keep the holy Scriptures from
her people, lest they should learn to go to Jesus, and
to trust him so much that they would never think of
going to Mary ; and what would then become of the
teaching of the infallible Church ? Then indeed
Rome's occupation would be gone, for there would be
no more need of masses, or saints, or Marys, to come
between the soul of the sinner and the Saviour. What
a cruelty it is to the poor Romanist to teach him such
blasphemy as this, on the infallible authority of the
Church, that he "dare not"' approach Jesus! No
wonder that the Bible is a forbidden book. If it was
once read the words of the Apostle Paul might sink
into some sad and discouraged heart. He did not
send his disciples to Mary. These are tho blessed words
of St. Paul : "For we have not an high priest which can-

218 WHAT R03IE TEACHES.
not be touched with the feeling of our infirmities : but
was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace,
that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in
time of need" (Heb iv. 15, 16).
This is the teaching of the Scriptures. AVe are to
come "boldly" to Jesus, that we may find help in
time of need. Not one word is there here of fear, or
approaching him through an intercessor. Not one word
of going to Mary, or one hint that she or any other
human being would be more merciful than he who died
for us on the cross. Let it be observed also that the
words quoted above are no mere sentimental expression.
They are the words of a prayer which Rome teaches
her children to repeat.
We now proceed to show how Rome acts as regards
the Bible, We have shown that she condemns the
reading of Scripture. We will now show that she
acts on this principle at the present day as much as she
did in past ages. Let us say again, it is no wonder that
Protestants are deceived by books written by Roman
Catholic bishops whom they could not suspect of
disingenuousness. But once this is fully shown, a
very grave responsibility will rest with the Christian
people if they are deceived any longer. In fact they
cannot be deceived when facts are placed before them,
though they may not have the courage to act on their
convictions. In this case they are far more accountable
than Romanists who are and can be deceived. We have
already given ample evidence as to the teaching of the
Church of Rome in regard to the reading of the Bible.
But it is not merely that Rome forbids the reading of
the Bible, she has plainly declared that the Bible is a

1 VHA T R OME D OES. 2 1 9
book of little value. Again I must ask Protestants to
judge Rome, not by ex-parte statements which are
made to deceive the public, but to judge her by her
official statements. We have called attention to the
statement of Cardinal Gibbons that priests are obliged
to read the Bible, which is so misleading because the
book which they are obliged to read is not the Bible,
though it contains some few extracts from it, which I
suppose is considered by his Eminence sufficient to
justify his statement.
But it will be remembered also that I have quoted
from the authorized catechisms used in this country,
to prove that the Bible is not the source from which
Romanists learn what they are to be lieve for salvation ;
they are to take their belief from the Church. But it
is not only in her hooks of instruction and in her
catechisms that such doctrine is taught. We extract
the following noteworthy statement from the Catholic
Eeview of Nov. 8, 1890. The editor quotes from a
paper written by Professor Sicard, and endorses em
phatically the following statement : " It is a wise doc
trine of the Church, wh ch does not allow her children
to fall into error {sic) by reading any version of the
Bible, or by taking any meaning from it. The Bible
does not hold the same position in the Catholic Church
which it does in the Protestant. Catholics believe that
the priests of the Church have been delegated to teach
the lessons of the Bible, and that they alone are the in
terpreters ; that the Church in her catechisms fully
provides the truths which all should know, leaving the
holy Book to the appointed instructors of the people's
faith." Now no language could be plainer than this, and

220 WHAT R03IE TEACHES.
Protestants who still believe that Rome is a Christian
Church which has based her belief on the Christian
Bible, should no longer be deceived. Rome, for all
practical purposes, does not believe in the Bible; and the
sooner this sad fact is realized the better, both for
Rome and for Christian people. If the Bible told in
favor of Rome, we may be well assured that Rome would
quote the Bible and circulate it as earnestly as she now
tries to depreciate its divine authority ; but what is
her religion based upon, if she cannot bear the light of
God's own word, and if she is driven to deny its value ?
Which are we to choose, the religion which requires
the withdrawal of the Bible, or the religion which re
quires the acceptance of the Bible ? There are two
kinds of Christianity, the Christianity of the Bible and
the Christianity of the Roman Catholic Church. "By
their fruits ye shall know them ." It is true that all so-
called Christians are not Christian in their lives — that
is, they do not act up to what they profess to believe —
but their professions are right ; it is their actions which
are wrong. In the case of the Church of Rome both
the professions and the actions are wrong. The pro
fession that Christ gave a superior authority to the
Church, and ordained that it should be the interpreter
of the Bible is unscriptural ; and the result of belief in
this unscriptural teaching is simply that those who be
lieve it are evil in their lives, in proportion to the
earnestness of their belief. Look at Italy ; look at
Spain ; look at Mexico ; see the fruit of the teaching of
Rome. Look, we might well say, at this country, and
see the moral effect on those who have been taught
from childhood that the Church is above the Script
ures. They are sure of salvation, no matter what kind

WHAT R03IE DOES. 221
of life they have led, because they expect salvation
through the Church, and practically not through
Christ; hence they do not feel obliged to live as Christ
has commanded. They can, for all practical purposes,
live as they please, so as they die as the Church pleases.
Now it may be said that Rome does not teach this doc
trine. I know that she protests loudly that she does not
teach it ; but of what avail are protests in the face of
facts ?
Facts all go to show that wherever Rome has undis
puted sway, the result is a demoralized and degraded
people.

CHAPTER XI.
home's interference in political matters.
Rome loudly and ceaselessly declares that she does
not interfere in politics. Yet Rome teaches distinctly
that she has a right, and a divine right, to do so.
Hence she would simply stultify herself if she did not
interfere. It is amazing how completely Rome has
blinded Protestants as to her real character. It is
surely a "strong delusion," and a most fatal one.
Protestants have before their eyes not only the bulls
and other papal utterances in which Rome claims all
power both on earth and in heaven, but they have also
the evidence of every-day life that Rome rules and
regulates the politics of the world. Yet they will not
believe the evidence before them if a priest or bishop
tells them that Rome "does not interfere in politics,"
or if some Catholic author writes some platitudes which
he has arranged for their perusal, but which are not
the teaching of his Church.
Every Roman Catholic bishop in America talks about
" liberty " when such talk will impress the unsuspicious
Protestant. We have already shown the kind of "liberty"
which Rome desires, and which she extols. It is the
liberty to enslave you. Look well at what Rome " does "
if you would be wise in time, and compare what she
"does" with what she says. Rome dare not do in
Italy what she does in New York. No wonder then
that she admires the free institutions of this country.

ROME'S INTERFERENCE IN POLITICS. 22;J
Now Rome is perfectly consistent in her demand for
the control of the civil government. If her teaching is
true, that there is no salvation outside the Church, she
is bound to compel all to belong to the Church, even if
she has to call in the civil power to help her to enforce
submission. This power she has ever invoked and util
ized. She aims now, quietly, but none the less effective
ly, to obtain civil power in this country, her last refuge ;
and she has already obtained more than she could have
dared to hope for a few short years ago.
Remember the words of Cardinal Gibbons' authorized
catechism: -'Jesus Christ has said, 'He that despiseth
you [the Apostles and their lawful successors in the
Catholic Church] despiseth me.' " Then the writer says
it will be better for Sodom and Gomorrha than for those
who reject Christ by rejecting his Church. Later it
is said that the greatest grace bestowed on " us " (Roman
ists) is that of being called to the "true faith in the
Catholic Clmrch, because without this grace we cannot
have the least hope to be saved." [The italics are in the
original. ]
This is the belief of Catholics ; and holding such be
lief they are bound, according to their idea of conscience,
to use force and violence to exterminate heresy.
The duty of Rome, therefore, is to obtain political con
trol everywhere, so that she may secure, sooner or later,
the complete government of every country. Hence it is
that the Pope is constantly paying compliments to the
people of America, in return for the freedom which he
enjoys in this country.
In the year 1880 a work was written by the Roman
Catholic Bishop of Peoria, Right Rev. J. L. Spalding,
D.D., on the " Religious Mission of the Irish People.'

224 WHAT HOME TEACHES.
This work has had a large circulation amongst Ameri
can Catholics, as a work written by a bishop must always
have, for more reasons than one. At page 136 of this
work Bishop Spalding says : "Pius IX,, it is reported,
was accustomed to say that only in America was he truly
Pope." What a warning this should be to the people
of America who are giving such power to the Church,
and what a reproach to the nation which is bowed be
fore an effete ruler whose own subjects, on liis own
showing, have found his rule so intolerable that they
will no longer submit to it !
But there is yet another proud boast at page 137.
Bishop Spalding says: " It is deserving of notice, too,
that the Catholic bishops are the only class of men in
the republic who exercise real power and at the same
time hold office for life." In fact, in a country which
prides itself on its freedom, Rome boasts that there alone
she truly governs ; and in a country which protests
against permanence of office or the acceptance of titles
from foreign powers, Rome holds office permanently,
and prides herself on having and using the titles of a
foreign court.
We may remark, in passing, that at page 159 this
bishop says : " The condition of the Italians in the
United States cannot but fill the heart of a Catholic
with bitter thoughts." Yet the Church to which this
bishop belongs craves for more power in America, to
make the Catholics of America such as the Italian Cath
olic has become under Papal rule.
The bishop remarks sharply on the Protestant spirit
of the founders of this great republic, but he thank
fully admits that Rome has triumphed over it ; yet
at page 211 he states that "one (secular) coloniza-

R(i3IE'S INTERFERKXCE IN POLITICS. 22.1
tion society is worth a hundred St. Vincent de Paul
societies." So much for unconscious admissions of the
failure of Roman Catholic religious orders.
Now let me call attention to several recent circum
stances which show that Rome is to-day actively pur
suing her policy of controlling public affairs in this
country, which she has announced above. And let it
be noted that each time she obtains a victory she scores
not one but many triumphs. No one, unless he has
been familiar with the inside life of the Church of
Rome, can tell the capital which Rome makes of every
concession, or of every toleration, or how she entrenches
herself more and more strongly after each successful
attempt to control matters outside of her own Church.
Remember that pq-wer is the one thing which Rome
desires, that she will make every sacrifice to obtain it
even in the smallest matters, and that she will never let
go what she has once obtained.
A meeting of the priests of New York was convened
lately by Archbishop Corrigan to discuss the case of
those who were followers of Dr. McGlynn, and who at
tended his meetings. It is very well known that a con
siderable number of the priests of the diocese, and in
deed of priests all over the country, are in very active
sympathy with the Doctor, and consider that he has
been unjustly excommunicated. This state of things
is of course very grating to episcopal authority; and as
episcopal authority has the power to make itself felt
in very unpleasant ways by those who are not in perfect
harmony with its decisions, one object of this meeting
was to ascertain if any one would be so daring as to take
the part of the condemned priest publicly. Such a
state of things could only exist in the Roman Catholic

226 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
communion, where meetings to discuss are so called only
by courtesy. These meetings are simply convened to
give the outside world an appearance of fairness which
does not exist. They are not meetings to discuss,
in any sense of the word. They are meetings to ratify
whatever the Superior declares to be his opinion. There
is no class of men who indemnify themselves so fiercely
in private for the constraint put upon their public ut
terances as the priests of the Catholic Church. This
is a matter of which I can write from personal knowl
edge. I have heard priests call an ecclesiastical su
perior a "little puppy," as a common appellation in
private, while they would — or rather, while they were
compelled to — bow down before him in abject submis
sion in public. Bishops know all this well, and they
know they can only keep down insubordination by the
exercise of unlimited tyranny ; and every one who has
had any personal experience of Rome knows that every
bishop must either be a tyrant or a slave. The slaves
are few indeed. No priest dare express an opinion at
any " discussion " contrary to that which he knows his
bishop to hold. He must simply acquiesce silently, if he
does not agree openly — which is the more frequent pro
cess — in what he secretly condemns. It will be remem
bered what rigorous punishment was inflicted on tho
very few priests who dared to express their sympathy
with Dr. McGlynn in the treatment which he met at
the time when he was expelled from St. Stephen's.
Such things should not be forgotten. Nor should the
punishment meted out to Dr. Burtsell in such a cruel
manner be forgotten. His crime was answering ac
cording to his conscience, when summoned to give evi
dence in a court of law.

ROME'S INTERFERENCE IN POLITICS. 227
But now even the liberty of Protestants is restrained,
though as yet they cannot bo punished. An announce
ment was made and published by the press of New
York, that no reporter would be allowed to report Dr.
^McGlyun's speeches, so that the Protestant people of
New Yoik are not to he given tho opportunity of form
ing a judgment on what he has to say, and must only
hear one side of the question. Could intolerance go
further ? And yet this has passed unnoticed and un-
reproved. The ne.xt step will be easier. Encroachment
on the liberty of tho press begins with trivial matters.
Those who desire to enslave the press dare not act too
openly at first. But slow is sure, in this as in other
matters. The Bible must be suppressed because the
Bible does not teach Romanism, and the press must be
muzzled because if facts were known and discussed it
would be fatal to Romanism ; and Christian men and
women tolerate all this.
The press is obliged also to keep absolute silence as to
the wrongdoings of priest or sisters. The silence of
the grave broods over all Roman Catholic institutions,
and concerning all that is done in them. If a Protes
tant minister or a member of a Protestant Church is
guilty of a fault, the whole world must know it ; and a
thoughtful glance at the popular papers of the day will
show that special pains are taken to hold up to scorn and
ridicule any member of any Christian Church who has
gone wrong. I, who read between the lines, see much
which I know has its unconscious effect on the unthink
ing portion of the Protestant pubhc. The American
public have very little idea how much is suppressed
which they ought to know, and which, if it did not con
cern Rome, would be well ventilated as sensational news.

228 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
Roman Catholic interference in politics is further
illustrated by the following despatch, which I cut from
a New York daily :
"Belfast, March 5.^ — Intense excitement has been
caused here in National circles by the publication of a
letter from the Rev. Patrick McAlister, Bishop of
Down and Connor.
"In this communication the bishop practically ex
communicated all members of the Roman Catholic
Church who support Mr. Parnell, alleging that those
who do so become ' propagators of public scandal,'
and place 'themselves in the company of those to
whom it is unlawful for the priests of that faith to
administer the sacraments.'"
The treatment of Ireland by the Roman Catholic
Church, or rather by the Popes, since the days of
Henry II. to the present hour, ought long since to have
alienated the Irish people forever from Rome. There
is no doubt that they are being shaken in their faith
not a little. It is for Christian people to see that they
are not driven into infidelity, as the people of Italy and
France have been — the inevitable outcome of disgust
with Papal selfishness.
Rome may count once too often on the slavish sub
mission of a people who have been her chief support,
and who are in fact to-day almost her only support.
Rome has sacrificed the Irish people again and again,
with the most glaring inconsistency, to the interests of
the English - nation, to gain prestige and to help to
regain temporal power. She always bows before the
strong, when she does not play the waiting game
of apparent friendliness and love of " liberty." In
Canada, Rome has already shown that she does and
that she will control politics. The following extract is

R03IE-S INTERFERENCE IN POLITICS. 229
taken from the New York Herald of February 23,
1891 :
" I was informed by a Liberal member of Parliament
to day that in the country districts the priests were for
bidding the people to support Mr. Laurier on pain of
the Church's displeasure. The Liberals feel the blow
and are straining every effort to lessen its force.
" Mr. Mercier, who has more influence among the
French than any other man in the province, on ac
count of the favors he has received from the Pope, has
cabled to Rome on the subject, and it is said that
further Papal honors are to be conferred upon him.
He is already a Knight of St. Gregory, is in receipt of
the Pope's special benediction, and on his return from
Rome was allowed to erect a private chapel in his resi
dence. '• His friends are now anxious that he should be made
a cardinal, as this would have a great effect upon the
people. " There is no doubt that the Roman Catholic clergy
have entered into the electoral campaign with as much
political bias and vituperation as the laity."
And this from a later issue of the same journal :
"Montreal, March 2, 1891, — A monster Conserva
tive demonstration was held here to-night at which a
letter was read from Archbishop Fabre, stating that
the letter written in 1889 by Mgr. Grandin, of St,
Boniface, Man., which the Liberals are circulating,
was for the private information of bishops only, and
had been stolen and published.
' ' The letter from the Manitoba prelate stated that the
Conservative government was neglecting Catholics in
the Northwest. Archbishop Fabre said that Catholics
had no 'complaint to make against the Conservative
government, as all their demands had been complied
with." Just so. When Rome for any reason does not wish

230 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
to enforce her political or other mandates publicly, she
does so privately. There is not, nor has there ever
been, such an organization; and it is little wonder that
it has so much power, and that she impresses the world
with her unity and vitality. If she did not kill her
self from time to time with the dead- weight of ambi
tion and corruption, the world would never have been
able to resist her absolute control.
But it is not only in politics that Rome rules. She
demands to rule in everything. Even the distribution
of relief -funds must be under the control of the
Church. The following statement is evidence of this,
and is also taken from the New York Herald :
" Archbishop Walsh has written a letter, published
in the newspapers of Dublin, in which he says that six
priests, responding to an official invitation to assist in
the administration of the Zetland-Balfour fund, at
tended a meeting of the Belmullet Relief Committee at
Belmullet, County Mayo ; but upon learning that they
would not be allowed to have effective control of the dis
tribution they withdrew. The archbishop says that the
same action will be taken by priests in other districts. "
The action of the Roman Catholic Church in regard
to the Knights of Labor should also be placed on
record. It is often said that, though Rome rules New
York, she does not rule America. It might be said
in reply that the power which rules New York controls
America also, and that practically New York is New
Rome. But the action of the Pope and the Roman
Inquisition in regard to the Knights of Labor is an
evidence that Rome rules America to an extent of
which its people are ignorant, cr to which they are in
different. And be it remembered that the Inquisition
still exists, and what is more important still, that it

ROME'S INTERFERENCE IN POLITICS. 231
acts. It is true that at present the Inquisition does
not burn the heretic ; but this is not because the In
quisition has changed its principles, it is because the
Inquisition has not the power to burn at present. But
the Inquisition is not dead, and we shall see how it has
acted in the matter of the Knights of Labor.
The curtailment of personal liberty is not as severe
a penalty as the curtailment of life, but the principle
involved is just the same. The principle on which the
Roman Inquisition acted in obliging Mr. Powderly to
submit the rules and regulations of the American
Knights of Labor to an Italian institution for ap
proval or condemnation, as the case might be, is just
the same principle as that which executed Bruno in
a previous century, and which angrily denounced
any condemnation of this piece of ecclesiastical tyranny.
The angry denunciation of the public spirit of the
Italian people in erecting last year a statue to the
martyred Bruno, is an evidence that Rome would again
burn her Brunos at the stake, if she could do so safely.
But Rome always knows just how far she can go, and
she seldom exceeds the limits of prudence.
The action of the Inquisition in regard to the Ameri
can Knights of Labor cannot be denied, because it has
been made public through the Roman Catholic press
of this country. Possibly Rome felt strong enough to
boast of her control of America ; possibly Rome thought
that her apparent liberality in the matter would obtain
credit for her, and that the real animus of her action
would pass unnoticed, as indeed it has done.
Cardinal Gibbons has played the role of a "liberal "
Catholic to admiration. While Archbishop Corrigan
does the stern father. Cardinal Gibbons does the part

232 WHA T R OME TEA CHES.
of the indulgent father. The game is amusing.
though the end, when attained, may not be a subject
for mirth. Some of the Roman prelates of this coun
try became alarmed at the growing power of the
" Knights," though they were governed and inau
gurated by Catholics. They proposed the short and
ready and old-fashioned method of crushing them at
once, before they obtained a power which might be
obnoxious even to their co-religionists.
But the cardinal saw an opportunity for forging new
fetters for the American people, which were chains
none the less because they appeared to be of silken text
ure. He said, " Not so, my brothers, let us appeal to
Rome. " He has influence there, and well-earned in
fluence. Diplomatic cardinals can appreciate diplo
macy even when they are bitterly jealous of the in
fluence of a " foreigner " in the court of Rome. The
end was gained all tlie same ; but it was gained in such
a fashion as to secure American applause for the liber
ality of Rome, as shown by the action of the cardinal,
while at the same time the power of the Inquisition
was asserted and strengthened.
Mr. Powderly was obliged to submit the rules and
regulations of an American organization of working-
men, Protestant and Catholic, for approval, or rather
for permission to exist, to the Italian prelates and mon-
signori of the Inquisition, and to accept their decision
as flnal. Yet Fourth-of- July-orators wave the flag of
liberty proudly and declare that they never, never will
be slaves. Rome smiles. She has cause ; but then she
is so liberal she allows the Knights of Labor and other
political or benevolent organizations to continue their
good -works under her direction.

ROMES INTERFERENCE IN POLITICS. 233
As the matter is of such importance, we give the
facts from a Roman Catholic paper, the New York
Freeman's Journal.
The following is the letter of the Cardinal Prefect
of the Sacred Congregation to Cardinal Gibbons, em
bodying its decree in regard to the American Knights
of Labor : " Rome, August 29, 1888.
" Most Eminent and Most Rev. Lord : I have
to inform your Eminence that the fresh documents
relative to the Society of the Knights of Labor, which
have been laid before the Sacred Congregation, were
examined at its meeting held on Thursday, August
16, of the current year.
"Having carefully studied these documents, the
Sacred Congregation orders that this reply be made :
That, judging by all that has been hitherto proposed
to it, the Knights of Labor may for the present be tol
erated. The Sacred Congregation only requires that
the necessary corrections be made in the statutes of the
organization, in order to explain what might otherwise
appear to be obscure, or be interpreted in a wrong
sense. The modifications should especially be made in
those passages of the preamble of the rules which refer
to local association ; the words which in these passages
savor of socialism and communism must be corrected
in such a manner as to make them express simply the
right given by God to man, or rather to mankind, to
acquire by legitimate means, respecting always the
rights of property enjoyed by every one.
¦'I am happy to be able to inform your Eminence
that the Sacred Congregation has praised highly the
resolve of the bishops of the United States to take
heed, in concert with itself, lest there creep into the
Society of the Knights of Labor, and other similar or
ganizations, anything contrary to justice and honesty,

234 WHAT R03IE TEACHES.
or not in conformity with the instructions as given to
the Masonic sect.
" In confirming and supporting you in this excellent
project, in the name of the Sacred Congregation I pray
you to accept the assurance of our respectful and de
voted sentiments.
" Your Eminence's very humble servant,
"John Cardinal Simeoni, Prefect.
" To His Eminence Cardinal James Gibbons,
Archbishop of Baltimore,"
The New York Sun published the condemnation by
the Tribunal of the Roman Inquisition of the doctrine
proposed by Mr. Henry George, abolishing private
property in land, and giving the further direction that,
if the Society of the Knights of Labor would be toler
ated by the Roman Catholic Church, they must cor
rect any expression of agreement with the views of Mr.
George. The following letter from Cardinal Gibbons
to Archbishop Elder of Cincinnati was the result :
" Cardinal's Residence,
"408 K Charles St., Baltimore, Sept. 25.
" Your Grace : On receipt of the letter of which
the enclosed is a copy, I wrote to Mr. Powderly, request
ing him to come and see me. He came on the 24th
inst., in compliance with my invitation, and cheerfully
promised to make the emendations required by the
Holy Office, and expressed his readiness to comply at
all times with the wishes of the ecclesiastical authori
ties. Very faithfully your friend in Christ,
"J. Card. Gibbons.
"Most Rev, Dr, Elder, Abp., Cincinnati."
But this is not all. Would it be believed that a body
of Roman cardinals could have the impertinence to tell

ROME'S INTERFERENCE IN POLITICS. 235
the English-speaking and English-thinking men of the
great American Republic that their organization " may
be tolerated for the present " ? Nothing can be done
until certain words are altered to suit their pleasure.
And this in the nineteenth century ! If such things
can be done now, no statement of the claims of the
Church, or of the abject submission of the people
to it in the Middle Ages, should surprise us. Indeed
there was a good deal more resistance to Rome then
than now. Talk of the exaction and tyrannies of Im
perial Rome towards her colonies ! they were as nothing
compared to the demands and exactions of modern
Papal Rome, The Inquisition is practically established
now in America, as Cardinal Gibbons plainly states, for
the "Holy Office," to which he refers in the above
letter, is one of the names of the Inquisition, For the
present it "tolerates;" it will burn whenever it will
be safe to burn. It should be observed that in all this
business of regulating American affairs there is not one
word of reference to the opinions of the people of
America. As for the Government, it is simply ignored.
It is a matter of no account.
It should be noted that the title of cardinal is given
as a title of temporal dignity, and that a cardinal as
"Prince of the Church" claims precedence of presi
dents and princes of every nationality. Indeed, it is not
long since a Roman Catholic paper declared that it was
impossible to govern the mass of the people in a republic,
hence the special necessity of having bishops and other
ecclesiastics, in a country which is wholly republican,
honored by titles which would impress the multitude.
Another instance may be given briefly here of the

236 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
power which Rome exercises without dispute or hin
drance in temporal affairs in the United States. Little
wonder that Rome lauds this republic ad nauseam.
The New York papers, or at least a few of them,
reported a remarkable case during the first week in
May, in which Mgr. Preston has sat as judge, jury and
executioner. A quarrel took place between the Rev.
T. J. Early, priest of Poughkeepsie, and Mr. George
Hughes, one of his parishioners. Rome asserts and
secures her right to forbid the laity to bring any
ecclesiastic into the secular courts. The plain mean
ing of this is that Rome claims to be above the secular
courts. It does not matter what the nature of the case
may be, this should be well understood. Of course
every church has a right to decide its own affairs in
ecclesiastical matters, but Rome has always claimed
that every matter is ecclesiastical, because she and she
alone is the source of divine infallibility, and the sole
judge in all matters political, social and scientific.
We have shown that Rome makes this claim very clearly
in her authorized catechisms. There was a double
dispute in this case. A dispute about a pew, which
might or might not be termed ecclesiastical, and a
dispute about a mortgage on the church, which cer
tainly could not be called an ecclesiastical question.
But what a tremendous power is placed in the hands
of the Church! and, in view of the use which the
Roman Catholic Church has always made of power
when she had it, what a dangerous position she is
allowed to take without a word of expostulation!
Every exercise of such power increases her claim to use
it ; and no doubt it is simply because Home wants to

ROME'S INTERFERENCE IN POLITICS. 287
establish precedents to which she may appeal later,
that she has allowed this case to come before the pub'
lie. Later, when some case comes up in which mani
fest injustice is done by ecclesiastical courts, Rome will
appeal to the "liberality ' of the American people, and
declare that.it is an infringement of her "liberty"' to
forbid her to exercise powers which she has already
been permitted to use without hindrance.
Mr. Hughes is commanded m curt terms by this ec
clesiastical court of one, to make a "written apology
to the priest, and beg his pardon;'' the last clause be
ing amusingly ecclesiastical. I knew a Roman Catho
lic in Ireland who was compelled to stand at the door
of a church for three Sundays in his shirt-sleeves as an
atonement for some little trouble which he had given
to the priest. The shirt-sleeves episode would hardly
answer at present in this country, hut the abject " beg
ging of pardon " is scarcely less degrading. The money
part of the case is apparently treated with great fair
ness, but all the same the interests of the Church are
secured. It is probable that the world at large will never know
what Mr. Hughes thinks of the decision. He may
have good reasons for submission and .still better rea
sons for silence. But what of the freedom which all
this promises for the coming generation ?
In "Essays on Religion and Literature, edited by
Archbishop Manning, 1867," we find, pp. 416, 417 :
" Moreover, the right of deposing kings is inherent in
the supreme sovereignty which the Popes, as vicege
rents of Christ, exercise over all Christian nations."
. . . " These are not derived or delegated rights,
but are of the essence of that royal authority of Christ

238 WHAT R03IE TEACHES.
with which his vicegerents on earth are vested.''
When, therefore, for the common good, the Head of the
Church exercises his supreme authority either by ex
communicating individuals, by laying nations under an
interdict, or by deposing kings, all Christian people
are bound to obey his decree.
Again, Cardinal Manning, in his sermon on the Syl
labus, describes the late Pope as saying to those who
urged this Pontiff "to be reconciled to Liberahsm":
"In his (Christ's) right I am sovereign. I acknowl
edge no- civil superior ; and I claim more than this, I
claim to be the supreme judge on earth, and director
of the consciences of men, of the peasant that tills the
field, and the prince that sits on the throne ; of the
household that lives in the shade of privacy, and the
legislature that makes laws for kingdoms. I am the
last supreme judge on earth of what is right and
wrong." (" Sermons on Religious Subjects," Burns,
Gates & Co., 1873.)
These are not ancient sayings of the dark ages, but
are the utterances of living men in England in the last
half of the nineteenth century. If Protestants are
blind to the true significance of these words, it will
not be because Catholics have used ambiguous terms.
They have used as clear language as it is possible for
masters of the English tongue to do.
Need we point to Ireland for evidence of what Rome
does and dares to do in this nineteenth century? She
is, according to the report of this day on which I write,
making another deal for the pacification of Ireland, the
price to be the renewal of diplomatic relations with
Rome. Irish aspirations and desires are to be sacri
ficed and English rule maintained in Ireland by Rome,

ROME'S INTERFERENCE IN POLITICS. 239
if England will but support Rome in her efforts to re-
enslave the people of Italy, who, wearied with her rule,
have asserted their independence. It is to be regretted
that Irish affairs are not better understood in this coun
try, where the public know just as much as the press
allows them to know, and hear nothing of the true
state of the conflict.
The Irish people, who have been for years the silent
and submissive slaves of Rome, have begun to see that
their interests have not been the first consideration
with Rome. Mr. Davitt and others have protested,
but the most remarkable protest is that which has just
been made by a devoted Catholic (March, 1891). Sir
Charles Gavan Duffy has written a letter to the Free
man's Journal in which he says that the policy of in
dependent opposition that Mr. Parnell has so far car
ried on successfully originated in 1847 with tho Irish
Confederation. Then, with the exception of two bish
ops, the whole Irish Catholic episcopate resisted the
policy with all their power, and banished the priests
to penal parishes for supporting the Independent party.
Eventually the Independents became reduced by in
trigue and corruption from fifty to five members, the
bishops condoning or approving every act of treachery.
In conclusion Sir Charles Gavan Duffy declares that
"until all this clerical interference is changed there is
no more hope for the Irish cause than there is for a
corpse on a dissecting-table."
Another equally devoted Catholic, Mr, Harrington,
M, P,, in a letter to the Freeman's Journal, accuses
the prelates of deliberate duplicity in very plain terms.
In support of his accusations he furnishes the orig
inal copy of a joint letter which the bishops wrote

240 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
to Mr. Parnell on October 15, before the O'Shea
trial, in which the writers vigorously condemn Messrs.
Dillon and O'Brien, whose independent action, they de
clare, is calculated to separate the moral element from
national politics. This has reference to the action
of Messrs. Dillon and O'Brien in holding independent
meetings and sustaining movements in sympathy with
the former's cause in his controversy with Bishop
O'Dwyer of Limerick, and Mr. Parnell is earnestly be
sought to express to the two members mentioned his
emphatic disapproval of their course.
Pursuing the subject further, the bishops unsparing
ly denounce the glaring absence of supervision of the
columns of United Ireland, even in the gravest matters
affecting the National cause, and request Mr. Parnell
to use his infiuence with Mr. O'Brien to the end of in
ducing him to abandon his course and devote his time to
the interests of the paper, the efficacy of which, as
a means of true expression of national opinion, has been
greatly impaired by his neglect while treading forbid
den paths.
Now the difference between the freedom in Ireland
and the subjugation in America is simply caused by
Protestant opinion. In America, Protestant opinion
sides, generally speaking, with the Roman Catholic
Church. Certainly the press, with perhaps one or two
exceptions, does not uphold the Romanist. In England,
except when manifest political interests are at stake, the
liberal Roman Catholic can rely on Protestant support.
In England, and above all in Ireland, the public know
what Rome is, and cannot be deceived by plausible pre
tensions of love of liberty. With the memory of the
rebellion of '98 in their minds, in wliich Protestants

ROME'S INTERFERENCE IN POLITICS. 211
were ruthlessly murdered in Ireland simply because
they were Protestants, they are not very likely to be
lieve that Rome has changed either her creed or her
practices. The following extract from a speech which
was made by the JIarquis of Salisbury in February,
1891, and which was sent to me, will be read with in
terest :
" The heads of the Roman Catholic Church, for their
own reasons, resolved that it was their interest that
Home Rule should be obtained, and therefore that Mr.
Gladstone should be gratified in the matter of Mr. Par-
nell's ostracism, and when they had resolved upon that
point — they took a fortnight to resolve it, looking
around very carefully upon all the interests that might
be affected, but having resolved it — they applied the
whole force of their matchless organization to carry it
into effect ; and did you watch what the result of
that effort was? what the tremendous odds were
against which they had to struggle, and how up to this
time, at least, they have succeeded ? They were fight
ing against a man who up to that time had commanded
the Nationalist forces in Ireland as a despot, against the
man who had made the whole movement of Home
Rule, against a man who disposed of the whole of the
American sympathies which have been so powerful in
this question. They were fighting against him, and yet
at a moment's notice they were able to bring the whole
of their clerical organization to bear, and in the only
battlefield which was fought, to sweep him from the
field. I am not saying that I have the slightest sym
pathy with either side, I can see abundant grounds
for distrusting both. But what I do ask you is to con
template the tremendous power of the organization
which for the moment was revealed to view. That is
the organization which, if you grant Home Rule, will
govern Ireland in the future. That is the organization
beneath whose ruthless heel you are about to place the
Protestants of the North of Ireland, who have suffered

242 WHAT R03IE TEACHES.
through many long generations of history from this
antagonism, and who look upon it as the most terrible
fate that can await them, that their future political,
social, material welfare shall be at the bid of the or
ganized priesthood of Ireland. It has been a puzzle to
us why Irish society was so dislocated ; why it did not
move in the ordinary way ; why men who had educa
tion seemed to have so little influence on those who
had none, and we noio know the reason. We now know
that a more powerful organization, which has in every
age set every other at deflance, was in the fleld before
us, and that it had sapped every social tie and set at
naught every traditional affection. We shall be mad,
indeed, if we do not take warning from this disclosure.
In the tempest that passed over Ireland in the autumn
the disguise has been for the moment blown aside, and
you see that the antagonist with which you have to con
tend is the sinister domination of Archbishop Groke and
Archbishop Walsh. To me at least it is a matter of
rejoicing that this disclosure has happened,
"When I think of that scene in Ireland where the old
priests with their umbrellas went before, and the young
priests with their blackthorns followed after, and when
popular objection to the leader of yesterday was ex
pressed by flinging a bag of lime in his face, I feel it
does not exactly represent what has taken place at the
performance of constitutional duties in this country.
Remember these peculiarities which the Irish nation
have shown in this temporary transient performance of
constitutional functions are precisely those most fatal
to stable and consistent government. Whatever hap
pens in Ireland it runs to blackthorns."
The Marquis of Salisbury might have added, it runs
to priestly intimidation of the grossest kind.
N ow it should not be supposed that the above is an
exceptional case. It is very far from being such. I have
heard the most degrading and disgraceful language
used from the altar in Ireland to the poor people.

ROME'S INTERFERENCE IN POLITICS. 243
Such language dare not be used in this country or
in England. But why ? Why is it that in Ireland, in
Canada — in the country districts at least — and in Italy,
that the Roman Catholic population are in such a state
of degradation that the priests can speak to them as a
slave-driver would speak to his slaves ? The question
is one which should not be passed over lightly. The
time is coming when Rome will have sufficient power
to act even here in the same manner. It is true that she
will do her spiriting gently until she has ruled long
enough to have educated a generation of ignorant
slaves, who will believe in flctitious miracles and live in
fear of the "power" of the priest to convert them
into hares and wild animals, I speak of what I know.
Over and over again I have heard the poorer and more
ignorant, and therefore more priest-ridden, Irish peas
ant express his fear, in all terrifled sincerity, that the
priest would do him some spiritual harm of this kind
if he disobeyed his reverence.
That such a fear is in existence to-day I had proof
while I was giving some addresses in Toronto last year.
After one of my lectures a minister who had lived
many years in ilontreal came io me and conflrmed
what I had said from the platform. He said within a
week from the day on which I had spoken he had heard
from his servant that a priest had given out from the
altar in the great Roman Catholic church at Montreal
that Father Chiniquy's tongue had rotted and dropped
out of his head, as a judgment from God for tho
"lies" he had told about the Catholic Church. Even
Father Chiniquy could hardly have made a graver ac
cusation against the Church of Rome than the fact
that such a statement should have been made from the

244 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
altar of a Roman Catholic church, to a people who
were sure to believe it because the "priest'" said it.
The priest must have known that he was telling a de
liberate falsehood. But what matter ? The end was
gained. This minister could not persuade his servant
that the statement was untrue, even when he told her
he had seen Father Chiniquy a few days before in per
fect health.
What value was the word or the oath of any one else
when a priest had spoken ?

CHAPTER XII.
THE ROMAN C.\TH0LIC CHURCH S ATIITUDE IN REGARD
TO THE MARRIAGE TIE AND THE TEMPBR-
AXCE QUESTION.
There is no subject on which Rome is more eloquent
than that of her supposed protection of the marriage
tie and of woman. This is remarkable in a Church
which has been the cause of so much degradation and
ruin to women, by her command to her priests to ab
stain from marriage. Protestant ignorance of the his
tory of the Roman Catholic Church, and of her past
and present condition, is much to be regretted, for it
has enabled Rome to place herself before the Protes
tant public in an absolutely false light
A sermon of Cardinal Gibbons was reported at great
length by the New York press quite recently, in which
he declares that Rome is the only protector of woman.
Now it is not protecting woman to make the state of
celibacy higher than the marriage state. Yet this is
what Rome does, and this in the very face of Scripture,
which has condemned Rome by anticipation for "for
bidding to marry," and in the face of the direct counsel
to priests as to the manner in which they were to
bring up their families.
It is very much to be regretted that the history of the
Roman Catholic Church is so little known. Roman
Catholic histories would furnish all that is needed to
show that the enforcement of the celibacy of the

246 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
clergy was the source, not for a short period, but for
centuries, of the most cruel degradation of women.
But all this is quietly ignored, and equally unknown to
Protestants and to the Roman Catholic laity. Strange
that Rome needs darkness and concealment, while
Protestantism asks loudly for the light, and needs not
to shrink from open investigation.
Roman Catholic historians tell us how the Popes
of the Middle Ages at least were so far from being
the defenders and protectors of women, that they them
selves led vicious lives, siunmgflagrantly against virtue.
Henry VIIL, so often utilized by Romanists as an argu
ment against the reformers, was a man of virtue when
compared with the vices of certain Popes, and Rome
knows this well, even while she uses the general ignor
ance of these things for her own purposes.
Here are the very words of the famous Baronius, the
Roman Catholic historian of the Middle Ages. Writing
of the state of the Roman Catholic Church in the tenth
century, he says :
'• What was, then, the face of the Holy Catholic
Church? How exceedingly foul [quam foedissima] was
it, when most powerful, and sordid, and abominable wo
men ruled at Home, at whose will the Sees were changed,
bishops were presented, and what is horrid to hear and
unutterable, /«&e Pontiffs, their lovers, were intruded
into the chair of Peter, who are only written in the
catalogue of Roman Pontiffs for thesake of marking the
times! For who can affirm that men illegally intruded
by wicked women of this sort were Roman Pontiffs?
There was never any mention of the clergy electing, or
afterwards approving. All the canons were closed in
silence, the decrees of the Pontiffs were suppressed,
the ancient traditions were proscribed, and the ancient
custom in electing the Pope, and the sacred ceremo-

THE CHURCH AND THE MARRIAGE TIE. 217
laies, and the usages of former days, were wholly extinct.
Thus lust, relying upon the secular power, and mad
and stimulated with the rage of dominion, claimed
¦everything for itself. Then, as it seems, Christ evi
dently was in a deep sleep in the ship, when these
winds, blowing so strongly, the ship itself was covered
with the waves. "
Now the edition of this work from which the above
quotation is translated was not published by a Protes
tant. It was published at Luca in Italy in 1603.
A history of the celibacy of the clergy has been written
by Mr. Henry C. Lea. He docs not deal in invectives,
but in simple facts. No one could read that work with its
ample evidence taken from Roman Catholic sources, and
maintain that Rome has been the protector of woman.
A great deal has been said about the veneration of the
Church for the "Spouses of Christ." I was myself
under the delusion for some time that Rome held the
sisters in the highest respect and reverence. I can say
from a long and painful experience that this is so far
from being the case, that the sisters for the most part
are victims to the caprices and tyranny of the priests
and bishops. If my word is doubted, or if I am sup
posed to be a prejudiced witness, I need only ask the
reader to peruse the life of any Roman Catholic female
saint, and if after such perusal he is not convinced
t'uat sisters are not treated as is generally supposed,
he must be incapable of estimating evidence. I
could flU a volume with records taken from the
lives of saints, written by Roman Catholics, with
the heartless cruelty with which they have been
treated. As to the difficulties which are placed in
their way by bishops and others when they have tried
to do some good work, it should be known to be be-

248 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
lieved. Indeed the canonization of these saints is for
the most part founded on the " virtue " which they
manifested in bearing the opposition to the good works
which they eventually accomplished. Rome truly
glories in her shame. She persecutes every one who
tries to do special work for humanity, but when they
are dead she proclaims her own ignorance of their
sanctity while they were living, by canonizing them
for what she had previously persecuted them for doing.
Truly the words of our divine Lord may well be applied
to her. She is a witness to herself that her children
have killed and persecuted the prophets (St. Matt.
xxiii. 31).
When Rome is charged with being a persecuting
Church, her favorite reply or excuse is, that other
churches have also persecuted. This is true, unhap
pily, but there is this difference between Roman Catho
lic and Protestant persecution. When Protestants have
persecuted they have acted against their religious prin
ciples, and against what they admit to be the teaching
of the holy Scripture. When Rome persecutes she has
acted on her own principles, and has simply done that
which she claims a right to do.
In the Pastor, from which we quote, at page 268, a
very clear statement is made as to the position of the
Catholic Church on the marriage question. In tho
number of the Pastor for November, 1887, transla
tions are given of apostolic (Papal) letters which are, as
all Papal utterances, infallible. Therefore there can
be, no dispute as to what they teach. In au article on
the legislative and coercive power of the Church in
matters pertaining to matrimony, we find the following :
" The Church declares, in no uncertain tones, in the

THE CHURCH AND THE MARRIAGE TIE. 249
24th session, canon 1, of the Council of Trent, and
proves it by reference, that matrimony is a sacrament ;
that she has equal power with the Old Law, as to the
effects of consanguinity and affinity (canon 3) ; that
she could, and consequently can, enact prohibent and
diriment impediments, and in doing so has not erred.
Moreover, in canon 12 she declares that matrimonial
matters belong exclusively to her legislation, and inter
ference therein is unwarrantable on the part of earthly
potentates who, acting on the principles of the 16th
century heretics, considered matrimony as a civil con
tract and subject to civil jurisdiction only.
"Pius VI., in his condemnation of the acts of the
Synod of Pistoja, proclaims the doctrine which denies
the Church exclusive legislation in matrimonial matters
a heretical principle.
"It is a dogma of Catholic belief that matrimonial
cases, inasmuch as belongs to their spiritual character,
are exclusively of ecclesiastical jurisdiction.
"It is certain that all matrimonial cases are exclusively
of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Pius VI., in his famous let
ter of September 16, 178S, says that it is a dogma of faith
that matrimony is one of the seven sacraments ; hence
the Church only can decide upon its validity ; that it
is rash to write or speak otherwise, and that such
language is foreign to the teaching of the Church and
apostolic usages. He repeats the anathema launched
by the Council of Trent against those who deny juris
diction to the Church in these matters ; he calls the
iaterpretation which is favorable to civil interference,
even as to taking cognizance of the mere facts in the
case, captious ; the words being general, says the Su
preme Pontiff, admit of no limitation ; hence it is most
certain and beyond doubt that the Church has the ex
clusive right to legislate in matrimonial affairs. It is to
be noted that Pius VI., in the heading of his letter,
speaks of the power of teaching and confirming in the
faith conferred upon him. Pius VII. reiterates this
doctrine iu his letter to the Archbishop of Mayence.
Hence, when the civil power wishes to interfere, for the

250 WHA T R OME TEA CHES.
sake of the civil effects, with regard to the nullity or
validity of marriage, the Church must be always con
sulted in the first place, and her decision submitted to ;
not only in the essentials, but also as to the adjuncts, as
the essence of all law demands.
" As to the question of espousals, Pius VI. settles it.
The Pontiff, condemning the Synod of Pistoja, says
that the proposition which maintains that espousals
properly so-called are civil acts is false, injurious to the
canons of the Church, and derogatory to her discipline. "
Nothing could be more explicit than the above state
ments as to the authoritative teaching of Rome on the
marriage question. In the catechism it is taught dis
tinctly that marriage when not performed by a priest
is not marriage. Hence every Christian, according to
Rome, who is married by a minister, or by a magistrate,
is simply living in a state of concubinage.
If a Protestant and Romanist tmite in matrimony
and the Protestant does not renounce his whole faith,
the marriage ceremony is not performed at the altar,
and a heavy price is exacted for the permission to
marry. In fact there seems to be little which Rome will
not permit if she is well paid for permitting it. Strange
that the payment of a sum of money can make a mortal
sin permissible!
Now the Roman Catholic Church cannot enforce all
her laws at present because she has not yet sufficient
temporal power in this country. But let us see what
she does even now ; my object in this part of the work
being to show what Rome does at the present day.
In the New York Herald, April 27, 1891, there was
an article headed " Church and State in Conflict." In
this article it is stated that the Rev. Father Creighton,
of Riverhead, has refused to file the records of the mar-

THE CHURCH AND THE MARRIAGE TIE. 251
riages performed by him with the authorities, although
he has celebrated a number of marriages, and has been
repeatedly warned of his legal obligations. The article
continues :
" Clerk Bagshaw says that the priest on one occa
sion came to him and told him that he would file the
certificates if he was paid 80 each for them. When
Bagshaw replied that the law allowed but twenty cents
for the filing of such records, the priest, he says, said,
'Tut, tut, my boy, would you have me work for
nothing ? '
' • Bagshaw reported the matter to the Board of
Health several weeks ago. A sub-committee was ap
pointed to wait on Father Creighton. After an inter
view with the clergyman the committee reported that the
real reason for his refusal appeared to be his belief that
the laws of the State and Catholic Church were in con
flict, and that he could not consistently comply with
the regulations of the State without violating those of
the Church.
"Father Creighton said that such was his belief.
That he celebrated marriage according to the Roman
Catholic ritual, which did not countenance divorces by
any court of law or ecclesiastical authority.
" 'The wording of the record slip,' he continued,
' says that " so and so were married according to the
laws of the State of New York." I do not admit that
the State law has any jurisdiction over the marriages of
Catholics. The Church is above the State in that re
spect. I cannot, therefore, subscribe to an instrument
setting forth that people united by me are married in
accordance with the laws of the State, particularly
when that is not the case.' "
Rome gets bolder, day after day, in defying the laws
of the country ; and why should she not do so when she
is above all law ?
We will now consider briefly how Rome acts in regard

252 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
to the temperance question. A few Roman Catholic
bishops say from time to time that they are in favor of
the temperance movement. They do not say it often,
or loudly, still Rome does pronounce in a quasi official
manner for the restrict'on of the privileges of the saloon
keeper. Now why does not Rome speak out on this
subject ? It is certain if she did so temperance would
soon hold the place in this country (of which on occa
sions she declares herself to be so proud) which is now
held by intemperance. The fact that Rome as a Church
tolerates intemperance is sufficient to condemn her in
every Christian mind. The question is one which ad
mits of very easy solution. Rome has the power to put
down the liquor-saloon if she pleased. She has put
down the public schools, as far as her own people are
concerned, and she has put down the use of the Bible
in the public schools as far as the American people are
concerned. She has also required, and partly suc
ceeded in securing, that history m the public schools
shall be taught according to Rome, and not according
to fact.
Now it is clear, since she has had the power to do all
this, that she can do Avhat she pleases with her own
followers at least, and the liquor-saloon keepers and
those who are most frequently guilty of intemperance
are her own people, with rare exceptions. Why is
Rome not as anxious to protect them from the con
tamination of the liquor-saloon as she is to protect
them from the contamination of the Bible ? This is a
question which the Christian people of this country
should most certainly consider, and consider very care
fully. If they are about to give Rome power in the
councils of the nation, thev would do well to ask. What

THE TEMPERANCE QUESTION. 353
has Rome done with the power which she already pos
sesses ?
In as far as she has power to govern, what has she
done for the good of this nation ? In a preceding
page I have shown that she claims that her officials
are the only officials who possess permanent power in
this country. I now proceed to show, not from Prot
estant authorities, but from Roman Catholic authority
of the highest kind, that I have not exaggerated in
the charge which I have made against Rome, It is
sad to me to see how Protestants are deceived, and how
they seem, with a sort of mysterious fear, to try to flnd
excuses or apologies for the evils of Rome ; how they
try to make the most of the least statement which they
can find in favor of Rome, and utterly ignore the
tremendous weight of evidence against her. We append
here the following extract from an article which was
published in the Catholic World of October, 1890, and
written by Archbishop Ireland, the well-known Bishop
of St. Paul, Minn. He says :
" Let me speak as a Catholic. I know I will be
blamed for my rashness and credited with unpar
donable exaggerations, and, maybe, with untruths.
There are those who fain would veil from public gaze
the gaping wounds ; there are those who, limiting their
observations to their immediate encircling, do not be
lieve in the widespread disasters, the knowledge of which
appalls me. But speak I vnll, and let me be called,
as Theobald Mathew was, a fanatic and a madman.
Intemperance to-day is doing Holy Church harm be
yond the power of the pen to describe, and unless we
crush it out Catholicity can make but slow advance in
America. I would say, intemperance is our one mis
fortune. With all other difficulties we can easily cope,
and cope successfully. Intemperance, as nothing else.

254 WHAT R03IE TEACHES.
paralyzes our forces, awakens in the minds of our non-
Catholic fellow-citizens violent prejudices against us,
and casts over all the priceless treasures of truth and
grace which the Church carries in her bosom an im
penetrable veil of darkness. Need I particularize?
Catholics nearly monopolize the liquor traffic ; Catho-
I'cs loom up before the criminal courts of the land,
under the charge of drunkenness and other violations
of law resulting from drunkenness, in undue majori
ties ; poor-houses and asylums are thronged with
Catholics, the immediate or mediate victims of drink ;
the poverty, the sin, the shame that fall upon our
people result almost entirely from drink, and, God
knows, those affiictions come upon them thick and
heavy ! No one would dare assert, so strong the
evidence, that, the disgrace from liquor-selling and
liquor-drinking taken from us, the most hateful enemy
could not throw a stone at us, or that our people would
not come out in broad daylight before the country as
the purest, the most law-abiding, the most honored
element in its population. And still — mystery pass
ing strange ! — the Theobald Mathews are few, and
these few are timid. '^
In view of the above statement, we may well give
here an extract from the Wme and Spirit Gazette :
" The policy of the Roman Catholic Church on the
liquor question, which is modelled after the principle
laid down in the gospel of Christ, has been a liberal
one from times immemorial. It is but lately that the
spirit of intolerance has taken possession of a certain
section of the Catholic Church of this country. There
can be no doubt that the doctrine of intolerance put
forth by the Baltimore Council did not find a respon
sive echo in the breasts of the great mass of Catholics
in the country."
In August of the same year I wrote an article on
the Roman Catholic Church and the liquor question, in
which I spoke far less severely than this Roman Catholic

THE TEMPERANCE QUESTION. 255
bishop has done, and yet I was suspected, if I was not
accused of, e.xaggeration. I even called attention to
the contempt with which Father ^lathew was treated
while living, and to tho neglect which has followed
his memory since his death. I give here some extracts
from my own article. It is not the least likely that it
was seen by .\rehbishop Ireland : and if it had been
seen, it is probable that he would have avoided ex
pressing hinifelf in so similar a manner to myself.
Hence the remarkable coincidence in it — his line of
argument and mine will add weight to our statements.
" It is noteworthy that, with all Rome's love of can
onization. Father ]\iathew, the great, and in fact the
only apostle of temperance of whom Rome can boast,
has never been canonized. Rome has reserved the
highest honors which her Church can give for saints
who have labored in foreign lands, with more or less
success ; for saints who have looked well in the eyes of
the world, because of certain good works which they
accomplished, not with the help of their Church, but
actually in spite of the opposition of the Church.
" Rome has allowed her devoted and long-suffering
Irish children to become slaves to the curse of drink,
without one vigorous effort to save them. Rome could
put an end to the drunkenness in her communion to
morrow, if she gave one-half as much attention to the
subject of the suppression of the liquor traffic as she
has recently done to the prohibition of the Bible iu the
public schools. Father Jiathew came, and he did his
work, not with the cordial help of Rome, but in the
face of secret opposition of the most cruel kind, which
at last shortened his life and most certainly seriously
impaired his usefulness. Many of those whom he had
saved from sin and misery hoped that Rome would at
least have honored and indorsed his work by raising
him to the episcopate. But no ; Father Mathew was
not of the stuff of which bishops were made. How

256 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
could they offend the faithful saloon-keepers, the very
bone and sinew of the Church, the men who make
mayors for the first city in the world, the men who
have a few dollars always ready for the priest and the
sister ? No matter if these dollars were reeking with
the blood of their victims. No matter if these dollars
were the life-blood of the poor. No matter if these
dollars were the price of immortal souls. They were
dollars all the same. Rome says she cannot carry on
her Master's work without the possession of a tem
poral kingdom, albeit he has said, 'My kingdom is
not of this world.' and she has certainly always shown
a very eager greed for temporal possession and wealth.
" So Father Mathew was in the latter part of his life
left in sad and neglected obscurity, and even his mem
ory IS but little revered. Could the Church of Rome
give a greater proof that she is indifferent to the work
of temperance ? "
This coincidence goes to prove that the statements
which he has made and which I have made must be true,
and that Rome as a Church has to answer for the crimes
and the miseries of drink. One word would stop the
plague. That word will never be spoken, for Rome
cannot do without the liquor-saloon interest. She
needs both the money — and it is not unjust to call it
blood-money — and she needs the political interest of the
saloon-keeper. And yet of what a crime she is guilty,
for she wrecks not only the souls of those who frequent
the saloon, but she wrecks the eternal welfare of the
man whose trade she supports because he supports her.
Rome now and then makes, or permits, a spasmodic
attempt to honor Father Mathew, but why is he not
canonized ? Which of her saints has done so much as
he did for humanity ? He changed the whole face of
Ireland in a few years. Why is it that the prosperity
did not continue? Because the efforts to keep the

THE TEMPERANCE QUESTION. 257
people temperate did not continue. Rome has declared
that a mortal sin is the most terrible evil which can
befall any one. Why then does she not give special
honor to a man who did more to prevent mortal sin
than any one man who ever lived ? A priest from
Deland, Florida, says, writing in the Roman Catholic
Baltimore Mirror :
"Askwhaihas brought to prisons and almshouse,
to reformatory and orphanage, to dive and brothel, so
many children of the Church, Trumpet-tongued comes
back the answer. Drink — drink.''
Then he asserts, and his statement has never been
contradicted, that while there are many so-called
Catholic Temperance Societies, the most of them are
merely such in name, and that in fact they condone
the very evils which they are supposed to denounce.
In proof of this he quotes the following resolution,
which was t-wice deliberately voted down in the grand
Convention of the Catholic Young Men's National
Union. And yet this Convention was held up to Prot
estants as another evidence of the zeal and energy of
the Roman Catholic Church in the cause of temperance.
The resolution proposed and rejected was as follows :
" That the CathoHc Young Men's National Union,
viewing the saloon as pre-eminently the source of evil to
young men, will use its utmost influence, and urge
upon the societies connected with it to use their utmost
efforts, to prevent Catholic young men from visiting
saloons, and also to discontinue by all means the drink
ing customs of society."
When a Roman Catholic temperance convention de
liberately refused to support such a resolution, the less
said about Catholic sincerity in the cause of temper
ance the better.

258 WHA T R OME TEA CHES.
Archbishop Ireland says truly: "The Theobald
Mathews are few, and these few are timid." It is
little marvel that it should be so. Bishops and priests
who drink themselves, and who often drink to excess,
are not likely to honor men who Renounce this crime.
Hence, as I well know, any priest who attempts to take
an active part in opposing the liquor-saloon is certain
to suffer for his temerity. Even the archbishop him
self has been made to suffer.
A leading article was published in the Catholic .Re
view, New York, November 2, 1890, which sharply
criticised the noble utterances of the archbishop.
No editor of any Catholic paper dare have taken such
a step unless he was well assured of the sanction and
approbation of his ecclesiastical superior. In this
article of clever and cautious denunciation, we find the
following, which is well worthy of remark : " Notwith
standing the facts put forward by Archbishop Ireland,
few will consider it desirable that the nations should
become supporters of his drinking creed." Surely any
one reading this paragraph would come to the con
clusion that the archbishop had been advocating some
form of intemperance, instead of denouncing it in every
form. The facts are admitted, but the remedy is not
to be applied. The evil is admitted, hut the cure is
simply scorned.
In another part of this same paper the editor gives
a lecture to the press in general, and declares that
journalists should act faithfully under the orders of
their bishops, and then they would do "truly apostol
ic work." So it is truly apostolic work to do all that
is possible to hinder the effects of the burning words
of a bishop who desires to save his people from the

THE TEMPERANCE QUESTION. 25!)
ruin and misery of the drunkard's career ! It is perhaps
worth mention that I spoke of Archbishop Ireland's de
votion to the temperance cause in tho article from which
I have quoted above. This article of mine was quoted
in England by leading journals as the most important
which has appeared on the subject, and especially by
Mr. Stead in the Peview of Reviews.
I said :
'¦ There have been and are a few like Archbishop
Ireland who have done their part in the cause of tem
perance. Unhappily it can be shown that these few
have been the noble exceptions to the general rule.
Their several failure, and the marked discouragement
which they have met with, only go to prove what I
advance here, that Rome is at best indifferent to the
subject of intempiiraiice. I might say more with per
fect truth. I might say that Rome encourages intem
perance, for she certainly does when she sets the seal
of her approval on those who devote their best energies
to the cause of intemperance. She does not deny
church membership to drunkards, nor Christian burial
to those who have been guilty of the most atrocious
crimes committed urder the influence of drink."
That drink is the fruitful, if it is n t the exclusive
cause of crime, there can be no question. Rome will
not suppress, or even modify, as she alone could do, the
drink traffic ; hence her incompetence to suppress vice
amongst her people.

CHAPTER XIII
the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH ON THE RESULTS 01'
HER OWN SYSTEM OF EDUCATION — SOME FACTS
ABOUT ROMAN CATHOLIC CONTROL OF THE LIBERTY
OF THE PRESS.
Rome sometimes, but rarely, admits that she has
failed utterly as an educator and a reformer. Such
admissions should be well noted by Christian people,
not in any spirit of vindictiveness or unchristian tri
umph, but in the spirit of true charity, which desires
the salvation of the sinner and seeks the best way to
save that which is in danger of being lost. It is sad
indeed to see Christian people giving any support to
the educational schemes of those who are obliged to
make such admissions as those which have been made by
Archbishop Ireland and by Father Nugent, whose many
years' experience of the criminal classes of the Roman
Catholic Church entitle his utterances to special re
spect. We copy the following from the Roman Catholic
Times, April 17, 1885:
" The criminal returns of Her Majesty's prison at
Liverpool for the year ending March 31, 1885, dis
close a state of things which the Catholic public can
not contemplate without feelings of sadness and hu
miliation; and it is in the hope that our people may be
roused to action that we place the figures before them.
During the year 21,324 prisoners were committed to

CA TIIOLIC ED UC. t TI ON. 2(1 1
the jail— 12,367 men, and 8,957 women. Of this
number l:).676 were Catholics — '7,2'.'<7 men, and (i,4:)0
women ; whilst Protestants and all other denominations
numbered only 7,648 — 5,137 men, and 2,518 women.
It would further appear that the daily average of the
prison population for the year was 633.45 Catholics
against 327.5-2 of all other denominations. Thus our
{Rinnan Catholic) people, though forming less than one-
third if the population of Liverjiool, contribute nearly
one-haf to ihe total number of jjrisoncrs."
The Catholic Times should have said "contributed
more than half the number of prisoners." In fact the
Roman Catholic prisoners are nearly double the num
ber of the Protestant prisoners.
This statement is fully confirmed by Father Nugent.
In his address at Darlington, on October 18, 1886,
reported in the Catholic Times, October 22, 1886, he
stated that " his daily duty during the past twenty-two
years had been within Her JIajesty's prison at Liverpool,
and it had afforded him daily opportunities of studying
mankind. That of the prisoners committed to that
prison last year, 13,676 fell to his charge as Roman
Catholic Chaplain." Again, in his address at the
League Hall, Liverpool, on Thursday, November 11,
188G, reported in the Catholic Times, November 12,
1886, Father Nugent, alluding to the immorality pre
vailing in Liverpool, said, "Nine out of ten of the girls to
be seen at night along London Road or Lime Street were
Catholics ; there was no use hiding it. The sisters of
Notre Dame had 15,000 girls under their charge.
What became of them after they left school ? They
went into places where they got work, and instead of
going home at night, went out with their companions."
Protestants sometimes indulge in sentimental notions

262 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
about the good done by Catholic priests and sisters.
Let the above help to awaken them from their delu
sion. Surely a fair consideration of the criminal records
of even the city of New York, where every Catholic
has had the help of education by sisters, priests and
brothers, ought to enlighten those who can be enlight
ened. I can only sadly add my own testimony to the tes
timony of Father Nugent as to the miserable failure of
Roman Catholic education. Certainly Roman Catholic
education secures the allegiance to the Church of those
who are placed under its control, because they are brought
up to believe that if they doubt or forsake Rome, it is
at the peril of their salvation. But Roman Catholic
education does not produce the fruit of a virtuous life,
as the reports of police courts evidence.
A system of education which is not Christian cannot
produce Christian results. A system of education
which does not look to Christ for salvation, and which
leads the poor soul to look to another Saviour, will
not have the blessing of God on its efforts.
Those who are taught to look to Mary for help, will
not look to God for it, and how can we expect that
they will get it ? Here is a fair specimen of the kind
of religion which those 15,000 girls have been taught
by the Sisters of Notre Dame, and which Father Nu
gent is compelled to admit has been such a failure.
These extracts are taken from the English edition of
the '• Glories of Mary," approved by Cardinal Manning,
How many are there who would be amazed and shocked
to know that he teaches such absurdities ? But he
will take care that this part of Rome's teaching will
not be known except to those who are the victims of
its folly.

CATHOLIC EDUCATION. 263
"Mary, in order that she might save souls, exposed
her own to death ; that is, she sacrificed the life of her
son" (p. 24).
" We can say of Mary that she so loved us as to give
her only-begotten son for us. And when did she
give him ? She gave him when she granted him per
mission to deliver himself up to death" (pp. 33, 34).
But the crowning blasphemy is at page 57, where
she is called "heaven, where God dwells, and the
throne from which our Lord dispenses all graces."
"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 " (p. 67) .
A story was told of a devout worshipper of Mary
who died in a lonely place, and in the absence of human
help, a lion came and digged a grave with his claws.
This reads something like Gulliver's Travels, or the
Arabian Nights' Entertainment. Were it not for the
blasphemous character of these stories, they would be
very entertaining. In a prayer at page 71, a devout
worshipper of Mary says :
" I do not fear the devils, for thou art more power
ful than the whole of hell. I do not fear thy Son, for
at a word of thine he will be appeased."
" Before the Divine Word took flesh in the womb of
Mary, he sent an archangel to ask her consent " (p. 86).
" If my Redeemer rejects me on account of my sins,
and drives me from his sacred feet, I will cast myself at
those of his beloved mother " (p. 90).
I now turn to the consideration of Rome's control
of the Press.
Important matters which deeply concern the highest
interests of the American people are often overlooked.
But little attention is paid to newspaper reports, unless
they concern politics or money.

264 WHAT R03IE TEACHES.
Though the Roman Catholic Church has failed, on
her own showing, both in this country and in America,
to control the morals of her people, she none the less
stoutly claims the right to control the press. It is
necessary for her to do so. If evils were exposed
Rome's fate would soon be scaled. There must be the
silence of the grave, but a rule of iron is necessary to
maintain this silence. Here is the secret of the won
derful unity of Rome, at which Protestants so often
marvel . There is no marvel about it. There is noth
ing supernatural about it, nor is there anything but
what is of the earth and earthy. Given a power
which can make it an offence to be punished, not here
but hereafter (and here also when possible), to write
anything which Rome does not approve, you can easily
maintain exterior uniformity when you can prevent the
least expression of adverse opinion. This line of pol
icy ends eventually in open rebellion, but such rebell
ion has never made Rome wiser or prevented her from
holding her captives in chains as long as they will
bear the chaining.
We need facts, especially facts about which there
cannot be any dispute. The following is a fact which
proves on the very highest authority how Rome acts in
regard to the " liberty " of the press and the " liberty "
of this country, of which she is so much enamored so
long as that liberty consists in permitting her to do
as she pleases and in compelling others to obey her rule.
The following, which is taken from the New York
Herald of April 22, 1 887, is the best reply to give to
repeated assurances that Rome does not ' ' interfere "
in such matters ; that the press is free, and that the
country is free.

CATHOLIC CONTROL OF THE PRESS. 265
No. 452 jMadison Avenue, )
New York, April 14, 1887. )
To the Editor and Proprietor of the CathoUc Herald ;
Gentlejcen : By this note, which is entirely private
and not to be published, I wish to call your attention
to the fact that the Third Plenary Council of Balti
more, following the leadership of Pope Leo XIII., has
pointed out the duties of the Catholic press and de
nounced the abuses of which journals stylins^ themselves
Catholic are sometimes guilty. " That paper alone,"
says the Council (Decree No, 2-38), "is to be regarded
as Catholic that is prepared to submit in all things to
ecclesiastical authority, ' Later on it warns all Catho
lic writers against presuming to attack publicly the
manner in which a bishop rules his diocese, affirming
that those who so presume, as well as their approvers
and abettors, are not only guilty of very grievous scan
dals but deserve, moreover, to be dealt with by canoni
cal censures.
For some time past the utterances of the Catholic
Herald have been shockingly scandalous. As this
newspaper is published in this diocese, I hereby warn
you that if you continue in this course of conduct it
will be at your peril.
I am, gentlemen, yours truly,
M. A. Corrigan, Archbishop ofJVew York.
You will observe the words " in all things." Rome
makes no exception, whether in moral, political, or
scientific matters.
The above statement is very clear and deserves atten
tion. We have here not merely the opinion of an in
dividual bishop, but we have the pronouncement of an
infallible authority which none may deny, except at the
peril of salvation. It has been tyrannies such as inter
ference with the press, whenever it dared to criticise
the crimes of bishops or priests or the exactions of
popes as temporal princes, or even to express a mere

266 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
opinion contrary to the opinion of ecclesiastical power,
which eventuated in the open revolt against the rule of
Rome, which has come sooner or later in every Catholic
country. The press must submit "in all things" (what a
clause !) to ecclesiastical authority, or take the con
sequences, and the consequences are both spiritual and
temporal ruin. Men who might be inclined to risk the
other world find it is not a very easy matter to submit to
ruin in this world. Hence the obedience which Rome
secures. A few Catholics have dared to protest against
this tyranny from time to time ; but as Protestants, for
the most part, take the side of Rome either from indif
ference or self-interest, Romanists, finding every one
against them, are fain to yield in the unequal struggle.
It is amazing and very sad that Protestants, ^^ ho owe
their existence to the sacrifices which their forefathers
made for liberty, should be so very indifferent to the
liberty of others. One of the above statements has
proved prophetic, for, as we have shown above, the Arch
bishop has forbidden the reporters to report the ad
dresses of Dr. McGlynn ; and we do not know of what
public news we are deprived by the subtle and all-per
vading infiuence of Rome.
A statement such as that which was made by Cardi
nal Gibbons in his sermon at Baltimore, March 8, 1891,
would be taken in England for what it was worth.
He said : " If it is a great wrong to muzzle the press,
it is a still greater wrong to muzzle the pulpit." We
have shown, on the equally high authority of Arch
bishop Corrigan, that Rome teaches officially that she
has the right to " muzzle " the press.
Nq wonder that the Roman Catholics of this country

CATHOLIC CONTROL OF THE PRESS. 267
are constantly complaining of- their literature. I be
lieve that if some one would go over the Catholic papers
of any one week, and the works published by all the
Catholic publishers of anyone year, and compare them
with the same class of literature among Protestants,
the result would be something which could not have
been anticipated.
We give here a statement of the condition of Roman
Catholic literature, taken from the very number of the
New York Catholic Revieiu which so strongly criti
cised Archbishop Ireland for his noble pronouncements
on the temperance question :
"Contrast with this happy condition [French liter
ature] the press of America and our publishing houses.
We have hot a single daily, but one quarterly, and one
monthly magazine ; and our best weeklies are but
primers compared with the French publications. The
Catholic body takes no interest in its press, will not
subscribe to it, mostly scorns it, refuses it advertising
patronage. Many of the leaders can read you argu
ments by the page why there should not be a Catholic
press better than the limping thing we now own. Our
publishing houses are for the most part helpless affairs,
about which courtesy compels us to be silent."
So, after years of freedom in this country, the best
that Rome can say of her own literature is, that it is a
"limping thing," No wonder the Catholic public
"scorns " it. But how could it be otherwise, when it
is enchained and enslaved by ecclesiastical rule ?
In the same paper we find the following statement :
" We are in a country whose government we help to
sustain and guide, and which leaves the Catholic body
to grow in perfect freedom."
We have shown above the literary, the moral, and

268 WHAT R03IE TEACHES.
the political result of this state of "perfect freedom."'
A magazine is published in New York City monthly
for the exclusive use of the Roman Catholic priest.".
The magazine is called "The Pastor; a monthly journal
for priests." It need be said that this journal is au
thorized by the highest ecclesiastical authority, and
that all its decisions are binding on priests. If it
should be made a subject of discussion and investiga
tion at the weekly conferences of religious bodies iu
New York, they would know a little more about the
doings of Rome and her teachings, which would be
much to their advantage. A good many numbers of
this journal contain translations of the laws of the In
quisition in Rome in regard to the publication of books.
And we may remark that priests must be very poorly
educated when English translations are made for their
benefit. There is one advantage in this translation,
however, which the author did rot intend. The trans
lation being authorized, cannot be disputed.
Here are some of the orders of the Inquisition as
regards books ; and it will be seen that while all these
orders cannot be enforced in this country as yet, be
cause the Inquisition has not yet full power, yet it
has sufficient power to prevent any reflection on or
ridicule of (even in simple jest) an ecclesiastic. The
orders of the Inquisition on that point will be seen
below: " Words calculated to injure the good name of others,
especially that of ecclesiastics and persons in exalted
station, as also all contrary to good morals and Chris
tian discipline should be blotted out.
" Propositions contrary to the liberty, immunity and
jurisdiction of ecclesiastical persons should be rejected.

CATHOLIC CONTROL OF THE PRESS. 209
" Also those which — based on the sayings, morals and
doings of heathen communities — advocate tyranny, and
the introduction of that supremacy of the Slate, so
irreconcilable with the law of the gospel and Christian
ity. " Illustrations shall be thrown out which tend to be
little or vilify ecclesiastical rites or the rank, office,
dignity, or persons of religious."
"Christian" discipline of course means Roman
Catholic discipline. Observe that the supremacy of
the State (the italics are in the original) is irreconcil
able with Christianity, according to Rome. Publishers
should promise under oath to observe, and cause to
be observed, the laws of the Index,
" The correctors shall read everything in the book
from cover to cover. Under the following headings
will be found what generally needs to be corrected or
expunged :
"Propositions heretical, erroneous, savoring of heresy,
scandalous, offensive to pious ears, rash, schismatical,
seditious or blasphemous.
"Those which advocate novelties contrary to the rites
and ceremonies of the sacraments or contrary to the
custom and usages of the Holy Roman Church.
" The use of ambiguous novelties of expressions de
vised by heretics and intended only to deceive.
The use of words of dubious or double meaning
which may leave impressions on the reader's mind not
in conformity -with Catholic truth.
"Misquotations of sacred Scripture or quotations
from the false versions made by heretics — unless in
deed these be adduced for the purpose of refuting
heretics, taking them on their own grounds.
"Quotations from the Scriptures irreligiously applied
to profane subjects should be expunged ; as also those
which are made to bear a sense different from that al
ways given them by the Fathers of the Church and
by Catholic writers.

270 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
" Epithets of honor and words of praise bestowed on
heretics should also be expunged."
Such is the teaching of Rome, not in the dark ages,
but in the last decade of the nineteenth century, and
in a country which prides itself on the liberty of the
press. Rome cannot compel the carrying out of this
teaching, but she does so, as we have shown, as far as
she dare.
It is amusing to observe the command that no words
of praise or honor shall be bestowed on heretics, in view
of the lavish praises bestowed constantly on Rome and
Roman Catholic institutions by "heretics," There
are few Christian papers in this country which do not
admit lavish praises of Rome in their columns fre
quently, and especially lavish praise of Roman Catholic
methods of working among the poor.
In the Christian Advocate (Methodist) of April 16,
1891, there is an article by Mr. James Buckham,
headed "Teaching the Waifs,'' from which the follow
ing is an extract, and is one of many proofs which
might be given of the mistaken appreciation which
Protestants have of the Roman Catholic Church :
" But how to jeach them — that is the great ques
tion. So many of their parents are either Catholics
themselves, or in sympathy with the Catholic Church,
that the mere proffer of religious instruction from
Protestants would be received with indignation. Yet
in cases where Protestant churches cannot themselves
directly reach these children, they can, through indi
viduals, make a statement of specific cases to the
Catholic priest of the parish, and request the attention
of the Church to such. It is not because the Catholic
Church has not the means to correct these evils, nor
the disposition to do so, that the children of its mem
bers are, so many of them, allowed to remain in igno-

CATHOLIC CONTROL OF THE PRESS. 271
ranee and vice. It is simply because, with its immense
parishes and manifold religious ceremonies, the Catho
lic Church cannot and does not attend as thoroughly
to its pastoral work as our numerous and subdivided
Protestant denominations. I have sufficient faith in
the Catholic Church to believe that, when parochial
matters of this nature are urged upon its attention, it
is too sincere and earnest in its work to disregard them
because they come from Protestant sources. The
Catholic Church wants to care well for its children,
and it does care well for them, so far as it can reach
them. One way, then, to get at our street waifs mor
ally and religiously, is to bring them under the relig
ious instruction of the Church to which most of them
naturally belong."
Now the -writer of the above is naturally ignorant of
the working of the Roman Catholic Church, and may
therefore be excused for taking an entirely wrong view
of a very important subject, but surely he has every
opportunity of knowing that the great majority of the
criminal population of New York are Roman Catho
lics, and that the great majority of the criminals have
been educated in Roman Catholic institutions.
When Rome had innumerable priests and monks
and nuns in Rome itself she never pretended to do
"pastoral work," in the Protestant sense of the word;
nor would she do it in New York to-morrow if her
ecclesiastical force was multiplied by thousands. Rome
does her work in the confessional . In view of my thirty
years' experience it must be admitted that I have some
practical knowledge as to how the Catholic Church
"cares for her children," and those who desire to
know what Rome herself says on this subject need only
read the admissions given in the present work by Roman
Catholic priests and prelates, as to their utter failure
to reform those whom they educate.

272 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
The education given by the Roman Catholic Church
is not a Christian education ; hence we cannot expect
Christian results.
The child who is habitually, day after day, taught
in those institutions, so highly extolled above, to pray
to Mary for salvation and for grace, cannot expect to
receive the grace of the Holy Ghost. The whole prin
ciples and teachings of the Catholic Church and the
easy and certain pardon of sins in the confessional
continue to make sinning easy, and truly he who runs
may read the result in every Catholic country in the
world. The more Catholic the country, the less re
gard there is for morality or virtue ; crimes of violence
abound, and religion becomes more and more a super
stitious trust in the Virgin Mary and the Church.
Truly no Christian paper should praise and advocate
such a system. Yet, as we show above, on the au
thority of the Church, while Christians praise Rome
freely, Romanists are forbidden under the severest pen
alties to bestow any " words of praise " on Christians ;
and from long years of perusal of Roman Catholic
papers and publications, I know how rigidly this rule
is enforced.

CHAPTER XIV.
THE DUTY OF CHRISTIAN PEOPLE.
The principal object of this work will have been at
tained if Christian people are awakened thereby to the
real character of the Roman Catholic Church. There
is a false liberality which barters truth for sentiment,
and which is undoubtedly one of the great dangers of
the present day. This liberality is exercised in a man
ner which is almost inexplicable in regard to Romanism.
We are very far from advocating anything like persecu
tion, but persecution is one thing and encouragement
of false doctrine is quite another. How shall we answer
to the [Master when he comes to ask an account of our
stewardship,if we have given our assistance, our support,
our countenance, to a Church which actually denies his
salvation ? I was speaking not long since to a gentle
man who had passed some time in Mexico, as the
correspondent of a leading newspaper. He made no
profession of religion, but he said calmly and with con
viction, " I do not mean what I say as an irreverence, far
from it; but I do not know how to express my meaning
better. In Mexico Christ is a side-show; the saints and
the Virgin Mary occupy the place of honor. In the
great Cathedral in Carthegena there is not one image
of Christ, while it is full of saints and Marys, except m
the slave-quarters, where there is one crucifix." I know
the contention of Rome is that the mass is the worship
of Christ ; but what a worship it is ! Is the mass

274 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
Christian worship ? Take the mass at the best, and
what does Rome do in this connection ? She actually
denies the very command of Christ given in his dying
moments, and declares that she has a right, as the true
Church, to alter what Christ has ordered. He has said,
as plain as words could say it, "Drink ye all of it."
The very word drink shows that eating could not be
substituted for drinking, as Rome practically teaches
when she forbids the wine to the laity, and even to
priests, unless they are saying mass. This latter point
is not generally known as it should be. Rome avoids
the difficulty of contradicting the plain command of
Christ by saying that his words, " Drink ye all of it,"
were addressed only to the disciples who are priests.
But she contradicts herself by her command to the
priests who assist at mass or receive the sacrament at
any time without saying mass ; for they too are forbid
den to do that which even on the showing of Rome,
Jesus himself has commanded them to do.
The question is, as we have already said. Is Rome a
Christian Church? She may call herself such, but
names are not evidence of fact. Can a Church be
called a Christian Church which forbids the free circu
lation of the Christian Bible, and even at the present
day imprisons those who attempt to read God's word
for themselves ? Can Rome be a Christian Church when
she plainly and in her authoritative statements places
Mary in the place of Christ and calls her a Saviour ?
When she teaches her people to say to Mary, " be my
salvation ? "
What then is the duty of Christian people ? Is it to
be afraid to testify for Christ against Rome ? Yet are
there not thousands to-day who are so far from testify-

DUTY OF CHRISTIAN PEOPLE. 275
ing for Christ that they are afraid to say a word in
condemnation of a Church which is not afraid to con
demn them? Rome antagonizes you. Rome teaches
that there is not the least hope for the salvation of any
Protestant. Even the supposed plea of " invincible
ignorance " has been denounced in the catechism author
ized by Cardinal Gibbons. The words, as given else
where in this book, are as plain as words can be. And
yet Christian people speak with bated breath, and
are afraid to be called illiberal if they say a word for
Christ I
What will be the result of all this? What will
be the result of this denial of Christ by Christian
people ? Will not God judge for these things ? How
can we expect to escape condemnation, when we have
the light and will not allow others to have it also ?
What are you doing to enable Romanists who are in
darkness to come to Christ ? Perhaps you are even
preventing them from coming to him. What an awful
condemnation there will be for those who, having the
light, fail to enable others to have it also. We must
spread the light and stand for the truth.
And the serious part of the matter is that to-day
there is a stir in the Church of Rome, and an uncon-
sious craving for light. You are afraid to antagonize
Rome. You are afraid to say a word for Christ, while
these people are craving for that word, while they are
marvelling at your silence, and scandalized by it. If
you wish to christianize the Church of Rome, how can
you do so while you are afraid to say a word in opposi
tion to its errors ? If you believe that the holy Script
ures are necessary to salvation, what are you doing to
circulate the Scriptures amongst those who can only

276 WHAT ROME TEACHES.
obtain them through your efforts ? You are not afraid
to offer the Bible to the Chinese ; you are not afraid
to offer the Bible to the Jews ; why, then, are you
afraid to press the reading of Scripture on the Ro
manist ? Is it because the Chinese and the Jew cannot
oppose your efforts; because you -will not suffer any social
reproach if you evangelize them ? Are you then so
ashamed of Christ, or so afraid of man, that you will
not work for those who are in worse than heathen
darkness ?
Think of these things. You cannot cast your re
sponsibilities from you. If Rome is not on the side of
Christ ; if you know that the more power Rome has the
less her people are allowed to know of Christ, why do
you not try to prevent the growth of her power? Why
do you help to support her and increase her power?
The heathen are at your door. The men and
women and children who may not read God's word,
who must worship Mary and believe in the infallibility
of sinful man, are waiting for you to deliver them If
they were at a distance you would be aroused to help
them ; why will you not help them, when they are at
your door? Does the fact that they are near you, ai.d
perhaps related to you, lessen your responsibility ? The
McAll Mission may be very interesting reading for the
Christian people of America ; but if the McAll Mission
is good for France, why is there not a mission of a
similar character for this countrj' ? You show but very
little love for God when you are zealous for the heathen
abroad and indifferent to the heathen at home. If it
is good to convert the Roman Catholic in France, whv
is it not equally good to convert the Roman Catholic in
America ?

APPEISIDIX.

NO SALVATION OUTSmE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
In his Encyclical Letters, dated December 8, 1849 ;
December 8, 1864 ; and August 10, 1863, and in his Allocu
tion on December 9, 1854, Pope Pius IX. says :
"It is not without sorrow that we have learned another
not less pernicious error, which has been spread in several -
parts of Catholic countries, and has been imbibed by many
Catholics, who are of opinion that all those ivlio are not at
all members of the true Church of Christ can be saved.
Hence they often discuss the question concerning the future
fate and condition ot those wlio die withouthaving professed
the Catholic faitli, and give the most frivolous reasons in
support of their wicked opinion. . , , It is indeed of
faith, that no one can be saved outside the Apostolic Roman
Church ; that this Church is the one ark of salvation ; that
he whc has not entered it will perish in the deluge. , . .
" We therefore must mention and condemn again that
most pernicious error which has been imbibed by certain
Catliolics, who are of opinion that those people who live in
error and have not the true faith, and are separated from
Catholic unity, may obtain life everlasting,"
The above translation is taken from the New York
CathoUc Review, II,
THE EVIL OP INDULGENCES.
Dr. Hirscher, Professor of Theology in the Roman Catho
lic University of Freiburg, says :
"A further practical and deeply-seated evil, to which the
attention of the Church must be directed, is the idea enter-

278 APPENDIX.
tained by the popular mind concerning indulgences. Sa_\
what you will, there it remains : the people understand by
indulgences the remission of sins. Explain to them that
not the sins, but only the penalties of sin, are affected by
indulgences ; very well, it is the penalty, and not the guilt
of sin, which the people regard as the important thing ;
and whatever frees them from the punishment of sin, frees
them, so far as they care about it, from the sin itself."
ni.
ROMAN CATHOLIC OPINION OP PROTESTANTS.
We hear so frequently from Roman Catholics that it is
unjust to them when Protestants enter into controversy,
either in public or private, on the Roman Catholic question,
that it IS well to see how Roman Catholics act in this matter
themselves. Here is another example of what the Roman
Catholic Churcla teaches to children.
Surely if such distortions of history are to be taught by
the authority of Cardinal Gibbons, the Pope, and the Roman
Inquisition, Protestants should not be blamed by Romanists
if they defend their religion, and ask a hearing from the
public in self-defence.
It is most dangerous to the cause of truth when Protes
tants keep silence on tlie Roman Catholic controversy, on
the plea of not antagonizing Rome, while Rome is all the
time antagonizing them. Day after day, in every school
under the control of the Church of Rome, the catechism is
taught with the questions and answers given below. If Prot
estants may be thus attacked, why may not they reply to
such attacks ; and why should they not reply in public, since
these attacks are made in public?
The Jesuitical cunning of Rome must be met by Christian
people with the holy wisdom of divine grace. To oppose
error is a sacred and Christian duty. It is not because they
wish to "stir up strife" that Christian people condemn
error ; and we must not expect that those who are preaching
error will allow truth to be told, if they can prevent the
telling of it. In the catechism from which we have quoted
in the present work we flnd tlae following questions and

WHAT ROME TEACHES. 279
answers, which every Roman Catholic child is obliged to
learn, and of course to believe to be truthful statements :
" Q. Who caused so many bad Catholics to fall away from
the Catholic faith ?
"A. 1. Martin Luther, a bad priest in Germany ; he was
the founder of the German Lutherans.
"3. Henry the VIII th, a wicked Catholic king of England ;
he was the founder of the Episcopalians.
"3. Jolin Calvin, a wicked Catholic in France ; he was the
founder of the Calvinists.
" 4. John Knox, a bad Catholic priest in Scotland ; he was
the founder of the Presbyterians, or Puritans.
"Q. What do Protestants believe ?
"A. Protestants believe whatever they choose to believe,
and tlierefore we see so many kinds of Protestants."
Protestants often wonder why it is so difHoult to convert
a Catholic. If they will realize that Catholics are taught
all this from the earliest dawn of reason, they need not be
surprised. Early impressions of so utteily false a character are not
easy to remove. But why do not Protestants try and re
move them by every means in their power ? And if Rome is
allowed to express and teach such things, why is it to be
called uncharitable when Protestants combat these false
statements, either in public or private ?

IV.
THE CHURCH AND THE BIBLE.
The fact that the Roman Catholic Church forbids and dis
courages the circulation of the Bible is often denied, renders
the following Roman Catholic evidence important. M.
Lasserre in his preface to his Edition de luxe of the Bible,
writes : " The greater part of the children of the Church
know the divine Book only by the fragments contained in
the prayer-book;" and he adds his belief that it is no
exaggeration to say that there are not three believers in
each parish who have tried to study the Gospels. "The
Gospel— the most illustrious book in the world— is become
an unknown book,"

280 APPENDIX.
In speaking of Roman Catholic books of devotion, he says :
" Some of these books are excellent, but this is the excep
tion. In the majority of these works, in which, alas ! the
sugar of devotion replaces the salt of wisdom, the eternal
verities and true teaching of the gospel become quickly
diluted, and lost in strange waters, special and party doc
trines, ascetic or mystic considerations, rules of piety,
methods, means, processes of perfection, and all sorts of
prayers. Many of them are enervating by their intellectual
inanity, by their narrowness of conception, by their false
ideas, or their absence of ideas, by their absolute ignorance
— ignorance of the real world, ignorance of the human heart,
ignorance of the true ways of God. But all together, the
best as well as the most lamentable, are something else; yes,
absolutely something else than the Gospel, whose apostolic
mission they have noiselessly usurped,"
He quotes also from a letter of the Archbishop of Albi,
Monseigneur Fonteneau :
"In vain shall I try to tell you with what joy I have read
this new and true French translation. I have been pained
for a long time to see that the Book above all others, the
Book which is found everywhere, and is quoted every day,
the Book which God has placed in the foundations of the
Church, the gospel, is in reality scarce ever read by those
who profess to be fervent Catholics, and that it is never
read by the multitude of the faithful. From this day I feel
certain the Gospel will be read, thanks to you and the pro
tection of the Immaculate Virgin ! I say thanks to you, sir,
for your translation is most charming and attractive. For
many it will be a revelation of the gospel. Following in
your train this divine and enchanting history, I am con
stantly recurring to the words of the Saviour, which I have
never before so well comprehended : ' They are spirit and
life, the words which I have spoken unto you.' "
The Lasserre Bible was called in by the Inquisition, not
withstanding all the approbation given to it by liberal
bishops, and its circulation is forbidden.

WORKS BY ARTHUR T. PIERSON.

THE CRISIS OF MISSIONS;
Or, THE VOICE OUT OF THE CLOUD.
i6mo, paper, 35 cents; cloth, $1.25.
•' One of the most important books to the Cause of Foreign Missions, and, through
them, to Home Missions also, which ever has been written. It should be in every
Hbrary and every household. It should be read, studied, taken to heart, and prayed
over." — Congregationalist.
" We do not hesitate to say that this book is the most purposeful, earnest, and in
telligent review of the mission work and field which has ever been given to the
church." — Christian Statesman,
EVANGELISTIC WORK IN PRINCIPLE AND PRACTICE.
i6mo, paper, 35 cents; cloth, $1.25.
'' If our pen could become as fervent as fire, and as fluent as the wave, we could
not write either too warmly or too well of this book. Dr. Pierson has given us a real
book — a thunderbolt — a cataract of fire. These flame-flakes ought to fall in showers
all over Christendom, and set every house on fire." — C H. Spurgeon.
" rhe book tingles with the evangelistic spirit, and is ftiU of arousement without
sliding into fanaticism." — Springfield Republican.
" .\ stirring trumpet blast to every earnest soul itreaches." — Christian at Work.
" Every page is filled with the evangelistic spirit  Dr, Pierson is full
of facts, arguments, incidents, illustrations, and pours them over his pages in a molten
stream." — N. Y. Evangelist. THE ONE GOSPEL;
Or, THE COMBINATION OF THE NARRATIVES OF THE FOUR
EVANGELISTS IN ONE COMPLETE RECORD.
Edited by Rev. Arthur T, Pierson, I). D. i2mo, flexible cloth, red
edges, 75 cents; limp morocco, full gilt, $2.00.
Without taking the place of the four Gospels this book will be an aid in their
study — a commentary wholly Biblical, whereby the reader may, at one view, see the
complete and harmonious testimony of four independent witnesses.
" Dr. Pierson has done his work with excellent judgment and fidelity to the spirit
and letter of the evangelists." — Christ/an Union.
" To ministers, Sunday-school teachers, and all Bible students it is of great value,
presenting, as it does, the gospel story witJiout break, and the events in chronological
order.'* — Presbyterian Observer.

The above books sent, postpaid, on receipt of the price,
by the publishers,
THE BAKER & TAYLOR CO.,
740 AND 742 BROADWAY, NEW YORK,

A NEW BOOK BY DR. CUYLER.

HOW TO BE A PASTOR.
BY THEODORE L. CUYLER, D. D.

16mo, G-ilt Top, 75 Cents.

CONTENTS.
I. — Importance of Pastoral Labor. II. — Pastoral Visits.
III. — Visitation OF THE Sick— Funeral Services. IV. — Treat
ment OF the Troubled. V. — How to Have a Working Church.
VI. — Training Converts. VII. — Prayer -Meetings. VIII. — A
Model Prayer - Meeting. IX. — Revivals. X. — Drawing the
Bow AT A Venture. XI. — Where to be a Pastor. XII.— Joys
OF THE Christian Ministry.
"It is not everyone who has wisdom and opportunity, at the close
of a long career of usefulness, so to take account of the results of his
work as to bring to light the secrets of his success, and to present them
in concrete form to those who shall come after him. This Dr. Cuyler
has been able to do. In the little book before us we have the key to
the pastor's triumphs over the difficulties and problems of a forty years'
pastorate — a master-key indeed, which will fit the wards of many a
young pastor's perplexities, and open for him the door into a large
freedom in that dealing with the human heart which is his important
work. " — Evangelist.
"The fruit of large native sense, long experience, wide observa
tion, and devout consecration." — Congregationalist .
"If any man living understands the subject of this little book it is
Dr. Cuyler. He writes briefly and to the point."— Independent.
"Ought to be read by all pastors, young and old. Dr. Cuyler has
been, himself, almost an ideal pastor.'' — N. Y. Tribune.

Sent, postpaid, upon receipt of price, by
THE BAKER & TAYLOR CO.,
PUBLISHERS,
740 and 742 Broadway, New York,

T II E
GREAT VALUE AND SUCCESS
OF FOREIGN MISSIONS.
PROVED BY DISTINGUISHED WITNESSES.

By Rev. JOHN LIGGINS.
With an Introdtiction by Rev. ARTHUR T PIERSON, D.D.
12mo, 249 pages. Paper, 35c. ; cloth, 7dc.

A POWERFUL presentation of overwhelming evidence, mainly from
independent sources, and largely that of Diplomatic Ministers, Viceroys,
Governors, Military and Naval Officers, Consuls, scientific and other
Travellers in Heathen and Mohammedan countries, and in India and
the British Colonies. The book also contains leading facts and late
statistics of the missions.
*' The best answer which could be given to recent as well as former attacks on
foreign missionary work. A grand service has been done to the cause of Christian
missions, and I am sure the book will accomplish a vast amount of good." — Rev.
S, L, Baldwin^ D D., Secretary of the Methodist I^Iissionary Society.
*'The author has performed a service of infinite value. His book will be a
revelation to many and an inspiration to all " — Rev. A. Sutherland^ D. D., in the
Missionary Outlook.
"By far the most remarkable book on foreign missions yet published"' — The
Cktirch of To-Day .
" I have been profoundly interested. It is one of the most graphic stories I have
ever read." — Bishop Whipple.
"It is a settler. Send out the book as on the wings of the winds.''— /?^:
Theodore L. Cuyler, D. D.
"A royal book. A mighty massing of testimony." — Rev. A. T. Pierson.^ D. D
"The book will be found of immense value." — New York Observer.
" A triumphant demonstration of the success of missions." — Canadian Methodist
Magazine. " An admirable work, and pre-eminently timely " — Bishop Potter,

Sent, post-paid, on receipt of price^ by
THE BAKER & TAYLOR CO., Publishers,
740 and 742 Broadway, New York.

A WORK OF PROFOUND INTEREST TO THE
CHRISTIAN WORLD!

SOCIALISM AND
CHRISTIANITY.
By A. J. F. BEHRENDS, D.D.
12 MO, F*AF*E^R, 60 Cb^nxs. Ci-oxh, $1.00

This book treats from a new point of view the problems raised by the most
frequently advanced social theories of the day ; their relations to the reciprocal
di.ties of Labor and Capital, and the position of the Christian Church with
reference to the social and industrial movements that are taking place about it.
CONTENTS:
T. Social Theories. II. Historical Sketch. III. The Assumptions of
Modern Socialism. IV. The Economic Fallacies of Modern Socialism.
V. The Rights of Labor. VI. The Responsibilities of Wealth. VII. The
Personal and Social Causes of Pauperism. VIII. The Historical Causes
of Pauperism and its Cure. IX. The Treatment of the Criminal Classes,
X. Modern Socialism, Religion, and the Family.
'*It is a book for the times in the interest of truth and justice and pure religion
We have read it from beginning to end with unflagging interest, and shall read it a
second time this summer, and hope to lay some extracts before our readers." — New
J 'ork Observer.
" It is the first approach to a popular systematic presentation of the principles "jf
ihe destructive socialism of the day. The questions which it discusses are now so
prominaiit, and iheir social bearing is so vital, that ministers should deal with them.
We commend this volume to them, especially to all who desire to get an intelligent
ciew of one of the burning questions of the day." — Presbyieriatt Journal.
"The book should be in every home ; and we are sure that if the principles which
It advocates and the information which it presents were given to every family in the
(and, the present disturbances in our country would soon be at an end." — St. Louis
f \tral Baptist.

Sent, post-paid, on receipt of price, by
THE BAEER & TAYLOR 00,, PubUshers,
7^10 and 743 Broad-way, iVe^v York*

EVANGELISTIC WORK
In Principle and Practice.
By Re^'. Arthur T. Pierson, D.D
12mo, Cloth, $1.25.

A new book on that method which has been one of the most
potent means of building up the Christian Church — Evangelization.
It is written by an acknowledged master of the subject.
" This book is preeminently a book for the hour. It is at once
a fruit of the reviving evangelistic spirit and a welcome and powerful
force for the promotion of that spirit among the disciples of Christ.
AU who are working for Christ, especially all ministers and teachers,
ought to procure and study this book." — Christian Statesman.
" More truth, perhaps, than can be found in any single uninspired
book, conceming 'evangelistic work,' is included in a volume with
this title, by Arthur T. Pierson, D.D. Truths of the first importance
are spoken conceming methods and the treatment of the poor. After
having set down the principle as he believes it to be, the author has
enforced it in sketches of Whitefield, Howard, Finney, Chalmers,
Moody, Bliss, and others. The book ought to have a wide circulation ;
it cannot but be productive of the greatest good." — Hartford Post.
" Every phase of the question is discussed, the methods and
merits of different evangelists are set forth, apostolic and modern
preaching compared, and the causes of failure and success in minis
terial work portrayed. It is a book to be studied by all church
workers. " — Indianapolis Journal.
"The book is dedicated to Dwight L. Moody, and would seem
to contain nearly all that can be said in the way of information,
instruction, example, or exhortation upon the subject." — Baptist Standard.
"The chapters on the great Evangelists are delightfully written
in a lofty and devout spirit." — Indianapolis News.
" His views will be accepted as of orthodox authority."
— Washington Critic,
Sent, postpaid, on receipt of the price, by
THE BAKER & TAYLOR CO.,
Publishers.
740 AND 742 BROADWAY, NEW YORK.

A Great Book on a Great Subject.

THE CRISIS OF MISSIONS;
Or, the Voice out of the Cloud.
BY THE
REY. ARTHUR T. PIERSOK, D. D.
Paper, 35c. Cloth, $1.26.

" One of the most important books to the Cause of Foreign Missions —
and through them to Home Missions also— which ever has been written.
It should be in every library and every household. It should be read,
studied, taken to heart, and prayed over." — Congregationalist.
"Surely if the inspiration and the force of this 'Crisis of Missions'
were imbibed and felt by the whole sacramental host, there would be a
mighty uprising, a grand anointing, and a holy crusade to storm the
kingdom of darkness all along the line, and speedily add the crown of
earth to Christ's many crowns !" — Homiletical Review.
" This is a book for every Christian to read with prayer and a sin
cere desire to know his personal duty in this great and glorious work. " —
N. Y. Observer.
"We do not hesitate to say that this book is the most purposeful,
earnest and intelligent review of the mission work and field which has ever
been given to the church." — Christian Statesman.
"A closely compacted array of facts, arranged under distinct heads
and welded together by the strong rivets of logic, vivified and made almost
a thing of life by the evident presence throughout its pages of the guiding
power of the Holy Ghost." — Right Rev. Wm. Bacon Stevens, Bishop ij?
Pennsylvania.

Sent, post-paid on receipt of price, by
THE BAKER & TAYLOR CO.,
PUBLISHERS,
740 AND 74:2 BROADWAT, NEW TORS.

MODERN CITIES
AND
THEIR RELIGIOUS PROBLEMS
By Rev. SAMUEL LANE LOOMIS.
WITH AN INTRODUCTION
BY Rev. JOSIAH STRONG, D.D.
i2mo. Cloth. $1.00.

An important work, treating the growth of the City,
the composition of its population, and the peculiar diffi
culties it offers to religious workers ; giving an instructive
account of the methods employed by the most successful
evangelists at home and abroad, and practically applying
them to the work of our city churches. It is an extremely
useful study of the foremost problem of the times.
" This volume not only points out the necessity and magnitude
and difficulty of the work to be done in our cities, but abounds in
valuable suggestions touching methods of work ... In the
work of city evangelization we have much to learn from the Christian
workers of London and the McAll Mission in Paris. This book en
ables us to profit by their experience and success, .... and
the sooner our churches accept the conclusions of this book and act on
its valuable recommendations, the sooner will the ' threat of the
cities ' cease." — Dr. Josiah Strong in the Introduction.

SENT POSTPAID, ON RECEIPT OF PRICE, BY
THE BAKER & TAYLOR CO.,
Publishers,
740 AND 742 BROADWAY, NEW YORK.

WORKS BY M. F. CUSACK
{THE NUN OF KENMARE).

WHAT ROME TEACHES,
i2mo, cloth, $1.25.
Since the author's conversion to Protestantism^ she has observed with
regret how few Protestants are really well informed as to the actual teach
ings of Catholicism, and its attitude toward politics and the press. This
has led her to prepare this book with the view of giving information where
it is needed and will be of value. Her intimate knowledge of Catholic doc
trine and instruction, her long experience in Romanist work and association
with Romanist workers, and her command of a vigorous style, admirably fit
her to prepare a work of value and interest.
THE NUN OF KENMARE,
An autobiography. Crown octavo, cloth, 540 pages, with por
trait, $1.50.
" By her pen she has made her name famous, and some of her works
w^illlive as monuments of her industry and her accuracy of research. We
trust that Miss Cusack, being now freed from the shackles of her late bond
age, will see her way to some sphere of labor that shall be more beneficial
to herself and helpful to the cause of ' pure religion and undefiled before
God and the Father.' '* — The Churchman., New York.
" We sincerely hope that Sister Clare may go forward to do as grand a
work for the American Church in her declining years, as she did for the
Roman Church in Ireland, when in her youth she attained to world-wide
fame as the ' Nun of Kenmare,' as an author, and as a benefactor of the
poor." — The Living Church.^ Chicago.
LIFE INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
Crown octavo, 410 pages, $1.75.
" It was expected that Miss Cusack would have something unusual to
tell the public, and now that the book has at length seen the light, it is
satisfactory to add that their expectations will not be disappointed. Miss
Cusack has a great deal to reveal, and she speaks with no hesitating sound."
— The Churchman, London, England.
" It is surprising to see what a keen insight Miss Cusack has into the
whole Romish system, political, social and literary."— TA^ Rock, London,
England. *»* The above books sent, postpaid, on receipt of the price bv
THE BAKER & TAYLOR CO.,'
740 & 742 Broadway, New York.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 01443 4220

.

' ^