Jp- I * ¦'¦¦I', I- --t" ¦ m !««•' ¦ ¦' ib.it-!' ' tfo"''*^'' iPl miDWAti-.. i.i''!.L l.i!i'irimb>ju!iidj. i«^i c ROMAN CATHOLICISM SCRIPTURALLY CONSIDERED; OK, Olljc orjjiirrlj of %mt GEEAT APOSTASY. CHAELES P. JONES, OF THE NORTH CAROLINA CONFERKNCE. " Search the Scriptures."— Je3us. "To the lajw and to the tesiimony." — Tsaiah. NEW YOEK: PUBLISHED BY M. W. DODD, No. .59 CHAMBEES STEEET, Rear ov tub Paek. 1856. entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1856, hy M. W. DODD, m Ihe Clerk's Office of the District Court, for the Southern District of New York. Mnj36 J7I2 E. O. JENKINS, Irintsr anir Stjrjotgptr, No. 26 Erankpoet Steeet. The doctrines in controversy between Protestants and Eoman Catholics involve the truth of God and the salvation of souls. Tbey also involve the progress and -well-being of society, as they affect civil and re bgious bberty. They merit, therefore, at our bands, an earnest, searching, thorough investigation. If the Church of Eome hold, as sbe a-ffirms, the only true doctrine, and if out of her pale there is no salvation, it behooves every one to kno-w it. If, ho-wever, she is in error, bas "fallen a-way," is the Great Apostasy, so clearly revealed and graphically described in prophecy, it is equally important that all should kno-w it. It must be clear to every mind, and is, perhaps, ad mitted by all, that there must be some rule, some in fallible standard, to -which all questions in dispute may be appealed for final adjudication. The Bible is that standard. Tradition is uncertain, fallible; contradicts God's Word and itself. To the Bible, therefore, -we come with all the questions at issue, and in its clear, heavenly, infabible light examine tbem, and in its holy, unerring balance -weigh tbem. Let the -world judge (iii) IV PREFACE. the entire competency of the tribunal, and of the em phatic, unequivocal response returned. Long and obstinate has been tbe controversy ; and everything, it would seem, has been said that could be said ; and most ably and fully have Protestants shown and vindicated the truth of God. But every age, every generation, has some peculiarities, which, with new evolutions and assaults of the foe, make it necessary to buckle on again the armor of God, and fight for the faith once delivered to the saints. This is especially so at the present time : Eome is marsbabng her hosts and sending out her legions to ov-errun and subjugate this fair heritage of ours. She is bold, defiant, and sanguine of success. She must be met with a spirit of unshrinking fidelity to God and his truth ; her true character as Antichrist portrayed, and ber intolerant, persecuting, tyrannical spirit exhibited to tbe patriots and Christians of this land. This the Author has essayed to do in the following pages. How far be bas succeeded an intelligent community must judge. He trusts, however, that, to some extent, at least, he has filled the desideratum which just now is felt — has met, partially though it be, the present demands of the Church and the Age. Information has been drawn from every source within reach of the Author. Eoman Catholic and Protestant theologians and writers have been carefuUy examined; and no doctrine has been stated, no position taken touching tbe practice and claims of Eome, but that the former define and promulgate as dogmas and usages of their Church. Milner's End of Controversy, Challoner's Catholic Christian, Dens' Theology, The PREFACE. V Eoman Catechism, Tbe Prayer Book, Tbe Christian's Guide to Heaven, History of the Council of Trent, by Pallivicini, Gaban's History of the Church, Brownson's Eeview, &c., &c., — standard works — clear exponents and emphatic defenders of the doctrines and practice of Eome, have bee a relied on as authentic, and freely used. Extensive quotations are given from them in the body of the work. The Author is greatly indebted to Edgar's Variations of Popery, Bungener's History of the Council of Trent, Old Christianity against Papal Novelties, by Ousley, Master-Key to Popery, Sime's History of the Inqui sition, D'Aubignd's History of the Eeformation, &c. Edgar's Variations and Bungener's History, are invalu able works, and should be in the library of every Pro testant. The critical reader may discover a want of uniform ity in the style. The work was written in the midst of heavy pastoral labors. Over nine hundred white members, and one thousand colored, had to be cared for and served. One hundred and fifty miles were usually traveUed, monthly, and twenty-five sermons de livered. Thousands of pages were read in the buggy, whUe travelling from appointment to appointment — - thoughts were suggested — arguments elaborated ; and then, at "tbe home," in the bosom ofthe family, or in tbe "preacher's room," the pen would be hastily caught up, and the thought or argument written out. Much of it appears as first written. Moreover, intense study of an author, say Milner or Bungener, may have given a tinge to the style. The work, however, was not written for critics, but for the masses ; the bono VI PREFACE. and sinew, the nerve and soul of this great country. To enbghten them on a subject infinitely momentous, was the object had in view — the motive that moved to write at all, and to write as the Author has written. If this end be gained, he is content, happy. And now with unaffected dif&dence, but witb a sincere prayer to God that it may be an instrumentality in accompbshing good, this humble effort in the cause of truth is sent forth to the world. THE AUTHOE. LuMBEETON, N. C, IiUy 29, 1856. CON'TEISTTS. CHAPTER I. PROPHETIC ANNOU.VCEMENT AND DESCfiiPTIOiV OF THE GREAT APOSTASY. Falling away — Man of Sin — Miracles and Lying Wonders — Departure from tho Faitli — ^Forbidding to Marry — Beast -with Seven Heads and Ten Horns — Beast ¦with Two Horns — Corrupt Woman — Babylon the Great. - 11^1 CHAPTER IL SOURCE AND RULE OF FAITH. Necessity of a Euler — The Bible — Tradition— The Fathers and the Bible against Eome — Apocrypha no part of the Canonical Books — Scripture given for every Man — Should be Translated into every Tongue. 42-71 CHAPTER III. DOCTRINES OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. Infallibility. Fundamental Doctrine— Where does it Beside ? — Six Theories — Not in the Pope — Not in Councils-General — Not in a Conncil and Pope at its Head— Not In the whole Chnrch — A Fallacy — Unscriptural. T2 Auricular Confession. All must Confess — Secretly— All Sins— Unscriptural- A Means of Corruption. 116 viii CONTENTS. Priestly Absolution. Penance a Sacrament— Consists in the Absolving Words of the Priest— The Priest a Tisible Saviour— Ifl'o power to Absolve given to the Apostles— The Tenor of Scrip tures—Teaching of Jesus— Practice and Teaching of the Apostles— Fathers against it— Admission of Theologians and Popes. - 121 Indulgences. Held by the Church— Decreed by Councils- In conflict with Scripture, with tho Fathers, and with Absolution. - 142 Transiibstantiation. Defined by the Council of Trent— Eenl Presence — Unscriptural — Unphilosophical —Contradicts the Senses— Absurd— Dr. Tillotson — The Fathers— History of it- Decreed in 1215 — Leads to Materialism, Infidelity, Idolatry — ^Exalts the Priest above God— Blasphemous— Subverts the Gospel — ^Fulfils Prophecy. 155 Extreme Unction. A Sacrament — Without Scripture Foundation — Bt. James — Not Known and Prac ticed in the Primitive Church — Against Absolution, and Indulgences, and Trans- eubstantiation — A Farce, or they are a Cheat. 184 Purgatory. To be Held by the Church--Without Anathema — Milner's view — Abraham's Bosom Purgatory — Purgation by Suffering — Scriptural Authority Examined— No Mid dle State — Purgatory a Novelty — The Fathers — Gives the Priest power over Souls iu Eternity — Against Absolution, Indulgences, Transubstantiation, Extreme Unc tion — Merits of Suffering — Another Gospel. - 194 CHAPTER IV. PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH OF ROME She is Idolatrous. Practice a Test of Doctrine— Tree Known by its Fruits— Worship of the Host — Veneration of Images and Eelics — Second command Suppressed— False Transla tion — Worship of Saints, Angels, aud the Virgin. - 225 Site is Intolerant. Inalienable Pvights—SeH'-Defcnce— Anathemas— Oath of Bishops, Priests, Popes, Jesuits— Ball against Bible Societies— Language of Bishops and Popes— Brown- son. , . 244 CONTENTS. l.K She is Persci'utin^ and Blood-Tliiratif. Decrees of Councils, Popes, Emperors — Theologians — Eifcct of Decree — Waldcn- sian Butchery — St Bartholomew's — Irish Persecution — Inquisition — History — Work of Blood. - 262 She is Corrupt. Abrogation of Oaths — No Faith with Heretics — Celibacy and tho Confessional. 308 CHAPTEE V. SPIRITUAL AXD TEMPORAL SUPREMACY OF THE POPE. Spiritual Supremacy. Four Theories — Without Scripture Foundation— The Eock — The Keys — Peter no Pope — Never at Eome — If Pope, his Prerogatives could not be Transforred — "Were not transferred— Tho Chain Broken — An Assumption— Prophecy Ful fiUed. - 321 Temporal Supremacy. Predicated of Spiritual — Popes— Brownson — Gallican and Jesuit Yiews— Claim and Possession different — Pitt's Queries—Doctrine of the Church— Brownson— Last Link of Evidence — Summing up. S47 CHAPTER VI. END OF THE GREAT APOSTASY; OR, DESTRUCTION OF THE MAN OF SIN. End Eevealcd — Instrumentalities — Bible — Preaching— Civil Government— Mil lennium Dawn. ool THE GREAT APOSTASY. CHAPTER J, PEOPHETIC ANITOUNCEMENT AND DESCRIPTION OF THE GREAT APOSTASY. " Let no man deceive you by any means ; for that day shall not come except there eome a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition. " Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, so that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God." — 2 Thess. ii. 3, 4. Here is a most solemn announcement and graphic description of a great Apostasy which was to rise up in, spread through, and afSict and curse the Church. The terms used leave no doubt that the defection would be in and of the Church. The revelation and uprising of the Man of Sin, evolved of the apostasy, or the apostasy itself, would not only be in the Church and in the name of the Church, but in the name of the true religion, and of God. He, the Son of Perdition, would wear the habiliments, claim the name, and glory in the prerogatives of the spouse of Christ, and sit in the temple of God, as God and above God. The church at Thessalonica had been taught, it seems, erroneous views in reference to the second coming of Christ. The faith and hope of some may have waver ed. To teach them the true doctrine, and reassure (11) 12 THE, GREAT APOSTASY. their faith, and especially to unveil the fature and put upon imperishable record the sad truth that a fear ful falhng away would sweep over and blight the fair heritage of God, the Apostle addressed them and the general Church this warning ; delivered this prophecy. Has this remarkable prediction been fulfilled ? Has there come a falling away ? Has the Man of Sin been revealed ? and does he sit in the temple of God show ing himself that he is God ? These are not only per tinent and interesting questions, but questions vitally connected with, and deeply affecting the weal of the Church, and the highest interest of man in time and in eternity. To answer these and kiadred inquiries ac cording to truth and history, is my earnest desire and honest purpose, in examining this subject. God help us find the truth, and answer as He would answer ! That this prophecy has been, and is now being ful filled ; that the falling away has taken place and now curses the Church and the world ; that the Man of Sin has been revealed, and now " sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God," I fully believe. The Roman Cathohc Church, I asfully believe, is clearly pointed out in this brief sentence, and her character drawn in lines of living light. Or, the Church of Rome meets and fulfils this prophecy to the very letter. She, as I shall show, has fallen away from the teach ing of Jesus Christ — ^the pure faith and simple prac tice of the Gospel. She is revealed— stands forth to-day as the "Man of Sin," for she is corrupt. She "opposeth and exalteth herself above God," — she rejects the Bible as a sofficient rule of faith, and perse cutes and puts to death the children of God. She MAN OP SIN. 18 creates God out of a wafer, and assumes universal, spiritual and temporal supremacy over this world " as God." She "sitteth in the temple of God,"— is an ecclesiastical organization, and proclaims that she is the only true Church. " This apostasy," says. Dr. Clarke, " all concurrent marks and characters will justify us in charging upon the Church of Eome. The true Christian worship is the worship of the one only God, through the one only mediator; the man Christ Jesus ; and from this worship the Church of Rome has most notoriously departed, by substituting other mediators, and invocating and adoring saints and angels : nothing is apostasy if idolatry be not. And are not the members of the Chnrch of Eome guilty of idolatry in the worship of images, in the adoration of the host, in the invocation of angels and saints, and in the oblation of prayers and praises to the Virgin Mary, as much or more than to God blessed forever ? This is the grand corruption of the Christian Church ; this is the apostasy, as it is emphatically called, and deserves to be called ; which was not only predicted by St. Paul, but by the prophet Daniel like wise." This view is confirmed by the description of the apostle in the Sth, 9th and 10th verses : "And then shall that wicked be revealed, whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish." The Church of Rome has ever claimed the power to work miracles. In the Life of St. Patrick, eagerly read by "the faithful," a very great number of miracles are re corded, which are af&rmed to have been wrought by him. The Life of St. Xavier, also, is filled up with accounts of miracles, wrought by a word or touch of his, as great and more numerous than those of our Saviour. Dr. Milner, in his " End of Controversy," endorses them all. 14 THE GREAT APOSTASY. The "English Saints" is disgustingly fall of them. Relics of saints, paintings and images, priests and people proclaun to the world possess miracle-working power. Who has not heard of weepmg, winking Ma- donas, and the holy coat of Treves ? " Af&xed to the wall over the vessels of holy water" — " water made holy by being exorcised by the priests, mixed with salt, and then prayed over" — "in the church of St. Carlo, in Rome," the following advertise ment is seen, and may be read of all: " The church proposes holy water as a remedy and assistant in many circumstances, both spiritual and corporeal, but especially in these following. Its spiritual uses are : ' 1. It drives away devils from places and persons. ' 2. It affords assistance against fears and diabolical illusions. ' 3. It cancels venial sins. ' 4. It imparts strength to resist temptations. ' 5. It drives away wicked thoughts. ' 6. It preserves safely from the passing snares of the devil. ' 7. It obtains the favor and presence of the Holy Ghost. ' Its corporeal uses are : ' 1. It is a remedy against barrenness, both in women and beasts. ' 2. It is a preservative from sickness. ' 3. It heals the infirmities of the mind and body. ' 4. It purifies infected air, and drives awayplague and contagion." ' This is the substance, though not a literal or full translation of the document."* There are wells in Ireland, called by Romanists " holy wells," which are said to have miraculous vir tues. Rev. Dr. Murray thus describes what he saw at one of them : " There was a vast crowd of poor-looking and diseased people around it. Some were praying, some shouting ; many were up in * Kerwan's Letters to Taney. LYING WONDERS. 15 the trees which surrounded it. AU these trees were laden, iu all their branches, with shreds of cloth of every possible variety and color. I inquired what all this meant. I was told : ' This is St. John's well, and these people come here to get cured.' But what do those rags mean, hanging on the trees ? I was told that the people who were not immediately cured, tied a piece of their gar ments on some limb of the trees to keep the good saint of the well in mind of their application. And judging from the number of pieces tied on the trees, I inferred that the number that went away cured were very few." The following extract, quoted by Dr. Murray from an eye-witness, gives an account of a festival at St. Patrick's Well, which occurs every mid-summer's eve : " The men and women come bare-footed, and the heads of all were bound round with handkerchiefs. Some were nmning in circles, some were kneeling in groups, some were singing in wild concert, some were jumping about like maniacs at the end of an old building. When we had somewhat recovered from the first surprise which the (to us) unaccountably fantastic actions of the crowd had given ns, we endeavored to trace the progress of some of these deluded vota ries through all the mazes of their mystic penance. The first object of them all appeared to be, the ascent of the steepest and most rugged part of the rock, up which both men and women crawled their painful way on their hands and bare knees. The men's clothes were all made so as to accommodate their knees with all the sharp ness of the pointed rock ; and the poor women, many of them young and beautifcd, took incredible pains to prevent their petticoats from affording any defence against its torturing asperities. Covered with dust, and perspiration, and blood, they at last reached the summit of the rock, where, in a rude sort of chair hewn out of the stone, sat an old man, probably one of their priesthood, who seemed to be the representative of St. Patrick, and the high-priest of this relig ious frenzy. In his hat each of the penitents deposited a, half penny, after which he turned them round a certain number of times, listened to the long catalogue of their offences, and dictated to thera the penance they were to undergo or perform. Then they descended 16 THE GREAT APOSTASY. the rock by another path, but in the same manner and posture, equally careful to be cut by the flints, and to suffer as much as possible. The penitents now returned to the use of their feet, and commenced a running sort of Irish jiggish walk round several cairns or heaps of stones, erected at different spaces : this lasted for some time. Suddenly they would prostrate themselves before the cairn and ejaculate some hasty prayers." " But the most re markable, and doubtless the most efficient of the ceremonies, was reserved for the last ; and surely nothing was ever devised by man which more forcibly evinced how low our nature can descend. Around the largest of the wells, which was in a building very much, to common eyes, like a stable, all those who had performed their penances were assembled — some dressing, some undressing, many stark naked. A certain number of them were admitted at a time into this holy well, and there men and women of every age bathed promiscuously without any covering. They undressed before bath ing, and performed the whole business of the toilet afterwards in the open air, in the midst of the crowd." Are not these — and they are but the thousandth part of what might be given — " signs and lying won ders after the working of Satan "? And do they not mark out, reveal to us, the Church of Rome as " that wicked," the son of perdition ? What else, who else, so clearly, fully meets and fulfils the prophecy ? This view is further confirmed by the Apostle's language to Timothy, 1 Tim. iv. 1—3 : " Now the spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doc trines of devils ; speaking lies in hypocrisy ; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from meats." The departure from the faith is evidently the same as the falling away just described ; the same great apostasy. Other and distinctive marks are here brought out. DEPARTURE FROM THE FAITH. 17 Some of the causes of the defection are mentioned : " Giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of dev ils ; and speaking lies in hypocrisy." Its cauterizing effects on the apostates, "Having their conscience seared with a hot ii'on ;" and their authority, " Forbid ding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats," are revealed. Bishop Newton's criticism on, and ex position of this passage, are so clear and satisfactory that I heartily adopt them, and give them to the reader in preference to anything I might say : " I. The first thing to bs considered is, the apostasy here pre dicted : ' Some shall depart, or rather apostatize from the faith.' An apostasy from the faith may be either total or partial ; either when we renounce the whole, or when we deny some principal and essential article of it. It is not every error, or every heresy, that is apostasy from the faith. It is a revolt in a principal and essential article when we worship God by an image or representation, or when we worship other beings besides God, and pray unto other mediators besides the one Mediator between God and man — the man Christ Jesus. This is the very essence of Christian worship, to wor ship the one true God, through the one true Christ ; and to worship any other God or any other mediator is apostasy and rebellion against God and against Christ. Such is the nature of apostasy from the faith ; and it is implied that this apostasy shall be general, and affect great numbers. For, though it be said only some shall apostatize, yet by some, here, many are understood. The original. word frequently signifies a multitude ; and there arc abundant in stances in Scripture where it is used in that sense, as the reader may perceive from John vi. 64^66 ; Eom. x. 17 ; 1 Cor. x. 5, 6. This apostasy may be general and extensive, and include many, but not all. " II. It is more particularly shown wherein the apostasy should consist, in the following words : Giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils ; or rather : ' Giving heed to erroneous spirits and doctrines concerning demons.' Spirits seem to be much the 18 THE GREAT APOSTASY. same in sense as doctrines ; the latter word may be considered as explanatory of the former ; and error sometimes signifying idolatry, erroneous doctrines may comprehend idolatrous as well as false doc trines. But it is still further added, for explanation, that these doctrines should be doctrines of devils or of demons, where the geni tive case is not to be taken actively, as if demons were the authors of these doctrines, but passively, as if demons were the subject of these doctrines. In Jer. x. 8 ; Acts xiii. 12 ; Heb. vi. 2, the genitive case is used in this manner ; and, by the same construction, doctrines rf demons are doctrines about or concerning demons. This is, therefore, a prophecy that the idolatrous theology of demons, professed by the Gentiles, should be revived among Christians. Demons, according to the theology of the Gentiles, were middle powers between the gods and mortal men ; and were regarded as mediators and agents between the gods and men. Of these demons there were accounted two kinds : one kind were the souls of men deified or canonized after death ; the other kind were such as had never been the souls of men, nor ever dwelt in mortal bodies. These latter demons may be paralleled with a.ngels, as the former may with canonized saints ; and as we Christians believe there are good and evil angels, so did the Gentiles that there were good and evil demons. It appears, thon, as if the doctrine of demons, which prevailed so long in the heathen world, was to be revived and established in the Christian Church. And is not the worship of saints and angels now, i» all respects, the same that the worship of demons was in former times ? The name only is different : the thing is essentially the same. The heathens looked upon their demons as mediators and intercessors between God and men ; and are not the saints and angels regarded in the same light by many professed Chris tians? The promoters of this worship were sensible that it was the same, and that the one succeeded the other ; and as the wor ship is the same, so likewise it is performed with the same cere monies. Nay. the very same temples, the very same images, the very same altars, which once were consecrated to Jupiter and the other demons, are now consecrated to the Virgin Mary and other saints. The very same titles and inscriptions are ascribed to both : the very same prodigies and miracles are related of fhess as of those. DEPARTURE FROM TIIE FAITH. 19 m. Such an apostasy as this — of reviving the doctrines of demons, and worshipping the dead — was not likely to take place immedi ately ; it should prevail and prosper in the latter days. The phrase of the latter times or days, or the last times or days, oignifles any time that was yet to come ; but denotes more particularly the times of Christianity. The times of Christianity may properly be called the latter times or days, or the last times or days, because it is the last of all God's revelations to mankind. Heb. i. 22. " rV. Another remarkable peculiarity of this prophecy is, the solemn and emphatic manner in which it is delivered. The Spirit speaketh expressly. By the Spirit is meant the Holy Spirit of God, which inspired the prophets and apostles. The Spirit speaking expressly may signiiy his speaking precisely and certainly, not obscuredly and involvedly, as he is wont to speak in the prophets ; or it may be said, the Spirit speaketh expressly, when he speaks in express words in some place or other of Divine Writ ; and the Spirit hath spoken the same thing in express words before in the prophecy of Daniel. Daniel has foretold, in express words, the worship of new demons or demi-gods : Dan. xi. 38. The mauzzim of Daniel are the same as the demons of St. Paul ; God's protectors, or saints' protectors, defenders and guardians of mankind. This, therefore, is a prophecy, not merely dictated by private suggestion and inspirsr tion, but taken out of the written Word. It is a prophecy, not only of St. Paul's, but of Daniel's, too ; or rather of Daniel, confirmed and approved by St. Paul. "Y. The apostle proceeds,verse 2, to describe by what means and by what persons this apostasy should be propagated and established in the world. Speaking lies in hypocrisy, ^c. ; or rather, through the hypocrisy of liars, having their conscience, &c. ; for the preposition rendered in, frequently signifies through or by. Liars, too, or speak ing lies, cannot possibly be joined with the original word rendered some, and that rendered giving heed, because they are in the nomi native case, and in this in the genitive. Neither can it well be joined in the construction with the word rendered devils, or demons ; for how can demons or devils be said to speak lies in hypocrisy, and to have their conscience seared, ^c. ? It is plain, then, that the great apostasy ofthe latter times was to prevail through the hypocrisy of liars, ^c. And has not the great idolatry of Christians, and the 20 THE GREAT APOSTASY. worship of the dead particularly, been diffused and advanced in tho world by such instruments and agents ? by fabulous books, forged under the names of the apostles and saints, by fabulous legends of their lives ; by fabulous miracles, ascribed to their relics ; by fabulous dreams and revelations, and even by fabulous saints, who never existed but in imagination. " VI. Verse 3. Forbidding to marry, Ifc. This is a further char acter of the promoters of this apostasy. The same hypocritical liars who should promote the worship of demons should also pro hibit lawful marriage. The monks were the first who brought a single life into repute ; they were the first, also, who revived and promoted the worship of demons. One of the primary and most essential laws and constitutions of all monks was the profession of a single life ; and it is equally clear that the monks had the princi pal share in promoting the worship of the dead. The monks, then, were the principal promoters of the worship of the dead in former times. And who are the great patrons and advocates of the same worship now ? Are not their legitimate successors and descendants the monks, and priests, and bishops of the Church of Eome ? And do not they also profess and recommend a single life, as well as the worship of saints and angels ? Thus have the worship of demons and prohibition of marriage constantly gone hand in hand together ; and as they who maintain one, maintain the other, so it is no less remarkable that they who disclaim the one, disclaim the other. " VH. The last mark and character of these men is ; Command ing to abstain from meats, Ifc. The same lying hypocrites who should promote the worship of demons, should not only prohibit lawful marriage, but likewise impose unnecessary abstinence from meats ; and these, too, a& indeed it is fit they should, usually go together as constituent parts of the same hypocrisy. It is as much the law of monks to abstain from meats as from marriage. Some never eat any -flesh; others, only certain kinds on certain days. Frequent fasts are the rule and boast of their orders. So lived the monks of the ancient church ; so live, with less strictness per haps, but with greater ostentation, the monks and friars of the Church of Eome ; and these have beeh the principal propagators and defenders of the worship of the dead, both in former and in latter times. The worship of the dead is indeed so monstrously DEPARTURE FROM THE FAITH. 21 absurd as well as impious, that there was hardly a probability of its ever prevailing in the world but by hypocrisy and lies. But that these particular sorts of hypocrisy — celibacy, under pretence of chastity ; and abstinence, under pretence of devotion — should be employed for this purpose, the Spirit of God alone could foresee and foretell. There is no necessary connection between the worship of the dead, and forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats ; and yet it is certain that the great advocates for this worship have, by their pretended purity and mortification, procured the greater reverence to their persons, and the readier reception to their doctrines. But this idle, popish, monkish abstinence, is as unworthy of a Christian as it is unnatural to a man ; it is prevent ing the purpose of nature, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanks — giving by believ ers, and them who know the truth." " Forbidding to marry." There are nearly a million of priests, and monks, and nuns in the Roman Catholic Church, who are forbidden to marry, and who are bound by laws and vows, oaths they might be called, never to marry. And the millions of " the faithful" in her pale are forbidden to marry in the forty days of Lent, without a permit from the confessor or bishop. Who else forbids to marry? What other church, if church this may be called? None ? Then the Church of Rome, and the Church of Rome only, fulfil this prophecy, and is the apostasy. " And commanding to abstain from meats." Rome commands to abstain from meats every Friday, and the forty days of Lent — ninety- two days in each year I In the thirteenth chapter of Revelation, the Great Apostasy is announced and described by two symbolical beasts : " 1. And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up 22 THE GREAT APOSTASY. out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. " 2. And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard^ and hia feet were as the feet of a bear, aud his mouth as the mouth of a lion ; and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority. " 3. And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death ; and his deadly wound was healed ; and all the world wondered after the beast. " 4. And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast ; and they worshipped the beast, saying. Who is like unto the beast : who is able to make war with him ? " 5. And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies ; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. " 6. And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. " 7. And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them : and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. " 8. And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. " 9. If any man have an ear let him hear. " 10. He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity ; he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints. " 11. And 1 beheld another beast coming up out of the earth ; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spoke as a dragon. " 12. And he exercised all the power of the flrst beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. " 13. And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire to come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men. " 14. And he deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast ; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they shonld SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE. 28 make an image to the beast, which had tho wound by the sword and did live. " 15. And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. " 16. And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their fore heads. " 17. And that no man might buy or sell save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. " 18. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast : for it is the number of a man ; and his number is six hundred three score and six." Before attempting to give an exposition of this chapter, or to define what these beasts represent, it is necessary to notice the character and use of symbolic language. Language is a vehicle of thought, a medium through which to communicate ideas. The word tiger means, or designates a certain animal. There may be, and frequently is, no resemblance between the sound, the name, and the thing signified. But men have agreed that the letters t-i-g-e-r shall convey to the mind the idea of that animal ; and so of other things. But the terms tiger, or lion, or lamb, &c., may be applied /^'wr aiively to a man, when he is supposed to possess dis positions, or traits of character, like those animals. Thus we say such an one is a tiger, a lion, a lamb. The idea that he is like the animal the name of which has been mentioned, is conveyed to the mind. Symbolic language is the representation of one thing by another. A city set on a hill is a representation, oi symbol, of the Church. An angel flying in the midst 24 THE GREAT APOSTASY. of heaven having the everlasting Gospel to preach to them that dwell on the earth, is a representation of the holy ministers of the Gospel going into all the world to preach its good tidings to every creature. A lamb in the midst of the throne, as seen by John, symbolizes the Son of God as the great atoning sacrifice for sin ners. The four beasts, seen by Daniel in prophetic vision, the lion, the bear, the leopard, and the fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly, represented four kingdoms. In symbolic language there is always some close re semblance ; must be some striking similitude to the object represented. A tyrannical monarchy, a blood thirsty nation, are symbolized by a ferocious beast ; a pure church by a chaste, lovely female : a fallen, cor rupt one, by a harlot. The law, then, of symbolic lan guage, is analogy. A large portion of the Apocalypse is written in this language. The seals, the trumpets, the vials, the sun, the moon, and the stars ; the woman clothed with the sun, the woman sitting on the beast, the heavens and the earth ; the new Jerusalem coming down from God out of heaven, the great red dragon, and the two beasts, &c., are all symbols. Several of them in the seventeenth chapter are explained by the angel, who was with John when these mighty panoramic scenes passed before him. The ten horns of the beast are ten kings ; the seven heads, seven mountains, or powers ; the woman, Babylon the Great, described in that chap ter, that great city, or church, v/hich reigneth over the kings of the earth ; the waters, people and multitudes, and nations, and tongues, BEAST WITH SEVEN HEADS. 25 The language of symbols is uniform as weU as the language of words. A symbol, used by a writer to convey an idea, must be used, if at aU, to convey that idea, and no other, throughout: otherwise, everything would be inextricable confusion. This is especially, emphatically so in the Apocalypse. Everything is uniform, distinct, clear. In the mighty machinery of seals, and trumpets, and suns, and angels, and beasts, &c., everything has its own, its pecuhar meaning, and that meaning till the scene is closed. If, therefore, we can divine the meaning of these types, we have the key that unlocks this mysterious book. The import of many of them we know. The angel's explanation has lifted the veil and put the key in our hands. What or whom', then, does the beast, with seven heads and ten horns, symbolize f The Roman, or as it is fre quently called, the German empire, which rose up upon the ruins of the old Roman empire. The fourth beast in the vision of Daniel typed, all know, that ancient, powerful empire. That beast and the one seen by John are similar, if not the same, representing the empire when Pagan and when Roman Cathohc. The beast seen by Daniel had ten horns ; so had the one seen by John. In each vision these horns were explained to be ten kings, who were to come into being, and reign in the then future. The one seen by John, the angel, in his explanation in the xvii. ch. 8 v. said, "Was, and is not, and yet is." He "was" when the old Roman empire was Pagan and persecuting. "Is noi," when the empire, under Constantine the Great, became Christian. His ferocity, his persecuting, blood thirsty spirit, was then annihilated by the benign, pure 2 26 THE GREAT APOSTASY. religion of Jesus Christ. The beast was changed to a lamb — " is noi." "And yet is." He re-appeared in the new empire, whose religion, intolerant and persecuting, was and is Roman Catholic. The beast was, and is not, and yet is : Pagan Rome, Christian Rome, Papal Rome, as to religion. And let it be remembered, that it was, and is, a beast, or not, according to its disposition,, its religion. The visions, then, in part, run into each other. Daniel's swept down to the tirae of the re-ap pearance of the empire as Roman Catholic in religion, with its ten horns ; and John's went back and embraced it as Pagan. That this beast symbolizes the Holy Roman Empire, as it was called, sometimes the Italian, and now the German, which was built up by Charlemagne upon the ruins of the old one which had been swept away by the barbarian hordes from the North, will more plainly appear if we closely examine his appearance, his character, and his acts. He " rose up out of the sea." This empire came into being when society, the multitudes, the nations, &c., were troubled and tossed as the sea. He had "seven heads." In this empire as its heads, or the mountains or powers on which it rested, was an electoral college, composed of seven of the most im portant principalities of the empire, which was estab lished by the "Golden BuU" in 1356. The seven electors were the Archbishops of Metz, Cologne, and Triers, the King of Bohemia, the Count Palatine, the Duke of Savoy, and the Margrave of Branden burg, who elected the emperor and were the foundation and strength of the empire. These were the seven heads. BEAST WITH SEVEN HEADS. 27 " Upon his heads the name of blasphemy." "A blasphe my," says Dr. Clarke, " is the prostitution of a sacred name to an unholy use." ' '/ know the blasphemy of them who say ihey are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satcm" "The name of blasphemy," he adds, "is very properly said to be upon the seven heads of the beast, or the seven electorates of the German Empire, because the electors are styled : Sacri Imperii Prin- cipes Electores ; Princes, Electors of the Holy Empire : Sacri Romani Imperii Electores ; Electors of the Holy Roman Empire." "And of his heads as it were, was wounded to death ; and his deadly wound was healed." This wounding occurred in 1623, and the deadly wound was healed in 1648. The Palatine Elector, Frederick V., who, for accept ing the crown of Bohemia, the Bohemians preferring him to Ferdinand H., was put under the ban of the empire, his prerogatives and honors wrested from him, and his territories given to the Duke of Bavaria. At the treaty of Westphalia in 1648, the Lower Palatine was restored to Charles Louis, son of the deposed elector, with the prerogatives and honors of his father. The Upper Palatinate, still held by the Duke, was to revert to him if the former should have no male issue. This head was wounded by the sword to death, but was healed. " The ten horns," the angel, in the seventeenth chap ter, explained to be, " ten kings." These Avere the ten barbarian kingdoms which sprung up from the vast ruins of the old empire, and were in the new. Dr. Clarke thus gives their names : "1. The 28 THE GREAT APOSTASY. kingdom of the Huns ; 2. The kingdom of the Astro- goths ; 3. The kingdom of the Visigoths ; 4. The kingdom of the Franks; 5. The kingdom of the Van dals ; 6. The kingdom of the Sueres and Alans ; 7. The kingdom of the Burgundians; 8. The kingdom of the Heruli, Rugii, Scyrri, and other tribes, which composed the Italian kingdom of Odoacor; 9. The kmgdom of the Saxons ; and, 10. The kingdom of the Lombards." He " was like unto a leopard." The empire was com posed of different nations and tongues, almost as diver sified as the spots of a leopard. ' 'And his feet were as ihe feet of a hear." This may have reference to the north-eastern extremities of the em pire, known to be exceedingly wild and ferocious. His wildness and ferocity are meant. "And his mouth as the mouth of a lion." "This figure," says one, " is to be understood as expressing the character of the head and government of the em pire. The mouth utters its commands; and when Charlemagne spoke, it was as when the lion roareth in the forest, the beasts everywhere tremble." "And ihe dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority." Who was the dragon ? In the twelfth chapter we have this description : "And there appeared another wonder in heaven ; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads." Some have supposed that this dragon symbolizes Satan ; but whenever John speaks of Satan it is in such language that we cannot misapprehend him. He speaks of him without any symbol, as Satan, the old serpent, BEAST WITH SEVEN HEADS. 29 &c. Besides, Satan, I presume, has not seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. Some have supposed that this dragon represents popery. This is as unreasonable and untenable as the view just noticed. Popery has not seven heads and crowns upon them, and ten horns. Besides, popery is symbolized in juxtaposition by the two-horned beast. This dragon was the old Roman empire. Its seven heads with crowns were the seven forms of govern ments through which that empire passed. The beast, or new empire, succeeded to the seat and power and great authority of the old empire or dragon. The color of the dragon indicates his sanguinary disposition. He was red — red with the blood of the saints — Pagan Rome was. And so the beast to whom he gave place, made war with the saints and overcame them. The German empire has made war with the saints for a thousand years. They have been over come, and their blood, by this beast, as by the red dragon, has been poured out as water. The " beast," then, to notice no other marks, with "seven heads and ten horns," who succeeded to the seat and power of the great red dragon, is ihe Holy Roman Empire, now the German empire. What or whom does the " beast " with " two horns like a lamb," and who "spake as a dragon," symbolize? Popery, beyond all doubt. Every mark, every pecu liarity, prefigures and finds its prototype in that mon strous system of corruption and wickedness and coUos- sal power. The name can be applied to, means no thing else. The beast-picture is filled up in all its savage outlines and dark proportions only by popery. 30 THE GREAT APOSTASY. ^ This beast rose up " out of tlie earth." He came up, not like the on-e with seven heads and ten horns, amid revolutions and wars, and the commotions and throes of civil society, but in a settled state of the empire, and without having to fight his way into being, and power, and dominion. He rose up without opposition and commotions, and is of this world — of "the earth" — not of God. Just so popery rose up, and such it is. He liad " iwo horns like a lamb." Horns symbolize kings, or rather the dominion, and power, and authority of kings. Popery claims universal, spiritual, and tem poral dominion. The world is his, and the fulness thereof, the Pope declares ; and he has exercised su preme spiritual and temporal authority. "Kings are his playthings, nations his outposts."* These are the horns of the beast. These horns were " like a lamb's." This denotes that the beast was of ecclesiastical origin, or pretensions. His power would be claimed to be of divine right ; and though wielded with the might and ferocity of a beast, yet in appearance very innocent. How clearly and unmistakable does this type popery. "He spake as a dragon." His horns belied his nature, his voice revealed him to be a dragon. Read the man dates of the Church of Rome ; listen to the bulls of Gregory VIL, Innocent IIL, Urban VIII., Paul IV., Pius v., &c., and even Pius IX., and hear the voice of the beast as the voice of a drao-on. O "And he exercised all ihe power of the first beast before him." Before him, imports in his presence. Popery * See Chapter V. of this work,— Spiritual and Temporal Su premacy. TWO-HORNED BEAST. 31 has exercised all the power of the old Roman, or of the German empire. Nay, all the powers of Christen dom were at one time at the feet of the Pope. "And he doeth great wonders, so thai he maketh fire to come down from heaven on the earth in ihe sight of men. And he deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by ihe means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight ofthe beast." What a graphic description of popery! What Church, or people, under heaven, who has any other mark of the beast, pretends to worlc miracles, and to make fire to come down from heaven, but the Church of Rome ? We have already seen that she claims and pretends to exercise such power. "Saying to them that dwell on the earth, ihat they shovM make an image to ihe beast, which had ihe wound by the sword, and did live." The dwellers on the earth were those among whom he rose up, and over whom he exercised dominion — the faUen Church of Rome. The "image" — what does it mean? It was to be an image of, or something exactly like, the first beast. That heast was a civil despotism, exercised by the nobil ity and mihtary, the seven heads and ten horns, with the emperor at their head — a political hierarchy, if an ecclesiastical term may be applied to temporals. The image, therefore, would be a spiritual despotic hierarchy. Such was made and now exists in the Church of Rome, at the instigation and command of the Pope. The hierarchy, consisting of cardinals, patriarchs, metropoli tans, archbishops and bishops, with the Pope at their head, is an image, a fac-simih, of the beast, with its seven electoral heads and ten horns, or kings. 32 THE GREAT APOSTASY. "And he had power io give life unio the image," &c. Into this hierarchy the Pope has breathed life, and it is a living image. It does indeed speak, and causes as many as will not worship it to be killed. "And he causeth all," &c., " to receive a mark in their right hand, or in iheir foreheads." The mark is simply the impress of the false doctrines taught. The followers and worshippers of the beast would, by a law of our nature, reflect his image ; and show in their foreheads, or inteUects, and in their hands, or acts, that they are imbued with his spirit ; stamped, sealed with his seal : does not popery thus "mark the faithfcil" in their fore heads and in their hands ? This view is confirmed by the foUowing verse : "And that no man might buy or sell, save he ihat had the mark." Councils, and Popes, and priests, have decreed and taught, that Roman Catholics must not buy of, or seU to heretics ; they " must not harbor or cherish them in their houses, or have any traffic with ihem." So decreed the CouncU of Tours. None but the faithful, in thor oughly Roman Catholic countries, are to enjoy such immunities. The mark of the beast, the reception of, and belief ia popery, must be in the forehead or in the hand, or the good papist is commanded not to have anything to do with them in " buying or selling ; thai being thus deprived ofthe comforts of humanity, ihey may be compelled to repent of ihe error of iheir ways." Thus decreed the CouncU of Lateran, with Pope Alexander m. at its head. "The pagan dragon, Dioclesian," says Mr. Mede, " made just such another edict in his time, viz., ' That TWO-HORNED BEAST. 33 no man must sell or administer anything io the Chris tians, unless they had first burnt incense io the gods.' "* And in countries where the Church of Rome is dominant, whenever her doctrines and claims are re jected, and she excommunicates, and thus takes the " mark" off the offender, all forsake him, even his rela tives, as abandoned of God, and none wUl have any deaUngs with him. He is more offensive and dreaded than a leper, and is left to die. Dr. Murray, in his letters to Archbishop Hughes, gives the case of a mUler in Ireland, who, for reading the Bible, was anathematized with beU, book, and candle, and all his Roman Catholic friends and neighbors forsook him, and but for a few Protestants he would have perished. A thousand of such cases might be given. But this buying and seUing doubtless symbolizes spiritual traffic. And who buys and sells the grace of God but the Church of Rome ? And who has any right, according to her teaching, except those who have the mark of the beast, to deal in this merchandise ? Rome has decreed, and firmly holds, that there are no means of salvation but in her pale — and these are mostly auricular confession, priestly absolution, in dulgences, masses, extreme unction and purgatory ; and they are sold and bought. " Here is wisdom. Lei him thai hath understanding count ihe number of ihe beast ; for it is the numher of a man ; and his numher is six hundred threescore and six." This is a most important revelation. That we may know who the beast is, or what he symbolizes, his niunber is given, and the number of his name. They * Quoted by Ousley. 2* 34 THE GREAT APOSTASY. are one. Is there, then, any power which meets the description already given — any Church, for we must look for something under the name of the Church, whose number and the number of whose name is 666? Until the tenth century, letters were used as nume rals. I stood for 1, L for 50, C for 100, &c. The number of a Church, or of a name, therefore, is the sum of the numerical letters which compose that name. Thus, the number of Jerusalem is 1637 : J — e=250, r=80, u— s=7, a— 1=50, e=250, m=1000=1637. Now, the Greek term (and John wrote in Greek) used by the ancients, and now used by the Greeks, to desig nate the Roman Catholic Church, Xareivog, Lateinos, contains this number. Thus, A=30, a=^l, t=300, e=5, t=10, v=50, 0=70, ?=200=666. And the Church of Rome is emphatically a, or the Latin Church. Latin is the language in which her laws and theology are written ; her prayers and her ritual are in Latin ; and Latin, though a dead language, is her language among all people everywhere. She calls herself the Latin Church ; though now generally the Roman, or Holy Roman Catholic. She is, then, in the sense the term indicates, essentially Latin. She is the beast. Ireneus, in commenting on this passage says, " The name Lateinos contains the number 666, and this is most hke truth, because the last kingdom (the Roman) hath this name, for they are Latins who now reign."* He applied it to the Latin kingdom, but the Church had not then apostatized. The7i it prophetically typed the Latin Church ; now it shows her to be the prototype. Here then is wisdom, or demonstration, as this Greek * Quoted by Ousley. CORRUPT WOMAN. 35 imports. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast : for it is the number of a man ;* and his number is six hundred threescore and six. It may be objected, that if popery, as has been argued, be the two-horned beast, then the Roman Church is not. But popery and that Church are essen tially and inseparably one ; they stand or fall together. And the prophet has symboUzed both, as of necessity, the one and the same great apostasy. The prophet in the seventeenth chapter describes the apostate Church under the symbol of a corrupt woman. " 1. And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven ¦vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, come hither ; I -will show unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters ; " 2. With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornica tion, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication. '¦ 3. So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness : and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet-colored beast, full of names of blasphemy, ha-ving seven heads and ten horns. " 4. And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet color, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand fuU of abominations and filthiness of her fornication. " 5. And upon her forehead was a name written, Mtsteky, Baby lon THE Geeat, the Mother of Harlots and Abomikations of THE Earth. " 6. And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus." This woman represents a fallen, corrupt Church ; a * Latienos was the founder of the Latin Kingdom, whence the name Latia Kingdom — Latin Church. 36 THE GREAT APOSTASY. Church deeply faUen and foully corrupt. The angel, in verse 18, explains her to be that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth, and a city sym bolizes a Church. This view is entertained, I believe, almost without a dissenting voice, by the learned of all parties, Roman Catholic and Protestant. Babylon the Great, the city, the woman, aU say, symbolically represents the fallen Church, the apostasy. What Church does this woman symboUze ? The delineation of her character and description of her person, so graphically drawn by John, leaves no doubt that it is the Church of Rome. She "sitteth upon many waters." Waters "are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.'^ (V. 15.) She also "sitteth upon a scarlet-colored beast, lull of names of blasphemy, having seven lieads and ten horns." This beast, as we have seen, is the Holy Roman, or German empire. The multitudes, &c., are subjects of the empire, and also members of the Church. Sitting upon the beast represents that she is the established religion, and that as a rider she guides and controls him. Could anything more clearly have pointed out the Church of Rome ? This prophecy has become history. " With whom the kings of ihe earth have committed fornication." This symbolizes spiritual unchastity — the practice of deep, vile corruptions in the name of reUgion. The cause of this fornication is given in the remaining part of the verse : " The inhahitants of the earth have heen made drunk with the wine of her forni cation." "The symbol," says Wickes, " is taken from the cup of drugged wine with which lewd women CORRUPT WOMAN. 37 were accustomed to inflame their lovers." The wine of her fornication, or corrupt doctrines, produces a moral stupor like intoxication, and hence kings and the multitudes are corrupted, and greedily practice with her, like the faUeu Jewish Church of old, spiritual lewdness. And " nothing but the stupor of moral in toxication could have induced the people to buy as greedUy as they did, the Pope's indulgences ; and to yield themselves the easy dupes of the pious frauds and impositions practiced upon them by their spiritual teachers."* "And ihe woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet- color, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abomina tions and filthiness of her fornication." The golden cup symbolizes the means of graces, of which she professes to be the only depository and almoner ; but instead of its being fiUed with the " water of life" to satiate the thirst of the dying, and save them, it is full of the deadly poison of error. The scarlet-color, gold, precious stones, &c., repre sent the gorgeous ceremonies, imposing processions, costly displays, and splendid rites of the apostate Church. And how clearly they point out the Church of Rome ; how fully, to the very letter, are they ful filled in her habUiments and splendidly imposing cere monies I Indeed, this passage might be construed hterally, for Rome clothes herself in scarlet color, and is decked with gold and precious stones, &c. Indeed, if a rhetorician had been employed to write a descrip tion of her gorgeous ceremonies and the color and * Apocalypse Unveiled. 38 THE GREAT APOSTASY. splendor of the dresses of her rulers, the Pope, and Cardinals, and Bishops,* he could not have more fully and clearly described them than John has. "And upon her forehead was a name written, Mys tery, Babylon the Great, &c." Babylon is another symbol of the apostate Church. Or, this is mystically the name of the woman who symbolizes the apostasy. Roman CathqUc writers af&rm that Babylon represents the city of Rome when Pagan. But the woman who bore this name was not a literal city, or the symbol of one ; for she was upon ihe beast ; and if the beast was either the old Pagan Roman Empire, or the Holy Roman Empire, and Romanists assert the former, then the city of Rome was a part of him. This would make nonsense of the passage. The beast was upon the beast ! Besides, the woman was upon the beast with ten horns and crowns upon them, not the beast of Daniel or old empire. The ten horns or kings made their appearance, came into existence after the destruction of the old empire. Babylon, therefore, does not, in any sense, symbolize the city of Rome. It symbolizes a corrupt Church, and that Church is Rome. The only meaning I can attach to the word "mystery," confirms this view. "In the Greek," says Wickes, "the word 'mystery' is not reckoned as one of the names, as in our translation, but is separated by a pause, and stands in apposition with the words preceding. The meaning is as follows : And upon her forehead • Scarlet is a favorite color at Rome. Scarlet caps, cloaks and BlipperB are worn, especially by the Cardinals. They ride In scarlet- colored carriages. Gold and precious stones are profusely worn. the CORRUPT WOMAN. 39 was a name written, which is a mystery." And when we trace the history of the Church of Rome and ex amine her doctrines, and practice, and a.ssumptions — the corruptions that fester in her bosom, while she pro claims that she cannot err — her bitter persecuting spirit, in utter antagonism to the gentle spirit of Jesus and the pure teachings and practice of the apostles, we understand the meaning of the term "mystery." The Church of Rome is, indeed, a mystery. But was the city of Rome as the seat of the old Roman empire a mystery ? "And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with ihe blood of the martyrs of Jesus." What a startling, sickening figure! Drunken, intoxicated, frenzied, not with wine, but with blood, with the blood of martyrs 1 with the blood of the rna.rtyrs of Jesus! ' And who, that this woman can possibly symbolize, has drunk to intoxication the blood of the saints, but the Church of Rome ? She has drunk the blood of mUlions. Her prisons have echoed with the agonizing wail of the "martyrs of Jesus," and her engines of torture have groaned with their breaking bones, and her places of execution have witnessed their consuming flesh and blood smoking in the flame. This harlot, drunken with blood, is the Church of Rome ; the Church of Rome is the Great Apostasy. Every prediction, then, of the working of the mys tery of iniquity in the Church— the falling away, the revelation of the Man of Sin, the departure from the faith, the uprising of the ferocious beast, lamb-like in appearance, but a dragon, and the corrupt woman in toxicated with blood— aU, aU, concurrently point out, 40 the great apostasy. designate, symboUze the Church of Rome ; and every mark, every feature, every shape, and form, and trait of character, her position and name, and faith and practice — all meet in, and are fulfilled, by her. And no other Church or • association under heaven meets and answers these descriptions, fulfils these predictions. She is the apostasy — is Antichrist. Nor is the force of this conclusion broken by the cry, that the Church of Rome is the oldest, the first Church. The history of the Jewish Church clearly demonstrates that a priesthood may become corrupt and be rejected of the God who instituted it; that a Church may fall away and become His enemy, and incur His displeasure and curse. The history of the Seven Churches of Asia, especially the Church of Laodicia, proves this. And the prophecies we have just been considering, show beyond all question that there would come a falling away in the Church, that the Man of Sin would rise up in her midst and sit in the temple of God, and teach doctrines of devUs. The objection, then, the argument, if I may so caU it, that the Church of Rome has come down from the apostles, has not only no force in it, but is a sophism. Is the Church of Rome what the Apostolic Church was? Has she come down to us as Jesus Christ laid her deep foundations and reared her bulwarks and towers? Are her doctrines and her practice the same ? These are the questions which have a direct logical "bearing upon the great issues before us, and which, if answered in the negative — and so only in truth they can be answered — show the sophistry of this objection, and demonstrate our position. In a word, is the Church of ROME not apostolic. 41 Eome to day, what the Church was in the apostles' day ? No, verily ; as we have seen, and will more fully see, when we come to examine thoroughly her doctrines, and practice, and assumptions. Now, God has decided, if anything is decided in his Word, that the doctrine, once a Church always a Church, once a priest always a priest, though unfaithful and corrupt, is fa Ise. The Church that becomes corrupt, the priest that is ungodly, cease to be the spouse and minister of Jesus Christ. To maintain the contrary is to maintain a monstrous absurdity, and a most wicked, damning dogma. If a corrupt Church is the Church of Jesus Christ stiU, can do the work of her Lord, to wit, save souls, then not only are wicked men saved, — they com pose the Church, and the Church which is his spouse, must be saved, — ^but heaven has become heU, and all distinctions between virtue and vice, sin and holiness, are annihUated. Although this is a favorite subterfuge with Rome, and sometimes great stress is laid upon it, it would be almost an insult to the good sense and in teUigence of the reader to notice it further. Sin is hateful to God in any being, and turns away from that being His favor and brijigs upon him His wrath. An apostate Church, therefore, is rejected of God, and there is no salvation in her pale. The Man of Sin is not the channel of grace to the world, his acts are not divinely, spirituaUy valid. Christ has no part with Antichrist. CHAPTER IL SOURCE AND RULE OF FAITH. In the preceding chapter I have shown that the Supreme Head of the Church predicted a great faUing away ; and, in general terms, that the Church of Rome, in name, position, doctrine, and practice, fulfils the prediction. Before proceeding to examine more fully her doctrines, and practice, and assumptions, that the picture, in outline and detaU, may be complete, it is absolutely necessary to ascertain, to know beyond all doubt, the source and rule of faith to which our ultimate appeal must be made, and by which the points in con troversy are to be determined. What, then, is the source and rule of faith ? The Bible, say we. The Bible and tradition, say Roman Catholics. "Tradition," the Council of Trent decreed, "is of equal authority with ihe Scriptures." Nor was this an entirely new dogma. For over five hundred years tradition had been appealed to as of great authority in matters of faith. Indeed, even Popes, and bishops, and divines, had afiirmed, that it is of equal authority with Holy Writ; and some, that it is above scripture. Under Leo X., and by his sanction, Prierio said, " Ho is a heretic whosoever does not rest on the doctrine of the Roman Church, and of the Roman Pontiff as ihe infallible rule of faith, from which Holy Scripture itself RULE OF FAITH. 43 derives its force and iis authority." This point gained, this dogma forever settled, (and an infallible council has since decreed it,) Rome can prove almost anything. InfaUibUity, auricular confession, priestly absolution, transubstantiation, purgatory, the supreme spiritual and temporal power of the Pope, all, all may be sus tained. Tradition, running back a century or two, or four or five, or six hundred years, establishes aU — proves them to be of divine origin ! And yet they are not only not of divine origin, but contrary to the com mandments and teaching of the Head of the Church and His inspired Apostles. This in order I shall show. Hence, when tradition and Holy Scripture disagree — and disagree they do at almost every turn — the weight of authority is given, and obedience rendered to the former by the Church of Rome, and Scripture is thrown aside. Soon after the close of the CouncU of Trent, Pius IV. prepared the oath to be taken by aU ecclesias tics. A part of it runs thus : " I firmly embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions, and all the constitutions of the mother church ; moreover, I admit Holy Scripture according to the sense which the said church holds, and has held," (that of course is according to tradition,) "to which chnrch it appertains to judge." "I firmly embrace tradition/" "Moreover, I admit holy Scripture I" Is not this putting tradition, in every sense, above Scripture ? Cardinal Bellarmine, an oracle with Rome, says, " We shall endeavor to demon strate thai ihe Scriptures, without the traditions, are nei ther sufficient, nor simply necessary." Then, tradition is first, above, and aU in aU. Take that away, and man, benighted, erring man, has no "lamp unto his feet, nor 44 THE GREAT APOSTASY. light unto his path." Baronius, another champion of Eome, says, " Tradition is the foundation of the Scrip tures, and surpasses them in this, to wit, that the Scrip tures cannot subsist unless fortified by tradition, whereas tradition has sufficient force without Scripture." Coster affirms, " The excellence of the non- written word far surpasses that of the Scriptures. Tradition comprises in itself all truth.*' We ought not to appeal from it to any other judge." "Scripture,". adds Lindanus, "is a nose of wax, a dead letter thai kills, a very husk without a kernel, a leaden rule, a school for heretics, a forest that serves as a refuge for robbers."\ These quotations might be extended. But surely here is enough to satisfy every candid, unprejudiced mind, that while Rome declares that the Bible and Tradition are the source, and the rule of faith, tradition is first and last. Scripture is nothing without tradition, " cannot subsist without it, whereas tradition has sufficient force without Scrip ture." "The non-written word comprises in itself all truth." What, then, corrupt popes have decreed, what fallible doctors have said, what councUs-general have decreed — and they have decreed Arianism at one Coun cil and the contrary at another — these things compose the Bible of Roman Catholics. Can the candid reader resist the conclusion, that Rome has " departed from the faith, and gives heed to seducing spirits and doc trines of devils " ? To return : The Scripture, say we, say all Protest ants, is the rule of faith, the only source and rule of faith. It can "subsist" alone, and "comprises in itself * The converse is certainly nearer the truth t Quoted hy Bungener. RULE OP FAITH. 45 ALL TRUTH." What say the early Fathers ? Those holy men who lived immediately after the Apostles, before the "mystery of iniquity," with its corrupt leaven, had spread through the Church. Hear Ireneus, he who was " a disciple of a disciple of John " : " The Gospel was first preached by the Apostles ; then by the will of God, they wrote it, in order that it might become the foundation and pillar of our faith." "We must," he adds, " necessarUy appeal to the testimony of the Scriptures, without which our discourses are entitled io no credit." " Our discourses are entitled to no credit with out the Scriptures " 1 Infallible Rome has decreed the contrary. Those very discourses, she affirms, the tra dition of that day, are of equal authority with the Gospel; nay, they have "sufficient force to subsist without Scripture," for they "comprise in themselves aU truth." TertulUan, writing against a simUar error in his day, says: "Let the disciples of Hermogenes show ihat what ihey ieach is written; and if ii be not written, let them tremble at the anathema pronounced on whosoever takes from or adds to Scripture." " It is necessary that every one instruct himself, by means of the divine- Scriptures, in the necessary veri ties, both that he may make progress in piety, and noi accustom himself to human traditions. What is written, do thou believe; what is not written, seek thou noi after." So wrote, so taught St. Basil. St. Ambrose taught: "If you take away or add aught to Scripture, this seems to be a prevarication. When the Scriptures do not speak, who shall speak?" " Let us not stop," wrote St. Augustine, "at what I 46 THE GREAT APOSTASY. have said, or you have said, but at what the Lord hath said. We have the Lord's books, there let us look for the Church." Augustine, hadst thou Uved in this our day, thou hadst been caUed a Protestant heretic, and been given over to the tender mercies of the devU. "Look to the Lord's books for the Church " ? "Nay, nay !" the aroused spirit of Rome repUes, "Look to tradition." The eloquent Chrysostom says : " When impious heresy shall occupy the churches, know that then there will be no proof of true faith hut by Holy Scripture. Have RECOURSE, THEREFORE, ONLY TO IT, FOR THOSE WHO GO ELSEWHERE SHALL PERISH." Was he right? Rome acknowledges him as a true son of the Church, and receives his writings and sayings as a part of tra dition. Then, Rome being judge, tradition being infallible authority, "impious heresy occupies" her " churches," and they "shall perish." But why make these reflections? Every reader must see this at a glance. Were she not blind, and her "conscience seared with a hot iron," Rome, too, could see it. But these passages, and all simUar ones, have been stricken out of the works of the Fathers published by Rome. Nothing shall contravene her in her purpose of doing her pleasure. The ruling spirit of the CouncU of Nice, Athanasius, says — and the CouncU were one with him : " The Scriptures suffice of themselves alone, for making known the truth. We are resolved to listen to nothing, to say nothing, beyond what has been written. It is a ')nockery to raise questions or discussions on what has not been written." Let us hear St. Augustine once more: "Under RULE OP FAITH. 47 pretext of the Lord's having said, ' I have yet more things to say to you,' heretics try to give a plausible color to their inventions. But if the Lord has not said, who among us wUl venture to say : It is this, it is that ! And if he is rash enough to say it, how will he prove it? And who wiU be presumptuous enough to affirm, without any divine testimony, that what he says, even although it were true, is precisely what the Lord meant to say." " Rash, presumptuous," is it ? but Rome "ventures" to "invent," "to say," to decree it. She is infalUble, and in virtue of that "invents, says," decrees that tradition is of equal authority with Scrip ture ; and then proves her infaUibUity by tradition ! Is not the "vicious circle" the ground and pillar of Rome ? But more of this hereafter. For the first eight centuries, the faith of the Church, in every sense, rested entirely on Scripture. And all the decrees of aU the Councils, Nice, Ephesus, Chalce don, &c., were drawn from, and based upon, this infal lible authority. H any aUusion was made to tradition, it was not as of equal authority with the Scriptures, but as fallible history that had come down with the Gospel. The history of the Church — her teachings, her conflicts, her sufferings, her triumphs— -was unin spired, and therefore had no authority as a rule of faith. No article of faith was drawn from, or predicated of it. In matters so essential, it was of no more authority with the Fathers, the evangelical theologians of that period, than the History of the Diet of Worms is with us. Now, if the Church for eight hundred years de clared tradition to be of no authority as a rule of faith, but pernicious and destructive when appealed to aa 48 THE GREAT APOSTASY. such, as some heretics had done ; and if she declared repeatedly and always that the " Scriptures comprise in themselves all truth;" that they, and they alone, are a sufficient, the only rule of faith — is not the ques tion settled ? And what right has Rome now, in the face of all this, to decree the contrary ? By virtue of her infaUibUity? But the Church, she affirms, is a unit, and the same in all ages. If infallible now, she was infaUible then. But then she rejected tradition and kept exclusively to Holy Scripture ! And then, she claimed not the attribute of infallibility, but reiter ated a thousand and one times that the Word of God only was infallible. How wUl the Romanist escape these dUemmas ? how bridge the mighty gulf between him and the Church in her pure, early days ? Truly, the dogma of infallibility is a chimera, and tradition a foundation of sand ! Turn we to the Scriptures themselves. What is their voice on this momentous question ? What has Jesus taught ? What the apostles ? Hear St. Paul : " All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteous ness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnishedunto all good works."* " Now to Him that is of power to establish you according io my Gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret smce the world began, but now is made manifest, and by tlie Scriptures of the prophets, accord ing to the commandment of the everlasting God, made knovm to all nations for the obedience offaith."f " For whatsoever things were written aforetime were -written for • 2 Tim. iii. 16, 17. f Rom. xvi. 25, 26. RULE OP FAITH. 49 our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope." " If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope ofthe Gospel, which ye have heard, which was preaclied to every creature."* Now, inspiration af&rms, in these passages, and who wUl deny, that God has given " Scripture for doctrine," &c., that the man of God m.s.j he perfect, thoroughly fur nished unto all good works ; that He has " made known" his wiU by " the preaching of Jesus Christ!^ sjid "ihe Scriptures of the prophets," "to all nations /or the obe dience of failh" that " we might have hope ;" and that being " grounded and settled in the faith," we might "not be moved away (by tradition?) from this hope of the Gospel." Is not Scripture, then, according to the voice of God, the only source and rule of faith ? On the other hand, listen to what the Scriptures say concerning tradition : " Beware lest any man spoil yoii through philosophy and vain de ceit, after the tradition of men." A caution that it would have been well for the souls of men, for Eome to have observed.* " I marvel that ye are so soon removed from Him that called you into the gra,ceot Chiistunto another Gospel: Whichis not another ;'' (there cannot be another ; it is vain " philosophy or tradition ;") " but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the Gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, prea-:h any otiier Gospel unto you than that which we gAVE pkeaohbd unto you, let him be accursed." " Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders .'" asked the devout, tradition-loving Pharisees of Jesus, " for," they said, " they wash not their hands when they eat bread !" " But he answer ed and said unto them, why do ye also transgress the commandmem of God by your tradition ?" " Te hypocrites, weU did Esaias pro- * Col. i. 23. 3 50 THE GREAT APOSTASY. phesyof you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoreth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect hy your tradition. " - St. Mark gives this remarkable conversation almost in the precise words of St. Matthew :t " Then the Pharisees and Scribes asked him. Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread "with unwashen hands ? He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you, hypocrites, as it is vrritten. This people honoreth me their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For, laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradi tion of men. And he said unto them. Pull well ye reject the com mandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." "Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered." The Elders and Pharisees were members of, some of them priests and rulers in, the Jewish Church. God had promised to be with, guide, bless and protect that Church. Had they not a right, therefore, to " deliver" tradition, or-> to decree that it was of equal authority with Scripture? Jesus declared that they had no such right, or authority ; and further, that their tra dition had made of none effect the commandments of God. Their tradition, therefore, was the height of presump tion and wickedness. If, then, the Jewish Church, priests and elders, as is here clearly taught by the Saviour, had no right to " dehver tradition," or decree it to be a source and rule of faith, but in wickedly attempting to do so made the « Matt. XV-. 2, &c. t Mark vii. 5, &c. RULE OF FAITH. 51 Word of God of none effect ; the Church of Rome, by parity of reasoning, has no such right : She has no promise or presence of God ; no grace and inspiration denied the former. In decreeing tradition, therefore, to be of equal, I may very safely say, superior author ity to the Scripture, she has transcended her preroga tives, and wickedly " departed from the faith." And finally, the great apostle ofthe GentUes solemnly avers that tradition led him into grievous blasphemies, persecutions, and ignorant sins. Hear his earnest, StartUng words :* " As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be ac cursed." -* * * "I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. For ye have heard of my convereation in time past in the Jews re ligion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the Church of God and wasted it ; and profited in the Jews religion above many my equals in mine o-wn nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the TV,KDTno^s of my fathers." -*-*-* "But I obtained mercy, who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor and injurious, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. "\ What! an ignorant unbeliever, and yet "being more exceeding zealous of the traditions of the fathers ! What ! persecuting zeal, according to tradition blasphe mous, injurious and damning!" Now the conclusion is clear and inevitable, that the Bible is the only source and rule of faith. And any other view is not only illogical and absurd, but deroga tory to the character of the divine lawgiver. For if * Galatians i. 9, &«. t ^ Tim. i. 13. 52 THE GREAT APOSTASY. God has revealed himself to man, that revelation must contain aU things pertaining to faith and morals neces sary to salvation. This, thank God, is the view, the doctrine of Protestants. " The Holy Scriptures," say we, " contain aU things necessary to salvation ; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be beUeved as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation." We have, there fore, thrown our banner to the breeze with this inscrip tion, "The Bible, the Bible, the reUgion of Protest ants !" upon its ample folds. That banner, in heaven's own pure breezes, shaU wave over every moral battle field where " the sacramental hosts of God's elect" shaU go — " TiU earth's remotest nation Has learned Messiah's name !" and the "philosophy, and vain deceit, and tradition of men," shall have been swept away ! What writings or books compose the Bible? or what is the canon of Scripture ? is a question of almost equal importance with the one just under review, and one about which Roman CathoUcs and Protestants as widely differ. The latter receive thirty-nine books of the Old Testament : the Pentateuch, or five books of Moses, the Historical books, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the first and second books of Samuel, first and second books of Kings, first and second books of Chronicles, the book of Ezra, of Nehemiah, of Esther ; the Poet ical books Job, the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Cantica, or Songs of Solomon, and Lamentations of Jeremiah ; the Prophetical books, four prophets the RULE OP FAITH. 53 greater, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel, and twelve prophets the less, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Hag gai, Zechariah, and Malachi ; and all the books of the New Testament. Roman CathoUcs receive all these books, and so far we are agreed ; but they receive also, as inspired and canonical, the Apocryphal books, the flrst and second books of Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, the Epis- ' tie of Jeremiah, the Song of the Three Children, the story of Susanna, the story of Bel and the Dragon, and the first and second books of Maccabees, and the additions to the book of Esther. The CouncU of Trent, at its fourth session, solemnly decreed these books to be of equal rank and authority with the inspired writ ings of Moses, and the Prophets and Apostles, and took them into the sacred canon of Scripture. The history of this decree, by Bungener,* and his acute reflections, throw much light on this question, and in connection with a few thoughts I shall offer, demonstrate that Rome is as deeply in error touching this matter as on the question of tradition. He says : " The Council was called upon to state precisely where it (Scrip ture) was to be found, and what the books are which compose it. " How happened it that such questions still remained to be de cided ? To be infallible, and to remain for fifteen centuries -without saying precisely what -went to make up the Bible, was, on the Church's part, either a singular forgetfulness of her mission, or a singular avowal of her impotence. And one cannot say here, that if she had neglected to pronounce, it was because there was no doubt on the subject. The discussion showed that there was more than one. * See Bungener's History of the Council of Trent, p. 83. 54 THE GREAT APOSTASY. " Does not the Church in arrogating to herself this absolute right of teaching, and of being the only teacher, authorize us to demand of her a reckoning of what she has not done, as well as of what she has done ? An infallible authority charged with the regulation of the faith, and a fundamental question that has remained for ages doubtful, will always, people may say what they wiU, present a con tradiction. What is certain is, that on the 1th of April, 1546, the day before that on which the Council's decision came to be known, there was not a single Eoman Catholic in the whole world that could tell, either of his own authority, for none had the right to do so, or on his Church's part, seeing she had never formally pro nounced her opinion — the exact number of the canonical books. 'Many,' says Palli-vicini,* ' lived in the most distressing ignorance with regard to this ; the same book being adored by some as the expression of the Holy Ghost, and execrated by others as the work of a sacrilegious imposter.' " " The divisions of Protestants on this subject," adds Bungener, " have never gone nearly so far as this. " The discussion was warm, and even, in some respects, sufBciently learned, but not on the part of the bishops." It is just to remark, however, as Bungener else where states, that a few of them were men of "high theological capacity." " Here, then," he adds, " should be the place for noticing the intervention of that other class of members, the divines, who had been called to the Council for the purpose of elucidating the ques tions under discussion, but without voting, that privilege being ex clusively confined to bishops, mitred abbots, and the heads of relig ious orders. Their number was at all times much about the same as that of the voting members. Were we not too tired of the sub ject to return again to the question of infallibility,! viewed in the relation to forms, we might be tempted to ask if their presence accorded with the spirit of the system in virtue of which the body * The approved Eoman Cathofic historian of the Council of Trent. t See pp, 47, 48. See also Chap. III. of this work. RULE OF FAITH. 55 of bishops is alone infallible ; with the spirit, we say, for, as respects the letter, the reply would be, that they did not vote. A great many questions were, in fact, handed over to them ; the majority of votes was in mauy instances determined by the confidence re posed in their statements. The bishops were, doubtless, right in collecting all the elucidations possible ; but one can hardly under stand how a court should remain incapable of error, and yet pro nounce its sentences according to the opinions of certain adept's who are not infallible. " Nevertheless, in the question of the canonical books, the con trary was about to take place, for in that case the decision came from the bishops. Let us see how far this was to the honor of the Council. " The divines were unanunous in recogniziag the inferiority of the books which Protestants regarded then, and still regard, as apocryphal. Could they hesitate? Josephus, Eusebius, Origen, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Cyril, Gregory of Nazianzen, Hilary of Poictiers, Augustine, Jerome above all, he who of all the Fathers had labored most on the Bible, speak of it as a generally acknowl edged fact ; and if, after aU that these have said, there is still some room for discussion as to the views they entertained of such or such a particular book of those in question, it is not the less beyond doubt that they all believed in the non-authenticity of some, and the inferiority of all. " Such, then, was the state of matters ; but this unanimity on the part of the divines, did not extend to their being agreed as to the rank to be assigned to those books in the Bible. Some wanted a simple statement of their inferiority, without determining the degree ; others, that they should be divided into two classes, one of which should serve as an intermediate between those universally admitted as canonical, and the apocryphal, which had been gener ally reputed as doubtful. A third party merely required that there should simply be a list dra-wn up, without explanation, of all the books ; and last of all, a fourth, consisting of but a feeble mi nority among the divines, without denying that the apocryphals had held hitherto a more or less inferior rank, proposed to put an end to the matter by declaring them canonical. " Will it be believed ? The last of these opinions carried the day. 56 THE GREAT APOSTASY. This was to trample under foot the testimony of twenty Fathers ; it was to deny the superabundantly demonstrated fact, that the ancient Jews did not believe ia the canonicity of those books ; it was to brave the general opinion of the Roman Catholics, as well as the recriminations of the Protestants ; it was even to overlook the scruples of the very divines of the Council. No matter ! Was the assembly not omnipotent ? And had the bishops been pleased to insert Plato's Phaedo, or Aristotle's Logic, in the Bible, what could a Roman Catholic say against it ? Ah ! when we see how much sweating and sophistry it has cost during the last three cen turies, in order to sustain this untenable decree, one may be allowed to think that the champions of Rome have more than once cursed, in their heart, the day on which so imprudent a denial was given to one of the most unquestionable facts in the whole history of the Church. But what is sadder still than the infatuation of the men who imagine that they could change the past as they fettered the future, is the impudent fury with which some would dare, do-wn to this very day, to repeat that the Protestants mutilate the Bible ; and why ? Because, forsooth, they allow themselves to print ft without those books which Rome herself, down to the Council of Trent, had never declared canonical I" " The apocryphal books were not admitted into the canon of Scripture during the first four centuries of the Christian Church. They are not mentioned ia the catalogue of inspired writings made by Melito, Bishop of Sardis, who flourished in the second century, nor in those of Origen, in the third century, of Athanasius, Hilary, OyrU of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Gregory of Nazianzen, Amphilochius, Jerome, Rufinus, and others of the fourth century ; nor in the cata logue of canonical books recognized by the Council of Laodicia, held in the same century, whose canons were received by the Catholic Church." * The apocryphal books were written by Jews of Alex andria, some two or two hundred and fifty years before Christ ; who made no claim to inspiration. "There is no evidence, external or internal, that they are of * Watson's Theo. Dictionary. RULE OP FAITH. 57 God. They contain absurd fables, and contradict themselves, and the inspired writings. The prophetic spirit had departed from the Church with Malachi, and appeared no more till the " Lord suddenly came to his temple, the messenger of the covenant." The Great Teacher never recognized them as of divine authority, or of any authority, as a rule of faith ; he never quoted them, or even alluded to them. The law of Moses, the Psalms, the book of Job, and the Prophets, aU received his divine sanction as the inspired will of God. The Apostles who spake and wrote as the Holy Ghost gave them utterance, quoted from the Law, the Psalms, the Prophets, but never from the Apocryphal books. Josephus gives us a very specific account of the canon of Scripture, as recognized by the Jews in his day, and the books of the Apocrypha are rejected. The voice of the Church for several hundred years, through her wisest, best ministers, and her Councils, was against the admission of those books into the sacred canon. And never were they received as of any authority in matters of faith, by any church or people, till the in fallible CouncU of Trent, against the views and remon strances of some of the ablest divines of that day, voted them to be equal to the Law and the Prophets. That vote stamped them with inspiration, and henceforth they are a part of the Scriptures, and, with tradition, a rule of faith ! But I may add, in language similar to that used by the great Italian PhUosopher, when Rome, through the Inquisition, made him declare the truth of science to be a Ue, it is not the wUl of God notwith standing. But why, it may be asked, as mUlions of souls wUl 3* 58 THE GREAT APOSTASY. ask, and as the Judge of aU, I beUeve, wUl ask, why decree those books to be a part of Scripture ? It an swers a purpose. Some cherished doctrines, exorcism,* priestly absolution and purgatory, receive, it is supposed, some sanction from them ; may be indirectly proved, at least, by much torturing ! And why, it may be further asked, and the question is significant, why were some of the Apocryphal books rejected by the Council ? The prayer of Manasseh and the third and fourth books of Esdras were left out. Had they not equal claims to inspiration and canonici ty? Unquestionably they had; which was just none at all. Those books, and the Targums, the Talmud, the Cabala, and Josephus, might have been very con veniently taken in, and quite as righteously too ! And then the curse, denounced against all those who "shaU add unto," or "shall take away from" the inspired Word, would no more certainly have fallen upon them, and upon their Church! The conclusion, then, is inevitable — indeed, I cannot see how moral reasoning could be stronger — that the thirty-nine books of ihe Old Testament, and all of ihe New, compose the canon of Scripture, and that, by con sequence, ihe Apocryphal books, ihat have no claim to inspiration, but are in conflict with it ; thaf were not re ceived as canonical by Jesus Christ or his Apostles, nor by Jews or Christians, until voted as such by the Council of Trent in 1546 — -form no part of it. The Scriptures, then, the Old and New Testaments, being a rule of faith, must have been designed by the * See Tobit. The heart and liver of a fish burnt ou the ashes of the perfume, drove a devil into Egypt. RULE OF FAITH. 59 gracious God who vouchsafed them, for every human being — to be put in every man's hands. This proposition is so clearly set forth by inspiration itself, so fully sus tained by the history of the Church for the first eight centuries, and, withal, so accordant with cominon sense, that, at first blush, it would seem wholly unnecessary to spend a moment in discussing it. But views, dogmas, have been entertained, and even now prevaU with regard to it, as -ndde apart as the poles, and lines of conduct have been pursued as widely divergent. Protestants beUeve that the Bible was given for all ; for universal distribution among all people and in aU languages. Hence, they distribute it gladly among all — send it out without " note or comment " wherever Providence opens a door, in heathen lands, or in de spotic Roman Catholic countries. As the Word of God, the source and rule of faith, they believe it wUl "be a light unto the GentUes," and wUl guide many a troubled spirit, that vain tradition and forms and ceremonies have utterly faUed to comfort, u.nto Him who gives the ''weary and heavy laden rest." Rome beUeves that it was given to the Church to be kept by her Priests, by them to be expounded to the people ; that no one should presume to receive it "without the annotations of the Church," and only then under the "license of a Priest," or withthe "con sent of a Bishop," and that even then, he must "form no opinion" of its teachings, on " make any interpreta tions " "contrary to the sense which the Church has held and holds, even although he should have the intention of holding these interpretations secret." So decreed the CouncU of Trent; and so "the faithful" must act, or 60 THE GREAT APOSTASY. be shut out from the possibUity of salvation. This decree amounts to a prohibition of the circulation, re ception and reading of the Bible. It has been so re garded by nearly every Pope since. The license of the Priest and consent of the Bishop may not be ob tained. This is the case at this moment in Mexico, Central and South America, and the Roman Catholic countries of Europe. But, obtained, and the Bible in hand, "no opinion must be formed," no "interpreta tion" conceived "contrary to the sense the Church holds, although the interpretation be secret" ! Who, then, wUl dare to read ? H to " form an opinion," if to conceive an "interpretation" even "in the depths of conscience" "contrary to the sense the Church holds," is a crime, then there is but one way to avoid the difficulty : never read at all ! Immediately after the close of the CouncU of Trent, Pius rV. published, and sent out to the shepherds of the flock, "a catalogue of forbidden books," accom panied with the following apostoUc opinion and injunc tion : "Experience havmg proved that the reading of the Holy Scrip tures, granted without distinction to everybody, does more harm than good, because of the rashness of men, it -wiU thenceforth depend on the judgment of the bishop, or of the inquisitor, to grant accord ing as he may he advised by the parish priest or confessor, leave to read those books, translated into the vulgar tongue by Catholic authors, io those who they know can derive from them nothing preju dicial io faith and piety. Thai permission ought to le given in writing. Whoever shall noi be furnished with ii, ard who, never theless, shall have the presumption io read or to possess the Scrip tures, shall not have it in his power to obtain the absolution nf his sins (!) if he shall' not have previously handed them over to the bishop." RULE OP FAITH. 61 But a few years after, Clement VIII. went a few steps further, if possible. Hear him : " It is to be observed th.at this rule has not conferred ou bishops and inquisitors any new powers of granting license to buy, read, or possess the Bible in the vulgar tongue, seeing that hitherto, by the order and usa^e of the holy (!) and universal Roman Inquisition, that power had been withdrawn from them — which thing ought io be rigorously observed." Then, the Word of God is bound — is denied the people, seeing " it does more harm than good" — " is prej udicial to faith and piety" ! A bishop, if his judg ment approve, " according as he may be advised by the parish priest," had the power by a written Ucense to "grant to those who" wUl read it as an automaton, and "derive nothing from it prejudicial to faith and piety," " leave to buy, read, or possess the Bible" I but that "power" is "withdrawn by the holy Roman Inquisition" ! And what does " the holy Inquisition" say ? Listen to Perez del Prado, an Inquisitor-Gene ral in Spain : " Some men have pushed their audacity to the execrable extremity of asking permission to read the Bible." This was in 1750. No less than five buUs, from four Popes, have been sent forth against Bible societies in the last forty years ; one every eight years.* Pius VII. calls them " the most malignant of inventions, the destruction of Vie faith, a new kind of tares, an irreparable ruin." And in a brief issued to one of his bishops who had permitted some of the flock to purchase Bibles of one of the Societies, he says : » See one in Chap. IV., under the head of Intolerance. 62 THE GREAT APOSTASY. " We have been overwhelmed with much profound distress, on being made acquainted with the dismal project, such as was never conceived before, of disseminating everywhere the most holy books ofthe Bible in the new translations made contrary io the Church's salutary regular tions." Leo XII. says : " Several of our predecessors have made laws for averting this scourge. In our own time, Pius VH., of happy memory, issued two briefs. In those briefs we find testimonies drawn either from Holy Scripture (!) or tradition, to show how hurtful this invention is to faith and morals '. And we, too, that we may acquit ourselves of our apostolic duty, exhort you to withdraw your flocks from these deadly pastures .'" The Bible, the Word of Life, "Deadly Pastures" ! ! Pius the Vni. and Gregory XVI. foUowed the ex ample of their illustrious predecessors ; and urged the bishops " to remove from the hands of the faithful the Bible." Pius IX. declares that " they are the enemies of human society who circulate the Bible." And this was only seven years ago. In Portugal it is a misdemeanor^a violation of law, a crime, to possess or read the Bible. The punishment is three years imprisonment. In Spain it is a crime to be punished " with death by fire."* In Savoy, the near est point of which is only "two leagues from Geneva," it is imprisonment "for ten years in the Castle of Pig- nerol" ! In Tuscany, who does not know that it is a crime the penalty of which is loss of estates, and rank, and imprisonment? And in every Roman Catholic country in Europe it is a crime to be punished with fines and imprisonment, or death. * She has somewhat relented. The Bible is now secretly read. RULE OP FAITH. 63 Nor is this hellish malice directed against the Bible published by Protestants, as a Protestant Bible, as Ro man Catholics sometimes affirm, but against the Bible itself The above extracts clearly demonstrate this. But further : some of the Bibles circulated in France and burnt by priests, Avere published from a translation of the Vulgate, made years and years ago* by Sacy, a Roman Catholic. The Bible, distributed in 1816 in Poland, which called forth the anathemas of Pius VIL, was printed from a translation of Wink, a Jesuit of 1599. It is the Bible, then, against which Rome directs her impotent rage. It is a " deadly pasture," a " school for heretics," a "forest that serves as a refuge for robbers." The Bible is against Rome, and therefore Rome is against the Bible. But let us listen to the blessed revealments of Heaven, in reference to the point involved in this singular controversy. What is the voice of that gi-a- cious Being, who, in the dispensations of His mercy, has revealed to benighted man His mind, to " bring life and immortality to light"? Has He proclaimed that the Bible is given for the priesthood alone, and by them to be expounded to the people, or for all men- — to be put in the hands and engraven on the memory of every man ? A clear indication of His will surely ought to decide this question : " Behold I have taught you statutes." " Keep, therefore, and do them, for this is your wisd(Mi and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people." * * * " Teach them thy sons, and thy sons' sons."* * Approved at the time by Eoman CathoUc bishops, f Deut. iv. 5. 64 THE GREAT APOSTASY. " Gather the people together, men, and women, and children, and the stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the Lord your God, and observe to do all the words of this law ; and that their children, which have not Imown anything, may hear and learn to fear the Lord your God."* " And when they shall say unto you, seek unto them that have ^amiliar spirits, and unto wizards that peep and that mutter — shonld not the people seek unto their God ? To the law and io the testi mony : if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."f " Seek ye out of the book ofthe Lord and read."% " Search the Scriptures ; for in them ye think ye have eternal life ; and they are they which testify of me. * * * Por had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me ; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words. "^ Now, this vvhole passage shows that the promiscuous multitude to whom Jesus spake in the Temple, pos sessed or had access to and read the writings of Moses. Jesus commanded ihem to search his writings. " Jesus answered and said unto them," the Sadducees, " Te do err, not knowing ihe Scriptures."^ " Do ye not therefore err," said the Saviour as recorded by Mark, " because ye know not ihe Scrip tures." " Have ye not read in ihe book of Moses ?" " These were more noble," the Bereans, " than those in Theasa- lonica, in that they receive the word -with all readmess of mind, and searched ihe Scriptures daily, whether those things were so."^ Did Paul tell them they were wrong? Did St. Luke, in recording, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, their honest zeal, in searching the Scriptures, rebuke them ? Not one word of it. They were right ; Paul knew they were right ; and St. Luke approves. * Deut. xxxi. 12. f Isaiah viii. 19. J Isaiah xxxiv. 16. § John V. 39, 46, 47. || Matt. xxii. 29. U Acts xvii ] 1. RULE OP FAITH. 65 The inspired epistles of Paul, Peter and John, were addressed not to priests, but to the churches; "the brethren" at Rome, (where was Peter?) Corinth, PhUippi ; " to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia," and to a " lady and her children."* By them they were to be read and sent to others io be circulated. "I charge you, bythe Lord, that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren," wrote Paul to the Corin. thians. Dr. Clarke, in commenting on this passage, says : — " There must have been some particular reason for this solemn charge ; he certainly had some cause to suspect that the epistle would be suppressed in some way or other, and that the whole Church would not be permitted to hear it. There is no doubt that the apostles designed that their epistles should be copied and sent to all the Churches in the vicinity of that to which they were directed." And in connection with this charge, speaking of the " mystery ofiniquity," Dr. Clarke very properly adds : " Whatever may be intended here by the words, ' mystery of iniquity,' we may safely assert that it is a mystery of 'iniquity to deny the use ofthe sacred Scriptures to the common people ; and that the Church that does so is afraid to come to the light. Nothing can be more preposterous and monstrous than to call people to em brace the doctrines of Christianity, and refuse them the opportunity of consulting the book in which they are contained. Persons who are denied the use of the sacred writings may be manufactured into different forms and modes, and be mechanically led to believe cer tain dogmas, and perform certain religious acts ; but without the use of the Scriptures they never can be mtelligent Christians ; they do not search the Scriptures, and therefore they cannot know Him See 1 Peter, i. 1 ; 2 John i. 1 ; See Colossians, iv. 10. 66 THE GREAT APOSTASY. of whom these Scriptures testify. The mystery ofiniquity contained in this prohibition ivories now, and has worked long ; but did it work in the apostles' times ? Did it work in the Church of Thessa^ lonica ? Is it possible that the present crop should have been pro duced from so remote a seed? What does that most solemn adju ration of the apostle mean : ' I charge you by the Lord, that this epistle be read unto ail tlie holy brethren' ? Why was such a charge necessary ? Why should it be given in so awful a manner ? Does it not absolutely imply that there would be attempts made to keep all the holy brethren from seeing this epistle ? And can we con ceive that less was referred to in the delivery of this very a-wful ad juration ? This mystery of iniquity did work then in the Christian Church ; even then attempts were made to hide the Scriptures from the common people. And does not this one consideration serve more to identify the prophecy than anything else ? The mystery of iniquity continues still to work ; and with aU the pretensions of the Romish Church, the Scriptures are in general withheld from the people, or suffered to be read under such restrictions, and -with such notes, as totally subverts the sense of those pages on which this Church endeavors to build her unscriptural pretensions. It is gene raUy allowed that the 'Vulgate version is the most favorable to these pretensions ; and yet even that version the rulers of the Church dare not trust in the hands of any of their people, even under their general ecclesiastical restrictions, without their counteracting notes and comments. How strange is this ! Surely truth has nothing to fear from the Bible." On the other hand, there is not one word, in the Law or the Prophets, in the teachings of Jesus Christ or his Apostles, that can be construed, by any fair rules of exegesis, into the idea, that the Scripture was to be kept by priests from the people. There is not one word against their free circulation in every nation under heaven. What say the Fathers? Writing to a lady, St. Basil afiirms : RULE OF FAITH. 67 " If thou knowest how to search in Scripture, for the succors that it offers, thou wilt not have need either of me or of any one." St. Ambrose says : " Holy Scripture edifies everybody. We speak to Ciirist when we pray ; we listen to him when we read the Smpiures." Words that ought to be written with the point of a - diamond in pictures of gold, and suspended in the dwelUng of every man. " The heavenly oracles have been written for the whole human race. Even husbandmen are in a condition to learn, there, wliat it is fitting for ihem to know. Tlu learned and the ignorant, children and women, may equally instruct themselves there." "It is for the whole people that tlie Apostles wrote. The laity ought to abound in the knowledge of the Holy Scriptures,"* "Continue to listen at church to the reading of Holy Scripture, and read it over again in your houses."f " When di-vine things are what we have to do with, should we bend our necks and submit at once to the opinions of others ? Consult, then, the Scriptures. The Holy Ghost intrusted the composition of them expressly to illiterate men, in order that every one, even the least educated, might understand the Word and profit by it. Let none offer me these wretched excuses : I must earn my bread ; I must find food for my children. It is not for me to read the Scriptures, but for those who have renounced the world. Poor man I Is it then because thou art too much distracted with a thousand cares that it does not belong to thee to read the Scriptures ? But ihou hast still more need of this than those who have withdrawn from the world in order to devote all iheir time to God." So wrote the eloquent, sincere, holy Chrysostom. Had he written an argument, by prophetic inspiration, against the present views and proscriptive course of Rome, he could not more fully have met her objections and answered her arguments. * St. Jerome. + St. Augustine. 68 THE GREAT APOSTASY. Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Origen, St. Bernard, whom Rome delights to honor, and a host of others, the moral heroes of the ages in which they lived, who illumined, as beacon - lights, many centuries of the struggling Church, are all of one mind, touching this question. With one accord they exhort the people to " Search the Scriptures ;" " to be well exercised therein, . that no part of them be unknown," " and to persevere in nourishing themselves in the Word of God." Every CouncU of the Church that alluded to the subject in any way, Nice, Chalcedon, &c., for nine hundred years, urged the circulation of the Scriptures, and the people to possess and read them. In the ninth century the voice of the Church was heard through the Council of Aix-la-ChapeUe in the following earnest strain : " Let young women even love the Holy Scriptures. Let them draw wisdom from the books of Solomon ; form themselves to patience by reading the book of Job ; and then take up the Holy Gospels, never to quit them again."* Several of the Popes from the sixth to the tenth cen tury, earnestly advocated the circulation and study of the Scriptm-es. I say from the sixth ; for up to that time the bishop, or humble pastor of Rome, should not be called by that inflated, unscriptural title. They were not Popes. They also advocated, with fervent zeal, the circulation and study of the Inspired Word. The Bible, then, was given for aU. God himself declares, and the ApostoUc Church teaches, that it was given for every creature. It was * Bungener. RULE OF FAITH. 69 vouchsafed to be known and read of all men ; that the wayfaring man, in every clune, might not err in the way that leads up to life immortal. And he who reads and obeys its heavenly pages without priest's or con fessor's consent, or bishop's license, humbly trusting in the grace of Him who inspired it, and the Ught and re newing of the Holy Ghost, " shall come to Zion with songs of everlasting joy upon his head, and sorrow and .sighing shaU flee away." " Tet there were at Trent, and there are still people who are ready to denounce as new, the idea that the Bible is for all ! It was thought monstrous that Luther should have translated it into the vulgar tongue ; what then did Jerome do when he translated it into the Latin? What did Ulphilas, one of the Fathers of Nice, do, when he translated it into the language of the Goths ? Why did the venerable Bede say -with joy, that in his time Scripture was read in England in five different languages ? Why, according to Augus tine, is it 'by the wisdom of God ' that Scripture, ' from one sole language in which it was originaUy, has been multiplied into an in finity of languages and dialects, in order that it may be diffiised everywhere ?' Wherefore so many ages, so many councils, without the smaUest word of blame directed against those daily exhortations, against that infinity of translations, against those efforts to prevent there being a country, a village, a house, without the Bible ?"* It follows, then, the Bible having been given for every man, that it must be translated into the language of aU men. How else can they know it as the wUl of God, the rule of faith, and understand, believe, and obey? ' Even things -without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shaU it be known * Bungener's History of the Council of Trent The most of the quotations from the Fathers I have taken from him. 70 THE GREAT APOSTASY. what is piped or harped ? For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shaU prepare himself to the battle ? So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shaU it be known what is spoken ? for ye shaU speak into the air. There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification. Therefore, if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shaU be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he tliat speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me. Wherefore, let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret. In the Chnrch I had rather speak five words with my understand ing, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue."* Thus wrote an inspired Apostle ; and thus God has decided this question. When God, therefore, gave his law to the Hebrews, it was in Hebrew. When Jesus Christ taught, it was in the language of the people whom he taught. When the Evangelists and Apostles wrote, it was in the lan guage that the people understood. When it became necessary that the "law and the prophets" should be known in Greek, they ¦ were translated, by learned Jews, into that language. And when the Latin became a prevaUing tongue in the Church, the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New, were translated, mostly, by that eminent Father, Jerome, into that language. Hence called Vulgate.f That, with certain emenda- iionSj-Jl. alterations and improvements, is the translation, the Bible which Rome declares " shall only be authen tic !" and which she withholds, as we have seen, from the people, even in Latin, and which she utterly re fuses to have translated into the vernacular tongues of the millions of the nations of the earth who are per- * 1 Cor. xiv. 7, &c. t Editio Vulgata. t See Bungener, p. 91. RULE OF FAITH. 71 ishing for lack of knowledge. But why, we might ask, have a translation at all ? Why not declare the origi nal Hebrew and Greek texts "only authentic"? Why not keep the sacred oracles in the mother tongue of tho sainted seers of Palestine, and in the flowing language of the mighty dead of Greece ? And if a translation into one language be aUowable and right, why not into others ? Why not have an English, French, Spanish, German Bible ? The motives which were then right and acceptable in the sight of God surely are now ; the motives that moved the benevolent heart of the good Jerome to translate the Word of God, then locked up in the dead languages of the Hebrews and Greeks, into the language of the people of his day, are in full force now, and shoiUd move us, and ought to move Rome, to give it to all people in their own, their native dialects. This, thank God, Protestants have done, and are doing. And in this, again, they have shown that they are right, and compose the true Church, whose piUar and ground is ihe truth. CHAPTER ni. DOCTRINES OP THE CHURCH OF ROME. Infcdlibility. I SHALL now proceed to examine, in the Ught of Revelation, some of the doctrines of the Church of Rome; doctrines which have been decreed by her councUs-general, or have emanated from her Popes, or, by common consent of the Church, have become set tled dogmas in her creed. Are they drawn from and sustained by the Scriptures? If an honest, truthful examination, in answer to this question, demonstrates that they are not, but are in utter antagonism with the Word of God, then, indeed, has she "fallen away," — is "the Man of Sin"— "the beast." And first in order, and first in importance, is Infalli bility. This has never been decreed an article of faith by any CouncU or Pope ; it has always been deemed wholly unnecessary ; but it is not the less a settled doctrine of this Church. Popes and bishops, priests and people, have affirmed it, promulgated it, reiterated it, times without number. " Our Church," says an honored, faithful son of Rome,* by virtue of her infallibility, to which she alone has an exclu sive title, claims a divine right to regulate the faith of aU Christians. This is our fundamental tenet, our stronghold ; if this * Thayer, quoted by Ousley. (72) DOCTRINES — INFALLIBILITY. 78 be solid, the plain consequence is, that every Christian is bound to submit his conscience to her decisions, and to receive her interpra- tation of Scriptures. And until this, our foundation, be overturned, aU attempts to show the usurpations of our Church are extremely ridiculous ; but when it is proved we are deceived in this, when this, our stronghold, is onpe destroyed, then, indeed, aU our pretensions faU at once to the ground ; then only may the Scriptures be pleaded for as the only rule of faith, and the independency of conscience be established."* The Roman Catechism, that Bible of Roman Catholic chUdren, says, " The Church cannot err, either in ihe faith, or ihe rule of manners^ Gregory XVL, in his encyclical letter of 1832, thus teaches : " It would be criminal and altogether contrary to the respect due to the laws of the Church, to carp at the discipline which it has established : as it is certain, to use the words of the Council of Trent in their thirteenth session, that the Church has been taught by Jesus Christ and his Apostles, that she is under the constant teach ing of the Holy Ghost, it is altogether absurd to moot the idea of a regeneration — as if she couid be thought capable of falling." But where does this infalUbiUty reside ? This ques tion has never yet been settled. There are in reference to it, views as wide apart, opinions as radically differ ent, emphaticaUy entertained and put forth by all orders and parties in the Church of Rome, as have ever divided Protestants on any question so vital. So much for the vaunted unity of "the Church." One party affirms, that it resides in the Pope, and in him alone. Hear Lainez in the CouncU of Trent; Lainez, the general of the Jesuits and successor of Loyola, the pampered friend and mouth-piece of Pius IV. : * 'This is the hated higher-law doctrine in naked impudence. 4 74 THE GREAT APOSTASY. " Each bishop is fallible ; an assembly of bishops therefore ia fallible also,* and if you admit their decisions as infalUble, you admit, by that of itself, that this infaUibUity comes from elsewhere — that is to say, from the Pipe, for he alone is called to confirm its decrees. Did the authority of CouncUs proceed from the bishops who compose them, how could we give the name of councils-general to those which were never reckoned more than a very small part of the episcopal body ? Under Paul ni.,t have we not seen the most important questions decided by fewer than fifty bishops ? If their decrees have become laws of the Church, it is not, evidently, because fifty bishops have been found of the same opinions, but because the Pope, approving of their opinions, has given them the force of law. In every Council, however numerous, if the Pope be present, it is the Pope alone who pronounces ; witness the formula Approbante concilio or Prasente coiincilio, employed in this case, according to which it is clear that the Pope begins by pronouncing, and that the part of the bishops is reduced to a simple declaration of adhesion, a declaration which they could not refuse, either individually or as a body."t This doctrine was received with marked approbation by a large majority of the Council ; the partisans of the Pope. Pius IV., and his court, hailed it secretly, with demonstrations of j oy. It was therefore the Pope's and even the Council's theory of infallibility. It was tlie doctrine of the Jesuits and of the Ultramontane party. It is their doctrine now. And they now compose eight- tenths of the Roman Catholic Church. But it was met with keen criticism, and a stern spirit of opposition by * This is good sense and good logic also. + The firet session of that very counoU (Trent) under Paul III., there were present three legates, four archbishops, and twentv-two bishops —twenty-nine in all. The second, forty-three prelates, all told. And that was a general council. X Quoted by Bungener. See, also, PalH-vicini. DOCTRINES-^INFALLIBILITY. 75 the GaUican party, mostly French and German prelates, ahd by some Spanish bishops. " The Church, then," they retorted, " is no longer the spouse of Jesus Christ, but a slave prostituted to the caprice of a man I This monstrous system, invented scarcely fifty years ago, we must hear supported in full Council ! By whom ? By an isolated and unknown doctor ? No ; by a man openly protected by the Pope, openly cried up at Rome as the champion of the Church. The other re ligious orders, it would appear, have not done enough of mischief so that a new one'.' (the Jesuits) " was required, already more famous for its encroachments within, than for its successes -without the Church. If ever there were Councils in which the Pope alone pro nounced, it was an abuse and a usurpation. In the decree of the Council of Jerusalem, transcribed at length in the book of the Acts, the preamble runs — ' The apostles, and elders, and brethren.' Not only is St. Peter not mentioned, but the decree is drawn up in con formity -with the advice of St. James, who spoke the last."* Is not this a sufficient refutation of Papal infallibility f A refutation all the more acceptable because it came from as high, as able, and as honorable members as any in the CouncU. At any rate, it is good Protes tantism. Had the Lutherans been admitted to the CouncU, they could not have spoken out, in so many words, with more historical truth, and correct Scrip tural exegesis. But what theory did they, the Galileans and oppo nents of Lainez and his party, the Ultramontane, advo cate ? for they firmly held the dogma of infaUibiUty. Why, that councUs-general, legally summoned, and legally organized, are infallible. Their views are somewhat confused and contradictory. That, as I shall show, in the proper place, was singular demon- * Sarpi and Pallivicini differ in their details of this controversy. 76 THE GREAT APOSTASY. stration of their infaUibUity. But Usten to one of the bishops who, at the opening of the CouncU, affirmed that it could not err, and yet it seems from other asser tions, believed as much of the Pope : "The time is come when God must speak, and wUl speak. Were you to remain in impenitence," (!) said he to his brethren, " do not go on to imagine that thus you would have it in yimr power to shut the mouth of God I Happen what may in that respect, the Holy Ghost -will flnd it easy to open yours, and employ it in his service. * -» * * If yo^p hearts are pure, so much the better ; if they are not, slill the voice of the Council will noi the less be God's voice I" The GaUican, or, as I may call it, liberal party, warmly advocate this theory to this day, and wUl have no other. The writings and speeches of their ablest divines and prelates abound with arguments to de monstrate that infalhbility resides only in councils- general, and, by consequence, not in the Pope. Another theory: A party, once very nuinerous, but now greatly in the minority, if it exist at aU, teaches that the Council and the Pope, the Pope at its head, are infallible ; that infaUibUity can only be pre dicated of this union. One of this class thus defines their views : " Infallibility is not in the Pope, nor is it in a Council, in the whole of the bishops together, but it is in the majority of the bishops united with their head, the Pope."* " I venture not to cast the smallest doubt on the infaUibUity of councils-general ; all I say is, that it holds this high privilege of its head, to whom the promises were made."f Another party, (how many are there touching this "fundamental tenet" of "the Church," whichis a unit?) * Thayer. t De Maistre. DOCTRINES — INFALLIBILITY. 77 teaches that infallibility resides in the ivhole Church, the Pope, cardinals, bishops, orders, priests, people. A few able names support this theory. It is kindred to the one last named. To avoid the difficulties growing out of these theories —and they aU have insuperable ones — Duperron ad vances another. It is neither ingenious, nor escapes the sophistries that environ the question, and withal, is rejected by all parties. Hear him : " The infaUibUity presupposed as residing in the Pope, is not meant as implying that he is aided by God's Spirit in having the necessary Ulumination for deciding all questions, but it consists in this, that all the questions i-OMihiehhe feelshimself sufficiently assist ed with the light required for judging them, he decides, but with re spect to others in which he does not feel himself sufficiently assisted with light, he remits to the Council." The "presupposed" infallibility of the Pope then is intermittent/ He is infallible and not infallible! In a word, if inspired, he is infallible, but if the divine " iUumination" come not, he is an erring man again ! This is true certainly ; all Protestants wUl unhesita tingly admit this. Who would not ? But what if the Pope should be mistaken ? — and say what you wUl, he is not inspired. What if he imagine that he has " the Ught required for judging," and it be but the scintU lations of a disordered brain, or the false glare of an excited fancy? And the history of the papacy de monstrates that both these suppositions have again and again occurred. Momentous questions of faith, bind ing the souls of men, and affecting their eternal inter ests, have been decided without "the light required to 73 THE GREAT APOSTASY. judge" infallibly. The "infaUibUity presupposed," therefore, in all such cases, did not exist. But another fatal objection lies against this hypo thesis. The Popes have never, I believe, " remitted" questions " to the CouncU," believing or acknowledging that they had not "sufficient light" to decide them. Paul IV., and a host of others, maintain directly the reverse. Through form, or to legalize them, they have been "remitted." Duperron, therefore, is unwit tingly made to advocate the theory that the Pope only is infallible ; an untenable dogma, to escape which his hypothesis was conceived. It merits no further reply. Once more, and finally : " InfaUibUity in the spiritual order, and sovereignty in the tem poral order, are two perfectly synonymous words. When we say that the Church is infallible, we do not ask any special pri-vilege for it ; we only ask that it should enjoy rights common to all pos sible sovereignties, all of which should necessarily reign as infaUible, for all government is absolute ; and from the moment that it may be resisted under the pretext of error and injustice, it no longer exists." This is the theory of De Maistre, in his work Du Pape. It can certainly meet with but little favor with any party. Why, whoever dreamed before, that temporal sovereigns, resisted or not resisted, are infaUible in any proper sense of that term. Do they ever claim it? But if they do, what then is gained ? Her most Catho lic Majesty of Spain, steeped in coiTuption as she is, and the quibbling, persecuting, blood-thirsty Emperor of Austria, are as far from it as the Arabian Nights' Entertainment is from being a rule of faith. This DOCTRINES — INFALLIBILITY. 79 theory, therefore, effectually ignores infalUbUity. Hence, I shall not. allude to it again. There are then half a dozen theories put forth, and learnedly, zealously advocated, shall I say, by the infallible, in reply to the question, where does infalU bUity reside ? How many more have been suggested, and how many more wUl see the light, who can tell ? But, notwithstanding, "ihe Church is infallible" 1 "can not err," cannot " be ihoughi capable of falling" ! Oh no ! This " is a, fundamental tenet," " h.eY foundation," " her stronghold." Very well. Where is it then ? where are we to look for it ? Is the Pope infallible ? No ! a multitude, from the very bosom of the Church, reply. Are councUs-general infallible ? No ! a more numerous multitude with startling emphasis reply. Are councUs-general and the Pope united, infallible ? No ! no ! respond Popes, Jesuits, Ultramontanists, Galileans. Does it reside in the whole Church ? No 1 respond the same excited, widely-separated parties, united only in this negation. Where is it then ? We are anxious ; we are interested to. know. Where is it then ? No response is heard ; the oracle is dumb, and wiU forever be dumb. For the simple reason that one single word forms the only rational, tenable reply that can be given — it is nowhere ! But let us examine these theories save the last two somewhat more at length. Does infallibility, then, re side in ihe Pope ? as taught by Lainez, in the face of the assembled wisdom and might of Roman Catholic ism, at Trent ; and as boldly affirmed by Paul IV., and a host of others. I unhesitatingly and confiden tially take the negative. Here, then, we are at issue. 80 THE GREAT APOSTASY. LogicaUy, the onus probandi is with the affirmative. I wiU not .wait, however, for arguments and facts, clear and convincing, to demonstrate the truth of this theory ; they wUl never come : I will, as I think can easily be done, demonstrate the contrary — -that the Pope is but a faUible, erring man. I will meet this question fairly and fuUy ; examine it as thoroughly as the brief space aUowed for the investigation wUl permit ; aye, sift it to the very bottom. And fortunately for me and for the world, the history of the Popes is before us. What they have believed, said, done, is on record. From hence we snatch our weapons ; draw our arguments. Let us then go up this stream, muddy as it is, to its very source ; and examine its edyings, shoals, depths and meanderings. And flrst qfall, the Pope is not infallible in morals. When Gregory XVI. died, the immediate predeces sor of him who now wears the tiara, masses were said throughout the Roman Catholic world for the repose of his soul. What! masses said, prayers uttered, sacrifices offered up for the repose of the soul of him who was infalhble ! And said and offered, too, by the very priest, and in the presence of the very people, who had caUed him " holy Father," and bowed to him as infallible ! All this occurred, and in these United States not a dozen years ago. But what could disturb him, "the holy Pope Gregory," in eternity? He left hehindMm iwo flne daughters, who now reside in Rome ;* though beyond the law of God, he was bound by an oath of celibacy ! * This is weU known to travellers who visit Eome DOCTRINES — INFALLIBILITY. 81 Paul IIL made his son a duke,* and his grandsons cardinals, to the great scandal, says a historian, of morals and religion in Italy. Bungener thus speaks of him, and speaks truthfully: " He expired on the 10th of Nov. 1549, charged with a very heavy load of deeds to be answered for in the eyes of religion and of history. God struck in the quarter where his offences liad been greatest. After having trampled under foot all laws, and all the proprieties of life, in his eagerness to load with wealth and honors the chUdren whom he should have blushed to o-wn, it was on hear ing of the treason of his grandson Octavius, secretly in league -with the emperor, that he felt his end approach. In less than three days he died. Had he in his last moments any re-awakenings of conscience and signs of piety ? Did the first gleams of eternity, as he ap- proached it, make him see at last in its true light his long course of trickery with the strong, of violence with the weak, of lies to men and to God?" *-*-**-* " In hina, we have not to do with striking and isolated crimes ; his life exhibits a long tissue of immoralities, that are neither murders nor incests, but for which Roman Catho licism and the popedom remain and wiU eternaUy remain in part responsible." Now, can even a candid Roman Catholic believe that he was infallible ? Did the prelates and priests, and people of his day, in the midst of all his trickery and oppression, ever dream that he could not err ? Why, even PalUvicini, who was ever ready with sub terfuges and denials, to throw the mantle of charity over his masters, does not intimate that he was pure. "Prince of glorious memory!" he exclaimed, "he showed himself man only in the excess of his affection for his own ; in all other respects he merited in the eyes of the Church the name of hero." Not one word of * PalUvicini states this -without any palliation 4* 82 THE GREAT APOSTASY. infallibility ; he knew full well that in him it resided not. "Prince of glorious memory;" the father of ille gitimate children ! "Man in the excess of his affec tion for his own ;" gave his son a dukedom and his two grandsons cardinals' hats !* " In aU other respects he merited the name of hero ;" intrigued with Charles V. and Francis I.'; made overtures and pledges toeach against the other ; promised men and means to march against the Protestants; and finally, to appease the wrath of the emperor, who had launched a terrible protest against him,f offered to proclaim him King of England, and to furnish him with troops for the con quest of that kingdom ! His position, we know, was environed with difficul ties. The Reformation had swept away kingdoms and provinces from the domain of the Church. Its march was onward. Charles V., though at heart a bigoted Romanist, to give peace to his empire, and stabUity to his throne, desired and urged upon "his Holiness" to make some concessions to the Protestants. He further more demanded that the Pope reform himself, his court, and that .bishops be declared such, jure divino. To all which Paul was irreconcUably opposed. Francis also demanded some reform at Rome — the Pope's court must have been fearfully corrupt — and the doctrine of divine right. And, .besides, Francis and Charles had been engaged in a deadly struggle, and the smothered fire still burnt in their hearts. To openly favor the '• One was fourteen and the other sixteen years old. t Pallivicini says, " This was a thunder-clap launched hy a Jupiter who had the lightning in his hand." Where was the thunder of the Jupiter of the Vatican ? — Bungener. DOCTRINES — INFALLIBILITY. 83 latter, was to turn the diplomacy, and perhaps sword of the former, against him. And to espouse the cause of Francis, was to provoke another "thunder-clap'' from the " Jupiter who had the lightning in his hands." What was he to do ? Promise, as he did, and deceive ? Intrigue, advance, retreat? Exhausts the arts of diplo macy, in endless evasions, and then, as he did, threaten the wrath of St. Peter? Why did not infallibility clip the Gordian knot and guide him out of this laby rinth ? Why ? Oh ye advocates of papal infaUibUity, answer. Had the pure-minded, heroic, inspired Paul, the aposile, been there, all these difficulties had vanished as mist before the rising sun ; and the charge of double-dealing, of falsehood, would never have stained his fair fame. Clement VIL, Paul's immediate predecessor, was en vironed with similar, or greater difficulties, and was guUty of as much dissimulation and falsehood. The royal conscience of Henry VIIL, of England, was troubled to live with Catharine, his lawful, queen, who had been the wife of his brother, now deceased.* He asked Clement to divorce him. He promised. Charles v., the brother of Catharine, demurred, with threats of dire ruin to all concerned. Clement promised him in turn that he would not divorce Henry. Then com menced a race of diplomacy unparaUeled in the corrupt annals of that Satanic art. Henry pressed his suit, and the Pope lent him one ear, and made him gracious promises. Charles returned again and again to the charge, and the Pope, with agitated nerves, lent him the other ear, and emphatically declared that he never • He was enamored with one of her maids. 84 THE GREAT APOSTASY. would grant the divorce. The affairs of the emperor having taken an unfavorable turn, as he was pressed by the heroic arms of Francis I., who was backed by the sympathy and good will of Henry, and might be any moment by his sword, Clement granted the desired boon, and sent Cardinal Campeggio to the court of England with the divorce. But suddenly a new evo lution changed everything. Charles triumphed in Italy, and said sternly to the Pope, " We are deter mined to defend the Queen of England against King Henry's injustice." Alarmed, the Pope sent out four messengers with fresh instructions to Campeggio. They were to take different roads, and travel in all haste to overtake him. The plan succeeded ; the legate received his master's letters. What now does the Pope say? "In the first place, protract your journey. In the second place, when you reach England, use every endeavor to reconcUe the king and queen. In the third place, if you do not succeed, persuade the queen to take the veil. And in the last place, if she refuses, do not pronounce any sentence favorable to the divorce, without a new and express order from me. This is the essential : Summum et maximum manda- tum."* The legate obeyed instructions to the letter. Many slow months rolled away ere he reached Eng land. Then, with the divorce in his pocket, nothing was done. Cardinal Wolsey, Henry's minister, was deceived and ruined. Campeggio returned to Rome. Clement, under the powerful egis of Charles, finally re fused the divorce, and peremptorUy summoned Henry to Rome, and in case of failure, condemned him to pay * Saunders and D'Aubigne. DOCTRINES — INFALLIBILITY. 85 a fine of 10,000 ducats. The proud Tudor was enraged beyond all bounds; broke with the Pope, and was divorced from Catharine by his parUament. I have no sympathy with, or word of praise for, Eng land's royal debauchee. Henry was a wretch, a disgrace to his name and race. The Pope was right not to divorce him from the noble Catharine. But why did he prom ise it ? Why enter into negotiation with Henry with the view, with the express understanding, to accommo date him ? Why spin out the tangled web for years, and traverse the corrupt labyrinths of diplomacy, which is frequently but another name for deception, and then violate every promise, and damn King Henry for doing, in his own way, what he had promised? Why? WUl Lainez, wUl any advocate of this theory answer, " He was infallible" ? No other reply can be given, or everything is lost. Yes, he was infallible in all this ; or the doctrine of papal infalUbUity is indee d a doc trine of men, of seducing spirits, and a blasphemy. Pope Alexander VI. was a monster of iniquity. Adultery, incest, murder, with him, were famUiar crimes, were committed, one is almost ready to think, for pastime. He was more than a counterpart of the hated CaUgula. "The spot on earth," says a histo rian,* " where aU iniquity met and overflowed, was the Pontiff's seat. The dissolute entertainments given by the Pope and his son and daughter axe such as can neither be described nor thought of The most ira pure groves of ancient worship saw not the like." He finaUy perished miserably by poison, which he had * D'Aubigne. 86 THE GREAT APOSTASY. prepared with his own hand for one of his wealthy cardinals. Now, was that body, impure with every vice, loath some Avith surfeited corruption, the temple of the Holy Ghost ? Was that heart — ¦" the cage of unclean birds," the secret reservoir of every crime — the dwelling-place of the Holy One ? Was that mind, that ever effervesced with untamed, demon-like passions, the infallible chan nel of God's favor and instruction to the Church ? But one answer, an affirmative one, must unhesitatingly be given, or, I repeat, all is lost. Yes, "that mind, teeni- ing with so many infamous ideas, had only to wish it, in ordor to its being put into a condition for sounding the most unfathomable mysteries without a chance of error. That hand, which was so skilled in the man agement of poisons, it depended only on himself to employ in tracing lines as holy, as venerable, as infal lible, as those of a St. Paul or a St. John."* Yes, aU this must be affirmed, or papal infaUibUity is a miser able, absurd heresy. But the af&rmation 'wUl avail nothing: all intelligent, candid men, wUl certainly, sooner or later, proclaim that it is an absurd, damning error, I trust, even at Rome itself Listen to a voice from the bosom of the Church : "At a time when courtesans, monsters of licentiousness and wick edness, taking advantage of the public disorders, disposed of all things at Rome, and contrived to place their sons and their lovers on the seat of St. Peter, I most expressly deny that those men were Popes."t This would sweep away infalhbility, and the papacy itself, at a blow. Not Popes ? What, then, were they ? * Bungener. -t See Maestri. DOCTRINES — INFALLIBILITY. 87 They were called by that name, and occupied the so- called chair of St. Peter. They were regarded by the Church then, and have been ever since, in every sense, as botia fide Popes. Not to admit it is to destroy an other fundamental tenet of " Mother Church." Pope Liberius was pubUcly proclaimed, by Hilary, Bishop of Poictiers, a Uar. HUary anathematized him for this and other immoralities : "I anathematize a second and a third time, Liberius, the prevaricator." The Emperor Charles V., through his ambassadors at the CouncU of Trent, demanded, among other reform atory measures, "That the Pope reform both himself and his court!" This speaks " trumpet-tongued " of the debaucheries and crime of "his Holiness" and the court ofthe "Holy See" ! Charles was no pietist, and hated Luther and the doctrines of regeneration and hoUness preached by Protestants. But it would be almost an endless task to bring in review every corrupt Pope, and the impurity and gross immoralities which stain his history. But few, for the last thousand years, have been even outwardly moral. The graphic sketch of Macaulay does not bring out the picture in all its dark shades. Of the court of these infallible Pontiffs, and of them, he says : " During the generation which preceded the Reformation, that court had been a scandal to the Christian name. Its annals are black -with treason, murder, and incest. Even its more respectable members were utterly unfit to be ministers of reUgion. They were men like Leo X. ; men who, -with the Latinity of the Augustan age, had acquired its Atheistical and scoffing spirit." * * * " Their years glided by in a soft dream of sensual and intellectual voluptuousness. Choice cookery, dehcious wines, lovdy women, hounds, falcons, horses, newly-discovered manuscripts ofthe classics. 00 THE GREAT APOSTASY. sonnets and burlesque romances in the sweetest Tuscan, just aa licen tious as a fine sense of the graceful would permit ; plates from the hand of a Benvenuto ; designs for palaces by Michael Angelo ; frescoes by Raphael ; busts, mosaics, and gems just dug up from among the ruins of ancient temples and vUlas, — these things were the delight and even the serious business of their lives." Nothing can be more clear, therefore, than that the Popes have npt been infaUible in morals. FallibUity, in common with the bishops, and our fallen race, is stamped upon the acts, the history of their lives. The Pope is not infaUible in doctrines. I will not stop to inquire here, how a man can be infallible in faith and corrupt in morals. This doctrine, I know, has been advocated by Roman CathoUc teach ers in certain quarters. A Priest, it is said, has two characters ; a character as a man, and a character as a Priest. As a man he may be corrupt ; and yet at the same time, as a Priest, be pure, and God's minister. This is Manicheanism, which, in the fourth century, was condemned by the Church. It is in conflict with the Scriptures and common sense. It is most wicked and absurd. "By their /niite ye shall know them," taught the infallible Teacher. Know what? Their interior life, faith, doctrine. Know whether they be of God, or of Satan. But let us turn again to the lives of the Popes and examine their doctrines. This shall detain us but a few moments. And the question I wish now to ex amine is not, have they been drawn from and sustained by the " rule of faith" ? but have they been uniformly the same, and always received by the Church. Pope Maxcellus, as stated by Safpi, was a iirm bo- DOCTRINES — INFALLIBILITY. 89 liever in astrology, and consulted the planets as much as the Scriptures. " Paul in.," says Ranke, " would never open any important meeting of the Sacred CoUege ; never would he set out on a jour ney, -without consulting the constellations. An alliance with France met with several delays, because he had not found a conformity be tween the birth of the King and his own." These views gave no evidence to those around them, of infallibility in matters of faith. Some regretted and deplored them ; others laughed at them. Three cen turies have hid all that from the eyes of millions ; and bright visions of holiness and infallibility fill their nainds. Truly " Distance lends enchantment to the view." Leo X. was deeply imbued with infidelity. Indeed, a number of able historians have charged him with being a semi-atheist, and the charge has never been re futed. Innocent TTT. decreed — decrees of the Popes are not only expressions of their views, or faith, but are re ceived as settled dogmas of the Church — that a mar riage of PhUip Augustus was " adulterous and null." Afterwards by another solemn decree legitimized the children born of that union. Clement VII. conferred on Henry VIII. the flatter- Uig title of "Defender ofthe Faith," and subsequently anathematized him and put his kingdom under inter dict. Innocent XII. fully approved Fendlon's ' ' Maximes des Saints," " and then, on being solicited by a king, and after two years of resistance, condemned it." 90 THE GREAT APOSTASY. Cardinal Baronius, writing of some ofthe corruptions of the ninth century, says : " For one hundred and fifty years together the Popes were rather apostates than apostles, and they were thrust into the papal chair by the power of harlots, and the violence of the princes of Tus cany ; they were monsters, men of most base life, most destructive morals, and in every manner most defiled." A Romish divine thus boldly speaks : " Many of the Popes of Rome have erred ; Marcellus sacrificed io idols, Liberius and Felix were Arians, Anastasius H. was deposed for heresy." A Pope deposed for heresy ! Two Popes Arians ! Liberius, every intelligent Roman Catholic knows, was an Arian for years ; he excommunicated Athanasius, the orthodox hero of the Council of Nice, and " author of the Roman Symbol;" andwas himself anathema tized by a bishop ! His doctrines have been condemned by Popes and Councils. Gregory the Great, in the close of the sixth century, writing to John, Bishop of Constantinople, says : " Our Lord said to his deciples, Be not ye called rabbi, for one is your Master, and all ye are brethren. What, therefore, most dear brother, are you, in the terrible examination of the coming Judge, to say, to desire to be caUed, not father only, but the general father of the world. * * * * J "beg, I entreat, and I beseech, with all possible suavity, that your brotherhood resist all these flatterers who offer you this name of error, and that you refuse to be deaignnted hy so foolish ani so proud a.n appellation. * * * Restrain yourself from this name of proud and foolish usurpation. * * * None of the saints -n'ould ever have himself called universal. How he must swell with pride who covets to be called by this name, which no true saint would presume to accept." DOCTRINES — INFALLIBILITY. 91 In an address to the Emperor Mauritus, concerning the usurpations of this same bishop, Gregory affirms, that, — " This brother by a presumption never before known, contrary io the precepts of ihe Gospel, and to the decrees of ihe canons, usurping a new name, glorying in a new and profane title, which blasphemy be far from every Christian heart, would be called universal bishop ; but in this his pride what doth he but show the time of Antichrist approaches. * * * * The Church that hath consented to that profane name, hath rushed headlong from its state. * * * * To consent to that wicked word universal, is nothing else but to destroy the failh." But a few years had elapsed ere the bishops of Rome were guUty of assuming "the fooUsh and proud appellation" — " that profane name," " that wicked word universal bishop," " which no true saint would presume to accept." Had not " the time of Antichrist approach ed" — come? The faith, the doctrine of Gregory, therefore, and that of scores of his successors, are in irreconcUable conflict. If he was infaUible ihey could not have been ; and if ihey were, he was noi But all, according to the theory under review, were infallible, and all have been put in the calendar as saints I In a word, history demonstrates beyond all cavil, that one Pope has decreed one thing, and another has nullified it and decreed the contrary. Popes have authoritatively promulgated certain dog mas and CouncUs have vetoed them, and decreed the reverse. In the momentous concerns of faith, therefore, in- fallibility does not reside in the Pope. In doctrine, when 92 THE GREAT APOSTASY. he turns away from " the law and the testimony," " the sure wprd of the Lord," to follow the dim, uncertain Ught of tradition, or " cunningly-devised fables," or pretended illuminations which, alas! has been times without number— Ae is as fallible in faith as in morals. Another fact, that stands out prominently on the historic page, which, if it do not in itself utterly de stroy the theory of Papal infalUbUity, shrouds it with so much darkness that the most acute mind cannot tell where it is. I allude to the schisms which have so often distracted the Roman Catholic Church, and which have scattered her boasted doctrine of unity to the winds; to the fact that iwo, three, and eye'afour Popes, have frequently claimed, vigorously contended for, even unto blood, and occupied, at the same time, the chair of St. Peter. Each regarded himself as the true Pope, and many prelates, and many of " the faith ful,'' regarded each as such. In the fourteenth century "there were several Popes at the same time," says Cardinal Baronius, " for many years two or three to gether, each having his church, anathematizing the others and their churches, and calling them devils and Antichrist." In the fifteenth century there were three at one time, Benedict XII, Gregory XHI, and John XXIII, all of whom were deposed by the Council of Constance, and the CouncU then elected Martin V. From the middle of the third to the middle of the fifteenth century, there were twenty-four schisms. There were more or less in every century in this long period but one, and in the eleventh there were five ! Where, then, was infallibility? In the schismatic Popes,, who for years wore the tiara and swayed the doctrines — INFALLIBILITY. 93 sceptre over the Church, who offered up the " sacrifice of the mass for the living and the dead," and issued bulls to regulate the faith ? Who was the schismatic Pope, or Popes ? Can any man living tell ? Can the infalUbUity of the present pontiff divine ? Was the Pope elected by a Council, or thrust into St. Peter's and upon the Chm'ch by the sword of a wicked emperor, any the less schismatic than the Popes deposed, any the more infaUible than they ? And if infallibility did not reside in the schismatic Popes, where was it while they reigned over the Church ? when they were de posed ? whUe the Council was electing another ? or when a wicked emperor, or king, foisted one upon the Church? And finaUy, where is infallibility when death has robbed the Church of the true Pope ? Ac cording to this theory it has passed away from her, and wUl not return tUl a true successor " sitteth in the temple of God ;" and consequently, human wisdom is left to itself, in the delicate choice of one in whom this attribute is to reside, and who is to give infallible doctrines to the Church ; doctrines that wUl affect for weal or woe the eternal destiny of untold mUlions. Take any view, then, of this question, look at it from any standpoint, and the conclusion forces itself upon the mind, that the Pope is noi infallible ; nay, that the doctrine of papal infallibility is not only false, but absurd. And it is lamentably true that it is an error around which crystallizes a thousand other errors ; the parent of other heresies, and corruptions, and untold evUs. WeU then might the indignant Galileans in the Council of Trent, who saw at a glance the abyss 94 THE GREAT APOSTASY. into which it would plunge them, exclaim, "The Church then is no longer the spouse of Jesus Christ, but a slave prostituted to the caprice of a man!" Next in order, and perhaps in importance, is the theory, ihat infallihiliiy resides in councils-general. This, it wUl be remembered, is the theory of the GalU- cans, who utterly reject the one just refuted. It was once the doctrine of a large portion, if not a majority, of the Roman CathoUc Church ; but is now held by a comparatively small, but respectable minority : a minority that is constantly diminishing. It wUl not be necessary, therefore, to detain the reader with an elabo rate refutation. In the first place, there never was, and perhaps never wUl be, a general CouncU, — a CouncU ofthe whole Church. The CouncU of Trent, that passed in re view, and decreed, and sent forth, with anathemas, aU the peculiar doctrines of the Church of Rome against which Protestants inveighed, and which they rejected, was composed of a very small minority, an infinitesi mal number of those entitled to seats, and who had been invited by the Pope's brief to attend. Indeed, for months, less than fifty members, of thousands, were present. In the first two sessions less than thafr number transacted business, and with not more than that number important doctrines were decreed. And at no one time was there a very large attendance.* Whole kingdoms and large Roman CathoUc countries were not represented by a single bishop. It was not, therefore, an ecumenical or general Council. " It became " Gahan, a Eoman Catholic historian, puts the highest number who attended at any one time at 287. DOCTRINES — INFALLIBILITY. 95 such," it is replied, "by the sole fact of its having been universally approved by the Church." But this changes the whole ground and destroys the theory. H it be necessary for the Church universaUy to ap prove, how wUl that approval be known ? then, five members ¦wLU answer as well as five thousand, for in- falUbUity resides in that approval. The Council is fiUlible, its decrees fallible "without such approval. If, therefore, there have been no councils-general — and I affirm there have not ; and say what you wiU, the Council of Trent was not — ^this hypothesis is anni hUated. Doctrines — articles of faith — ^have emanated from, and have been estabUshed by papal decree, without the decree or aid of Councils. The Immaculate Con ception of the Virgin Mary, was decreed an article of faith by Pius IX., on the 10th of December, 1854. This question had agitated the Church for many cen turies ; parties had been formed for and against it. The Popes themselves had been divided in opinion.* Several Councils had gravely discussed it, sifted, weigh ed it, but, save the CouncU of Basle, f could not agree — ^had reached no conclusion. The CouncU of Trent was agitated with it for days. The Cordeliers and Jacobins renewed a quarrel that had been fiercely burning at times for four centuries. The legates even were divided! No conclusion was reached, and it was left to fluctuate for three centuries more. Infallible evi dence, this, of the infallibility of the Council! * John XXII. was very hostUe to it ; Sixtus IV. was very favorable. T Some Eomanists deny that this was a general CouncU. The Church is divided. It was not. 96 THE GREAT APOSTASY. Now, if CouncUs are infalUble, and they only, thi decree is a usurpation and faUible. But the Jesuits and Ultramontanists, a large majority of the Church, who regard it a triumph of their views, receive it as an article of faith, and hence as infallible. And so must the GalUcans, or cease to be Romanists. The Church, therefore, is in error, or infalUbUity does not reside in councUs-general. The argument of Lainez, against this theory, wUl be remembered: "Each bishop is fallible; an assembly of bishops therefore is faUible also." The position, that "each bishop is fallible," was not denied — ^has always been admTtted. The conclusion, though logicaUy drawn, that " an assembly of bishops therefore is falUble," was denied — and the contrary afiirmed.^ But this denial is illogical, it is absurd. It is to affirm of the whole what cannot be affirmed of the parts. The particles of a cannon ball are iron, the whole of it is gold! If a bishop is falUble out of a Council, he must be in it, unless it can be proved that in it he is inspired. This, indeed, is claimed in indirect terms, at least by some, but re jected by others; But it is an assumption, as we shaU see, utterly groundless. The Bishop of Bitonto, in his sermon at the opening ofthe CouncU of Trent, affirmed, that "the voice of the Council is God's voice," that though the bishops " were even to remain impenitent," or "happen what may," he added, "the Holy Ghost will employ your mouths in his services." Is not this most daring blasphemy? "FuU ofthe names of blas phemy," is one mark ofthe beast. " The voice of im penitent " men "God's voice" ! Corrupt men inspired ! Did Jehovah ever employ, in a single case, such agents DOCTRINES — INFALLIBILITY. 97 in giving us the Scriptures ? ' ' Holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost ;" they were the only men inspired to reveal the wUl of God to man, and they were "moved," inspired, individually and ivhile alone, or with other Prophets. If this were not true; if the Scriptures rested upon a foundation like the bishop's theory of iUumination and infalUbUity ; if the Prophets and Apostles had been impenitent men, unholy men, I must confess, that, with a mind not pre disposed to, and that never has been, for a moment, troubled ^\dth skepticism, I could but be an Infidel. But, thank God, we have a different, and a sure foun dation for the prophecies and the Gospel of the grace of God. The bishop knew, the Council knew, the legates knew, that they were not holy, and not inspired.* The latter, in their opening address, after exhorting the bishops to humiUation and penitence, and to sanctify themselves, affirmed, that "without this, in vain they had invoked the Holy Ghost." They were right, shall we say ? and the bishop wrong. And yet, the voice of each was the voice of God ! All were infaUible 1 The exhortation of the legates was in vain. There is abundant evidence that the bishops were the same in the-Council as out of it ; the same then as before. Had ' they invoked the Holy Ghost in vain? The history of CouncUs, especially of Trent, decides the question of inspiration and infallibility. The CouncUs of Nice, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, re jected tradition as of no authority in matters of doc trine, and held the Scripture to be a sufficient, and the • PalUvicini more than adn^ts that they were not holy ; and yet claims for such infaUibiUty ! 5 98 THE GREAT APOSTASY. only rule of faith. The CouncU of Trent decreed that the Bible, is not a sufficient rule of faith of itself; and that tradition is of equal force and authority. The Council of Nice condemned Arius ; another Council decreed Arianism ; and then other Councils condemned that doctrine ! The Councils of Nice, Chalcedon, and Constantinople, held that the Bishop of Rome was not the supreme head of the Church. Trent, and many other Councils, have held the reverse. In a word, one Council has decreed one thing, and another has vetoed it, or decreed the contrary. One CouncU has solemnly promulgated a doctrine, and another has solemnly pro nounced it heresy. Now, could all have been inspired ? Were all infallible? Imagine, if you can, that Isaiah solemnly announces a doctrine as of the inspiration of God ; and Jeremiah condemns it, and teaches quite the contrary. Peter preaches one thing and Paul another, in irreconcilable conflict with it, and John pronounces both heresies. What would the world think ? And what would the world think, if a Council of Prophets were to decree that justification is by circumcision, and a CouncU of Apostles were to decree that it is hj faith, and another Council of Apostles were to decree that it is by baptism f And each Council proclaims itself to be the oracle of God, that its voice " is God's voice" ! Why, to say the least of it, aU good men would think that all could not be right, and that some were prac tising a base imposition, and were guilty of most pre sumptuous blasphemy and impiety. Nor is this aU. According to Sarpi and PalUvicuu, both accredited Roman Catholic historians, the CouncU of Trent was distracted with internal dissensions, and DOCTRINES— INFALLIBILITY. 99 was the scene of wUy diplomacy, dark intrigue, and angry debates. Hostile opinions struggled for the mastery ; drafts of decrees were altered, rewritten, changed again, to suit all parties, and finally passed under solemn protests. Some very important ques tions, the communion in both kinds to the laity, the divine right of bishops, and the Immaculate Conception, among others, were left undecided, because the "in fallible" members coiUd not agree. The most discordant views were entertained and angrUy debated on almost every question that came before the Council. Every means was used, every effort put forth, to harmonize the conflicting elements, and to press the members to unanimity in voting, but without complete success. Once some of them refused to vote; once, some absented themselves; once, one bishop, instead of voting an affirmative, said, "I will obey," and several times respectable minorities voted against the decrees, once as high as thirty-eight, and several times they protested ! The Pope had a party, the bishops of Italy ; the Emperor had a party, the Spanish and German bishops ; the King of France had a party, the French prelates, at the head of whom was the time-serving, treacherous Cardinal of Lorraine. And to complete the dark shades of the picture, and shut out all idea of infaUibU ity, the Pope had a spy to watch the opposite factions, and especially the Cardinal of Lorraine, to report to him their every movement, and, if possible, every thought. They kept a watchful eye upon the Pope and his plans, but he triumphed in every contest ; by the force of numbers, or by threats, neutralized. 100 THE GREAT APOSTASY. overcome all opposition. What can a minority do in a Roman Catholic country? They must submit, finally, or at least sUently acquiesce, or be burned as heretics, or flee the country. Bungener draws a graphic picture of these scenes, and shows, as clear as language can show, that the Council could not have been inspired and infalUble, was, indeed, anything else. He says : " To the difficulty of dra-wing up any decree on a subject of this nature," (sin and grace,) " there was added that of veUing the infinite diversity of views that had come to Ught.* It waa not, however, proposed, not at least openly, to get rid of the matter by paying no attention to these. Many, indeed, would have been delighted at this being done. " It was Cervini, Cardinal of Santa Croce, the second legate who undertook this thorny and bold piece of business. A commission, however few the members, would never have brought it to a close ; it was necessary that there should be one man to do it, and that a person who was not to be Ughtly trifled with. Tet the cardinal showed himself beyond measure kindly and complacent. His sole object, his sole thought, was to bring the'tnatter to a close to every body's content, or at least so to contrive that there should be no one discontented enough to protest. " And he succeeded, but not until the close of three fatiguing months and flfty sittings, particular and generaL Sarpi asserts that he had seen the minutes of countless changes made by the cardinal on the first draft ; he shows that the greater number of those modifi cations tended to substitute vagueness for what was positive, obscurity for clearness, and for contested points ambiguous expressions, in which the most diverse, nay, the most contradictory opinions, as we shall see, might equally claim the credit of having made the law. We know nothing more deplorably astute than the sixteen chapters of that decree. It presents one of those Herculean labors which we admire in spite of ourselves, not for their intrinsic worth, but in con- * Page 137 Am. edition. The italicising is mine. DOCTRINES — INFALLIBILITY. 101 sideration of the pains, the time, the imperturbable patience of which they are the fruit. But here, together with perseverance and art, what incredible audacity ! What, pretend that this decree, which has cost you three months' hard labor, and in the arrangement oi which you have so often felt your absolute inability to decide with precision any of the points to be found in it ; this decree in which you have openly made concessions to the opposite opinions, and which, only yesterday, you held yourself quite prepared to modify, here and there erasing or putting in just as you would do with any other piece of -writing — ^this decree, on the arrival of the session, has been read with the usual ceremony, and lo ! it is forthwith in violable and sacred! It -wUl traverse ages without man, angel, prophet, no, not the Son of God himself, were he to return to this world, having the power to alter a word of it, seeing that would infer a disavowal of the Church, to which, according to you, he him self dictated it. Nothing is more curious than the sincerity with which, by way of compliment to the Council, this tedious operation has been acknowledged, although its very length and laboriousness form, self-evidently, so strong an argument against that very Council's authority. 'It is not to be believed,' says Pallivicini, 'with what care, -with what subtlety, -with what perseverance, every syllable of it was weighed and discussed, first in the congregations of the divines, who only advised in the matter, and afterwards in that of the Fathers who had the definitive voice.' 'In vain,' says Father Biner, ' would any one charge the Council with having treated sub jects superficiaUy. * * * * Long deliberations were often thought necessary before a single word could be added, taken away, or altered ' ! * * * * What an imprudent apology ! When called upon to speak, said Jesus Christ to his apostles, ' take no thought beforehand what ye shaU speak.' This is inspiration : this is infallibility. Without this we cannot have any conception of it. If you required whole hours, whole days to decide upon a word, who shall guarantee that by prolonging your deUberations a Uttle more you would not at last have decided in favor of some other ? Tou prove to us the matureness of the de crees ; but matureness, quite a human thing, necessarUy supposes the possibiUty of a stUI higher degree of matureness ; the moment you make it of any avail in favor of a decree, you acknowledge the 102 THE GREAT APOSTASY. introduction of an element that is human, variable, fallible. If not, then would you have it that God, by the medium of your hand, has made those innumerable erasures ! These gropings in all directions —shall we say of them that it was the Holy Ghost, who, before dictating his last word to you, led you dancing about from error to error ! Go, after this, go and declaim against the vagaries of Pagan ism ! Never did Greece, never did Italy, or India, adopt any such monstrous improbability. When the Brahmin ordains anything to be believed, it is at least in the name of decrees which he himself has not made, and whose origin is lost in the night of time ; but to command faith, to shut and open heaven, on the strength of a law which may be found in its rough draft with blots and erasures, why, this is an audacity which has never been approached by the very falsest religions." Now, to ask if such a body was inspired, and infal lible, is to insuU common sense. If the blessed reveal ments of heaven had rested on, a foundation like this, would they not long since have been regarded as a stu pendous fraud, and been numbered with the things that were ? What, then, is this boasted doctrine of infalU bility ? And finally, the decrees of Councils, all Roman Catholics know, the advocates of this theory admit, are nuU and void without the sanction of the Pope. If he were to reject them, they would not be laws of the Church, or articles of faith, and would be binding on no conscience, and as worthless as Chinese paper in the sepulchres of "the faithful." What, inspired doc trines, infalUble articles, of faith, worthless, fallible, nothing ! without the sanction of whom ? the Pope I Now, I submit to the candid reader, if these facts and arguments do not demonstrate beyond all possibUi ty of doubt, that infallibility does not reside in coun- DOCTRINES — INFALLIBILITY. 103 cUs-general. Why, this theory is so utterly ground less, and environed with so many overwhelming, anni- hUating difficulties, that the wonder is that it ever found a lodgment in the Church, or that it shoiUd have stood for a single day. The third theory, and the next in order, is that in fallibility resides in the Pope and a Council of a majority of the bishops united. This hypothesis, doubtless, was forced upon those who have adopted it, not only to avoid the faUacies that form the foundation and the superstructure of papal infalUbUity and the infalUbUity of councUs-general, but from the fact that each, to some extent, is dependent upon the other ; that Coun cUs generally have decreed, and the Popes have sanc tioned. This theory is thus stated by one of its advocates : " InfalUbiUty is not in the Pope, nor is it in a Coun cU, in the whole of the bishops together, but it is in the majority of the bishops united with their head the Pope." What a precious piece of dogmatism. " In fallibility is not in the Pope." Nay, verily. But I dared not make the assertion till I had planted my feet upon incontestible facts, and fortified my position with unanswerable arguments. "Xor is it in a Council, in ihe whole of ihe bishops together." Nay, nay ! For " each bishop is fallible ; an assembly of bishops, therefore, is fallible also." "But it is in a majority of bishops united with their head ihe Pope." How much Uke an oracle! How emphatic! But where is the proof? Naked assertion, in a question so momentous, wUl not answer. We must have clear demonstration. And it would have saved a deal of trouble and would have 104 THE GREAT APOSTASY. quieted many doubts that wiU not down, if these dog- matizers had told us by what law of Alchemy, for it is not by any moral law, two fallibles make an infallible I I cannot comprehend it, I ask for light. .But this theory rests upon a foundation as ground less as the "baseless fabric of a vision." A CouncU has not been held in seven hundred years, not in a thousand, perhaps, composed of a "majority of the bishops." The Council of Trent had not as many bishops, at most, as Italy could have sent. And Spain, Portugal, France, Germany, Hungary, Poland and Ireland, could have sent ten times as many. Why, the "Emerald Isle," herself, had more bishops than this famous Council could boast at its fiLrst session. If, therefore, infaUibUity reside "in a majority of the bishops united with their head the Pope," the decrees of Trent, and half a dozen other CouncUs, are falU ble, — the doctrines of mere men. And yet it is weU known that all the pecuUar doctrines of Rome were reviewed, remodeUed, or modified, and dressed up, — loose dogmas were licked into shape, and all received the stamp of infaUibiUty by that CouncU! But "the bishops united with their head the Pope," were mis taken, the Pope was mistaken, an essential element to make them infallible — "a majority" — was wanting! All are fallible. And all they did is fallible. And all papal decrees are faUible. Another CouncU must be convoked consisting of an undoubted " majority of the bishops united with their head the Pope," and all the boasted infalUble doctrines of this boasted infalUble Church must be reconsidered and redecreed, and then, what ? Why, they would be falUble stUl. DOCTRINES — INFALLIBILITY. 105 Doctrines solemnly decreed by one CouncU with the Pope at its head, have been changed or repealed by other Councils, and the reverse decreed. In one in stance, a provincial CouncU or synod* condemned the decree of a general Council and Pope, and formed its own views into an article of faith, which has received the sanction of Popes and CouncUs, and become the doctrine of the Church of Rome. This theory, there fore, is not only groundless, but facts which lie on the very surface of ecclesiastical history, prove that it em bodies the glaring fallacy exposed in the one last re viewed, to wit. That Councils and Popes are in eternal antagonism with CouncUs and Popes. It strikes a death-blow at the very "tenet" it was put forth to estabUsh. The fourth theory, and the last I propose to examine, is this: "Infallibility resides in the whole Church." It is whoUy unnecessary to detain the reader with a lengthy discussion of this opinion. It is the opinion of a few, able though some of them have been. It is not the doctrine of the Church of Rome. Besides, facts and arguments have just been adduced, abundantly demonstrating that the Pope, that councils-general, that a majority of the bishops united with their head the Pope, are not infalUble ; and all this, this theory evi dently admits. How, then, can infalUbUity reside in all of them united with the priests and laity, all of whom individually are acknowledged to be falUble ? Articles of faith never emanate from, or, are never decreed by, the priests and members — the great body ofthe Church, but are decreed by Councils, or the Pope, * In the reign of Charlemagne it condemned Arianism. 5* 106 THE GREAT APOSTASY. and are always accompanied with anathemas. The former, therefore, must receive them, or throw them selves upon the fearful alternative of the sin of schism, and expose themselves to the bitter, eternal curse of the former, who, in such an extremity, would be sus tained by the laws and practice of their Church for the last eight hundred years. To say that their, or the Church's reception of, or belief in, doctrines, under such circumstances, makes them infalUble, is too absurd to be thought of seriously. The Roman Catholics in North Carolina, or in these United States, are as respectable, as intelligent, and as moral, as an equal number under like circumstances anywhere throughout the vast domain of that Church. Some of them I know and highly respect. They never imagine, so far as I have been able to learn, that this heavenly attribute resides in them ; that thefr reception of, and belief in, doctrines, stamps them with infalli bility. No. All the doctrines that command their faith have been elaborated in Councils, and have received the sanction of " his Holiness," or have been decreed by papal authority. And they must receive them as the infallible doctrines of "Mother Church" with un questioning submission. That every Roman Catholic receives, in the deep re cesses of his own mental nature, every doctrine that Councils and Popes decree, though they be clothed with anathemas never so many, I do not believe. No, thank God, there wells up from the depths of many a manly heart freedom's song, and under the light of the Holy Ghost, who goes by the priest at the altar, and pours his rays upon benighted consciences, these absurd doc- DOCTRINES — INFALLIBILITY. 107 trines are rejected, and enfranchised longing spirits reach forth for the pure truth of God. Yes, there may be " seven thousand " in the bosom of Romanism, who, amid the gloom, the night of moral death which surrounds them, have Ught in themselves, and never "bow the knee to Baal." Their numbers, I trust, are increasing. The Immaculate Conception, though backed by the thunder of the Vatican, has been rejected by some, though at their peril, and has called forth argu ments and protests against it. Now, is it fallible tiU they beUeve it ? Or, is it only infallible with those who do ? What is to be done with this difficulty? And finaUy : not only did the anathemas which ac companied the decrees of the CouncU of Trent leave the priests and laity — ^the Church — no choice openly to receive or reject them, but Pius IV., to crush this theory forever, and sweep from the pale of Romanism private judgment, solemnly decreed that none should pass any opinion upon, nay, not even think his own thoughts about them. Despotism reached its culminat ing point, and tyranny waived its dark banner in mid night gloom over the last expiring groan of freedom ¦within her realm. Hear him : " In virtue of the Apostolic authority, we prohibit all, whether ecclesiastics of any rank whatsoever, or laymen, whatever be the authority with which they are invested, the former under pain of interdiction, the latter under pain of excommunication ; we prohibit all, in a word, whosoever they may be, to make upon these decrees of the Counoii any commentaries, glosses, annotations, scholia, or in- TEKPEETATioNS whatsoever.* » This buU was issued January 26, 1564. Quoted by Bungener. 108 THE GREAT APOSTASY. Now, with this " apostoUc" (?) law before his eyes and thundering in his ears, can any one imagine for a single moment that infaUibUity resides in the whole Church? that her reception of doctrines, or acquies cence in them, constitutes them infaUible ? As weU ' might he imagine that the unconscious, unresisting paper' on which the decrees were written, is infalUble. Where, then, does this " fundamental" doctrine re side ? where are we to look for it? It is not " in the Pope," it is not " in councUs-general," it is not " in the majority of the bishops united with thefr head the Pope," it is not " in the whole Church." Where is it then? It remains now to examine this doctrine in the Ught of Scripture. Does it derive any support from, has it any foundation in, the Word of God ? The advocates of these respective theories affirm that it has. But why should ihey appeal to the Bible to prove this or any other doctrine ? It has no authority, they teach, ex cept what it has derived from the Church, "the de pository and mistress of the faith." This is a settled dogma in her creed. Without her sanction, therefore, the Bible has no more authority, in matters of faith, than Don Quixote. To decree a book or writing to be a rule of faith and then prove by it that the Church which so decreed is infaUible, and therefore had au thority in the premises, is going round the "vicious cfrcle" to perfection. But the Bible, with us, with or without such decree, is supreme authority in all things pertaining to faith, and we gladly go with this ques tion to its infaUible teachings. The first passage appealed to, and the one on which DOCTRINES — INFALLIBILITY. 109 Roman CathoUcs mainly rely to prove this doctrine, is, the gracious promise the Saviour made to his dis ciples in his farewell interview, when he clothed them ¦with authority to go out and disciple all nations : " And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying. All power is given unto me in heaven and in eartb ; go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; teaching them to observe aU things whatsoever I have commanded you ; and, lo, I am with you always, even unio the end of the world."* This is, indeed, a very gracious promise, and one to which the heart of the true disciple ever turns with faith, and joy, and hope. But does it imply, or em brace the promise of inspiration, or simply of succor amid persecutions and temptations, and of grace to give success to "teaching," and labors of love? If the former ; if Christ promised to be with His dis ciples to inspfre them in teaching all things whatso ever he had commanded, in all times, then all those who thus teach, must be infallible. But if the latter, then, though Christ be with them, and though they are good men, holy men, they are fallible men. That the latter is the correct view of this promise — that it is a promise of aid, of grace, of heavenly ¦wisdom, and love and success, and not of inspfration, I have not a shadow of doubt. The promise of the Saviour to his disciples on an other occasion is of the same import, implies fully as much, and will aid us in arriving at a correct exegesis of this: * Matthew xxvni. 18-20 110 THE GREAT APOSTASY. " I say unto you, that if two of you shaU agree on earth ae touch ing anything that they shaU ask, it shaU be done for them of my Father which is in heaven : For where two or three are gathered to gether in my name, there am I in the midst of them." If any laymen, women, " two of you" " shaU ask" inspiration "it shaU be done" — given you. And " where two or three" laymen, (this certainly has ref erence to every member of the Church,) " are gathered together, there" Christ is "in the midst of ihem." Then, they are inspired and infallible. And if so, they are a law unto themselves ; they are thefr own infallible guides, and no man, nor Pope, nor CouncU, dare oppose them, without contravening the law of Christ and infallible authority. In a word, if the promise, "lo, I am with you always," implies inspfration ; then, inspfration is impUed in the promise, "there, am I in the midst of them." But if this promise impUes inspfration, and therefore infalUbUity, the Church of Rome has been rejected by the Saviour, for he is not with her in that sense. For there is not a prelate, or priest, or layman, in her pale, who can tell whether he is inspired, or where this in spfration resides. Or, can one be inspfred, be under the illumination, the "moving" ofthe Holy Ghost, and not know it ? If so, (but is is impossible,) it wUl not make him infallible or anything else. He that does not know that he is inspired, that " the Spfrit of the Lord" is upon him, is as if he were not inspired, and is but a fallible man after all. Again : Popes and Councils have been against Popes and CouncUs, as I have shown by undeniable facts ; the Church has erred, and therefore could not have been DOCTRINES — INFALLIBILITY. Ill inspired. Hence, according to Rome's interpretation, Christ has not been ¦with her. She signs her own death-warrant. Finally, if I were to admit that inspiration is implied in this promise, yet as it is conditional, the condition must be compUed with to the very letter, or it is made of none effect. "Go ye * * * ieach all nations ¦* * * baptizing them in the name ofthe Father, andof the Son, andof the Holy Ghost ; * * * teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I HAVE COMMANDED YOU ; and lo, I am ivith you,'' &c. What he " had commanded" thej were to teach ; nothing more, nothing less. Tliat was the condition on which the promise rested. In teach ing what he "had commanded," therefore, and that only, he would be with them. In the performance of that duty, a duty specific, clear — ^that could not be mis understood — the promise, aU that is impUed in it, was sure. But if they should fail, be recreant to their trust, and teach new doctrines — " another Gospel" — "doc trines of men," the promise would be forfeited; Christ would not be with them. It is scarcely necessary to remark, in support of this view, that the Jews again and again made void the law ; made the promises of God, promises as sure as this, of none effect, by their traditions, and ¦wicked departure from Him. And if a priest, or minister, may now teach anything, any wicked doctrine, and practice it, though decreed by Pope or Council, the Pope and Council being corrupt, and yet claim and realize the presence of Christ, then the immutable One has changed, and a lie becomes the truth of God, and Christ and- Belial have coalesced. Has, then, the Church of Rome taught, does she now 112 THE GREAT APOSTASY. teach, the doctrines the Sa'viour taught, the pure Gos pel? Has she compUed to the very letter -with the condition of this very gracious promise, teaching the nations to "observe" "whatsoever" He "Aac? com manded" ? Nay, verUy. She does not pretend that she has. Council after CouncU has decreed n£w doc trines. In the last seven hundred and fifty years, "auricular confession, priestly absolution, indulgences, transubstantiation, purgatory," &c., &c., have all been decreed doctrines of the Church. And then, to throw away the last anchor that kept her from drifting out to sea, and to demonstrate that she has fully "departed from the faith," and ^wUl teach the " commandments of men" for the Gospel of Christ, the Council of Trent decreed that His commands, in themselves, are not a sufficient rule of faith, that tradition is of equal author ity ! And but last year Pius IX. decreed the "Im maculate Conception" to be an article of faith ! And yet it is claimed that Christ is ¦with this Church ! That He is with the " Holy Father" Pio Nino ! WeU might the apostle exclaim, whose prophetic eye gazed with sorrow upon the working of " the mystery of iniquity" in the Church, and her "departure from the faith," " For ihis cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie ; that they all might be damned who believed noi the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness" \ This promise, then, in no sense, sustains the assumed doctrine of infallibility. The next passage brought forward in support of this doctrine, is in the Gospel recorded by St. John, xvi. ch. 7-13. DOCTRINES — INFALLIBILITY. 113 " If I depart, I wiU send Him, the Comforter, unto you. And when He is come. He wiU reprove the world of sin," &c. " He wiU guide you into aU truth." There are two things contained in this promise ; en lightening, convicting grace with which the world was to be and is blessed, and inspfration, which the Apostles only were to enjoy. " He shaU guide you" &c. Was the latter to descend down through the Church in all ages ? Certainly not. The Church, as we have seen, was to teach what Christ " had commanded." There was no need, therefore, of inspfration "in all days;" for the doctrines to be taught were revealed, were before her eyes. This the Saviour himself taught in another form : " The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father wiU send in my name, He shaU teach you aU things, and bring all things to your . remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." The Apostles were to be inspired to "remember" " aU things whatsoever he had said," and " all things whatsoever he had commanded," that they might teach and write them in a book, that the Church in all ages might know and obey them. Beyond this it was unnecessary for inspfration to go ; and beyond this it did not go, except prophoticaUy. The Apostle fully sustains this exposition: "Though we, or any angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you, than that which we HAVE preached unto you, let him be accursed." No Church, therefore, no man, or body of men, since the close of the Apocalyptic vision, have enjoyed the reveaUng inspfration of the Holy Ghost. And hence, each and aU Churches, and all men, have been fallible. It were hardly necessary to add, that this conclusion 114 THE GREAT APOSTASY. is sustained by all history, ecclesiastical and politi cal. But one other passage, worthy of any notice, is ap pealed to in support of this dogma. This is the re markable language of our Saviour to Peter : " And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I ¦wiU build my Church, and the gates of hell shaU not prevail against it." I do not now propose to examine this text criticaUy, — this I shall do under the head .of the spiritual and temporal supremacy of the Pope. One thing is appa rent, however, that this declaration contains no promise of inspiration. Perpetual inspfration, indeed, is not necessary to the perpetuity of the Church : her foun dation ha^ving been laid upon the Rock ; and the sure word of prophecy, and the ever -blessed Gospel of the grace of God, having been given her as a rule of faith, and an imerring, all-sufficient rule of faith, reposing upon that Rock, and implicitly trusting in and fully obeying this that her Founder and Lord has taught, " The gates of hell shall not prevaU against her." But should she leave this foundation, and buUd upon the sand, and " make void the law" by her tradition, Uke the doomed Church of Laodicea, she would be rejected and cast forth as the synagogue of Satan. The Jewish Church sinned and fell ; and hence this is not an open question. She left the Lord, ." the fountain of li^ving water," and "hewed out" to herself "broken cisterns that could hold no water ;" and He who had planted her a Uving vine, and had blessed and refreshed her with the river whose " streams make glad the city of God," overwhelmed her with judgments, suffered her DOCTRINES — INFALLIBILITY. 115 to be led into captivity, and her priests and young men to be slain. And, let it never be forgotten, that, in her fall and departure from God, and when rejected of Him, she had the same priesthood, the same ritual, the same sacrificial victims, and the same smoking altars ; the same ark of the covenant, the same sacred memo rials of past divine favor and glorious triumphs, the same burning incense and splendid temple ; and the same gracious promises, now hers no more, Uved and gleamed amid her buried, forgotten law. And she imagined, with aU these, that the divine favor was sure, and that the gates of hell could never prevail against her. Where, then, was the Church ? The prophet and " seven thousand who had not bowed the knee to Baal," though scattered and unkno^wn to each other, without a visible head, or priest, or altar, were the Church of God ! This passage, then, does not prove the infalU bUity of the Church of Rome. Nor does it even prove that she cannot "faU away." It simply proves that Christ wUl always have witnesses on the earth, who, rep'osing upon Him, the Rock, and "observing all things whatsoever" He "has commanded," "the gates of hell shall never prevaU against " them. They are the Church, and she, who glories in the name, having become corrupt, is " Antichrist." No warrant, there fore, is found in Scripture for this doctrine. Now, I have pursued this dogma through all its ¦windings, have analyzed all its assumed protean forms, and have examined all its boasted foundations, and at every turn and in every position it has been demon strated to be an insidious, unresting, most pestUential error, groundless and absurd. This "fundamental 116 THE GREAT APOSTASY. tenet," therefore, is but a foundation of eddying sand: this " stronghold " of Rome, a castle infinitely more dim and shadowy than transcendentalism, without comer- stone, or waUs, without buttress or tower. "And this," not being "solid," the plain consequence is, that every Christian is noi "bound to submit his conscience to her decisions," nor "to receive her interpretation of Scrip ture;" and this her "sfronghold" being "destroyed," all " her pretensions faU at once to the ground," and the "Scriptures" may not only be, but are, "pleaded for as the only rule of faith," and " the independency of conscience " established and preserved intact. And God forbid that the day should ever curse this fafr land of OUTS, when this assumed infalUble Church of Rome shall take away the one, or lord it over the other ! Auricular Confession. Auricular Confession was first decreed an ariicle of faith of the Church of Rome, by the fourth Council of Lateran under Innocent III., in 1215. Up to that time it was not a doctrine, in her creed, though she boasts that she never changes. It had been a floating dogma for several hundred years, received and practiced by some, but utterly rejected by others ; and during the greater part of that time, by a large majority of the Church. It was certainly not, therefore, of apostolic teaching. It was re-examined and redecreed by the CouncU of Trent. The following is a correct transla tion of the decree of the Trent Fathers : " If any one shaU deny that sacramental confession was instituted or is by divine right necessary to salvation, or shaU say that the DOCTRINES — CONFESSION. 117 mode of secretly confessing to a priest only is not according to Chrisi's institutions and command, and that it is a human invention, let him be accursed. " If any shall say that in the sacrament of penance for the remis sion of sins, it is not of divine right necessary to confess all and each of such mortal sms which by due and dUigent self-examination can be remembered, even secret sins, and those, too, that are against the last two commandments of the decalogue, together with their cir cumstances that might alter the character of the sin ; or that shall say that they who study to confess aU their sins wish to leave noth ing to God's mercy to pardon ; or lastly, that it is unfit to confess venial sins, let him be accursed."* Auricular Confession, then, in the creed of this Church, is absolutely essential to absolution, and abso lution to salvation. Hence, there is no way to heaven but through the confessional. And hence, it is the imperative duty of every Roman Catholic and all men to go to the confessional and confess all of his or her sins, in thought, word, act, at short intervals. Even " seeret sins," aU sins, of imagination, of desfre, of act, whether done in the blaze of midday, or gloom of mid- iught,-^aU must be told to the priest. The delicate young lady must go alone into the room of the priest — a room, every avenue of which is carefuUy closed, and unbosom her heart to him. Everything must be told, or there is no absolution, no salvation. Yes, every thing ! And the priest can detain any one as long in the confessional as he deems proper, and ask any and aU questions he may choose ; and nothing revealed, said, done there, must be told out of the confessional upon the pain of eternal damnation. What an Ulimit- able source of power ! What a fearful means of cor ruption 1 * Ousley's Translation. 118 THE GREAT APOSTASY. Now, I most distinctly ',' deny" that " secretly con fessing secret sins, or any kind of sins to a priest, was instituted, or is by divine right necessary to salvation," that it "is according to Christ's institution and com mand ;" and affirm " that it is a human invention" ahd " unfit" for Christian men or women. Here then, again, we are at issue. The umpfre to decide the question, and to which both appeal — ^the " institution and command of Christ" — ^is at hand. I gladly take this and all questions of faith and morals, to that, the only rule of faith. One would imagine, from the emphatic tone and language of this decree, that Jesus Christ most dis tinctly "instituted and unequivocally commanded" "secret confession" of all our "sins" "to a priest." The Roman Catechism is as emphatic, and teaches the lambs of the flock that — " He has commanded the practice as necessary to salvation." Where, then, is this command ? Where this institution ? It is not, as ¦wUl soon appear, in the Gospel, nor in the inspired epistles of the Apostles. There is not a single com mand touching tliis question, or duty, in the New Tes tament. Nor did the doctors of Trent, nor has the Catechism, nor Peter Dens, nor Du Pin, nor Drs. Chal loner and MUner, brought forward a single passage, or text which will support this position. The first, and almost the only passage on which they rely, is the language of St. James : " Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another that ye may be healed."* " James v. 16. DOCTRINES — CONFESSION. 119 Now, the Apostle does not mean by the word "fault," sin — sin against God, but impropriety, offence towards a brother. To him and not to a p)riest, must we confess it, and make the amende honorable. This view is sus tained by the teaching of the Saviour as recorded by St. Matthew: "If thy brother shall trespass against ihee, go and teU him his fault between thee and him alone. But if he wUl not hear ihee, then take with thee one or iwo more. And if he shall neglect to hear ihem, tell it unto the Church."* By the terms "trespass," and " fault," sin cannot be meant ; but even if this were so, if the Saviour meant sin. He teaches beyond all ca'vil that it must be confessed to the one against whom it was committed ; and then, to one or two more ; then, to the Church. Confession of sins, therefore, secretly, to a " priest only," is not taught by Christ, nor by St. James, in these passages. But not only do these passages not sustain this doctrine, but prove, if they prove anything, that the priest must confess his faults to the one against whom he has trespassed, and, in certain cases, to the Church. "Confess jout faults one to another ;" priests and people. But if any have sinned against God, to Him and Him only it must be confessed. There is no other text brought forward to sustain this doctrine except in connection "with absolution, which I shaU notice when I come to examine that dogma. WTiere, then, is the command to confess sin to a priest ? When and where did Christ institute con fession? The record, the umpire to which Rome has appealed, is sUent. Silent! on a subject absolutely essential to salvation ! This is a grave, not to say * Matthew xviu. 15-17. 120 THE GREAT APOSTASY. impious, implication. In everything necessary to sal vation the Saviour has revealed himself fully, clearly. In the great commission to the Apostles he specifically lays do'wn thefr duties ; but says not one word about this — does not even intimate that it was His wUl that they should become confessors, that the people must confess thefr sins to them. And Paul, in enumerating the duties and prerogatives of an Apostle, bishop, deacon, does not even allude to this ; whoUy ignores it. And yet the same Apostle declares, that with the Scripture in his hand, "the man of God may be perfect" " thoroughly furnished unto all good works." Confession was not an article of faith in the early Church ; the Church who knew her mission and duty, who drew her life blood, and her inspfration, as it were, from the clear, pure teachings and. holy example of the Apostles. Her ministers were not confessors, nor did the holy martyrs confess. Chrysostom unequivo- caUy condemns all secret confessions of sins to priests, or to any one. "Hast thou sinned?" he asked, "thou needest no witness ; confess thy sins to God, and he wUl forgive thee." And BasU, HUary, Augustine, with many others, taught that confession must be made only to God. Nor did it become, as we have seen, an article of faith, till, in 1215, it was decreed by the in fallible Church of Rome. Now, if it be of " divine institution and command," and essential to salvation, why did not the infalUble Church decree it centuries before ? Why did she permit, or wickedly allow so many miUions to live in ignorance of their duty, and die without salvation ? Why did Paul, and Peter, and John, Polycarp, Chrysostom, and Augustine, never DOCTRINES— ARSOLUTION. 121 teach and practice it ? but teach the Church, over which the Holy Ghost had made them overseers, and the world, to confess thefr sins not to priests, but to God, and Him only ? " Why ? But one answer can be given, "Iiis a human invention." And the decree and prac tice of auricular confession demonstrate that the Church of Rome has "faUen away," and gives "heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of de'vUs." Priestly Absolution. Intimately connected -with auricular confession, and, I may say, kindred to it, is the doctrine of priestly ab solution. Indeed, confession and absolution may be said to be integral parts of the sacrament of penance. And yet they are not this sacrament ; it consists in the formula, or words used by the priest in absolving — " Hgo ie absolvo" — " / absolve thee." So the CouncUs of Florence and Trent decreed. In the latter CouncU different opiiuons were entertained by the doctors and prelates in reference to this very point. Some con tended that the sacrament consists in the penitence and confession of the sinner ; others contended that it is in the absolution conferred, or given by the priests ; others, that it Ues in the union of the two ; and others, that it is in the words used by the priest in absolving. The last opinion prevaUed. A sacrament, ux believe, is an out ward, visible sign or seal, of an inward work of grace, or of a covenant of grace. The sacrament of baptism con sists in the appUcation of water to a proper subject ; and of the Lord's Supper, of consecrated bread and wine re- 122 THE GREAT APOSTASY. ceived by devout faith. But the Trent Fathers decreed that the sacrament of penance consists in the words of the priest, " I absolve thee" ! And they decreed this in the very face of the third canon— their own work — which anathematizes whosoever shaU deny that Jesus Christ established the sacrament of penance by the words : " Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them ; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are re tained" ! But that infalUble CouncU could bring together antipodes, make water and oil at a word, coalesce, and bring light out of darkness. But after all, their bungUng inconsistencies stand out prominently. However, confession and absolution, if they are not integral parts of the sacrament of penance, as some divines of Rome even now teach, they are indispensa ble prerequisites of the solemn formula of the priest in which it consists. Penance, then, has been exalted to the dignity of a sacrament, and that sacrament consists in the words of the priest, " I absolve thee" ! Absolution, then, par don of sins by a priest, is a prominent, settled article of faith in the creed of Rome. Absolution by him is indispensably necessary to pardon and salvation. Hence there is no way to God and to heaven but by and through the priest. The priest is man's visible saviour. This conclusion may be gainsayed by some, and denied by others, in certain quarters, but it is an inevitable se quence from these premises — ^nay, it is the doctrine of Rome. Why, in the decree of the Council of Trent, right before our eyes, auricular confession and priestly absolution are affirmed to be of divine institution and command, and the very words the priest is to use, and DOCTRINES — ABSOLUTION. 123 by which the penitent is pardoned, are laid down — put into his mouth, which can mean nothing else — "Ego te absolvo;" and anathema is thundered against all who shaU deny that he has divine authority in the premises, and that the penitent is absolved. The Council, if possible, went a step further. In the four teenth session the foUowing was passed, and now forms a part of the infalUble doctrine of this Church : " Even priests, who are held in mortal sin, do exercise, by virtue of the Holy Ghost, conferred in ordination, as Christ's ministers, the function o remitting^ins ; and that they think iU who contend that there is not this power in wicked priests. And though the priest's absolution is the dispensation of another's benefit : never theless, it is not a naked ministry alone, either of announcing the Gospel, or of declaring that sins are forgiven ; but nfter the likeness of a judicial act, in which by himself, as by a judge, sentence is PRONOUNCED." Thomas Aquinas, Peter Dens, Drs. ChaUoner and MUner, and a host of others, state and defend this as the doctrine of thefr Church. The Rev. Dr. Murray, who was born of Roman Catholic parents, baptized in the Roman Catholic Church, and confirmed by a bishop, says, that when a youth he regularly confessed his sins to a priest, and that the priest absolved him. The priest assured him that he was pardoned, and he then be lieved it, and came out of the confessional^ satisfied. He had a lighter heart, he assures us, and was ready for amusement and sin again. But it is not necessary to cite decrees of Councils, and quote authors, to prove that the Church of Rome holds this doctrine ; it is written on every page, of her history for the last six 124 THE GREAT APOSTASY. hundred years, and enters into her daily practice. In a word, she teaches that in the sacrament of penance the sinner only can be pardoned ; and that sacrament consists in the absolving words of the priest. Without the priest, therefore, there can be no pardon, no re concUiation with God, no salvation. The priest, then, deny it as you may, pious or cor rupt, a believer or a sceptic, is ¦ man's visible saviour. Without him, heaven is shut, hell is open. And the di^vinely awakened, agonizing, inqufring penitent, can not find Him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets did "write; nor can that God who has- de clared, that " in every nation, he who feareth Him shaU be accepted with Him" — accept and pardon the return ing prodigal. No ! the visible saviour must hear his confession and absolve him. " One cannot enter into a place that is shut," says the Roman Catechism, " unless by means of him who has the keys ; no more can one enter into heaven, when he has shut ihe door against himself by a mortal sin, UNLESS THE PRIEST, TO WHOM JESUS CHRIST HAS COMMITTED THE KEYS, SHALL OPEN THE GATE TO HIM." The priest has the keys of heaven ! he shuts ! he opens ! and God, with out him, cannot shut, cannot open! "The man of sin," "the son of perdition," 'was to "sit in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God." Now, is, this doctrine, as affirmed by Rome, taught in the Bible? Is this high prerogative, this awful power, of di'vine "institution and command"? And surely a doctrine, as vital as the atonement itself, would be clearly, fully revealed ; revealed on every page in juxtaposition with the love of God, the sacri- DOCTRINES — ABSOLUTION. 125 ficial death of Jesus, and faith ; the immortal trinity of doctrines, in the union of which there is salvation, and can but be salvation ; in the separation of which, though man have aU things else, there is death, and can but be death. But this is not the case. Faith, the atonement, the love of God, glow and burn on almost every page of the New Testament, and, lilie Uving beacons, poux out their Ught upon a wicked, benighted world, guiding the penitent to Mount Calvary and to heaven ; but absolution of sins by a priest — where is it revealed ? There are a few isolated passages that seem to favor this doctrine ; but when they are analyzed in the Ught of others, when examined in connection with the design and scope of the plan of salvation, and especiaUy in connection with the prescribed duties of the Apostles, the powers with which Jesus clothed them, and "with thefr practice, they do not sustain it. And this is the only proper, safe rule by which to ar rive at the meaning, the doctrine of any passage, in any author, or book ; especially texts of Scripture. Blackstone lays down this as the only safe rule in ex pounding law ; and Blafr teaches that this rule must be observed to arrive correotly at the views and doc trines of aU authors. To eschew this rule ; to take an isolated passage and force out of it a doctrine in con flict "with its context, and the design and object of the "writer — any doctrine may be proved from any author, and the Bible may be made to ignore the being of God himself! To this rule I shall adhere in this investtgation. The language of the Sa"viour to his disciples, re corded by St. John, is the first text brought forward 126 THE GREAT APOSTASY. by Romanists to prove the doctrine of priestly absolu tion: "As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you." "How, or to do what work," they ask, " did the Father send the Son?" " 'io forgive sins," thej reply. Certainly ; this I admit in the fuUest accepta tion of the terms. But we do not know this except bythe context, or His teaching elsewhere. "If, then," they continue, " the Father sent the Son to forgive sins, and the Son sent His disciples as the Father sent Him ; therefore, the Son sent the disciples to forgive sins."* But this conclusion is a gratuitous assumption ; a mis erable fallacy. This is so apparent that an argument to show it, is almost a work of supererogation. The Father sent the Son to die to redeem sinners. As the Father sent the Son, so the Son sent His disciples ; therefore the Son sent the disciples to die to redeem sinners. This .conclusion is as natural and as logical as the other. I insist, therefore, that all Roman Cath olic priests be crucified to redeem sinners ! If they claim authority from this passage to forgive sins, for the same reason they must submit to the baptism of blood with which the Saviour was baptized. But a mere tyro in logic, even the unlettered man of com mon sense, would reject both as wholly gratuitous. What, then, did the Saviour mean by this language ? To do what work did He send the disciples? Only whatis contained in, and clearly expressed by the great commission, " Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature : He that believeth and is • I heard the late Bishop Reynolds use this very argument. After wards, in a friendly conversation with a priest, I pointed out the fallacy, when he roundly affirmed that there was no fallacy in it. DOCTRINES— ARSOLUTION. 127 baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."* How simple ! how clear this language ! "Go, preach," * * -sf "lajjdze." "He that beUeveth shall be saved ; he that believeth not shall be damned." Not one word about confession ; not one Avord about priestly absolu tion. And, with this commission in his hands — with such credentials, what minister could ever imagine that he is clothed with the awful prerogative of absolv ing penitent sinners ? The next passage brought forward to prove this doc trine, and on which Roman Catholics ftiUy rely, is the 23d verse of the 20th chapter ofthe Gospel recorded by St. John : "Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them ; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." "This language," it is said, "decides the question." "By these words," it is affirmed, "the Saviour instituted the sacrament of penance, and clothed the disciples ¦with power to remit and retain sins." But did he clothe them with power " to remit and retain sins," by a word, in thefr own names, or even in the name of God ? or simply to preach the Gospel, which, when received and believed in, would remit sins, or when rejected, would retain them? H the former, the Church of Rome is right — controversy is at an end; but if the latter, then the sacrament of penance has no foundation here, and the priest — I reject that term as without meaning and improper in the Christian Church — the minister has no higher prerogative, can do no more than simply state the t-erms on which God will absolve the penitent and save him. The minister, as the ' Mark xvi. 15, 16. 128 THE GREAT APOSTASY. ambassador of Jesus Christ, preaches His Gospel, which is "a savor of life unto Ufe, or of death unto death ;" states the terms on which God "wUl pardon, and hence it is said he remits or retains sins. This exposition is sustained by the whole tenor of Scripture, by the teachings of Jesus Christ, and the practice and teach ing of the Apostles. " 0, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. Yet now, if Thou "wUt forgive their sins ; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou has written."* This was the language of Moses when the chUdren of Israel sinned in making and worshipping the golden call Moses, inspfred as he was, the governor and leader of Israel's host, the channel of innumerable favors and blessings to them ; at the wa"ving of whose wand the first-born of Egypt grew pale in death, and the "ivaters of the Red Sea opened and retired as instinct ¦with Ufe : Moses, who had power to prevaU with God — a type of Christ — could not forgive sins. " If you forsake the Lord * * * fle wiU not forgive your trans gressions nor your sins."! In the fervent prayer offered up by Solomon in the dedicatory service of the Temple, we have a number of expressions which fully demonstrate that he and the priests around him, aiding and acquiescing, did not imagine that they, or any one on earth, could forgive sins, but that forgiveness belongeth only unto God. •Exo. xxsii. 31, 32. See, also, xsxiv. 7. t Joshua xxiv. 19. DOCTRINES — ^ABSOLUTION. 129 " What prayer or supplication soever be made by any man, or by aU thy people Israel, who shall know evei-y man the plague of his own heart, and spread forth his hands towards this house : Then hear thou in heaven thy dwelling-place, and forgive, and do, and give to every man according to his ways, whose heart thou knowest, for Thou, even Thou only knowest the hearts of all the children of men."-* Solomon, and the high priest by his side, and the priests around him, knew nothing of auricular confes sion or priestly absolution. Amid the deep penitence of the Psalmist, or in his ecstatic joy, he plead with, and looked only to God for forgiveness, or praised him as his only deUverer and Saviour. He went to no earthly priest ; was absolved by none : " Have mercy upon me, 0 God, according to thy loving kindness ; according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies, blot out my trangressions. * * * Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out aU mine iniquities."! " For thou. Lord, art good and ready to forgive."t " I waited patiently for the Lord ; and he inclined unto me, and heard my cry. He brought me up also out of a horrible pit, out of the miry clay, and set my feet upon a rock and established my goings. And He hath put a new song in my mouth, even praise unto our God ; many shaU see it, and fear, and shaU trust in the Lord."? I, even I, am He that blotteth out thy transgressions." \\ The Jews, the priests and the doctors of the law, did not beUeve, in the days of the sojourn of the Saviour upon earth, that any being could forgive sins, but God only. Hence, when He, who had healed the sick, and * 1 Kings viii. 38. t Psalm li. t Psalm Ixxxiv. § Psalm xl. ' II Isaiah xUii. 25. 130 THE GREAT APOSTASY. raised the dead, and cast out devUs, said, " Son, thy sins be forgiven thee," they were astonished, and asked, " Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies ? Who cajR forgive sins but God only? " * They were not aston ished at His miracles ; Moses and the Prophets had, by the power of God, wrought sunilar ones ; but when He assumed a prerogative belonging only unto God, and which had never been. exercised by Priest or Prophet, they were amazed, and charged Him with blasphemy. " Be ye kind one to another, forgi^vdng one another, even as God, for Christ's sake, hath forgiven you." f "Forgiving one another" "trespass," " faults," impro prieties, as, or because, "God for Chrisi's sake hath for given you" your sins— sins against Him, which man cannot, which He only can forgive. These and innumerable other passages of the same import in the revealments of Heaven, show that the pardon of " transgression and sin" belongeth only unto God; that He has never delegated this power to Prophet, Priest, or Apostle ; and hence, to consfrue the text under review in the Roman Catholic sense, is to do violence to the harmony of Scriptures. It is to prove, by an isolated passage, a doctrine in conflict with their whole scope and tenor. The Saviour must have meant, therefore, that to the disciples was com mitted the Gospel of reconcUiation — that as His am bassadors they would publish the means and state the terms upon which He would "remit" or "retain" ins. He speaks of what He himself will do, through the preaching of the Gospel by his ministers, as if done by them. * Mart ii., 5. t Eph. iv., 32. DOCTRINES — ABSOLUTION. 131 This view is sustained by the whole tenor of the Sa^viour's teaching. In the four Gospels there is not a single word or passage, except the one under review, and the one of the Keys, that can, by any interpretation that does not do utter ¦violence to all rules of exegesis, be made to sustain, even by implication, the doctrine of priestly absolution. The Saviour reveals himself fully. He communicates to his disciples their duties and respon- sibUities. He specificaUy states the work to do which he sends them, to the "lost sheep ofthe house of Israel," or "into all the world." They are to "preach," to "baptize," to "heal_ the sick;" but to hear "secret con fession," and by a word " remit" sins — where is it stat ed ? AVhere shall we find it ? This silence in a matter so momentous, is strangely unaccountable ; nay, it demonstrates that in the plan of salvation absolution by a priest has no part. In the duties, responsibilities, authority, prerogatives of the Gospel ministry, as laid down and taught by the great Head of the Church, with the exception of the contested text we are exam ining and that of the keys, this most sacred duty, this most awful responsibility, has no place. Matthew, Mark and Luke, give us the language of the Saviour when He commissioned the disciples to go to the Jews, and then to all the world, and there is no intimation that they were clothed ¦with this power. The Saviour must be understood, therefore, as speaking ofthe simple preaching of the Gospel, and not of any power which He had given them, to have in themselves, of remitting sins "as by a judicial act." The practice of the Apostles fully sustains this -view. The Apostles, all must admit, understood the nature and 132 THE GREAT APOSTASY. extent of their commission ; the powers with which they were clothed. They received it from the lips of the Saviour. They were inspired. They went out and preached, the Holy Ghost bearing them witness with " signs and wonders," and a great multitude was gath ered mto the fold of Christ. God approved their labors. Thefr practice, then, decides, or ought to decide, the question — shows clearly and beyond aU peradventure what the Saviour meant by this misconstrued and much- abused language : " Whose soever sins ye remit they are remitted," &c. What, then, was their practice ? Did they ever forgive sins ? or did they simply preach the means of pardon — Jesus Christ and him crucified, and point the trembling penitent, without "secret" auricu lar or any "confession" to them, to Him as a sin-par doning God ? Let us see. On the day of Pentecost, Peter, the ffrst Pope (?) and head of the Roman Catholic Church, papists af&rm, Peter, when the multitude cried out, " Men and breth ren, what shall we do?" said, " Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts U. 38.) Wli^-t a fine opportunity for Peter to have said, "I absolve ihee" \ He dared not do it. He knew that he possessed no such prerogative ; that he had been clothed with no such power. A day or two after this, " Peter and John went up together into the Temple." A lame man was healed and the " people ran together." Peter proclaimed to them " the Prince of life," whom they had "killed," as their Sa viour. "Repent ye, therefore," he cried, " and be con verted, that your sins may be BLOTTED OUT, when the ¦ DOCTRINES — ABSOLUTION. 133 times of refreshing shall come from ihe presence of the Lord." And the sins ofthe multitude were "remitted" or "retained," not by priestly absolution, but through the Gospel ; faith in the Gospel, preached by the Apos tles, " when refreshing came from the presence of the Lord." In the sermon preached by Peter, to Cornelius and his company, we have this language : "To him" (to Jesus) " give all the prophets ¦witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive the remission of sins." " While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word."* No priestly absolution here ; no solemn announcement, " I absolve thee." Their sins were remitted, through faith in Jesus, whUe Peter spake. This Peter knew, for they spake "¦with tongues, and magnified God." And he asked, " can any man forbid water, that these should be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost as weU as we." Thefr sins, then, were not only not " remitted," not blotted out, by Peter, but before they were baptized, and therefore by faith, and faith only. When the Philippian jaUer fell down convicted and trembling before Paul and Silas, and said, " Sirs, what must I do to be saved ?" what was their reply ? We absolve you; we "remit" all your sins: Jesus Christ, whom we serve, and whose power hath thrown open these prison doors and broken off these stocks, hath given us power to "remit" and " retain " sins ? Nay, verily. " They said, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." (Acts xvi. 31.) Now, * Acts X. 43, 44. 134 THE GREAT APOSTASY. is not this fully satisfactory and decisive of the ques tion ? Here were inspfred Apostles, who knew thefr duty and the power given to them by the Head ofthe Church, who dared not "remit" sins. But our modern Apostles know more than they, understand the com mission better ; and, that the sinner be not troubled to go to Jesus, they absolve him for money ! The writings of the Apostles in exposition of the Gospel, and of their Apostolic functions, sustain this view — ^that to them was simply committed the Gospel which they were to preach, and which when believed in or rejected, would "remit" or "retain" sins. The Apostle Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans, dis cusses, at length, the doctrine of remission of sins, or justification, and reaches the conclusion that it is through the blood of Christ by faith, and faith only He first "proves both Jews and GentUes, that they are all under sin ;" (ch. iii. 9,) and that " by the deeds ofthe law there shall no flesh be justified." (V. 20.) He then declares that we are "justified freely by" " grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus ;" " whom God hath set forth to be a propitia tion, through faith in his blood, to declare his righteous ness for the remission of sins that are past." (Vs. 24, 26.) " Where is boasting then ?" he asks. " It is ex cluded. By what law? Of works?" By priestly ab solution ? " Nay ; but hy ihe law of faith." " Where fore we conclude that man is justified," pardoned " BY FAITH without ihe deeds of the law ;" (vs. 27-28,) with out priestly absolution ! In the 4th chapter he takes up the case, or justification of Abraham, to illustrate and corroborate his position. "Abraham believed God, DOCTRINES — ABSOLUTION. 135 and it was counted unto him for righteousness." (V. 3.) " Now to him that worketh is the re^vard not reck oned of grace, but of debt." The Roman Catholic doc trine of penance, or remission, is a work throughout ; and hence the salvation it procures is not of " grace, but of debt" and therefore no salvation at all ! " There fore," adds the Apostle, " it is of faith," " ihat it might be of grace." (V. 16.) Having fully demonstrated that remission is not by priestly absolution, but by faith only — and argument was never more complete and satisfactory — he breaks out in the commencement of the fifth chapter, in the sweet, triumphant language, " Therefore, being JUSTIFIED BY FAITH, we have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ" I* Oh, that the Roman Catholic penitent could hear this, under stand this, beUeve this ! In his letter to the Galatians, the Apostle declares that " the Scripture, foreseeing that God wov\(i justify the heathen through faith, preached before the Gospel unto Abraham," (ch. iU. v. 8 ;) and that " the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might he justified by faith." (V. 24.) And Peter, and James and John, teach the same doctrine. All the Apostles declare that to them was committed a " dis pensation of the grace of God to preach remission of sins through faith in Jesus." Not one ever claimed the power to "remit" or "retain" sins by an act, or a word ; not one ever remitted sins by a word, or pro nounced the sinner as absolved in any language, or form, or phrase whatever. They taught the sinner the way of salvation, and pointed the trembling peni- * The words "justify,'' "pardon," "remit," mean the same. 136 THE GREAT APOSTASY tent to Jesus and said, believe on Him " and thou shalt be saved." And he who believed lived ¦without priestly absolution. Now the conclusion is irresistible, that the Apostles had no power to " remit" and " retain" sins as claimed by Roman CathoUc priests. The tenor of Scripture, the scope and spirit of the Saviour's teaching, the prac tice of the Apostles, and thefr own exposition of thefr functions, demonstrate this beyond all doubt. The doctrine of priestly absolution, then, as decreed by the CouncU of Trent and practiced by the Church of Rome, is a " departure from the faith," and a " revela tion ofthe Man of Sin." In assuming it, she has, be yond all question, assumed a prerogative which God has never delegated to man nor Church ; and has thus " exalted herseU above God." But this doctrine is not only false, it is blasphemous, and fearfully pernicious. It has led astray, from God and heaven, untold mU lions into the dark mazes of error, and caused them to rest their hopes of salvation upon a foundation of sand ; and has finaUy opened beneath thefr feet an abyss of woe, at the sight of which " immortality would turn pale"! The passage of the Keys, on which Rome buUds her doctrine of shutting and opening heaven, is of the same import of the one just under review. ' ' I wiU give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven : and whatso ever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loos ed in heaven." The Gospel faithfully preached is the key of the kingdom of heaven. It "looses'" when be lieved in and obeyed; it " binds" when rejected. The DOCTRINES— ABSOLUTION. 137 minister has " the keys ofthe kingdom," and power to " bind and loose," in this sense simply as a preacher. Beyond this he has no power. And if he prove recre ant and preach not, God wUl save through other in- stemnentalities. He, short-sighted, erring, prejudiced mortal, cannot, as he pleases, by a word, open and shut heaven. No, no ! God has never given his ambassa dors such power. " To the angel" — ^the minister — '' of the Church in PhUadelphia write ; these things saith He that is holy. He that is true. He that hath ihe key of David, He ihat openeth, and no 'man shutteth, and shutteth, and no man openeth."* All the benedictions, then, of priests, ^^e?" se, never "loosed" a single soul, and aU their anathemas never "bound" one. Rome may bless or curse, and it is all the same. He thai believeth in the Lord Jesus Christ shall be saved ; but he that be lieveth not shall be damned ! An extract from Bungener, in his usual happy, clear style, "wdl show the reader — ^though I regard the argu ment as complete — that the priest in absol-ving, in opening heaven, as he pretends, exalts himself above God, in that he binds God to do what he has pro nounced : or else he has reaUy done nothing but pro nounce deceptions words which are a blasphemous mockery : " I absolve thee," he, the priest, has said. Is this declaration abso lute, or is it conditional ? " If absolute, if at the instant those words passed from his mouth, they were necessarily ratified in heaven^-I say to myself, I may have deceived him with false semblances of repentance, yet those * Eevelation iii. 7. See, also, Isaiah xin. 22. 138 THE GREAT APOSTASY. words have been not the less pronounced, and God must havejati- fied a pardon which has been stolen. " If conditional, if God confirms the absolution only in the case of His seeing in me sentiments worthy of grace — this is reasonable ; but what becomes of the authority of the priest ? He has not reaUy absolved me ; he has neither loosed nor bound. AU is but a mere promise, that if I fulfil the necessary conditions God ¦mU ab solve me. May not the first that comes tell me as much ? May not I myself say as much to auy sinner who may consult me on the state of his soul ? " In the last case, consequently, the priest is only an adviser. He does not absolve you. Tou are thus compeUed, if you hold to leav ing him anything to do at all, to return to the other alternative, that is to say, to leave him too much, far too much, enormously too much ; you are compeUed to admit that once absolved at the confes sional, the greatest viUain stands absolved before God. " Eead the decree of the CounoU ; is there any indication there that the absolution pronounced by the priest may possibly not he ratified in heaven? No. To say that, in any way, would be .to overturn the whole structure. The penitent is, no doubt, told be forehand that he ought not to be silent on any sin, and that he is held bound to perform the penance imposed ; but here we find pre cisely what authorizes him to beUeve, that after a sincere confession, and the exact performance of the penance imposed, the absolution is necessarily valid. Take hold now of that idea, analyze it, and see to what you are led. A pious woman was asked one day what penalty had been imposed at the confessional, whence she had just returned. Five Paters and five Ave Marias, she replied. And if you should not say them ? My sins will not be forgiven. And if you say them ill, without attention, ¦with weariness and disgust ? No more wiU they be forgiven in that case. Therefore you have not received absolution ? Certainly ; but I must work for it. The priest has not then given you anything ? He gave me absolution. Nay, for you stiU have your sins ; and you will continue to have them until your penance be performed, and you wiU keep them, too, unless you perform it in a proper way. Again we ask, what has the priest given you ? Either a definitive absolution which you are conscious that you have not received, or a mere promise of absolu- DOCTRINES — ABSOLUTION. 139 tion, whieh any other man might have given you. Aud the poor woman was confounded at seeing no middle point betwixt this re ducing of the priest to the level of mere believers, and that exhor- bitant power -with which her coiiscience forbade her to believe him to be invested." " They," the Romanists, " -wUl not go so far as to tell you directly^ that once absolved by the priest, it matters not how, they beUeve themselves pure from aU sin ; but though they say it not, though, strictly speaking, they may not positively think it, that fatal error is not the less the natural, the direct, and, it must be said, the per fectly logical consequence of the system that has been imposed on them. What is confession in those countries into which a little true Ohr.istianity, and a Uttle good sense, have not by some means or other penetrated ? Did paganism, with its impure priests and cheap expiations, ever present anything so unheard of as the bri gand who goes from the confessional to his place of ambuscade, tasting all the tranquUUty of virtue between the crime he has com mitted, and that which he meditates committing ? And why should he not be tranquU ? Of his past crimes he is absolved ; only let him take care not to be kiUed before he has murmured a few prayers imposed on him as penance. Of his future crimes he knows he can be acquitted at the same cost. He never dreams of repentance ; stUl less of amendment of life. ShaU we be chaUenged to cite a book, or a priest, that has taught this ? True, these are not things that are -written or said. But we, in our turn, defy any one to produce a book, or a priest, able enough to refute that brigand so as to deprive him of his frightful security, without a deep breach on the very doctrine of confession, the right of absolution, and all their consequences. Everything, to the very title of sacrament, bestowed on penance, concurs to produce these deplorable results. When the priest has said, ' I baptize thee,' the infant is baptized. When he has said in the mass, ' This is my body,' the wafer is changed, infallibly changed into flesh. When he has said, ' I ab solve thee,' how can it.be, if penance be a sacrament, if these words be pronounced with the same authority as the others, how can it be that there should not be absolution 7 To refute the brigand who deems himself absolved, weU and duly absolved, you must begin by telling Mm that absolution in itself signifies nothing." 140 THE GREAT APOSTASY. This doctrine was unknown to the Apostolic Church. In the first century there is nothing said about it. The atonement, faith, regeneration, baptism, &c., are themes of earnest discussion, and doctrines of high commenda tion. But confession, absolution — there is concerning them a profound sUence. Who can account for this ? Did the Church not know her duty? or was she un faithful to her Lord, and suffered the holy martyrs to die with mortal sins unremitted, and go down the ' ' sides of the pit" ? And when the sUence was broken — when " the mystery of iniquity" began to work more and more — ^it was by Chrysostom, Basil, HUary, Augus tine, &c., against this doctrine. And not tUl after the Man of Sin exalted himself into the Temple of God, was it practiced to any extent ; and it was not an article of faith tiU the fourth Council of Lateran de creed it in the thirteenth century. The formula used by the few who professed to absolve, from the seventh century to the CouncU of Lateran, was the more modest, but stUl very objectionable phrase, " God ab solves ihee." But then the mystery of iniquity, in this, culminated, and the form was changed to, "/ absolve ihee." The difficulties, then, that en-vfron this doctrine and its history, demonstrate no less than the Word of God, that Rome's interpretation of the passage, " Whose soever sins ye remit," &c., is erroneous ; and that the one I have given is the true one. And this view is sustained, right in the face of the Council of Trent, by Bossuet and Pope Innocent IIL, incidentally it may be, but that is all the better. "It is Jesus Christ," says Bos suet, " it is that in"visible pontiff who absolves the peni- DOCTRINES — ABSOLUTION. 141 tent inwardly, whilst the priest exercises the outward ministry." There are two acts, then, and one may exist without the other. The priest's act is one, and not that of the invisible pontiff. Is, then, the priest's absolution such absolutely before, and with, and in the sight of God? No, surely; unless the absolu tion of the invisible pontiff is united "with, and con- troUed by it. But does the "visible priest compel the in"visible to absolve when he pronounces ? None, per haps, wUl be so bold as nakedly to affirm this. The priest, then, cannot " remit" sins ; the invisible pontiff only can do this. Jesus Christ, therefore, did not in stitute the sacrament of penance by the words, "Whose soever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them,'-' &c. Nor has the priest any more authority than simply to preach the Gospel, and God through the Gospel re ceived by faith, "remits," or when rejected, "retains sins." "As the Church," says Innocent IIL, "may some times err "with respect to persons, it may happen that such an one who shall have been loosed in the eyes of the Church, may be bound before God, and that he whom the Church shaU have bound, may be loosed when he shaU appear before Him who knoweth aU things." I have no doubt of this. Who has? This yields us everything we ask. " Whatsoever is bound on earth," then, by a priest "is not bound in heaven." And Rome's boasted interpretation of this text is erro neous ; and all the doctrines built upon it are depart ures from the faith ; and all the consequences flowing out from it, are streams of the mystery of iniquity. To the miiuster has been committed a dispensation of the 142 THE GREAT APOSTASY. Gospel of the grace of God ; he is to preach ; here his power begins and terminates — God "binds" or "looses," "remits" or retains" sins through his preaching when faithfully performed. He is not a God then ; nor a semi-God, but the servant of all. His motto, therefore, should be, " We preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake." And in all his ministrations, he should, must point the sinner to Him and say, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." And he who believes on Him, though the priest were never seen or heard, " shall not perish but have everlasting Iffe." Indulgences. Closely connected with the doctrine of penance, in its nature, is the dogma of Indulgences. The Church of Rome claims the power to remit sins and the punish ment due for sins, for a specified time, or even forever ; and this is called an indulgence. For a stipulated sum, more or less, the indulgence is limited or plenary. That Rome claims this power, or that this is an article of faith in her creed, has been questioned by some, and denied by others, in this country ; but they might as well deny- that the Pope is the head of the Roman Catholic Church, or that he has spiritual sovereignty over his flock. The CouncU of Trent — supreme au thority with papists — says: "Christ has granted to his Church the power of granting indulgences ;" "and that the use of them is very salutary to the faithful, and must be retained in tlie Church." According to Sarpi, DOCTRINES — INDULGENCES. 143 there were a few in that Council opposed to it, but with overwhelming numbers they were voted down, and this doctrine "took its place definitely among the Roman dogmas." Indulgences, in the Roman Catholic sense and use of them, were invented in the eleventh century by Urban II. They were offered as a sure passport to heaven, to all who would take up arms and enter the crusades to the Holy Land. Then, to those whq, hired a soldier for that purpose. Victor HI. granted indul gences to all who would fight against the Saracens. Alexander HI. granted them, and an eternal reward, to all who would fight against the Albigenses — those true Christians, and the true Church. CaUxtus n., Eugenius, Clement III., all granted indulgences. "John XXII. granted an indulgence for a miUion of years for devoutly saying three prayers written in the chapel of the Holy Cross in Rome" ! Pius VIL, in a bull, sent to Dr. Moylan, Bishop of Cork, in 1809, uses this language: "By di^vine providence. Pope, grants unto each and to every one of the faithful of Christ, who, after assisting at least eight times at the holy exer cise of the mission, (in the new Cathedral of Cork,) shall confess his or her sins "with true contrition and approach unto the holy communion — shall visit the said Cathedral Chapel, and there offer up to God for some time pious and fervent prayers for the propagation of the holy Catholic faith, and to our intention, a plenary indulgence." Dr. Moylan, in his pastordl letter concern ing this dispensation from the Pope, says : " Behold, the treasures of God's grace are now open to you ! The ministers of Jesus Christ, invested with His authority, 144 THE GREAT APOSTASY. and animated by His Spirit, expect you with a holy impatience, ready to ease you of thai heavy burden of sin under which you have so long labored.* Were your sins as red as scarlet, by the grace of ihs absolution and application of this plenary indulgence, your souls shall become white as snow." * * * " To gain this plenary indulgence, it is necessary to be truly penitent, to make a, good confession," to a priest, of course. "All priests approved of by us to hear confessions can, during the above time, absolve all such persons as present them selves with due dispositions at confession, in order to obtain this plenary indulgence from all sins and cen sures." Now, all this was in this glorious nineteenth century. It is a well-known fact, that the reformation in Ger many commenced in opposition to the sale of indul gences. Pope Leo X. authorized and sent out John Tetzel, a bold, impudent priest, to sell indulgences. Tetzel went forth and offered these " treasures of God's grace" to "the faithful." The letters-patent, given by him, communicating this grace, granting the indul gences and absolution, are full and explicit. Here is one: " The Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on thee, N — N — , and ab solve thee by the merits of His most holy sufferings ! And /, in virtue of the apostoUc power committed to me, absolve thee from all ecclesiastical censures, judgments, and penalties, that thou mayest have merited ; and further, from all excesses, sins and crimes, that thou mayest have committed, however great and enoi-mous they may be, and of whatever kind — even though they should be reserved to our Holy Father, the Pope, and to the Apostolic See. I efface aU the stains of weakness, and all traces of the shame that thou mayest have * Of what utility, then, had their absolutions been ? DOCTRINES — INDULGENCES. 145 drawn upon thyself by such actions. I remit the pains thou wouldst havo had to endure in purgatory. I receive thee agam to the sacrar ments of the Church. I hereby re-incorporate thee in the communion of the Saints, and restore thee to the innocence and purity of thy baptism ; so that, at the moment of death, the gate of the place of torment shaU be shut against thee, and the gate of the paradise of joy shall be opened unto thee. And if thou shouldst live long, this grace continueth uachangeable, tUl the time of thy end.* " In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. " The brother John Tetzel, commissary, hath signed this with his o-wn hand."t What a tissue of presumption and blasphemy ! WeU might the heart of Martin Luther swell with horror and pious indignation at this unholy traffic. He lifted his voice in thunder-tones against it, as a daring as sumption of Jehovah's prerogatives, and a fearfully demoralizing, damning sin. At those fearless trumpet- blasts the eyes of the blind were opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped. The Reformation began ; and soon the noinds of men were liberated from the dark ness of ages and priestly bondage, and stood forth "re generated and disenthralled." Dr. Johnson, in his travels in Italy, says : " That religion cannot offer very formidable checks to immoraUty, or even crime, which hangs up ' Plenary Indulgence' on every chapel-door. He who can easUy clear the boaid of his conscience on Sunday, has surely a strong temptation to begin chalking up a fresh score on Monday or Tuesday." In Mexico, Central and South America, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Austria, ever and anon, the traveller in * "Wherefore, then,, administer extreme unction? t D'Aubigne T 146 THE GREAT APOSTASY. his journeyings sees over the doors of Churches, even at this day, this advertisement, "Indulgences for ,SALE here." In the " Christian^ Guide to Heaven; a Manual for Catholics," published some years ago at "Baltimore, "with the approbation of the Most Reverend Archbishop of Baltimore," we have the following statement and directions :* " Plenary Indulgences qeantbd to the Faithful thkoughout THESE States, at the following times : " I. On Christmas day, and the twelve days foUowing, to the day of Epiphany, inclusively. " II. In the first week in Lent, beginning "with the first Sunday, and ending with the second Sunday, inclusively. " III. At Easter, i. e., from Palm Sunday, inclusively, to Low Sunday, inclusively. " IV. From Whitsunday to the end of the octave of Corpus Christi. "V. On the feast of St. Peter and St. Paul, and during the octave. " VL On the feast of the assumption of the blessed Virgin Mary and during the octave. " vn. On the Sunday preceding the Feast of St. Michael, and during the octave, unless St. Michael faU on a Sunday, in which CEise it begins on that day. " VIII. On All Saints' day, and during the octave. " IX. Once every month, on any day which each of the faithful shaU choose, as best suits himself. " The conditions of the first, third, sixth, and seventh, are: " I To conf ess their sins with a sincere repentance, to a priest ap proved by the bishop. " 2. Devoutly and worthily to receive the holy communion. " 3. To visit some chapel, or oratory, where mass is celebrated, and there offer up their prayers, for the peace and welfare of God's Church." * Page 21. doctrines — indulgences. 147 The fourth and last condition is simUar. Then we have the following: "Note. — It is not required, for gaining these indulgences, that these works of mercy, corporal or spiritual, or this assisting at cate chisms or sermons, be done on the same day with the communion ; but that pereons be then in a disposition, or readiness of mind, to do these things, or some of them at least, when opportunity shall offer." Pope Clement XL, in 1718, issued a brief, called the " BuU of the Holy Crusade, to the kingdoms of Spain, and the isles to them pertaining, in favor of all them that should help and serve the King, PhUip V., in. the Avar, and expense of it, which he doth make against -the enemies of our Catholic faith, with great indulgences and pardons." In this "Bull," "his holiness cloth grant a free and full indulgence and pardon of all iheir sins," " to all the true Christians," Roman Catholics, "who shaU go to fight against the Turks, and other infidels" — Protestants. On certain days, "the first Sunday in Lent " among others, a "free and full in dulgence" is vouchsafed to each and aU who "will comply with the conditions on which the proffered boon is tendered. " Third Sunday in Lent, free and full indulgence ;" and, on " this day, everybody " who has purchased a bull (Clement's) and obeyed its injunc tions, "takes one. soul out of pur gatmy"\ In fine, "to all those who would take the bull," and pay for it, of course, "is granted the same indulgences and pardons, every day, which are granted at Rome." Convenient, very. " The Holy Father," Clement XL, was very gracious, certainly. But his "merchandise" cost him nothing, and so great and good a favor, — a work so 148 THE GREAT APOSTASY. glorious in its results, — " a free and full indulgence and pardon of all sins," and the "taking" of so many precious "souls out of purgatory" — he ought to have repeated times without number. How cruel not to have done so! "Pardon," deliverance "from purga tory," and heaven offered, oh, infalUbly secured, by the purchase and obedience of the brief of a Pope ! Oh, Rome, thou hast, indeed, changed the truth of God into a lie ! The simple, pure Gospel, which offers salvation by faith in Jesus Christ, thou hast changed into bulls of Popes, and the blasphemous absolution of priests. Nay, the Pope is God on earth, exalted above Jehovah in the heavens, and his brief, the Gospel. In a book called " The Tax of ihe Sacred Roman Chancery,"* we have the precise sums to be paid for an indulgence ; for the commission of each particular sin, or for the pardon of the sin and remission of the punishment. The vender of these "holy wares," or the Father confessor, however, may vary the price with the noble and the wealthy. Of him to whom much is given, much is required. I wUl give but a few cases. I will not blur these pages with the recital of the filthy, corrupt, unholy crimes, and the price of their commission, spread out on the leaves of that work. For "perjury, forgery, and lying, two dollars." " Robbery, three dollars." ""Eating meat in Lent, two dollars seventy -five cents." " A nun for frequent forni cation, in or out of the nunnery, five dollars." " Marry ing on a day forbidden, ten dollars." " Absolution of all sins together, twelve dollars." " All iri costs, rapes, adultery, and fornication, committed by a priest, with * Published by Anthony Egane, a Franciscan friar, in 1673. DOCTRINES — INDULGENCES. 149 his relations, nuns, married women, vfrgms, and his concubines, -with the joint pardon of all his whores at the same time, ten dollars." Dr. MUner in his "End of Controversy," says : "The essential guilt and eternal punishment of sin cau only be expiated by the precious merits of our Redeemer, Christ ; but a certain temporal punishment God reserves for the penitent him self to endure, lest the easiness of his pardon should make him care less about faUing back into sin !* Hence, satisfaction for his tem poral punishment has been instituted by Christ, as a part of the sacrament of penance ; and this very satisfaction is only efficacious thi-ough Christ. As the promise of the Lord to his Apostles — St. Peter in particular — and their successors, is unlimited : ' Whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven ;' so the Church beUeves and teaches, that her jurisdiction extends to this satisfaction, so as to be able to remit it wholly or partially, in certain circum stances, by what is caUed an indulgence. St. Paul exercised this power in behalf of the incestuous man (2 Cor. xi. 10) ; and the Church has claimed and exercised the same power ever since the time of the Apostles down to the present. But there must be a just cause for the exercise of it ; namely, the greater good of the peni tent, or of the faithful, or of Christendom in general, and there must be a certain proportion between the punishment remitted and the good work performed ! Hence, no one can ever be sure tliat he lias gained the entire benefit of the indulgence, tlwugh he has performed all the conditions appointed for this end .' And it is the received doctrine of the Church, that an indulgence, when truly gained, is not barely a relaxation of the canonical penance enjoined by the Church, but also an actual remission, by God himself, of the whole, or of part of ihe temporal punishment due to it in his sight .' This esplanation of an indulgence, conformably to the doctrine of theologictns, the decrees of Popes, a,nd the definitions of Councils, ought to silence the objections and suppress the sarcasms of Protestants on this head." * Just the reverse is true. The ease with which he gains an indul gence keeps him sinning. 150 THE GREAT APOSTASY. Dr. Milner's great work was written as a special de fence of Roman Catholicism, and for the eye of Pro testants. This extract, therefore, contains the most reasonable and defensible view which can be presented, of this doctrine. It is a studied effort to explain away the glaring errors that are inherent in it, to keep out of ¦new the fetid stream of corruptions which flows out from it, and to impress the mind that it is of Scriptural origin and apostolic practice. But he signally faUs. It is not of divine origin ; nor was it ever practiced in the primitive Church. He cites but one single text to sustain him, and that no more proves his assumption than that the Koran is of God. But Mr. Ousley's reply is so much to the point, such a clear refutations that I give it in preference to anything I might offer : " That this is the real doctrine of his Council of his infaUible Church to this hour, none wiU dispute ; but that in the whole of it there is a tittle of truth, and that he could believe there is, who of the least information will attempt to affirm ? He assumes as di vine truths the foUowing most monstrous propositions: 1. That when God acquits a penitent of one— the eternal guilt, He stiU holds him under another guilt — ^the temporal. 2. That he himself must endure this latter, and must atone for it here, in the way his clergy shall appoint, or in purgatory. 3. That this mode of satisfaction was instituted by Christ. 4. That to his Church He has commit ted, by an unlimited promise, full power to manage this whole busi ness. 5. That such is her jurisdiction, she can remit the eternal guilt in the sacrament of penance, and the temporal guilt — the whok of it, or a part ! — by the same, but especially by an indulgence, as did St. Paul, and as the Church has ever since always done ! or lastly, by masses ; these two last extending to purgatory also ! 6. Because there must be a just proportion between the pimishment remitted and the good work, i. e., the penance enjoined by the pas tor ; no one can ever be sure, let him perform it ever so weU, that DOCTRINES — INDULGENCES. 151 he has gained the entire of tlie remission ho aimed at. Hence, of coui'se, his doubts and alarm must ever continue, and his Church must devise other new plans for his relief, viz., more penance, more indulgences, a jubUee, extreme unction, and, at the end, purgatory, with more indulgences stUl, masses, and what not, to extricate the poor soul ! !" That the Church of Rome, then, claims the power to grant indulgences is a settled question. No intelli gent person will doubt it ; no honest Romanist wUl deny it. Now, if penance be a sacrament, and sacraments con fer grace, ex opere operato, or, from their own intrinsic virtue, or of themselves — so that he who has received the sacrament, whatever it be, must necessarUy and without fail, whatever may have been his mental and moral feelings, have received the grace also— as the CouncU of Trent decreed and " the faithful" believe, — wherefore the necessity of indulgences ? If absolution by the priest has remitted sin, the bull of the Pope, or letters-patent, granting indulgences, are a cheat. Or, if a plenary indulgence is necessary to pardon sin, and saves from purgatory, absolution is an impious, ridicu lous farce. This doctrine has no foundation in Scripture. There is not a single passage that even seems to favor it. It is emphaticaUy a doctrine of men. Not even does tradition, which Rome claims to be of equal authority "with the inspfred Word, sustain it. Like the sacrament of penance and the Immaculate Conception, it has been evolved as a necessity of the corruptions of the Man of Sin; and, has been decreed a dogma essential to pardon and redemption from purgatory, to exalt 152 THE GREAT APOSTASY. into divinities the Pope, and prelates, and priests of Rome, and bring the people still more in unquestion ing submission and absolute dependence at thefr feet. Without absolution, and indulgences, and transubstan tiation, or mass, what can a poor Roman Catholic do ? There is no pardon ; no salvation. And ihese cannot be realized without the Pope and the priest. What, then, are the Pope and the priest but di"vinities before whom the people must bow, and by, and through whom, enter into life eternal ? Every mandate of the Pope, of the priest, must be obeyed, every wish grati fied, or the channels of grace are turned away, anathema peals its fearful thunders in the darkened heavens, and hell yawns voraciously for its hopeless prey. Beyond aU question, proclaim to the contrary as you may, the Hierarchy of Rome is the most unmitigated, relentless, cruel, absolute despotism in the world. A despotism as far from the Christianity taught by Jesus Christ and his Apostles ; a Christianity which fully recognizes in dividual, personal rights, the prerogatives of conscience and man's dependence only on God; as far from this, as the darkness of midnight is from the light of noon day. But more of this in another place. Many able Roman CathoUc authors admit that there is no warrant for this doctrine in the Scriptures; and that it was never practiced in the ApostoUc Church. Father Biel says, and the admission has the more force in it because he was an uncompromising advocate of the papacy : "we must confess, that before the time of Gregory, the use of indulgences was very Uttle ff at all known, but now the practice of them is gro"wn fre quent;" he adds as if fearful the honest confession DOCTRINES — INDULGENCES. 153 would affect "the practice of them": "the Church, without doubt, hath the spirit of Christ her spouse, and therefore erreth not." What a fatal fallacy ; a fallacy, as we have seen, which underlies the mighty super structure of Rome ; an empt)-, airy nothing, a fathom less abyss into which papists plunge when they imagine that they are building on an immovable rock. Here is the great parent error of all the heresies and corrup tions of the Church of Rome. In all that she decrees, in all that she believes, in all that she does, she cannot depart from the faith, cannot err. Whatever doctrine or practice, therefore, will strengthen her hands and throw a deeper paU of moral night over the people and forge thefr chains with stronger links, though at open war with the Scriptures and even tradition, it is decreed and they must believe and obey, or the ever- ready thunders of anathema will scathe, and burn, and kiU. " H we could have any certainty concerning the origin of indulgences, it would help us much in the disquisi tion of the fruth of purgatory ; but we have not by writing any authority either of the Holy Scriptures, or ancient doctors, Greek or Latin, who afford us the least knowledge thereof."* St. Anthony, Archbishop of Florence, says — and what a saint says ought to be true — " Touching indulgences, we have nothing ex pressly cited in Holy Scripture." Cardinal Fisher says, "So long as therewas no care about purgatory, nobody looked for indulgences, for from it proceeds all regard for indulgences. When purgatory was but so lately known io the Universal Church or received, it is not * Cardinal Cajetan. London edition, 1637. 154 THE GREAT APOSTASY. to be ivondered at, thai in the first time ofthe Church there were no indulgences."* Cardinal Cajetan, in his tract on Indulgences, commenting on these words of St. Peter, " There shall be false teachers among you, who through covetousness shall "with feigned words make merchandise of you," says: " Such are these mercenary preachers, who, for money, abuse the devotion of Christian people, daring to preach from rash ignorance, that those who pay a carlin or a ducat for what they call a plenary indulgence, are in the same condition as if they had just been baptized, and that they even de liver a soul from purgatory. Such declarations are monstrous, and it is only making traffic of the people; the Christian religion also condemns it." Yes, verUy, " the Christian religion," in genius and spirit, in teaching and practice, does " condemn it " and cast it away as an unholy thing; as one of the " un clean spirits, like a frog which came out of the mouth of the beast." Finally, Alphonso de Castro, in a work on this sub ject, admits that "the doctrine of indulgences was quite recent " (this was in the sixteenth century) " in the Church of Rome." " It is the same with this be lief," he adds, " as "with several others — such as tran substantiation and purgatory ; the ancients did not know them, it is frue, but what is there astonishing in that, since God daUy gives new light to the world ?" The same old error of illumination and infallibility. Were it not for this monstrous sophism, which ever haunts, and ever blinds " the faithful," these new doc trines, indulgences, transubstantiation, purgatory, &c., * Lutheran Eefiitation quoted by Ousley. DOCTRINES — TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 155 wouldbe regarded with astonishment, and be rejected as departures from the faith and " doctrines of seducing spirits and of devils." Now, can evidence be more clear and convincing — can moral reasoning reach a conclusion more logical and impregnable— that the Church of Rome, in the doctrine of indulgences, has " fallen away ;" and is the Man of Sin who came up in the prophetic vision of the Apostle, " opposing and exalting himself above God" ? And yet, in all this, she says she " cannot err." This "fundamental tenet," which only could have orig inated with "the Son of Perdition," so fills her vision, and iUumines with its false glare her heart and her pathway, that she can but see and hold the truth in unrighteousness. Being "incapable of erring," she can never reform — she can fall away, but return never ; and therefore, this foul, dainning dogma will form a black chapter in her creed till " the Lord shall con sume" her "with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy" her "with the brightness of his coming." Transubstantiation. Transubstantiation, or the conversion of ihe bread and wine, used for the holy Eucharist, into the body and blood of Christ, by the prayer of a priest, is another fun damental doctrine of the Church of Rome. The bread aud wine, she teaches, and most constantly, firmly holds, are not only consecrated to the ser-vice of God, set apart from a common to a holy use, as held by Protestants, but are changed, by the prayer of conse cration, "into the body and blood, soul and divinity 156 THE GREAT APOSTASY. of Christ." So that Christ is not present figuratively, spiritually, but really, personally — ihe bread, under the magic prayer of the priest, has ceased io he bread and is His body ; the wine has ceased to be wine and is His blood. This is a most prominent, distinctive doctrine of Roman Catholics, and their boast and glory. They cling to no dogma, perhaps, with a firmer faith. And it is among the last eradicated from the mind of one seeking the truth, and who is being liberated from the super stition and intolerable burden of oppressive, useless ceremonies of this fallen Church. As this doctrine should be clearly understood, I "wUl lay before the reader the decree of the CouncU of Trent. The Trent Fathers say : " Since Christ our Redeemer, has said, that that was truly his o^wn body which he offered under the appearance of bread ; it has therefore been always beUeved in the Church of God, and is now again declared by this holy Council — That by the consecration of the bread and wine, there is effected a conversion of the whole sub stance of Ihe bread inio the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of ihe wine into the substance of his blood ; which conversion is fitly and properly termed, by the holy Catholic Church, Transubstantiation. " If any one shall deny that in the most holy sacrament of the eucharist, there are contained, truly, really, aad substantially, the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ ; or say that he is in it only as in a sign, ot figure, or by his infiuence, let him be accursed ! " If any one shall say that in the sacrament of the eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and shall deny the wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into his body, and the wliole substance of the wine into his blood, .the appearance only of bread and wine remaining, which conversion the Catholic Church most properly terms Transubstantiation — let him be accursed 1" DOCTRINES — TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 157 In the creed of Pius IV., to which all papists sub scribe, we have this language : " I also believe that in the mass, a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice is offered unto God, for the living aud the dead ; and that the body and blood, with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ, is tndy, really, and substantially, in the most holy sacrament of the eucharist, and that there is a conversion made of the whole substance of the bread into his body, and the whole substance of the wine into his blood." Dr. Challoner, no mean "writer and unimpeachable authority with Romanists, says : "After the consecration, provided there be no defects, there remains nothing of the inward substance of the bread and wine, but the outward appearance only ; and then, Jesus Christ himself, true, God and tru£ man, soul, body, and divinity, tvho was born of the blessed Virgin, and suffered on the cross, is truly, really, and substan tially present in the eucharist ; that the sacrifice of the eucharist is the same as that of the cross, and not two distinct sacrifices, as Jesus never liad but one body." *-***" In the sacrament of the altar, there is every appearance of bread and wine ; yet neither bread nor wine is tiiere." This language is clear and expUcit ; and Rome, for once, desires to be distinctly understood. She here teaches that by the prayer of a priest, the bread, is con verted into the body of Christ, and the wine into his blood; that the prayer of consecration, or rather the " mass," is a re-offering of Christ, a "sacrifice," an atone ment for sins, for " the quick and the dead;" that the body into which the bread is converted is the very same body which " was born of the blessed Virgin," and that was crucified " on the cross." Let us carefully examine these positions in the Ught of Scripture and reason : 158 THE GREAT APOSTASY. When the holy eucharist was instituted by the Saviour, he said to his disciples, giving them the bread which he had just consecrated and broken, " Take, eat : this is my body." 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." Roman Catholics construe this passage literally ; and upon this build their doctrine of transubstantiation. Protestants under stand it figuratively, and hence reject the real personal presence. What, then, did our Lord mean by this language? Did he mean that the bread which he blessed and brake and gave to his disciples, which they did eat, was his living body, his fiesh and blood, then before them, which lived till next day, was crucified, dead and buried, which rose the thfrd day, and has ascended into the heavens and " is alive forever more" ? So Rome teaches, and so papists believe. Or, did he mean that the bread was his body, denotatively, represent atively, figuratively f So Protestants teach, and so we believe. And this, unquestionably, as we shall see, is the Saviour's meaning ; this the doctrine taught by him in the Gospel. 1. The Saviour frequently taught in figurative lan guage. "I am the vine, ye are the branches." "I am the door." " I am the way." " Ye are the salt of the earth ;" "the light of the world." " My sheep hear my voice." " Feed my sAeep." " Whosoever c^nm/ce^/i of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of wafer springing up into everlasting Iffe." "Tlhe seven stars which thou sawest," said the Saviour to John in DOCTRINES — TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 159 Patmos, "are tlie angels ofthe seven churches ; and the seven candlesticks are the seven churches." Not literally, really, but figuratively ; the stars were not angels, the candlesticks were not churches. They represented them ; so the bread and wine represent the body and blood of Christ. The Saviour used figurative terms, the most rigid papist must admit, in the very institution of this sacra ment. "He took the cup, saying, drink ye aU of it, * * * this — the cup — is my blood of the New Testa ment." He blessed the cup — ii was his blood — he gave, and they drank it. The cujj, therefore, was transub stantiated into the body and blood of Christ ; and the disciple drank ii up ! But Christ did not mean the cup, but the wine in the cup, you say. How do you know ? Did Christ say so ? Why, he spoke figurative ly. Yes, verUy ; and the whole passage is figurative. The cup was not the wine in the cup ; nor was the wi7ie in the cup, his blood; nor the bread, his body. They were the emblems, or symbolical representations of his body and blood. 2. Christ said to his disciples, and to the Jews, some time before the Supper was instituted, "VerUy, 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." " Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life." Many were offended at this, and said, "This is a hard saying; who can hear it?" As ff they had said, "What offensive doctrine is this? We cannot eat his flesh and drink his blood. Immediately, He replied — and the reply was made to correct thefr literal construction of his language — " What, and if ye 160 THE GREAT APOSTASY. shall see the Son of Man ascend up, where he was be fore?" "You will not eat my flesh literally, but ,spiriiual.ly." For this body will ascend up" "into heaven." He adds, that he may fully satisfy them, and remove all doubt and offence, " It is the Spirit that quickeneth ; THE :^LESH PROFITETH NOTHING : the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life."* That the Saviour intended, by the phrase, " eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood," to be understood in a flgurative, or spiritual sense, as his o"wn exposition clearly shows, is beyond all peradventure. The Fathers, without a soUtary exception, so far as I have ever seen, or heard, so understood him. Ignatius, Cyril, Jerome, Chrysostom, Origen, Augustine, &c., and even Bernard, construe this passage spiritually. Au gustine says, " Our Lord seems to command an atrocity. It is, therefore, a figure, which is to be understood in a spiritual sense. He is spirituaUy eaten and drunk. Ea.t, not with your teeth, but ¦with your heart. Believe, and you have eaten ; for to believe and to eat are the same." Origen says, " Christians understand the ex. pression spirituaUy, and are not devourers of flesh.'' •A thousand such expressions might be given. The Fathers were no cannibals. Mauricius, Ragusa, Villetan, Gerson, Jansenius, Biel, Tilmann, Stephen, Lindan, and a host of others, able "writers, and good Roman Catholics ; and Lombard, Aquinas, Albert, Bonaventura, &c., subtle schoolmen, and Rome's honored sons ; and Cardinals AUiaco, Cu- san, Cajetan, &c. ; all understood this passage in this * John vi. 53-63. DOCTRINES — TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 161 sense. Cajetan says, "The Lord s})caks of faith." Cusan thus expresses himself, "This language is to be understood, not of visible or sacramental, but of spiritual manducation by faith." Popes Innocent III. and Pius II. concur in this exegesis. Indeed, so far as I can learn, this is the exposition of their Churcli. Now, the passage, " This is my body ;" "this cup is my blood," is of the same import — ^must mean the same thing. Or, by what rule of exegesis, by what law of hermeneutics, are we to -understand the language, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and di-ink his blood, ye have no life in you," spiritually, and the phrase, " This is my body — my blood," literally ? If the one is Uteral, so is the other. If the one is spiritual — and the former, Jesus says, the Fathers say, Rome says, is spiritucd — so is the other. Transubstantiation, then, has no foundation in this passage. Christ's words " are spfrit and they are Iffe." 3. St. Paul, in speaking of the consecrated elements, after all the fransmuting, or transubstantiating influ ence that can pass upon them, has taken place, calls them "bread" and "the cup." "As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death." "Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of (that) bread, and drink of (that) cup.* He must certainly have been ignorant that they had ceased to be "bread " and "the cup," except in " outward appear ance only," and that Jesus Christ, his beloved Saviour, "soul, body and di"vinity," was really, personally, * The word "ttaf," is not clear in the original. It more properly reads, ' ' eat of bread.' ' Of course, he means consecrated bread ; but bread still. 162 THE GREAT APOSTASY. present in, and concealed under, them ; that they were essentiaUy, properly, truly, "the Christ;" or, learned as he was, inspired as he was, he used language wholly inexpressive of the doctrine he should have inculcated, and only calculated to deceive. No man, to whom he •wrote, or in this day, could ever imagine that he meant by "bread," the "body of Christ, which was bom of the blessed Virgin, crucified on the cross," and that ascended into heaven. The Apostle's exposition, there fore, shows that the passage under review must be understood in a spiritual sense. 4. " The Lord Jesus, in the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread ; and when he had given thanks he brake it, and said. Take eat ; this is my body, which is broken for you : this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the New Tes tament in my blood : this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." (1 Cor. xi. 23-25.) Now, here the Apostle teaches, that the consecration of the bread and wine, and the eating and drinking, are all done in remembrance of Christ, of his passion and death. But how can they be in or for a remembrance of Christ, when they are Christ ? as Rome teaches. Can a thing be in remembrance of itself f If, as Dr. Challoner says, there is but one body, the bread after the prayer of the priest, being the same body that was crucified ; and if the "sacrifice of the altar is the same as that of the cross," then, it is a continuation ofthe tragic scene of Calva-ry ! and, therefore, not in remembrance of his death ; ii is his death. Who is right, St. Paul or Rome? DOCTRINES — TKANSUESTANTIATION. 163 5. For Christ (in his body) " is not entered into the holy places made with hands, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us : Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest," (under the lav/",) " entoxeth into the holy place every year with the blood of others ; for there must he often have sufferea since the foundation of the world : but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many." ¦* * * * " This man, (Jesus,) after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, forever sat do"wn on the right hand of God. By the which we are sanctified, through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. For by one offer ing he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified."* Thus an inspired Apostle speaks ; thus God teaches. Now listen to Rome: "In the mass a true, proper, and propitiatory sacriflce is offered unio God, for the living and ihe dead; and that the 5o(fy and blood with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, is truly, really, and substantially, in the most holy sacrament of the eucharist." * * * •» " The sacri,fi/:e of the eucha rist is the same as that of the cross, and not two distinct sacriflces." How wide the difference ! How palpable and great the heresy of Rome ! The Lord declares, that " Once He appeared io put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." Rome replie's, " In the mass, a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice is offered unto God, for the sins of the living and the dead" ! The Lord declares, that " We are sanctified through the offering of Jesus Christ ONCE for all." Rome repUes, " The sacrifice of the * Heb. ix. 24 and x. 10-14. 164 THE GREAT APOSTASY. eucharist is the SAME as that of the cross ! " Every priest hj every prayer of consecration "sacrifices Christ" sjid " offers " Him " unto God for the living and the dead. " The Lord declares, that " Christ" in the body that was crucified, "is entered into lieaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us. " Rome repUes, " That by the consecration of the bread, there is effected a con version of the whole substance of the bread into the sub stance of the body of Christ our Lord;" that, "then, Jesus Christ himself, true God and true man, soul, body, and divinity, who was born of the blessed Vfrgin, and suffered on the cross, is truly, really, and substantially present " The Lord declares, that " the flesh proflteth oiothing ; the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." Rome repUes, that the body of Christ is literally, really, truly, present in the sacra- raent— " flesh," "blood," "bones;" that we literally, really, truly, eai his flesh and drink his blood, and he that believes not this, "let him be accursed! " 6. The literal exposition of the passage under re^view ; that the bread is converted into the body of Christ, truly, really, and that there " remains nothing of its inward substance, but the outward appearance only, " is contradicted and refuted by our senses. If " the in ward substance of the bread " were changed " into the substance of the body of Christ, " so that "Jesus Christ himself, true God and trueman, " were " truly, really, and .substantially present, " then that "inward substance" would look lilce, taste like, smell like, feel lilce the " true, " "real," " substantial, " body of Christ But Rome re plies, " It is a miracle, and therefore his bodily appear ance is not cogmzable to the senses. " But this is a DOCTRINES — TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 165 subterfuge, a sophism so flimsy that it is almost un worthy of the logic of the " Man of Sin." There never was a mfracle wrought by Moses, the Prophets or Jesus- Christ, but that the "conversion," the change, was cognizable to the senses. When the " rod" in the hand of Moses was cast down and "became a serpent," did it not look like a serpent, smell like a serpent, feel Uke a serpent ? Had it not the form and appearance, every way of a serpent ? It seemed so to Moses, for he " fled from before it." "And the Lord said, put forth thy hand and take it by ihe tail ! And it became a rod in his hand." (Exodus iv. 3, 4.) At the marriage in Cana of GaUlee, Jesus "con verted" water into ¦wine. Was " the inward substance " of the water changed into Avine, leaving an "outward appearance" only? And did not th&t" inward sub stance " of wine, look Uke "wine, taste like wine, smell Uke wine ? So thought the governor of the feast. He pronounced it " good ¦wine." So thought Jesus ; and so thought St. John, who has recorded the miracle. If, then, bread is 7niraculously, or otherwise, "converted into the body of Christ," by the prayer of a priest, so that there "remains nothing of the inward substance of the bread," but the "outward appearance only;" the "inward substance" being "reaUy, substantially, Christ's body," that body must be cognizable to the senses. There is no longer bread, but in "outv/a.rd appearance only." What then? A miracle has been wrought, and the body of Christ is before us ! But it has not the form, size, appearance, smell, taste, " sub stance," nor weight of a body ! It answers not to the touch and other senses, as a body, as Jesus did after 166 THE GREAT APOSTASY. his resurrection. It is not ilwrefore a body, cannot be a body, the body of Christ! And therefore, if not bread, but in " outward appearance only," it is nothing ! To such an absurdity is Rome reduced in maintaining a literal exegesis of the text, " This is my body." 7. A Uteral construction of this passage is philosophi cally absurd. A body, the body of Christ, cannot be in two places at the same time. A spiritual, omnipresent being can be in tivo places at the same moment, because he is everywhere. But "with a physical, necessarily local body, it is different. It must have a local habitation, and be, or dwell at one place, at a time; and it cannot be, or dwell at any other place at the same time. The body of Christ, therefore, cannot be in heaven, where God says it is, and on a thousand altars in Roman Catholic churches, created by priests, at one and the same time. But Rome, to escape from this absurdity, repUes, "It is miraculous:" "God can make out of bread, by the prayer of a priest, the body of Christ, whole dmA entire, whUe that body is in heaven." God CANNOT DO IT. I speak from the stand-point of reason "with which He has endowed us, enUghtened by nature and revelation; and I would speak "with reverence. What do we know of God, and what God can do, ex cept by the exercise of reason through the light of nature and revelation? What, then, does enUghtened reason say ? God can create a body out of bread, or out of nothing ; but he cannot create, out of bread, a body that already exists; nor can he bring into being the same body at different times and widely separate places. God cannot make the sun, the centre of the solar system, luhoU and entire, and,~ at the same time, DOCTRINES — TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 167 make that same sun whole and entire the centre of some other and remote system. He who would believe and promulgate such an absurdity, would be regarded as exceedingly foolish. And yet, this is the very kind of absurdity which Roman Catholics believe and pro mulgate, and for a denial of which they anathematize Protestants. A priest, however corrupt, by the prayer of consecration, creates out of bread, a body that has ex isted over eighteen hundred years, and that pre-existing body remains "whole and entire in heaven," and yet though nothing but bread is seen, is "whole and entire on the altar" \ Verily, ff all the bodies created by priests since the CouncU of Trent, aye, since that of the fourth of Lateran, at which this doctrine was first decreed, were put into one body, it would be larger than St. Peter's Church at Rome ! The doctrine of Transubstantiation, therefore,^and let the inteUigent reader judge of the correctness of the conclusion, — ^is unscriptural, unreasonable, and absurd. The text, " This is my body," I repeat it, must, can only be understood figuratively. Christ is present spirituaUy and partaken of spiritually by faith, and is present, and partaken of, in this sense only. " But that there is no necessity to understand our Saviour's words io the sense of Transubstantiation," says the learned TUlotson,* " I ¦vvUl take the plain concession of a great number of the most learned ¦writers of the Church of Home in this controversy. BeUarmine, Suarez and Vasquez do acknowledge Scotus, the great schoolman, to have said, ' that this doctrine cannot be evidently proved from Scripture ;' and Beilarmioe grants this not to be improbable ; and Suarez and Vasquez acknowledge Hurandus to havo said as much. * Sermons on Transubstantiation, Vol. ii p. 202, London edition. 168 THE GREAT APOSTASY. Ocham, another famous schoolman, says expressly, ' that the doctrine which holds the substance of the bread and wine to remain after consecration, is neither repugnant to reason nor Scripture.' Petrus ab AUiaco, cardinal of Cambray, says plainly, ' that the doctrine of the substance of bread and wine remaining after consecration is more easy and free from absurdity, more rational, and no ways re pugnant to the authority of Scripture ;' nay, more, that for the other doctrine, viz., of Transubstantiation, ' there is no evidence in Scrip ture.' Gabriel Biel, another great schoolman and di^vine of their Church, freely declares, ' that as to anything expressed in the canon of the Scriptures, a man may believe that the substance of bread and wine doth remain after consecration.' Cardinal Cajetan confesseth, ' that the Gospel doth nowhere express that the bread is changed into the body of Christ ; that we have this fi-om tlie Church ;' nay, he goes further, ' that there is nothing in the Gospel which enforceth any man to understand these words of Christ, this is my body, in a proper and not in a metaphorical sense ; but the Church ha^ving understood them in a proper sense, they are to be so explained,' which words in the Eoman edition of Cajetan are expunged by order of Pope Pius V."* In the CouncU of Trent "a keen dispute arose between the Dominicans and the Franciscans," in refer ence to the question, How is the Lord's body pro duced or present in the eucharist. Bungener thus gives their ¦views : " According to the one, the Saviour's body is made present in the eucharist in the way of production, that is to say, without quitting heaven, it is produced in the wafer ; according to the others, it is produced by adduction, that is to say, it really arrives from heaven to take the place of>the substance of the bread. In the former case, consequently, the bread subsists, but it is changed ; in the latter, it is annihUated and replaced by another substance. " It is true, that if the miracle be once admitted, it is by pro- * This was not the first nor the last time Eome has expunged passages from her -writers or the Fathers. DOCTRINES — TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 169 duction that one may best try to explain it : but in that case you chaUenge against the miracle in itself, one of the strongest objec tions that it can encounter. "What becomes ofthe identity and the unity ofthe tody produced in several different places simultaneously? This was asked by the Franciscans ; but revenge was taken on their adduction. Nothing in nature, said the Dominicans, is annihi lated. If the eucharistic bread is not changed, but only replaced, what, then, becomes of it ? And so both were right and both wrong."* The Roman Catechism, to escape the difficulties and absurdities which en-viron and are inherent in this question, and to unite and settle the faith of all, throws a flood of light, in a single sentence, upon it ! light which, alas ! only makes the darkness more visible. It says, " The bread becoming flesh, and the "wine becom ing blood, by a further miracle ihey preserve iheir ap pearance and their taste" ! How luminous ! how satis factory ! By a mfracle, through the prayer of a priest, the whole substance of the bread is changed into the body of Christ, and the whole substance of the wine into his blood, so that bread and wine remain in outward ap pearance only. The body and Deity of Jesus Christ are there. But simultaneously with this, another mira cle is wrought to remove or annihilate that body, at least in aU the essential quaUties and attributes of a corporal being, that bread and "wine may reappear, and remain in appearance and taste only. Of what utUity, then, was the first miracle? What end, what good did it accomplish? Having expired with its birth- throes, and lea-nng no trace behind it, I am profoundly at a loss to understand the phUosophy, or theology of * They never did agree, and yet were infaUible. 8 170 THE GREAT APOSTASY. it. Will infallible Mother Church throw more " light" upon it, that we may take "due notice thereof, and govern ourselves accordingly"? We cannot believe such a tissue of nonsense, and yet.ff we believe it not, — both miracles — everything — we must be damned! No man can be saved, the mother of these inexplicable absurdities teaches, who believes it not. The eternal anathema sit, "Let him be accursed," is thundered in his ears, and he is hopelessly damned. " The business of transubstantiation, therefore," as Dr. Tillotson justly remarks, " is not a controversy of Scripture against Scripture, or of reason against reason, but of downright impudence against the plain meaning of Scripture, and all the senses and reason of man kind. " It is a most self-evident falsehood ; and there is no doctrine or proposition in the world that is of itself more evidently true, than transubstantiation is evidently false : and yet if it were possible to be true, it would be the most ill-natured and pernicious truth in the world, because it would suffer nothing else to be true ; it is like the Eoman Catholic Church, which will needs be the whole Christian Church, and wiU allow no other society of Christians to be any part of it : so transubstantiation, if it be true at all, it is all truth, and nothing else is true ; for it cannot be true, unless our senses, and the senses of all mankind, be deceived about their proper objects ; and if this be true and certain, then nothing else can be so ; for if we be not certain of what we see, we can be certain of nothing." This doctrine was not an article of faith in the primi tive Church. The CouncUs of Nice, Ephesus, the first of Constantinople, &c., ignore it altogether. In the Nicean creed, there is no allusion to it. And, untU the eighth century, so far as the voice of ecclesiastical history can be understood, it was never thought of; the most rigid Uteralists, amid all their errors, of this never dreamed. A CouncU at Constantinople, which DOCTRINES — TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 171 was held in 754, to meet and oppose the tendency to image worship, which was creeping into the Western Church, and was threatening, to say the least of it, to curse her with its senseless, baleful treason, used this language : " Our Lord having left us no other image of himself but the sacrament in which the substance of bread is the image of his body, we ought to make "no other image of our Lord." Now, could the members of that Council, could the Church up to that time, have known anything about transubstantiation ? The second Council of Nice, which met in 787, to establish image worship, says: "That the sacrament is not the image and antitype of Christ's body and blood, but is prop erly his body and blood." This was the first distinct intimation of this doctrine. This Bellarmine and others admit. Nor did it become a dogma of the Church then. Darkness, and superstition, and corrup tion had not fully prepared the way for this cro^wning heresy ; this most absurd and ^vicked novelty. Pas- casius, in the next century, the ninth, preached it. He wrote a treatise in which he clearly stated and emphat ically defended the corporal presence. He was the first, it is well known, who openly promulgated it, or seriously ¦wrote about it ; and hence he has been called its father. Sermondus, Bellarmine, and others, ac knowledge this. Bellarmine says: " This author was the first who seriously and copiously wrote concerning the truth of Christ's body and blood in the eucharist." What ! Christianity over eight hundred years old be fore any one seriously advocated transubstantiation I And yet, Rome now proclaims that it was instituted by Christ, and has ever been the doctrine of the Church ! 172 THE GREAT APOSTASY. The doctrine of Pascasius spread ; and soon the Church, which we are told has always been a unit and infalh ble, was divided in faith, and vacillated from side to side. Many received the new doctrine ; but the most pious, able divines, rejected it, and taught that it was heresy. "Raban, Walafrid, Herebald, Prudentius, Flo- rous, Scotus, and Bertramn, the ablest theologians of the day, arrayed themselves against the novelty. Ra ban, Archbishop of Mentz, who was deeply skilled in Latin, Greek and Hebrew, resisted the Pascasian the ory with determined hostUity."* " The controversy, for two hundred years after the Pascasian age, seems to have slept. The noisy polemic, on this topic, re signed his pen, and Christendom, entombed in Egyptian darkness, sunk into immorality and superstition. Transubstantiation, in this destitution of literature, continued to gain ground ; till, at last, its pestUential breath infected all orders and ranks of men. The dog ma, indeed, is calculated for the meridian of superstition. The idea of a visible Deity must be ever welcome to an ignorant crowd. The innovation, besides, made no direct or violent attack on the popular prepossessions. The error effected no mutilation of the ancient faith ; but an addition, which is calculated to become the idol of superstition. The Pascasian theory superinduced the corporeal on the spiritual presence." " The controversy was awakened from the sleep of two hundred years ,by Berengarius, in the eleventh century. This celebrated character was principal in the school of Tours, and afterwards archdeacon of Angers. He was distinguished, according to Paris, for genius, learning, piety, charity, holiness and humility. FoUow ing Bertram and Scotus on the sacrament, he publicly, 1045, opposed Pascasius. Many adopted and many rejected his system. The clergy and the laity, in the ninth century, united, in general, against Pascasianisin ; but differed, about two hundred years after, about Berengarianism. The controversy was agitated in many verbal and ¦" Edgar's Variations. DOCTRINES — TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 173 •written disputations. Berengarianism, however, according to cotem porary and succeeding historians, was the general faith of Eugland, France, and Italy." " Berengarianism was denounced, wilh determined hostility and tremendous anathemas, by the Eoman pontiEfe. Its author was per secuted by Leo, Victor, Nicholas, and Alexander. He was com peUed to sign three different and confiicting confessions, in three Roman Councils, under Nicholas and Gregory ! " Nicholas, in 1058, convened a Council at the Lateran against Berengarius. This assembly consisted of one hundred and thirteen bishops ; and the patron of the reputed heresy was summoned to attend. He complied, and supported his system with a strength of reason and eloquence which, Sigonius, Leo, and Henry attest, with ered all opposition. AU shrunk in terror, while the Vatican resounded with the thunder ef his oratory. * -* -» His holiness, in this exigency, sent an express for Alberic, a cardinal-deacon of great erudition, who, it was hoped, could face this fearful champion of error. Alberic, after a warm discussion, solicited a cessation of arms for a week, to employ his pen against the enemy. " The CouncU, finding the insufficiency of their dialectics, threat ened the application of more tangible and convincing arguments, which they could -wield -with more facUity. Anathemas, excommu nication, fire, and fagot, were brought into requisition. The mention of this kind of logic soon converted Berengarius, who was unambi tious of the honor of martyrdom. Humbert was appointed to compose a confession for Berengarius, and executed his task to the satisfaction of his infaUibUity and the whole Council. This formu lary declared, that ' the bread and wine on the altar are the Lord's real body and blood, whicii not only in a sacramental, but also in a sensible manner, are broken by ihe hands of the priest and ground by the teeth of ihe faithful' " Lombard censured the grossness of this confession. Simica de nounced it, if not interpreted with caution and ingenuity, as a greater heresy than Berengarianism. Aquinas refers the attrition of the teeth to the species or accidents. The angelic doctors in vented a plan by which the jaws could chew form without substance, and masticate color, taste, and smell! " This precious specimen of blasphemy and absurdity, issued by 174 THE GREAT APOSTASY. a Eoman CouncU, headed by a Eoman pontiff, Berengarius, through human fi-ailty and horror of death, signed, and swore to maintain. This profession, however, was only hypocrisy, and extorted by in timidation. Shielded by the protection of his ancient patrons, he relapsed into heresy, declared his detestation of the creed which he had subscribed, and characterized the Eoman Synod as an as sembly of vanity, and the popedom as the throne of Satan. " Berengarius signed a second confession, in the year 1078. Gregory VH. assembled a Eoman Council for the purpose of termi nating the controversy. This Synod differed from the former in its decisions. Gregory and his clergy aUowed Berengarius to re nounce his former confession and substitute another. This, in re ality, was a virtual, if not a formal condemnation and repeal of the creed prescribed by Nicholas and his Synod, and sanctioned by their authority. This new confession merely signified, that ' the bread and -wine, after consecration, became the Lord's true body and blood.' " * " The clergy were divided in thefr opinions of this confession. One party acknowledged its cathoUcism, while another faction maintained its heresy." K we are to credit Mabillon, it was the doctrine of Gregory. He reports him to have said: "He entertained no doubt but that Berengarius had, on this institution, adopted the Scriptural idea, and all that was necessary for the faith of Catholicism." According to the same author, the Vfrgin Mary entertained the same view, ha"ving communicated it to him. In the Council of Brescia, which met in 1080, Greg ory himself was condemned for Berengarian heresy. The decision was, that he was guilty "of caUing in question the apostolic truth of the Lord's body and blood." "The Queen of heaven" ought to have been * Edgar's Variations. DOCTRINES — TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 1 75 found guilty also, and have been "transported to pur gatory." " Gregory, importuned by some of the disaffected clergy, was in duced to summon another Council for the final settlement of the con troversy. A Eoman Synod accordingly met at the Vatican, in 1019." This assembly consisted of the prelacy from " the adjoining and dif ferent other regions." It " displayed the utmost diversity of senti ment. Some held one opinion, and some another." Berengarianism and transubstantiation swayed from side to side. A majority were in favor of the latter. " The minority represented the bread and wine only as signs, and the substantial body as sitting at the right hand of God. The disputation continued for three days. The CouncU in the end came to an agreement which, when compared ¦with the two former decisions, seems to havo been affected by mu tual concessions. A confession was imposed on Berengarius, declar ing the change in the bread and wine after consecration, to be not merely sacramental and figurative, but also true and substantial." Which of the infalUble Councils was right? And who ofthe infallible Popes, Nicholas or Gregory? " Transubstantiation, after the death of Berengarius, advanced by slow aud gradual steps to maturity. Some continued to resist its inroads on the truths of Christian theology. But the majority of the clergy and laity, in the spirit of perversity and the phrensy of superstition, adopted the deformity. Its patrons, however, found great difficulty iu moulding the monster into form. Many editions ofthe novelty were circulated through Christendom ; and aU exhibited the changes of correction and the charms of variety. The Council of the Lateran, in 1215, enrolled it among the Canons of the Eomish communion ; and the Lateran decision was confirmed at Constance, and finaUy estabUshed at Trent."* The history of this doctrine, therefore, demonstrates that it is a hunian invention. The primitive Church, in * Dr. Edgar's Variations. The merit of these extracts atone for their length. 176 THE GREAT APOSTASY. her purity and simplicity, established and taught as she was, by Christ and the Apostles, never heard of transub stantiation. Twelve hundred years wore away, and the dark ages threw the pall of superstition and the gloom of moral death over her, and she had utterly faUen away, ere it became an article of faith in her creed. The early Fathers fully sustain this -view — this his tory. They have written much, and "with earnest feel ings and eloquence, of the sacrament of the eucharist. But none hold the docfrine of Trent. In his famous Apology, Justin says : " On the day of the sun we meet. The Scriptures are read, and then an elder exhorts the people to follow such beautifiU exam ples. We rise, we pray anew ; water, bread, and wine are set down. The presbyter gives thanks, and those present reply. Amen. A part of the consecrated things are distributed, and the deacons take the rest to the absent." Tertullian says : " Jesus Christ having taken bread, and having distributed among his disciples, made it his body, saying. This is my body — ^that is to say, the figure of my body."* Thus taught Origen : " If Christ, as the Marciomtes maintain, had neither flesh nor blood, of what body and of what blood were that bread and that wine ihe signs and images." As this passage could not be mutUated, Origen has been called a heretic by Cardinal Duperron and others. * " Acceptum panem et distributum discipulis corpus suum fecit, di- cendo hoc est, corpus meum, id est Jigura corporis mei." Cardinal Duperron changes, in quoting it, id est into scilicet ; and makes it read, "This, to wit, the figure of my body, is my body. Bellarmine mutUates it. He suppresses, altogether, id est jigura." — Bungener. DOCTRINES — TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 177 Theodoret thus teaches : " The Lord has honored these visible signs with the name of hia body and his blood, noi in changing tiieir nature, but in adding grace io their nature." The eloquent Chrysostom says : " Before the bread is consecrated, it is caUed bread ; but when divine grace has sanctified it, by the intervention of the presbyter, then it no longer bears the name of bread ; it is worthy of being called Christ's body, alitiovgh ihe nature of bread remains in ii." Marcarius thus teaches : " Bread and wine are offered, being the figure of the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. They who participate in this visible breads eat spiritually the flesh of the Lord." St. Augustine, a great favorite "with Rome, says : " The Lord had no difficulty in saying. This is my body, when he gave the sign of his body." In his epistie to Bonfface : " Had the sacraments no resemblance to the things whereof they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments. But, in conse quence of that resemblance, they take, most frequently, the name of the things themselves." Cyril, Jerome, VigUius, Ephrem, and many others, speak, in glowing strains of eloquence, of the holy eucharist ; but not one says one word about transub stantiation. On this doctrine, as now held by Rome, they are silent. This Cardinal Bellarmine, as we have seen, "vfrtually admits. Bruys frankly confesses, "that transubstantiation was a discovery of the ninth cen tury." He alludes to the docfrine and bold preaching of Pascasius. The celebrated Erasmus says; "The 178 THE GREAT APOSTASY. Church was late in defining transubstantiation." And Scotus acknowledges, as all who are acquainted "with ecclesiastical history know, "That transubstantiation was not an article of faith before the CouncU of Late ran, in 1215." What, then, becomes of the . bold af&rmation of the Trent Fathers, that this docfrine " has been always be lieved in the Church of God" ? The argument is com plete, the e"vidence overwhelming, that it is a human invention of the dark ages; a doctrine of "seducing spirits." But this doctrine is not only without scriptural war rant and ignored by the practice of the primitive Church ; and without any support from tradition or ecclesiastical history for eight hundred years, and therefore a heresy, as Rome loves to caU everything which agrees not with her standard of faith ; but it is an error which, Uke infaUibiUty, draws after it, as effect foUows cause, many other errors and evils. IT TENDS TO MATEELillSM. If " by the prayer of consecration the tvhole substance of the bread is changed into the body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the whole substance of the wine into his blood, the appearance only of bread and wine remain ing," so that "the bread and wine on the altar are the Lord's real body and blood, which, in a sensible manner, are broken by the hands of the priest and ground by the teeth of the faithful," what is it but materialism? " The faithful" are taught, as we have seen, that sacra ments confer grace ex opere operato; and hence, to eat tho real body and drink the real blood of Christ, what is it DOCTRINES — TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 179 but to be made a partaker of him physically, or in a material sense ? This conclusion is not strained. It fol lows from their own premises as naturally and as neces sarUy as water flows down hill. IT LEADS TO INEIDELITY. This, the view just presented demonstrates. But furthermore, there are mUlions who cannot beUeve that Christ is — can be present whole and entire in a piece of bread, which has, as it lies before them, and as they taste it, all the properties of bread, because it contradicts thefr senses, and is phUosophically absurd. And yet they are taught that it is of divine institution; and if they believe it not, they are unceremoniously, and, I fear, with a demon-like feeling, anathematized — damned for not belie"ving what they cannot believe. The inteUigent mind revolts, and, in Roman CathoUc countries, where the blessed Bible is prohibited and the light of a pure Gospel shines not, goes off into skepticism — atheism. H the history of infideUty in France were written out, from its first buddings in the deep, doubting recesses of the inqufring, thinking soul that felt its own weakness and its own power, up to the days ofthe " Reign of Terror," when it culminated, it would show, I doubt not, Avith the clearness of the noonday, that the theology, and intolerant, persecuting, blood-thirsty spirit of Rome, had given or forced it into being, and supplied it "with aliment. And the doctrine of transubstantiation occupies a pre-eminent position in effecting this sad work. This question, therefore, is one which should be thoroughly investigated. The plan 180 THE GREAT APOSTASY. and limits of this work forbid further inquiry into this dark and monstrously interesting theme. Oh, that some Chalmers or Clarke would penetrate its hidden recesses, and open to the gaze of Christians and to the mind ofthe bewildered unfortunate skeptic its profound depths, and lead him out into the glorious Ught of the reUgion which came from God ! IT IS BLASPHEMOUS. The priest creates God, and bows do"wn and adores Him, and then eats and inwardly digests him ! And "the faithful" also "adore," and then "grind Him between their teeth" and " swaUow" Him. The confession imposed upon Berengarius, to sup port and defend which he was compeUed to swear, wfll be remembered: " The bread and wine on the altar are the Lord's real body and blood, which, not only in a sacramental, but also in a sensible manner, are broken by the hands of the priest and ground by the teeth of the faithful" ! Language is too tame when this is simply characterized as blasphemous. The most bitter skeptic and enemy of the cross could hardly have framed a sen tence soaring higher in this most detestable sin. By the hands, God is broken ! by the teeth, ground /*¦»** Averroes, an Arabian phUosopher, exclaimed, "I have traveUed over the world, and have found divers sects ; but so sottish a sect I never found as is the sect of the Christians ; because with their own teeth they devour thefr God whom they worship." " When we caU the fruits of the earth Ceres, and wine Bacchus, we use but the common language," said DOCTRINES TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 181 Tully, a heathen; " but," he adds, " do you think any man so mad as to believe that which he eats to be God?" The classic scholar' wUl recollect the exclamation of Cicero, " Whom do you think so demented as to be Ueve what he eats to be God ?" A Jew exclaimed: " Christians eat their God." THE DOCTEINE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION LEADS TO IDOLATRY. When the priest has read the prayer of consecration, and has chapged the bread into God, he " elevates the host," and aU "the faithful" faU down and worship. That they worship "the body of Christ," into which, they say, the bread has been converted, but which, we affirm, is bread stUl, they frankly admit. An able Roman •Catholic "writer says, "The papist believes of the most holy sacrament of the eucharist consecrated now by priests, that it reaUy contains the body of Christ, and his blood ; which being there united with the divinity, he confesses ihe whole Christ io be present and him he adores." But more of this when I come to speak of the idolatry of Rome. IT DEIFIES THE PRIEST, AND EXALTS HIM ABO"VE QOD. The priest creates God, creates Him at pleasure out of bread ! Now, he who creates is greater than that which is created — is a trite axiom within the comprehension of aU. He who creates God must be " above God." Cardinal Biel, an honored son of the Church, says, 182 THE GREAT APOSTASY. " He that created me, gave me, if it be lawful to teU, to create himself." Pope Urban H. said, in a large public assembly : " The hands of the Pontiff are raised to an eminence granted to none of the angels, of creating god the creator of all things, and of offering him up for the salvation ofthe whole world."* " We confess that the priest is greater than Mary herself, the mother of God. She gave birth to Christ but once ; but the priest creates him when hepleases, and as often as he pleases. Such is the tenor of a form of abjuration imposed, at the commencement of the last century, on the peasants of Hungary. Although the authen ticity of this has been disputed, these lines, extraordinary as they are to reasonable Eoman Catholics, are not the less, if we admit the real presence, rigorously true. What Mary, blessed among all wo men, viewed as the most glorious and sacred of favors, there are three or four hundred thousand priests throughout the world to whom it is a thing of daily and very simple occurrence. And when one thinks that the most impure and criminal of men may, in afew seconds, with a few hastily^uttered words, perform, when he pleases, this prodigy of prodigies, your head swims, in truth, in view of such an abyss of inconsistencies and pride. All that Egypt or India ever imagined, in the way of fabulous monstrosity for the elevation of their priests above the ordinary level of humanity, has been outdone by Eome, in teaching transubstantiation."! The authenticity of this abjuration may be called in question, but it avaUs nothing. Father Biel uses lan guage of the same import ; and Urban's, as we have seen, if possible, is more monstrous and blasphemous. Biel says, "Her ladyship once conceived the Son of God and the Redeemer of the world ; while the priest daily calls into existence ihe same Deity." * * * What blasphemy! What iniquity ! Man is exalted * Bruys, Hoveden and others, give this, t Bungener's History. DOCTRINES — TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 183 into a God! nay, above the Deity of the heavens, whom, though pre-existent, and "over all blessed for ever more," he "daUy calls into existence," "creating the Creator of all things" ! The predicted apostasy has reached its culminating point. The picture drawn by the Apostle eighteen hundred years ago, is fiUed up, in all its dark outlines and details, by the Church of Rome, and not a linger ing doubt can remain that she is the Antichrist. * * ¦* *-)«¦-)«--»* -X- * ¦* * * "Let no man deceive you; for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away flrst, and that Man of Sin be revealed, the Son of Perdition ; ivho opposeth and exalteth HIMSELF ABOVE ALL THAT IS CALLED GOD, OR THAT IS WORSHIPPED ; SO THAT HE, AS GOD, SITTETH IN THE TEMPLE OF GOD, SHO"WING HIMSELF THAT HE IS GOD." it " LAYS ANOTHER FOUNDATION THAN THAT IS LAID, JESUS CHRIST." It is "a sacrifice for sins for the quick and the dead." By it, as a sacrifice, men are saved from sin in this Iffe and from the temporal punishment due to sin in the world to come ; or out of purgatory. As the priest creates God out of bread, so he offers Him, under the appearance of bread, as an "acceptable sacrifice" "for the salvation of the world." This is most distinctly affirmed. Bread is offered unto God as an atonement for transgression, and over the bread-sacrifice the priest intercedes for " the transgressors." If this is not lay ing another foundation; ff it is not anotlier Gospel, I know not what is. "The Spfrit speaketh expressly, 184 THE GREAT APOSTASY. that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, gi"ving heed to seducing spfrits, and doctrines of devils." Extreme Unction. Extreme unction, in the creed of Rome, is the anoint ing ofthe sick, for ihe remission of sins, who are supposed to be at the very verge of death, with consecrated or holy oil. This anointing was decreed to be a sacrament, by the CouncU of Trent. The oU is applied by the thumb of a bishop or priest, who only can officiate, in this ordinance, to the eyes, ears, nose, mouth, hands, feet, and, ff the patient be a male, to the loins ; to every member that is supposed to have been instrumental in sinning. A form of prayer is used. This sacrament, it is affirmed, "renuts sins," and fits the departing soul for heaven. But, that the reader may know the nature and object of this ordinance, as held and practiced by the Church of Rome, I wUl lay before him the decree of the Coun cU. It is expUcit and emphatic. It runs thus : " Canon 1. If any shaU say extreme unction is not, truly and properly, a sacrament instituted by Ciirist our Lord, and preached by ihe apostle St. James, but that it is a human invention, let him be accursed. " Canon 2. If any shaU say that the holy anointing of the sick doth not confer grace, nor remit sins, nor relieve the sick ; but that it had long since ceased, as if of old, it hath only been the grace of heaUng, let him be accursed." Now, I most distinctly deny that it is " a sacrament instituted by Christ our Lord," or that it "renaits sins," and affirm " that it is a human invention." And, first of all, the Trent Fathers themselves admit, DOCTRINES — EXTREME UNCTION. 185 in this very decree, that Christ never instituted extreme unction as a sacrament, or anything else. They say : " This holy anointing of the sick is instituted, as it were, to be a true and proper sacrament of the New Testament ; insinuated, in deed, by Christ our Lord, in St. Mark, but recommended and preached to the faithful by the apostle St. James.""* Insinuated by Christ ! and yet instituted by him ! After the decree was framed in the congregation, one of the divines suggested that Christ could not have in stituted this sacrament before he constituted his disci ples priests ; and that, all agreed, he did not do until he instituted the Supper. The ground, therefore, was changed. The passage in St. Mark, on which they had relied : "And they (the disciples) cast out many devils, and anointed with oU many that were sick, and healed them,"f was to be understood, not as instituting, but as insinuating it. This was the strongest passage, and the only one worthy of note, be it kno^vyn, brought forward by the advocates of this doctrine, to demonstrate that Christ instituted anointing with oU, or extreme unction, as a sacrament ; but this was given up, because the dis ciples were not the priests, and Christ could only in sinuate it ! Where, then, is the institution by Christ, our Lord ? — the solemn command and formula, exalt ing the anointing of the sick with oU into the dignity * ' ' Instituta est autem sacra hec unctio inflrmorum, tanquam vere et proprie sacramentum Novi Testamenti, a Christo Domino nostro. apud Marcum, quidem inoinuatom, per Jacobum autera apostotum fidelibus commendatum ac promulgatum." This is their precise lan guage. Judge ye. t Mark vi. 13. But here it is not even hinted that it remits sins, but wa sa form used when the disciples miraculously healed. 186 THE GREAT APOSTASY. of a sacrament ? Where ? Were it not for the moment ous issues involved in, and the a-vvful solemnity of this question, one could not repress laughter at the strange and absurd idea, that the divine Legislator would only in sinuate a doctrine essential to the remission of sins and the salvation of the soul. As, then, Christ did not insti tute, but only insinuate this sacrament — and the Roman Catechism agrees with the preamble ofthe Trent Fathers — ^the whole controversy turns upon the preaching of St. James, who, it is affirmed, promulgated and estab lished it. What, then, did St. James teach? In the V. chapter, 14th and ISth verses, he gives the foUowing instructions : " Is any sick among you ? let him call for the elders of the Church ; and let them pray over him, anointing him ¦with oil, in the name of the Lord ; and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up ; and if he have committed sins, they shall be for given him." This is all he says concerning this doctrine. Does this sustain, establish it, as Rome affirms? Let us analyze this language and criticaUy examine it, and I think it wUl clearly appear that it does not even in sinuate it. "Is any sick among you? let him call for the {Presbi- teri) elders." Were they priests? The CouncU af firmed they were. No proof, however, is given to sup port their assumption. I affirm they were not. The terms they and St. James use are different, and mean different things. "The elders" may not even have been ministers. Furthermore, St. James uses the plural throughout. Elders were to anoint— iAe?/ were to pray. The councU requfres but one priest — he does DOCTRINES — EXTREME UNCTION. 187 all the manipulating, all the praying. The CouncU, then, have departed from St. James in having but one administrator, and in assuming that he must be a priest. "Anointing him with oil." What kind of oU ? Com mon olive oU is the most reasonable conclusion, as that was used by the Jews as a heaUng remedy. At any rate, it was not consecrated; but the Council requires as absolutely essential oU that has been consecrated by a bishop. If that be wanting, the dying one must perish. The appUcation of the oU to the eyes, ears, nose, mouth, hands, feet, and loins, and the sign of the cross each time, is not mentioned, is not required by St. James. AU this, therefore, is a departure from apostolic, teach ings, and is of human invention. "And the prayer of faith shall save the sick." The anointing, then, has no efficacy ; not the least is as cribed to it. It does not heal, nor save — remits no sin, and therefore cannot be a sacrament in the sense Rome holds, conferring grace, ex opere operate. The prayer of faith saves, and that only, by the grace of God vouchsafed in answer thereto ; for " the Lord shall raise him up." "And if he have committed sins, they shall he forgiven him." By whom shaU they be forgiven? By the "elders" ? This is not hinted at by St. James, nor does even the CouncU affirm it. The CouncU has taught elsewhere, as we have seen, that the priest can remit sins. Why not, then, in this fatal hour, without anointing with oU? Does the application of the oil and the sign of the cross "forgive him"? Nay; the thought is not only superlatively absurd, but the ex- 188 THE GREAT APOSTASY. pressions used cannot be made to convey such an idea By whom then are his sins forgiven him? By the Lord, who "raises him up," and by Him only. No other idea is conveyed by St. James ; no other docfrine can be tortured out of his language. The anointing, then, neither "confers grace," nor "remits sins." God does both in answer to the prayer of faith. The doctrine, then, of exfreme unction, as a sacra ment — a sacrament that "confers grace" and "remits sins," is not promulgated by St. James, nor even "in sinuated" by him. And in the administration, sign, form, subject, and end or effects of this ordinance, as the Council would call it, but simple ad"vice," we say, Rome differs from St. James. Everything is changed. St. James requires two or more administrators, and they elders ; Rome but one, and he a priest or bishop. St. James would anoint with simple oil ; Rome with con secrated or holy oil. The former would apply it once, doubtless, to the head, and without any manipulatiag and crossing ; the latter repeatedly, and to the eyes, ears, nose, mouth, hands, feet, and loins, with genu flections and crossings. St. James would anoint the sick not sinking in death ; Rome only the dying. The former would apply the oU and pray to raise him up, the latter to remit his sins and fit him for the judgment. Rome, therefore, has changed everything; and hence is "without Scriptural authority in all, and even the sanction of apostolic tradition. Dr. Clarke's comment on this text is so clear, though simUar to some of the thoughts I have just advanced, that I wUl present it in part to the reader : DOCTRINES — EXTREME UNCTION. 189 " That the anointing recommended by St. James cannot be such as the Eomish Church prescribes, and it is on this passage princi pally that they found their sacrament of extreme unction, is evident from these considerations : 1. St James orders the sick person to be anointed in reference to his cure ; but they anoint the sick in the agonies of death, when there is no prospect of his recovery ; and never administer that sacrament, as it is caUed, while there is any hope of life. 2. St. James orders this anointing for the cure of the body, but they apply it for the cure of the smd ; in reference to which use of it St. James gives no directions ; and what is said of forgive ness of sins, in verse 15, is rather to be referred to faith and prayer, which are often the means of restoring lost health, and preventing premature death, when natural means, the most skUfuUy used, have been useless. 3. The anointing with oil, if ever used as a mealis or symbol in working miraculous cures, was only appUed in some cases, perhaps very few, if any ; but the Eomish Church uses it in every case ; and makes it necessary to the salvation of every departing soul. Therefore St. James' unction, and the extreme unction of the Eomish Chm-ch, are essentiaUy different." Many able Roman CathoUc "writers — men of ac knowledged abUity and undoubted Catholicity, Rome herself being judge — have admitted that this doctrine has no clear foundation in Scripture, was not unequivo cally, like baptism, instituted by Christ Cardinal Cajetan says : " Neither the words nor the results announced here, in St. Mark and St. James, indicate the sacramental unction of extreme unction." * " Saurez on Extreme Unction tells us, that ' Hugo of St. Victor, Peter Lombard, Alexander of Hales, Attissidore, &c., denied this Bacrament to have been instituted by Christ ; and by plain conse quence, it was not a true sacrament.' " f * Nee ex verbis nee ex effectis, verba heeo loquanter de sacramentali nnctione extremse unctionis. — Works, vol. ii. + Ousley. 190 THE GREAT APOSTASY. " Until the days of Peter Lombard (Anno. 1145), scarce any author could be found who rashly set do"wn any certain number of sacraments, save those two of our salvation of which there is no dispute." * " Without prejudice, it must be acknowledged, that neither did our Lord institute this sacrament or dispense it, nor did his Apostles." f " Chemnitius saith : ' The progress of this unction clearly shows it to be no sacrament ; for first, the Apostles anointed the sick with common oil to heal them ; then others began to add benediction and to consecrate the oU, but yet they used it to the same end for which the Apostles used it before, viz., to cure the sick miraculously, as appears by the miracles said to be done with holy oil by St. Martin and many others. But when at length miracles were quite ceased, the ceremony of anointing still went on.' " { " Extreme unction," says Dr. Edgar, " is a variation from tradition, as well as from revelation. The ceremony is destitute of ¦written and unwritten authority, and was unknown both to the Apostles and Fathers of antiquity. Fleury, Ward, Sclater, Mumford, and ChaUoner, in consequence, forbear, on this topic, to make any quota^ tions from the records of early Christianity. * • * BeUarmine endeavors to excuse the ancients for omitting the hi tory of this sacrament in their works, by alleging their want of occasion. The cardinal, for once, was right. The early Christian authors had no opportunity of discussing a non-entity. " The Ehemists admit that the fathers of the first four centuries make no mention of this institution. * * * The concession, in reality, is an abandonment of the cause, so far as concerns this source of evidence. Four hundred revolving years ran their ample round, and left no trace of this sacrament. The apostolic men, Clemens, Hermas, Barnabas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, lived, and wrote, and departed, without once mentioning the sacrament of the dying. The successors of the apostolic men, such as Justin, Irenaeus, Clemens, TertuUIan, Cyprian, Altrenagorus, Tatian, Epiphanius, and the apostolic constitutions, are, on this theme, equally sUent and * Cassander, quoted by Ousley. f Alexander of Hales. t Quoted by Ousley. DOCTRINES — EXTREME UNCTION. 191 disobliging. The pretended Dionysius, who has left circumstantial details on simUar topics, has, says Aquinas, made no mention of extreme unction. Those authors have emblazoned the other sacra ments in their works, and drawn minute delineations of baptism and the communion. These topics meet the reader's eye in nearly every page of their Uterary productions. But extreme unction, wonderful to teU, is never mentioned. This ceremony, which, in modern days, remits sin and strengthens the soul of the dying, forms no part of either the light or shade of the picture sketched by the pen of an tiquity. This was a woful and vexatious omission in the good fathers, and has put many moderns to a sad puzzle. " The Christian men and women of old, such as Constantine, Helen, Anthony, Basil, Chrysostom, Monica, and Augustine, whose death-bed biography has been transmitted to the present day, seem never to have been anointed. Their biographers never so much as mention the sacrament of the dying. All these, it is to be feared, departed without the appUcation of the blessed oU. The holy men and women, in all probability, contrived getting to heaven -without being greased for the journey. But the modern saints and sinners of Eomanism are prepared for heaven, or purgatory, by consecrated oil. The death of many, in latter days, has been recorded by Surius and Butler ; and these, on their death-bed, were always compliment ed vrith a plaster of blessed ointment. The modern saints make their exit from time, and their entrance into eternity, ornamented in seven different places, ¦with the cross-streaks of the oily figures, formed by the graceful motion of the sacerdotal thumb.* " The friends of this ceremony have endeavored to prop the base less fabric by historical testimony, extracted from the annals of the fifth and foUo-wing centuries." But in this, as Dr. Edgar shows, they have signally faUed. He follows the stream of history, touching this docfrine, through CouncUs and the misty mazes of su perstitious writings, and thus closes : " The history of this innovation is easUy traced. Extreme unc tion, in its present form, was the child of the twelfth century. The * In contagious diseases, the priest appUes the oil with a long rod/ 192-- THE GREAT APOSTASY. monuments of Christian theology, for eleven hundred years, mention no ceremony which, in it its varied and unmeaning mummery, cor responds with the unction of Eomanism. The patrons of this super stition have rifled the annals of ecclesiastical history for eleven ages, and have failed in the discovery of either precept or example for a rite which, they affirm, was practiced, as a sacrament, in every na tion of Christendon, since the era of redemption. " The twelfth century, of which this filthy ceremony is the off spring, was the reign of ignorance and superstition. Science and- literatnre seemed, in disgust, to fly from a tasteless and degenerate world. Philosophy refused to shed a single ray on a grovelling race, who hated or despised its light. Immorality, as usual, kept pace with barbarism. Moral and intellectual darkness commingled their clouds around man, for the purpose of forming a night of concen trated horror and atrocity. The king and the subject, the clergy and the laity, conspired against all information ; while the Sun of Eighteousness seemed to withdraw his beams from a wicked and a wandering world."^ "Amid this intellectual and moral darkness, the apostolic cere mony, noticed by Mark and James, degenerated, by accumulated innovations, into the Romish sacrament. Superstition, from her overflowing fountain, poured her copious streams, which mingling, but not united with the Scriptural spring, formed the heterogeneous and unsightly mass. The simple rite was transformed into the clumsy sacrament. The original unction, intended for the recovery of health to particular individuals, continued, while the gift of heal ing and the power of working miracles remained. But these, in process of time, ceased ; and the weakness of man prompted many to use the external rite, after the miraculous power was suspended, * Dr. Ives, late episcopal bishop of the P. E. Church, in North Carolina, said, in a recent lecture in PhUadelphia, that that was the glorious age of the Church. No heresies cursed and distracted her, for the reason that then the priest instructed the people orally, and they only received knowledge at his lips, and were not cursed with the hght and knowledge diffused by printing presses and boots ! This is Roman ism. Give her the power,- and she will turn the clock of the world back five hundred years, and spread the pall of the " glorious " dark ages over the Church and the world again. DOCTRINES — EXTREME UNCTION. 193 The patient's health, not, indeed, by the miraculous application of the oil, but by the ordinary operations of Providence, was sometimes restored ; and the recovery, in these cases, was ascribed to the oint ment. But many, though anointed, died ; and the observance, in these instances, though the body suffered.was supposed to be beneficial to the soul. The recovery of health, therefore, was accounted con ditional, and the good of the soul was reckoned certain. Superstition, from day to day, and from age to age, appended new additions to the growing ceremony. The episcopal consecration of the oil, its indiscriminate appUcation, and other innovations, dictated by the demon of superstition, were superinduced on the pristine institution. The filthy progeny of ignorance and superstition came, at last, to maturity. Bernard, Victor, and Lombard, in the twelfth century, speak of the unction of the sick in modern language, enlarged with the multiplied accessions of eleven hundred years. Albert, Aquinas, and other schoolmen, touched the picture with characteristic subtU ty. These theological projectors brought the system to perfection, and exhibited it to the world in a finished form. The novelty, in 1439, was adopted by Pope Eugenius and the Florentine Counoii, and stamped -with the seal of their unqualified approbation and sy nodal infaUibiUty." The infallible CouncU of Trent gave it the finishing touch; and now, "ff any shall say, extreme unction is not truly and properly a sacrament instituted hy Christ our Lord, and preaclied by the Apostle, St. James ; but that it is a human invention, and doth not confer grace, nor remit sins, LET HIM be ACCURSED " ! ! Finally, this doctrine is not only without Scriptural warrant and traditional support, but it is whoUy unne cessary, one can but beUeve, if penance and indulgences confer grace and remit sins, and ff transubstantiation imparts the divine nature and makes a partaker of the blessed body and blood of Christ, all of which Rome has decreed and " the faithful " beUeve. Why, to offer the dying, after they have p-urchased and fuUy reaUzed 9 194 THE GREAT APOSTASY. and enjoyed all these, the sacrament of exfreme unction to "remit sins," is a solemn mockery and an insult, or in receiving them they have been trifled with and de ceived. H the sacrament of penance has not " remitted sins," and the "indulgence" has not made the "soul pure" and "remitted the punishment due to sin," and ff the "soul, body, and divinity of Jesus Christ" have not been received in the Supper, and the faithful, con sequently, are not "partakers of the divine nature," but are sinners, what confidence can the dying have in the remission of sins by extreme unction? If "infalhble Mother Church" was mistaken in the efficacy of those, or has deceived— and ff not, the recipients must have been pardoned and purified and justified of aU punish ment, and assimilated to the divine nature, and there fore have no need of extreme unction — she may be mistaken or deceive in this. The dying, therefore, are deluded "with the vain hope that the holy (?) anointing by the priest — the priest who has absolved them, and at whose hands they have taken and eaten their Sa^viour, but ¦without remission or salvation, they are now "vir tually told — will give them a safe exit and happy pass port to bUss immortal. Oh, vain delusion ! consecrated oil remits no sin, saves no soul. What a "mystery of iniquity" is Rome! What "deceivableness in un righteousness " ! Purgatory. "Purgatory," in the theology of Rome, "is a middle place or state, in which departed souk make expiation for venial faults and for the temporal punishmeht of mortal DOCTRINES — PURGATORY. 195 sins." This Church holds sins to be " venial or mortal;" that is, " as trivial or aggravated." All who die guilty of " mortal or aggravated " sins go direct to hell, whence there is no escape. AU who die without "venial" sins, or ff they have been remitted, and "with the re mission of ihe temporal punishment due to all crimes, go immediately to heaven. But all who throw off this "mortal coil," with "" venial " faults and temporal pun ishments "unremitted," must go to purgatory, and un dergo the punishment justly due; and thence, purified by its penal fires, pass into heaven. Hence, the Coun cUs of Florence and Trent taught that there are three classes of the human family: saints, sinners, and an intermediate class. Saints go to heaven, bad sinners to hell, and the intermediate class, or "venial" sinners, to purgatory. This is a pronunent and a cherished doctrine in the creed of this faUen Church. The CouncU of Trent, in its decree on purgatory, says: " There is a purgatory ; and the souls there detained are helped by the sufirages of the faithful, but most of aU by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar," or mass ; and makes it absolutely obUgatory upon all priests " constantly to hold, and most diUgently to teach, that there is a purgatory.'' In the creed of Pius IV., to which every Roman Catholic must subscribe, "with the solemnity of an oath, we have this language : " I constantly hold that there is a purgatory, and that the souls there detained are assisted by the sufirages of the faithful." It is somewhat remarkable that the Council did not 196 THE GREAT APOSTASY. claim high Scripture warrant for this doctnne, as in the case of penance, andfransubstantiation, and exfreme unction, and that the decree is accompanied "with no anathema. For once, then, we can deny that a doctrine held by Rome is of divine institution, and breathe easy ! No curse bickers in the heavens, no purgatorial or worse fires blaze beneath our feet. Was the CouncU in such haste, though from the opening session to the close was only eighteen years, that it could not take time to ¦write, "If any one shall say that purgatory was not insinuated by Christ and preached by Paul and Peter, let him be acccursed " ? or, were the members so fuUy conscious, so positively certain, that it had no shadow of foundation in Scripture, or in apostolic tra dition, that it would be an unheard-of cruelty, even in Rome, to damn a man outright for doubting it ? Or was it because the closing anathemas, which sanctioned and embraced all the decrees, would cover and defend this ? The last words of that CouncU were : "Anath ema"! "Anathema" \ "Anathema"! Be this as it may, many able ¦writers, since the days of Aquinas, have taught that this dogma is of di'vine origin, and have quoted and learnedly commented upon several passages in the New Testament to support their position. As many more, and fuUy as able, have con fessed that this doctrine has no foimdation in Scripture. When infallible doctors disagree, who shall decide? Dr. MUner, in his "End of Confroversy," in the midst of a grave argument and with evident feeUngs of triumph, asks : " What place must that be which our Sa^viour called Abraham's bosom, where Lazarus reposed, among other just souls, till he by his DOCTRINES — PURGATORY. 197 passion, paid their ransom?* Not heaven, but evidently a middle state. Again, of what place is it that St. Peter speaks, where Christ preached to those spirits that where in prison ff It is evi dently the same that is mentioned in the Apostles' creed, ' He de scended into hoU,' not the hell of the damned, surely, but the prison above mentioned, or Abraham's bosom ; in short, a middle state." "Abraham's bosom" a "prison" ! "purgatory" ! the "hell" into which the Saviour descended when he "preached to those spfrits that were in prison"! But what does the isnpired evangelist teach ? Abraham ad dressing the rich man, far across the impassable gulf, said, " Son, remember that thou in thy Ufetime re ceivedst thy good things, and like^wise Lazarus evU things : but now he is comforted and thou art tormented. "Lazarus" "comforted" in "purgatory"! One would suppose that priests would not be anxious to pray souls out of such a place, and that " the faithful" would not give very freely of thefr hard earnings for masses to bring departed loved ones from such " comforts" ! But why did "Lazarus, and Abraham and other just souls," remain in that place of comfort tUl Christ " by his passion paid thefr ransom" ? Ah, poor souls ! there were no priests to offer up the sacrifice of the altar for them, no faithful whose suffrages could reach and relieve them ! Though Moses and the Prophets and priests had lived and died, they ' ' reposed" there and were "comforted," "till He, by his pardon, paid thefr ransom." But if they were "just," what ransom did they need ? And finally, was not that ransom made for every soul of man? And if it redeemed and brought out of "the prison" of Abraham's bosom * Luke xvi. 19-31. + 1 Peter Ui. 19. 198 THE GREAT APOSTASY. Lazarus and other just souls, wUl it not save from that prison just souls departing now? So much for an argument so at variance ¦with Scripture and common sense, and so flimsy withal, that I find it difficult to reply to it without being exceedingly trite and com mon place. But this argument is not only at variance with Scripture and common sense, but ¦with the very nature of purgatory itself, as set forth by Popes, Councils, and theologians. Purgatory, as its name imports, is a place of cleansing, of purgation by suffering. Hence, it has been represented as a place in which the soul suffers keenest torture by fire, and endures most ex quisite mental anguish. " Many have represented water, accompanied with darkness, tem pest, whirlwind, snow, ice, frost, hail, and rain, as the means of pur gatorial atonement. Perpetua, in a vision, saw a pond in this land of temporary penalty, though its waters were inaccessible to the thirsty inhabitants, whom it only tantalized with iUusive mockery."* " The water of this country, in the most authentic accounts, is both hot and cold : and the wretched inhabitants pass in rapid but pain ful transition firom the warm to the frosty element — from the torrid to the frigid zone. The purgatorians enjoy, iu succession, the cool and tepid bath ; and are transferred, without any useless ceremony, from the icy pond to the boiling cauldron."! Paris:]; gives the story of one Enus, who, he affirms, beheld by invoking the protection and the favor ofthe Son of God, the punishment of the ¦wretched souls con fined in purgatory. He went down, he informs us, in the spirit of course, not like poets of old into Pluto's dark domain, but into the "middle place" — ^the purga- * This story is given both by Bede and BeUarmine. t Edgar's Variations. t Paris : pp. 83, 84. DOCTRINES — PURGATORY. 199 torian world, and saw suffering souls and heard their groans. Dr. Edgar has condensed this wonderful story, and I give it in his words : " Numberless men and women, lying naked on the earth and transfixed with red-hot nails, bit the dust with pain. Devils lashed some with dreadful whips. Fiery dragons gnawed some with ignited teeth ; whUe flaming serpents pierced others with burning stings. Toads of amazing size and terror endeavored, ¦with ugly beaks, to extract the hearts of many. Monstrous deformed worms, breathing fire from their mouths, devoured some with insatiable voracity. Some hung in sulphurous flames, with chains through their feet, legs, hands, arms, and heads, or ¦with iron hooks in a state of ignition through their eyes, nose, jaws, and breasts. Some were roasted on spits, fried in pans, or boiled in furnaces. Many were hurled headlong into a fetid, tumbling, roaring river, and if any raised their heads above the surface, devils, running along the stream, sunk them again into the cold element. A sulphurous weU, emitting flame and stench, threw up men like sparkling scintillations. Into the air, and again received them falling into its burning mouth." Such, then, is purgatory, according to Bede, BeUar mine, Paris, Alexander, and every other Romanist whose writings I have examined, or whose opinions I have seen quoted, who has expressed himself on this subject, save Dr. MUler. Roman Catholic priests in Europe and America everywhere represent, at this day, that purgatory is a place of suffering. Without suffering, in a word, all agree, it would not be purga tory. And yet Dr. Miller says : Abraham's bosom is purgatory, and that just souls repose there ! Lazarus, we know, in that state, was comforted. To such a pur gatory, may the writer and the reader go when the toils of life are over ! Dr. Challoner, in his "Catholic Christian," labors 200 THE GREAT APOSTASY. hard to sustain this unscriptural dogma by the declara tion of our Sa"viour that the sin against the Holy Ghost cannot be forgiven in eternity. The Saviour says: "The blasphemy against ihe Holy Ghost shall not he for given, neither in this world, neither in the world to come."* Thus Dr. ChaUoner reasons : " Our Lord would not have mentioned forgiveness in the world to come, if sins, not forgiven in this world, could not be forgiven in the world to come ; then, tiiere must be a purgatory ; for no sin can enter into heaven to be forgiven there, and in heU there is no forgiveness at aU."What masterly logic ! How lucid and triumphant this argument ! Some sins "wUl never be forgiven in the world to come ; therefore, some sins wUl ; there fore, " there must be a purgatory " ! The conclusion is based upon an iifference, which inference is a fallacy. As one sin cannot be forgiven in the world to come, the inference is, others may. In other words, ff Christ had said that a certain sin cannot be forgiven in this world, we would have reasonably concluded that aU other sins may be ; that all others are of a nature to be forgiven. So in eternity. Dr. Challoner contends. But his inference is a sophism ; first, because, so far as we know, so far as God has revealed-the plan of salvation, there are no means of remitting sins, and no promise of forgiveness in eternity. To reply that purgatorial fires, or sufferings of any kind, or indulgences bought, or masses said on earth for souls confined there, are the means, is to assume the truth of the doctrine in dispute. We deny that there is a purgatory, and ask what means wUl cleanse the sord, or renUt sins in the ¦• Matt. xii. 32. DOCTRINES — PURGATORY. 201 world to come, and the reply is, and the only reply which can be given, purgatorial fires, and masses, &c., assuming what we deny. In the next place, the inference proves too much, ff it prove anything. If we suppose that any sins, not against the Holy Ghost, can be forgiven in the world to come, we must suppose, for the same reason, that all sins, except that one, can be forgiven. And hence, every sinner who dies in his sins, who has not commit ted the sin against the Holy Ghost, can be forgiven in the world to come ! Is there a chance, then, for all of ¦ us, maugre the thunders of Rome, through the fires of purgatory, to reach at last the haven of repose ? But alas for us, and for this interpretation, " Mother Church" teaches, that aU who die in " mortal sin "go to hell, whence there is no redemption. This passage, then, does not insinuate, much less prove, the doctrine of a middle state of purgation. The next passage on which the advocates of this dogma rely to demonstrate its truth, is Matt. v. 26 : "Verily I say unto thee, thou shalt by no means come oui thence (of prison, see verse 24), till thou hast paid ihe uttermost farthing." BeUarmine, ChaUoner, Milner, and others, say, the prison mentioned by our Lord is pur gatory ; and that when the sufferer has paid the debt, or expiated the crime, or crimes for which he was cast into that prison, he wUl come out. " Many Eomish saints and commentators, however, give a differ ent explanation. Augustine, Jerome, Bede, Maldonat, and Alex ander, say the prison is heU, and the punishment everlasting." "According to the canonized commentator of Palestine, ' The per son who does not before the end of his Ufe pay the last farthing, 9* 202 THE GREAT APOSTASY. mentioned in the words of the inspired penman, will never be re leased from the prison ! ' "* Bede says, "the term until signifies endless duration," as in the expression of David, cited by Paul, which he quotes to sustain his view: " TiU I put all his enemies under his feet." "Till," in this sentence, evidently means forever ; for Christ wUl reign not only when all enemies are put under his feet, but forever. " Maldo nat," says Edgar, " concurs" in this interpretation. He says, " The prison signifies hell, from which the debtor, who will be punished with the utmost -vigor, wUl never escape, hecause he will never pay." Alexander, the learned Sorbonnist, very ably sus tains this interpretation and refutes BeUarmine, and leaves no ground on which for Challoner and MUner to stand. The Saviour's language, he argues, "signifies not whence he "wiU afterward depart, but whence he will never depart. The words are spoken of hell, from which the condemned, who undergo the infinite pun ishment of mortal sin, which they can never pay, "vnU never be released." TUl, when applied to things in eternity, means forever. " God invites his son to sit at his right hand, till his enemies should become his footstool. But he wUl not then leave his seat." He wUl sit there forever. So the person in prison unable to pay will never come out. Dr. Clarke in his com ment on this passage, remarks " This text has been considered a proper foundation on which to buUd not only the doctrine of a purgatory, but also that of univer sal restoration. But the most unwarrantable violence must be used * Edgar. DOCTRINES— PURGATORY. 203 before it can be pressed into the service of either of the above unscriptural doctrines. At the most, the text can only be consid ered as a metaphorical representation of the procedure of the great Judge ; and let it ever be remembered, that by the general consent of all (except the basely interested), no metaphor is ever to he pro duced in proof of any doctrine. In the things that concern our eternal salvation, we need the most pointed and express evidence on which to estabUsh the faith of our souls." There is another view which is fatal to the interpre tation of Bellarmine, and all of that school. The Sa viour says the prisoner shall not come out till he has paid the uttermost farthing. But the CouncU of Trent affirms, as already quoted, that " the souls detained in purgatory are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but most of aU, by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar." Now, ff the soul in purgatory is helped by the suffrages of the faithful, and especially by the sacrifice of the altar, what is the nature and extent of that help? They can cancel none of the prisoner's debt, according to the plain word of the Great Teacher. The infalli ble Council therefore was wrong, or the Teacher whom aU know to be infaUible was mistaken, or deceived us in teaching that the poor soul must suffer in its purga torial prison or hell, till the penal fires there shall have burned out all its venial stains — or this docfrine has no foundation in the text. Paul's language to the Corinthians has been brought into requisition, and made to prove the existence of a purgatory. The whole passage reads thus : " For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ ? Now if any man build upon this foundation, gold, sUver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble ; every man's work shaU be made manifest : for the day shall declare it, because it shaU be 204 THE GREAT APOSTASY. revealed by fire ; and the flre shaU try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shaU receive a reward. If any man's work shaU be burned, he shaU suffer loss : but he himself shaU be saved ; yet so as by fire."* This passage is somewhat mysterious, and hence susceptible of being misunderstood, and of false inter pretations. It should not be brought forward, there fore, to sustain any doctrine not elsewhere clearly re vealed in the Scriptures. Almost any theory may be sustained according to such principles of exegesis. However, that I may not be misunderstood, this text does not insinuate, much less prove, the doctrine of purgatory. First of all, the language of the Apostle, as to works and trying them, is highly flgurative: "If any man buUd upon this foundation, gold, silver, preciou,s stones, wood,, hay, stubble." By the terms gold, silver, &c., the Apostle does not mean the precious metals, but the doc frine and practice of the buUder. By the term fire, then, he cannot mean real, literal fire, but some scrutinizing test, which, like fire, will show the gold, sUver, precious stones, from the wood, hay, stubble ; or good doctrines from doubtful, or speculative and false. To teach that the Apostle uses figurative terms in speaking of doc trines — and all must admit this — and that he uses, in the same sentence, as their parallel, a literal one, is to make him, learned as he was and inspfred withal, a Uterary pretender and a blind guide. Furthermore, the Apostle does not say, "shall be saved by fire," but, " so as by fire." If the term fire, therefore, be taken in a Uteral sense — ^but this "new * 1 Cor. iu. 11-15, DOCTRINES — PURGATORY. 205 shows it cannot — the Apostle uses it to show, not that the buUder will pass through it, but through a judg ment ordeal that wUl test, or try his work Uke as fire ; and he shall be saved, not by, but so as by fire. He uses the term fire, therefore, to represent something- else ; what this something else is, which fire symboli cally represents, we are left to conjecture, and the learned widely disagree concerning it. Some say it is affiiction, and an adverse, scrutinizing Providence in this Ufe. Others, that it is the final judgment; and yet others — ^the Greek Church and Greek theologians generally, that it is future punishment. " The Scriptural language, in this case," says Dr. Edgar, " is metaphorical. The superstructure, consisting of gold, silver, and precious stones, or of wood, hay, and stubble, as well as the scrutin izing flame, all these are not Uteral but figurative. The phrase, ' so as,' it is plain, denotes a comparison. The salvation, which is accom plished so as by fire, is one which, as critics have shown from siniUar language in sacred and profane authors, is effected with difBculty. Amos, the Hebrew Prophet, represents the Jewish nation, who were rescued from imminent danger, ' as a fire-brand plucked out of the burning.' Zechariah, in the same spirit and in similar style, char acterizes a person who was deUvered from impending destruction, as a brand snatched ' out of the fire.' Diction of a similar kind, Galmet, Wetstein, and other critics have sho-wn, has been used by Livy, Cicero and Cyprian, for denoting great hazard and difBculty. Paul, in like manner, designed to teU us, that he who should blend vain and useless speculations with the truths of the Gospel ; but should rest nevertheless, in the main, on the only basis, would, in the end, be saved ; but with the difBculty of a person who should escape with the possession of his life, but with the loss of his prop erty, from an overwhelming conflagration : or, according to Estius, Uke the merchant, who should gain the shore -with the destruction of his goods, but the preservation of his Ufe, from the tempest of the sea." 206 THE GREAT APOSTASY. Finally, the Apostle teaches that the purifying test which is like, or as by fire, affects, or passes upon, the doctrine and not the person. His " work," if it stand not the test, "shaU be burned." The trial, therefore, is not of persons in purgatory or anywhere else, in the sense of Rome, but of works. They shall suffer loss, not purgatorial pains, the loss of all their works, but themselves shall be saved. But let it ever be remembered, if they build on Christ. This passage, therefore, does not, in any sense, sus tain the doctrine of purgatory, as held by the Church of Rome: a purgatory that -tries the agent, not the ac tion, the worker, not the works, and saves, not " so as," but by fire. Some of the advocates of this doctrine fully rely on the language of St. Peter, iii. chap., first letter, 18-20th verses, as demonstrating its truth. And this is the last text, worthy of note, brought forward to sustain this dogma. The English version reads thus : " For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the un just, that he might bring us to God ; being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit : By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison ; which sometime were disobedient, wheu once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a-preparing, wherein few, that is eight, souls were saved by water." Dr. Clarke, on the phrase, " By which he went and preached to the spirits in prison," which, he thinks, is not a correct translation, makes the following critical remarks : " On this word there are several various readings ; some of the Greek MSS. read nvsvjiaTi,, in spirit, and one TtvEVnaTb 'AyiQ, DOCTRINES — PURGATORY. 207 in the Holy Spirit. I have before me one of the first, if not the very first edition of the Latin Bible ; and, in it, the verse stands thus : In quo et his, qui in cai-cere erant spieitualitek veniens prcedicavit ; by which he came spirituaUy, and preached to them that were in prison ? " In two very ancient MSS. of tho Vulgate before me, the clause is thus : In quo et his qui in carcere erant spieitu venient prcedicavit ; in which, coming by the Spirit, he preached to those who were in prison ? This is the reading, also, in the Complutensian Polyglot. "Another ancient MS. in my possession, has the words nearly as in the printed copy : In quo ei his qui in carcere conclusi erant Spiritualiter veniens prcedicavit ; in which, coming spiritually, he preached to those who were shut up in prison ? "Another MS., -written about A. D. 1370, is the same as the printed copy. " The common printed Vulgate is diff'erent from all these, and from aU the MS. of the Vulgate which I have seen, in reading spiriiibus, ' to the spirits.' " But ff we admit — which, from the above criticism) is more than doubtful — that the edition of the Vulgate, admitted to be genuine by the Romish Church, and our cominon English version, give the Greek, and the precise idea of St. Peter, correctly- — "he went and preached unto the spirits in prison " — still, this does not prove that there is a purgatory. A simple analysis and common sense criticism, I doubt not, will clearly show this. Christ, says Peter, was "put to death in the flesh, but quickened by ihe Spirit." By what Spirit? His own spirit ? Nay, not by his human spirit, but " by THE Spirit;" the Spirit, then, clearly the Holy Ghost, by whom he was conceived, and by whom he was anointed at Jordan ; the Spirit that inspired the proph ets, and who strove with the antedUu"vians — "By" 208 THE GREAT APOSTASY. not in "which" — Spirit — "also He went si^A preached unto the spirits" — li"ving men — "in prison" — in the body; "which spirits" — ^in living men — "sometime were disobedient when" — or while — "once the long suf fering of God waited in ihe days of Noah whUe the ark was a-preparing." Then, whUe the ark was preparing, it is clear, he preached unto them "by ihe Spirit." In other words, the spfrits were disobedient, aU must ad mit — ^this Peter declares — "whUe the ark was a-pre paring." J^oah, all know, was a "preacher of righteous ness" — God's preacher. The Spirit, who quickened and enUghtened him, and moved him to preach, strove with the people — the disobedien-t — whUe Noah preached, and by and through his preaching. Christ, therefore, by his Spfrit, through Noah, preached unto them. This cannot be denied ; and this, simply, is the doctrine taught in this mystified and much-abused passage. In deed, this is the only rational exposition of which we can conceive. If we suppose, as the Trent Catechism teaches, and the Rhemish annotators, and ChaUoner, and MUner, and others, contend, that purgatory is meant by the term "prison ;" then, the wicked antedUuvians, whose abom inable ungodliness and corruptions have hardly ever been surpassed, were detained in a " middle state " — nay, according to Milner, in "Abraham's bosom," " -with other just souls," till after Christ's death, whence they were liberated by his preaching whUe disembod ied ! And yet, they must have died in "mortal sin " — a sin which excludes from purgatory and shuts up in hell forever, according to the theology of Rome. How, then, could they be saved by Christ's preaching ? And DOCTRINES — PURGATORY. 209 furthermore, if the ungodly rejecters of the Gospel of that day, who were swept from the earth by the wild waste of waters, for thefr very wickedness, went to purgatory, and that purgatory Abraham's bosom, where, with Lazarus and other just souls, they were confforted, we, who reject the preaching of papists in this day, need have no fears of thefr anathemas and of their purgatory. Let them send us to Abraham's bosom, "with other just souls, to be comforted ! Nor can we suppose, with the Greek Church and theologians, that hell is meant by the term "prison." Christ preached the Gospel by His spirit, "unto the spirits" there. And for what purpose would he preach the Gospel to disembodied souls hopelessly lost ? The idea is revoltingly absurd. We are thrown back, then, upon the exposition I have given as the only rational, tenable one. The "judicious Calmet," as Dr. Clarke calls him, who firnUy holds the doctrine of purgatory as, and because, it is taught by his Church, doubts that it receives any support from this passage. BeUarmine, who quotes nineteen texts to sustain this dogma, rejects this one. Alexander, also, after bringing to the support of this superstition every sentence which learning and inge nuity could marshal in its support and defence, rejects this one altogether. Not a single Father ever ex pounded the passage to mean the Romish purgatory. They, however, knew nothing about this doctrine. The moderns are more wise. The doctrine of purgatory, then, is "without Scrip tural foundation, and is purely a " human invention ' — a doctrine, indeed, of " seducing spirits." 210 THE GREAT APOSTASY. " Many distinguished theologians of Eome have, with laudable candor, admitted the silence of Eevelation on this topic : and among the rest. Barns, Bruys, Courayer, Alphonsus, Fisher, Polydorus, Goto, Perionius, Picherel, Wicolius, Cajetan, and Trevern. Bams declares ' purgatorial punishment a matter of human opinion, which can be evinced neither from Scripture, Fathers, nor CouncUs.' Bruys says, ' it was unknown to the Apostles and original Chris tians.' Alphonsus, Fisher, and Polydorus, ' grant the total omission or rare mention of this tenet in the monuments of antiquity.' Caje- - tan and others admit the same." " BeUarmine and Alexander, the two celebrated advocates of this theology, have, between them, rejected all its Scriptural proofs, and agree only in one apocryphal argument."* The primitive Church knew nothing of this doctrine. For hundreds of years every Father, "with one excep tion perhaps, who wrote on future rewards and punish ments, rejected all thought of a middle state of purga tion. Clemens, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin, Irenseus, Athenagoras, Augustine, and many others, speak of the bliss of heaven and of the anguish of hell, but ignore altogether the purgatory of Rome ; or if they allude to the theory of a middle state at aU, it is in the clear, expressive language of Augustine, who says : " The idea of a third place is unkno-wn to the Church and foreign to the Sacred Scriptures ;" and of Chrysostom, who affirms that, ' When we shaU be departed out of this life, there is then no room for repentance ; nor will it be in our power to wash out any spots we have contracted, or to purge away one of the evils we have committed." But this doctrine is not only -ftithout Scriptural authority and early traditional support, it is in conflict ¦with both. The Fathers, as we have seen, emphaticaUy * Edgar's Variations.' DOCTRINES — PURGATORY. 211 deny the existence of a middle state of purgation. They, however, were but mere men. I only appeal to them and to fradition to meet and refute Rome on her own chosen ground. The Bible is the only source and rule of faith. To that we must ultimately appeal every question. In its pages but two places of departed spfrits are revealed to us — heaven and hell. They are the abodes of the righteous and of the "wicked, whose states are forever unalterably, changelessly fixed. A great gulph sweeps between them, across which none can ever pass. Abraham's bosom and Paradise are terms denoting happiness, nothing but happiness; and they give no intimation as to the place or locality of that happiness. There is no such place as Abraham's bosom, as a heal habitation. It is a figurative term, meaning repose, bliss. So is Paradise."* To make one a place, we must the other also, and then there would be two middle states, or abodes, for the righteous. " But," it is replied '' they both mean the same thing." So they do ; they mean happiness, nothing but happiness, and leave other passages to reveal the place where that happiness is to be enjoyed, and that place is heaven. The plan of this work and time and spacfr do not aUow me to enter fully into the discussion of this in teresting theme. A few brief reflections are aU that I can throw out. When the dying malefactor turned his penitent heart to the expiring Son of God, as both hung on thefr * Dr. Clarke, in a very able criticism, shows this. He says : " The state if tlie blessed is certainly what our Lord here means ; in what tho locality of that state consists, we know not." Yes we do : it is heaven. 212 THE GREAT APOSTASY. crosses in unutterable agony, the Sa"vioux said : " To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise." After his resur rection, he said to Mary: "Touch me not; Jam not yet ascended to my Father." Out of these two sentences, a middle state, or more properly, place this side of heaven, has been manufactured. Toux;h me not; Jam not yet ascended, &c. The pro nouns me and I, have reference to the entfre manhood of Christ — body and soul, especiaUy to his body. The cfrcumstances, and the word touch, or cUng, as the Greek imports, prove this beyond all peradventure. The Saviour, therefore, meant, and oiUy meant, as I can conceive, that, in his risen state, or "with his body, he had not ascended to his Father. The word ascend conveys no other idea. He did not intimate, therefore, where His spirit had been between the crucifixion and the resurrection. He had been to Paradise, we know, to bliss ; and I undoubtingly beUeve, to God. Paradise means delight, bUss ; and the place where it is realized is heaven. His body had not been there ; for it was just risen. He meant no more. When Stephen was stoned to death, he saw heaven opened, " and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God." He cried out, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!" Did he go to Jesus and that glory which ravished his dying eyes, or stop this side, at a middle place ? The former is the only reasonable inference ? Paul, anUd the toUs and afflictions of his ministry, as scenes of fadeless glory filled his "vision and atfracted him away to his Father's house, exclaimed : " I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart DOCTRINES — PURGATORY. 213 and be with Christ; nevertheless, it is needful for you that I remain." The intense desire of his heart was to be with Christ, and this, no doubt, has long since been realized. He is with Christ to-day, and Christ is with God. When Jesus was transfigured on "the holy mount," Moses and Elias came and talked with him. Elias had been translated, and taken to heaven, beyond the in termediate place, if there be one. Moses was a disem bodied spirit, ajad therefore, according to this theory, had never seen heaven ; and, according to Rome, was ah inhabitant of, and a sufferer in, purgatory ! ! But they both came together, talked together with Jesus, and were, as radiant figures, happy — ^happy, in the midst of the same bright glory ; and passed away to gether. Now, did EUas come by Paradise, or purgatory, and take Moses into his fiery chariot, and then as he returned leave him there ? Who can imagine so for a single moment ? It is an idea, a shadowy something, rather, nothing, that I never can grasp. No, no! There is no middle place beyond earth. "Three abodes there are under the government of Almighty God : the first is heaven; second, heU; thfrd, this world. In hell none are good, in heaven none bad, and both are suppUed from the middle, in which are both good and bad. The servants of God, go to God, and the servants of the de"dl, and a host of others, to the devil." * St. Am brose, and Gregory the Great, teach the same doctrine. Infallible Gregory, however, at times doubted. The description of the place, and of the sufferings of the rich man, shows that he was in, and suffering the • St. Patrick, quoted by Ousley. 214 THE GREAT APOSTASY. very pains of, hell. And ff there is no middle place for the wicked there is none for the righteous. The language of Paul, of the "wood, hay, stubble," which shall be burned "with fire, and of Peter of "the spirits in prison," or "descent into heU," as it has been very improperly caUed, as I have shown, have no reference to a middle state of any kind. Where, then, is it found? Now in the face of texts, and facts, and reasons, wholly irreconcilable with the dogma of a nUddle state, shall we hold to this momentous doctrine, sup ported as it is only by a single expression of our Sa-viour: "I am not yet ascended, to my Father;" an expression that had reference primarUy, if not exclu sively, to his body? I may stand alone, but I reject the doctrine of a middle place or locality altogether. But, if I were to admit that there is a middle world, or locality, every text that is supposed to refer to it, save the one concerning the rich man, demonstrates that it is a place of repose, of delight, of happiness, and not of suffering and purgation. Not only this, but that none go to that place but the pure. And hence it can not be the purgatory of Rome. The doctrine of purgatory substitutes the merit of suffering for the merits of Christ Dr. ChaUoner, in his Catholic Christian, says : "An indulgence is the releasing a true penitent from the debt of temporal punishment due to sin, which punishment the penitent must either discharge by way of satisfaction and penance here, or suffer in proportion to his debt." BeUarmine, Alexander, MUner, and, indeed, aU who have alluded to the nature and benefits of purgatory, teach that it is a place of atonement and purification DOCTRINES — PURGATORY. 215 by suffering. This the very name imports. The atone ment, the satisfaction, offered to God, is suffering. In dulgences, however, and the suffrages of the faithful, and the acceptable sacrifice of the mass, it is proclaimed, as we have seen, "wUl redeem and release from its penal fire and atoning sufferings. But ff the poor soul has lefl none on earth -with the wUl, or abUity to purchase an indulgence, or buy a mass for him, and the faithful do not offer up thefr suffrages, he must endure all the punishment due for his crimes — must " suffer in pro portion to his debt." But the suffering "wUl expiate and the fires purffy at length, and he "wUl come out redeemed and disenthralled. Now, to ask ff-all this is not in conflict with the Gospel plan of salvation, and the clear teachings of Him who has brought life and immortaUty to light, would almost be an insult to common sense. The offering up of Jesus Christ on the cross once for all, God teaches, is the only sacrifice for sin ; and his blood once freely shed for us, the only means to purffy and save. " He hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring 'as io God." The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin." Unto Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in his own blood." "For by one offering He hath perfected forever them that are sanctified." "And their sins and iniquities wfll I remember no more. Now, where remission of tliese is, there is no more offering," or atonement, "for sin." No moTe is needed, is clearly the Apostle's meaning. "Sins and iniquities" being "remitted," the punish ment due to them is remitted also, and hence " no more offering" is requfred. Purgatorial expiation, then, the 216 THE GREA'T APOSTASY. merit of suffering, lays another foundation than that is laid — Jesus Christ, and subverts the ever-blessed Gos pel of the grace of God. To escape this difficulty, we are gravely told that the atonement of Christ procures for us the sufferings and expiation of purgatory, to save us from a hell of unutterable and eternal anguish ; that the atonement of purgatory was procured by the atonement of Christ. We are saved by Christ through the sufferings of pur gatory! Whence know they this? A doctrine so important, we can but believe, would, at least, have been insinuated in the Gospel, but this is not the case. InfaUible Mother Church, however, supplies the omis sion and reveals it to the world. But, first, if the atonement of Christ could not pro cure our full redemption from all the penalties of law, but purchased purgatorial suffering, to what end is that suffering? It must be meritorious, or an unreasonable, profitless cruelty. Besides, Bellarmine, Alexander, Challoner, and many others, teach, ff we can under stand the meaning of language, that the suffering is expiatory; and hence it must, say what you will, super add merit to the blood of Christ. Or another founda tion is laid for the salvation of the soul, other than that laid by Him. In the next place, the same writers and Councils teach that indulgences, the suffrages of the faithful, and the acceptable sacrifice of the mass, deliver the soul at once from purgatory. And when we ask, wUl they deliver from its sufferings, by thefr own intrinsic, natu ral merits f we are assured they will not ; that aU the merits they have are of the institution of Christ through DOCTRINES — ^PURGATORY. 217 His blood. The atonement of Christ, therefore, through indulgences, &c., does save from purgatory, without the payment of the " debt due to sin," by suffering ; or infalUble Church is in error. Why, then, cannot and does not the blood of Christ save, without either indul gences or suffering, ff they only save through the merit they have derived from the atonement ? Why? The infallible oracle is dumb. But the glorious Gogpel, in clear, joyous tones, answers in emphatic language that the blood of Christ can and does save from sin, and all the penalties or punishments due to sin, "without in dulgences, or the sacrifice of the mass, or purgatorial sufferings. The position, therefore, that this doctrine lays another foundation than that which was laid by Jesus Christ, is not only not shaken by this objection, but strength ened and sustained. Purgatory, then, like transub stantiation, is not only a departure from the faith, but eternaUy irreconcUable "with it. It is another Gospel. This docfrine is in conflict "svtth penance, indulgences, the sacrifice of ihe MasSj and extreme unction. It is wholly unnecessary, or ihey have utterly failed to con fer the benefits promised. It wfll be remembered, that we are distinctly taught that "penance is a sacrament;" that that sacrament consists in the words ofthe priest: "I absolve thee." Sacraments, we are also taught, " confer grace" — " ex opere operato." The sinner, there fore, recei"dng absolution, must — can but receive grace, the grace of remission, whatever may be the feel ings of his mind. Indulgences, we are assured, " re mit the temporal punishment due to sin, and make the soul white as snow." The " holy eucharist," or "mass," 10 218 THE GREAT APOSTASY. is a "sacrifice for sin," " for the li"nng and the dead; because Christ is therein contained, body, soul and divinity, and unbloodily immolated, who once offered himself bloodily on the cross."* He, therefore, for whom the sacrifice is offered, must realize its merits; and then, in eating the body, and drinking the blood, and masticating the divinity, thus offered up, and given for and to him, he is made necessarUy "a partaker of the di"vine nature." Extreme unction is " a sacrament," and " if any shall say that the holy anointing of the sick doth Ti.ot remit sins and impart grace, let him be accursed." Now, if all this be true, the departing soul passes away into eternity, and stands in the presence of its final Judge, with all its sins remitted, with all the temporal punishment due to sin forever cancelled, with a nature assimilated to the nature of God, and filled and imbued "with all the graces which the Holy Roman Catholic Church can confer, and crowned with all her favors and blessings; and yet, in glorious consistency. Mother Church teaches that it must go to purgatory ; to pay, by its own suffering, the temporal punishment due to sin ! Or thence come out by indulgences, &c., which could not save from that place ! Now, these doctrines are false, all false, and a cheat ; or purgatory is an imaginary place, which exists only in the brain of a papist. And ff one is imaginary, or false, the in evitable consequence is, from Rome's own premises, that aU are. But the question may be asked by the uninitiated — and Roman Catholics, and priests, in certain quarters, have tried to make a different impression : Do souls * Decree ofthe Council of Trent DOCTRINES — PURGATORY. 219 who have enjoyed all the- benefits of penance, indul gences, transubstantiation, and extreme unction, go to purgatory ? So Popes, CouncUs, and theologians teach. All, some theologians most distinctly aver, must pass through the penal fires of that middle world ! Even the immaculate Mary herself, Queeu of Heaven, we are taught, had to pass through the cleansing ordeal to her seat at the right hand of her Son.* Besides, when his hoUness Pope Gregory XVI. died, not a dozen years ago, "masses were said and prayers offered up" throughout the Roman Catholic world, "for the repose of his soul." He was " infallible," so the Ultramon tanists unblushingly affirm ; he was the earthly head and source of all grace — nay, above God, for he could create Him ; he enjoyed through a long Iffe the sacra ments of penance and of the holy eucharist ; he was the fountain of indulgences — "the treasures of God's grace ;" and he was soothed and blessed in his dying hour with the sacrament of extreme unction — the sacerdotal thumb of attendant cardinals anointed him, with holy oU, on the eyes, ears, nose, mouth, hands, feet, and loins, with the sacred sign of the cross ; and yet he went to purgatory. So his present holiness, Pius IX. taught, who ordered masses for the repose of his soul. What hope, then, is there, for cardinals, bishops, priests, people, that they will ever escape its sufferings ; that they "vvill enter heaven without pass ing through its fearful flames ? ' The faithful here, and a priest there, may deny that those who receive the sacraments, and realize their full benefits, and have procured a plenary indulgence, will have to pass * A few -writers say that the fiilly sanctified go to heaven. 220 THE GREAT APOSTASY. through the fires of purgatory, but thefr denial is in conflict with the doctrine of their Church. If, then, penance, plenary indulgences, the sacrament of the mass, and extreme unction, fail to save from purgatory, how can they save out of it ? If, whUe the faithful live, and when they die, these means of grace cannot purffy and save, by what rule of logic or law of ethics, or invention of Rome, can they bring out of that burning prison? If they faUed before, will they not fail now? Having no power, no efficacy, to save from the middle state of purgation, and ha"ving no more efficacy now than they had then, common sense teaches that they cannot bring one soul out of it. The soul, then, must suffer tUl it pays the debt. To such inextricable difficulties, to such superlative nonsense, to such absurd errors, do the teachings of this fallen Church conduct us ! Finally, the doctrine of purgatory perpetuates the power of the priest over the soul, and its destiny in eternity. To the faithful, from their cradle to their grave, the priest, as we have seen, by Di"vine appointment it is true, he professes, is the only channel of grace ; the only visible, known medium and agent, through and by whom they can be saved. He is the keeper and lord of their consciences and souls. He stands as a daysman between offended Deity and offending man ; and offers sacrifices to one, and absolution to the other. And when the pUgrimage of Iffe is over, and the spirit has gone to its middle home — ^from wlUch, all that he could do, it could not be saved — he still stands between it and God ; and by granting indulgences to survi"ving DOCTRINES — PURGItORY. 221 relatives, offering the acceptable sacrifice of the mass, he can bring it hence, and send it rejoicing up to bliss immortal ! Hence he is looked to and besought by weeping, heart-broken kindred, to interpose his au thority and wonderful prerogatives to rescue the poor soul from its sufferings, and give it a passport to heaven. " In Ireland," says Eev. Dr. Murray, " the custom of the priest is, at a certain point in the service of the mass, to turn his back to the altar and his face to the people, and to read a long list of the names of deceased persons whose souls are in purgatory, and to offer up a prayer for their deliverance from it. This is done, or used to be done, in the chapels on every Sabbath. To obtain the name of a deceased relative on that magic list,, the priest must be paid so much a year, varying, I beUeve, with the ability of the friends to pay. If the yearly payment is not made when due, the name of the person ia erased from the list. A circumstance arising out of this custom, occurring in my boyhood, is distinctly before me : A re spectable man in our parish died in middle life, leaving a widow and a large family of chUdren to mourn his loss. True to her religious principles, and to her generous instincts, the widow had her hus band's name placed on that Ust, and heard, -with pious gratitude, his name read over from Sabbath to Sabbath, with a prayer offered for the deliverance of his soul from purgatory. After the lapse of two or three years, on a certain Sabbath, the name of her husband was omitted from the Ust. The fact filled her -with mingled joy and fear ; joy, thinking that her husband had escaped from purgatory ; and tear, lest she had done something to offend the priest. On timid inquiry, she learned that his soul was yet in purgatory, but that she had forgotten to send in the yearly tax at the time itwas due. The tax was promptly paid, and the name was restored on the next Sab bath. With this fact I am entirely conversant ; for that widow was my own mother, who sought the release of the soul of my father from purgatory."* * Letters to Bishop, now Archbishop Hughes. 222 THE GREAT APOSTASY. Now, the money must have brought Souls out of pur gatory there, and not prayers and masses, or how ava ricious and cruel that priest! And how cruel the Church ! according to her own doctrine ; she might de populate that habitation of anguish and despafr, and send its liberated millions, Avith rapturous hosannas and songs of grateful praise to Popes, and prelates, and priests, up to " the palace of Angels and God." Why does she not do it ? She has the power, she affirms — is money wanting ? Does thai save ? or move her to save? " The doctrine of purgatory is most adroitly calculated to secure an irresistible influence over an ignorant and superstitious people. Only let it be believed, that the soul is exquisitely tormented in a fire, from which the celebration of masses can deUver it, and the priest has at once a strong rein upon the necks of sur-viving relatives and friends, and a sure key to their pockets. Accordingly, masses for souls in purgatory have always been a most gainful trade to the Church of Eome. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Council commands that the existence of purgatory be believed, held, taught, and everywhere preached."* But God never gave to His Apostles, nor to His Church — ^much less has He given to Roman Catholic priests — ^power oyer souls in eternity ; nor committed to them, in any way, or sense, means of grace to affect them there. The doctrine of purgatory, therefore, I would say once again, is of human invention — a foun dation never laid by Jesus Christ. We have thus briefly examined — ^briefly for the mo mentous interest involved in them — the doctrines of Infallibility, Auricular Confession, Priestly Absolution and Indulgences,.Transubstantiation, Extreme Unction, * Master-Key to Popery. DOCTRINES — PURGATORY. 223 and Pm-gatory, as held by the Church of Rome, and to what conclusion are we irresistibly, infallibly con ducted ? That she is the "falling away " predicted by St. Paul, the Great Apostasy. In each and all she has "departed from the faith," and has, therefore, ceased — long since ceased — to be a Church of Christ. She is of God rejected, and is verUy, truly, the Anti christ, t Here, then, may we pause — pause, and wonder at the varied and profound errors which, in the teachings of a Church professing infalUbUity, have accumulated around the cross of Christ, obscuring its glory, and shutting up the way to heaven and to the tree of Ufe — pause, and leave the good Romanist in purgatory, whence, in due time, he may come out, by indulgences, or by the suffrages of the faithful, or by ihe accepioMe sacrifice of the altar, or by his own sufferings ; and I defy the divines of Rome to teU which — from him who now wears the tiara and sitteth in the Temple of God, down to the boy-priest of Maynooth ordained to-day. CHAPTER IV. PRACTICE OE THE CHURCH OF ROME. Practice is a. test of doctrine. The Divine Redeemer has taught: "If any man wiU do His "wUl, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God." Obedi ence, therefore, to a' command, or the practice of a dogma, demonstrates its origin, its truth or falsehood, and its adaptation to accompUsh the end proposed. Hence, in the practical workings of any system, or doc frine, we " know whether it is of God." As the stream reveals the fountain, so the Ufe makes manffest the doctrine. The inductive phUosophy of Bacon teaches the same lesson, and, I may add, demonstrates its truth. The Great Teacher has also declared, that "The tree is known by his fruit." For "every good tree bringeth forth good fruit ; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evU fruit." "Wherefore, by their fruits ye shall know them." What, then, are the fruits of Romanism? What evidence does her practice give, that her doctrines are from God ? A thorough examination of the effects of her teachings when reduced to practice, in answer to this question, is the design of this chapter. What, then, is her practice ? (224) PRACTICE — IDOLATRY. 225 The Church of Rome is Idolatrous. This is a very grave charge, and should not be made without the most indubitable proof The proof is at hand, clear and abundant. That Roman Catholics worship ihe "host," or bow down unto and adore consecrated bread and wine, which Mother Church teaches them have been converted into the body and blood of Christ, is frankly admitted; and is known and read of aU men. Indeed, all are anathe matized who deny the conversion, and wUl not bow down and adore the new-made Christ. " This CouncU (of Trent) teacheth, and openly professes, that in the pure and holy sacrament of the eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, is onr Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, truly, reaUy and substantially contained, under the appearance of these visible things : nor are these matters self-contradictory, that this our Sa"viour always sits at the right hand of the Father in heaven, according to the natural manner of existing ; and that, not withstanding he is in many other places sacramentaUy present to us with his substance, there is therefore no room to doubt but that the faithful of Christ should cidore his most holy sacrament with that highest worship due to the true God, according to the constant usage in the CathoUc Church. Nor is it the less to be thus adored, that it was instituted by Christ our Lord to be eaten. " If any one shall say that this holy sacrament should not be adored, nor solemnly carried about in processions, nor held up publicly to the people to adore it, or that its worshippers are idola^ ters, let him be accursed." This is enough. Rome declares that she " adores " the " most holy sacrament with that highest worship due to the true God;" that this is her "constant usage ;" that it is " carried about in processions " and 10* 226 THE GREAT APOSTASY. " held up publicly to the people to adore it." Now, this is idolatry. It is giving to the creature, to conse crated bread, but bread still, the " highest worship due to the true God." This is the very essense of idolatry. The teachings of Rome herseff is strong evidence that it is idolatry, and would drive me to this beUef ff I had no other reasons at hand. The God whom she has just created and "adored" she declares she "eats and inwardly digests." Now, can Roman Catholics, can any man in his senses, believe that they can " eat and inwardly digest" God? And yet, that which they have eaten, they adored as God ! In the " Missal," or " Mass-Book," we have this lan guage: "Should any priest not intend to consecrate, there is no sacrament, because intention is necessary." And furthermore, " If there be any defects in the matter, form, intention, or minister, the consecration is null and void."* " Then," it is added, " Christ is not in the mass — nothing but mere bread and wine still." Hence Cardi nal Bellarmine affirms, that "' No man can be certain with the certainty of faith, that he receives a true sacra ment ; because it depends on the minister's intention to consecrate, and none can see another's intention." Now, if converting the bread into the body of Christ depends on all these things ; ff when any one of them is want ing " nothing but bread remains," and if, consequently, none " can be certain with the certainty of faith " that the conversion has taken place, and that Christ is pres ent and not mere bread — ^then, none can know certainly that they worship God, or bread. And if ever a case • A number of defects that may occur in the form, minister, and matter, are mentioned. PRACTICE — IDOLATRY. 227 has occurred, m the mUlions of consecrations, and many have, when " the consecration was nuU and void," nothing but "mere bread" remaining, the worshippers were guilty, Rome herself being judge, of "gross idolatry." The disciples did not worship the sacrament on the night of its institution, consecrated as it was by Christ himself. Nor did apostles, evangelists, or " the faith ful," for hundreds of years, ever bow down before and adore it. The learned Tillotson says, " The doctrine of the corporeal presence of Christ in the eucharist, was first started about the year 750." Nor was it till the year 1251, that host-worship was made an article ot faith. Honorius IH. decreed that the priest, when the consecration was complete, should " elevate the host," and that the people should prostrate themselves and worship it. And about the year 1220 he directed that on the places in which the " host " was reserved for the sick, these words should be written, " Hic Deum Adora." "Worship God here." The veneration paid to the images and relics of saints by Roman Catholics, and thefr bowing down before them, is idolatry. Ever since the second Council of Nice, in 787, images and relics of saints have been venerated, and, as I shall show, again and again wor shipped. Listen at the Trent creed : " The images of Christ, of the Virgin Mary, and of other saints, shaU be had, consecrated, retained, and duly worshipped by kissing them, and with uncovered head bowing down before them and their relics." In the "Rituale Romanum," authorized by Pope 228 THE GREAT APOSTASY. Urban VIII., the follo"snng prayer is used in the conse cration of images: " Grant, 0 God, that whosoever before this image shaU diligently and humbly upon his knees worship and honor thy only begotten Son ; or the blessed Virgin (according as the image is that is con secrating), or this glorious Apostle, or Martyr, or Confessor, or Virgin, that he may obtain by his or her merits, and intercession, grace in this present life, and eternal glory hereafter." The foUowing is quoted from a Catechism for the Roman CathoUcs of Ireland, by Dr. Butler, published some years ago : "Q. Why do Catholics kneel before the images of the saints ? "A. To honor Christ and his saints, whom their images repre sent. "Q. Is it proper to show any mark of respect to the crucifix, and the picture of Jesus Christ and his saints ? "A. Tes : because they relate to Christ and his saints, being rep resentations and memorials of them." " The worship of this picture" (the image of St. Dominic) " has become so famous through aU Christendom, that multitudes of peo ple, to the number of a hundred thousand and upwards, flock annually to pay their devotions to it."* In the Ara Cell church at Rome, there is a "wooden doU about two feet long," called, in ItaUan, "Bam bino," "the chUd." This image represents the infant Jesus, and is thus described by the Rev. Dr. Murray : " I entered the Uttle chapel where this image is kept in state, just in time to see his little reverence go through a heaUng process." " There were there, kneeUng before the altar, three poor women ¦with a sick child. The priest who acted in the affair was going through some ceremony before the altar. Soon he turned to the * Middleton's Letter from Eome. PRACTICE — IDOLATRY. 229 right, and with a solemnity which, because feigned, was laughable, opened a little cradle in which lay tho glittering doll. He prayed over it ; aud then, taking it in his hands iJS if unworthy to touch it, placed it in an upright position on the altar. Here he prayed over it again. He then took it in his hands, and touched, with its toe, the head of the sick chUd, and crossed it with it. He then put its toe to the lips of the chUd, which was made to kiss it. And then each of the women, who were all the while upon their knees, kissed its foot. -* -it * * Bambino was put back in his beautiful cradle, and the women withdrew.""* Now, ff all this is not idolatry, the world is not now and never has been cursed with this sin and evil. But to the law and to the testimony. In the twentieth chapter of Exodus we have the ten commandments ; the first and second read thus : " 1. Thou shalt have no other Gods before me." " 2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any Ukeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth : thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them : for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iuiquity of the fathers upon the chUdren unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me." What is Bambino but a graven image of Jesus? And what are the images of which the Trent creed speaks — "of Jesus and the Virgin, and of other saints," but the likenesses of things that are in heaven above, and in the earth beneath ? And what is the image of St. Dominic, to which so many flocked to pay their devotions ? And what is the bowing down before * This doU was recently described by a writer in " The Wilming ton Journal." Its clothes and jewels, he says, cost $30,000. 230 THE GREAT APOSTASY. these but a direct "violation of the command, " Thou shalt not bow do"wn thyseff to them" ? Roman Catho lics have never denied that they bow down before them. Say they : " We bow down before them to enliven our devotions." " The images bring vi"ndly to our minds the Saviour or saints whom they repre sent." This was precisely tlie view that inteUigent heathen took of their image- worship. Plato, and Soc rates, and Cicero, did not believe that the image was the divinity, or god ; but that it represented him or her. The image brought vividly before the mind the god, his power, his character, his deeds ; and Jupiter, or Mars, or Apollo, or Minerva, whose image it was, would hear and answer as the suppUant bowed down before it. If thai was idolatry, so is the bowing down and praying before images of saints. But worse than this, the Roman Catholic Church has stricken oui the second command from nearly all her Catechisms and religious works, published for "the faithful," in their vernacular tongue. Indeed, until since the Reformation, and then, per force of Protest ant arguments and influence, the second command was never given to the people for over six hundred years. The tenth commandment was divided into two ! The commandments are thus given by Rev. Dr. Butler in his " Catechism for Ireland ; revised, approved and recommended by the Archbishops :"* "Q. Say the ten commandments of God. "A. 1. I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no strange Gods before me. " 2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. * This was published at Dublin, 181L PRACTICE — IDOLATRY. 231 " 3. Eemember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day " 4. Honor thy father and mother. " 5. Thou shalt not kiU. " 6. Thou shalt not commit adultery. " 1. Thou shalt not steal. " 8. Thou shalt not bear false witness, &c. " 9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife. " 10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods." The second command is left out. What sacrUege ! What daring impiety ! The chUdren of poor Ireland are not to know that the God who made them pro claims in his holy law, "Thou shalt not bow down thyseff to graven images." "And this mutilated copy of the divine commandments," says an able writer, " was the only one to be found in the manuals of the Romish Church before the Reformation, and even at a later period." And Bishop Stillingfleet affirms : " I - have now before me the reformed office of the blessed Virgin, printed at Salamanca, A.D., 1588, pubUshed by order of Pius V., where the second command is so left out, and so in the English office at Antwerp, A.D., 1658. I "wish," he adds, " he (the papist) had told us in what public office of their Church it is to be found." Inthe "Christian's Guide to Heaven" the second com mandment is wholly left out, and the tenth divided into two. A book which mutUates the divine com mands, and instructs in, and urges to a practice, em phatically forbidden in the part stricken out, a guide to heaven ! And that book published under the eye, and "with the approbation of one of the chief, and who is said to have been one among the most pious officers of the Church ! In the Douay Catechism, the second command is 232 THE GREAT APOSTASY. blended with the first, and the ninth di"vided as usual into the ninth and tenth. And this is the only cate chism or Roman Catholic work "with which I have met, that gives, in any form or connection, the second com mand ; and this, as I shall show, is so erroneously translated, that the meaning is entfrely changed. The reasons usually offered by the theologians of Rome for this omission and mutUation are: "It is unneces sary to give the second command, as the first contains what it enjoins ; and it is so long, that the memory of the chUd, being burdened, would not retain it" ! Then why did God give it to us ? Why publish it, blended with the first, in the Douay Catechism? And why omit it in the " Christian's Guide to Heaven" ? a work for mature memories. But to show that the second command is important, that its very letter clearly, unequivocally prohibits the practice of bowing down to images, and that it sorely troubles the teachers in this fallen Church, the Douay Catechism renders the Hebrew thus : " Thou shalt not adore nor worship them." This is a perversion ; i a pious fraud, which the translator, ff he knew anything of Hebrew, must have known. If it be unnecessary, or cannot be remembered, or mean but little, why not render it correctly ? The Hebrew, which is now before me, reads thus : Dinsn isiii onb rnriFiipti sti- An exact literal transla tion, just as it stands, is this : "Thou shalt not bow doivn thyself to them ; thou shalt not serve ihem." About the second clause : " Thou shalt not serve them," there is no dispute. The catechism gives this translation ; nor do we allege that Rome serves them. But the first, PRACTICE — IDOLATRY. 233 as above, the catechism renders, " Thou shalt not adwe them." Now the word, the verb nnui.* means to bow down ; only, and always to boiv down. It never means adore, in all the Bible. Gesenius, than whom no lexicographer knew better, gives the foUo"wing meanings : " 1. To bow down, to prostrate oneself in order io do him honor and reverence. 2. To how down before God, io worship." It never did, it never can mean adoration. He who bows may adore in bowing, or when bowed down, but this would be still more fatal to image worship. Furthermore, this verb as it stands before us written by the finger of God, is in the Hithpael conjugation, which designates action springing from and terminating in itself or the agent Thus, in Genesis xxxUi. 6 : l^jiinnstTi, "And they bowed down themselves." And in 2 Kings, v. 18, in Chaldee: "p") n^S iniintiicna, " Whe7i I bow down myself in ihe house of Rim mon." And in a hundred other chapters. To render, therefore, the verb nnia, "adore," is not only an utter perversion of the meaning, but as it stands in this text, is to make nonsense of it. To render it grammaticaUy in Rome's sense, itwould read, " Thou shalt not adore thyself, to them" ! Thyself is an integral part of it. But the word in dispute and its cognates not only always means to bow down, but sometimes ca,rries with it the idea of veneration, of worship, of prayer. In the Ixxii. Psalm, the worship of Messiah is simply ex pressed in these words : " They that dwell in the wU derness shall bow before Him. Bowing before Him is submission, veneration, worship. What, then, is bow- * This is the sure root. 234 THE GREAT APOSTASY. ing before his image, or Bambino, or the image of Mary, etc.? In the XX. chapter of 1 Kings, 19th verse, the same idea is presented : " Yet I have left nae seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal." Simply bowing the knee unto the image of Baal — for the silver or the wood before them was but the image — was idolatry. What is it, then, to bow the knee before the image of St. Dominico, of the Virgin, or of Gregory the Great? Ah, what is it "duly to worship by kissing them, and with uncovered head io bow doiun before them"! Idolatry, nothing but idolatry. Idolatry, the more revolting and damnable, because it is practiced under the name of our holy Christianity. The invocation of saints and angels, and of the Virgin Mary, is idolatry. That Roman Catholics pray to, or invocate saints and the Virgin, is admitted by bishops, priests, and people. Popes and Councils command it. That they pray to them, however, to grant of thefr own power the favors and blessings for which they ask, they deny. They pray to the saint to intercede with the Son, to intercede with the Father, to vouchsafe the boon desired ! But even this, as I shall show, is both fool ishness and idolatry. It is foolishness. Where is the saint ? Is he omnipresent ? or has he a local habita tion? Is he in heaven? or purgatory? or at some place on earth — Rome, Paris, London, New York, Charles ton ? He m,ust he at some place, and can only be ai that place, and absent from all others at the same time he is there. Now, take a prayer to St. Augustine. The hour for vespers has come. Hundreds of worshippers in the same meridian — ^London, Paris, Madrid, or WU- PRACTICE — IDOLATRY. 285 mington, Richmond, Washington, Albany — are pray ing to him at the same time. Can he hear them all ? Then he is omnipresent — God. If he cannot hear them all, then all of them but one pray to nothing,* to inter cede with the Son for thera ! This is Roman Catholic theology. But could he hear, even this would be idola try. To pay religious adoration, in any sense, to the creature, is idolatry. To bow down before saints or angels, and invocate them as intercessors or mediators, when God declares that there is but one mediator — Christ Jesus, and ask of them any blessing, is giving the glory of God to another — which is the very essence of idolatry. The denial that the Church teaches "the faithful" to pray to saints, and especially the Virgin Mary, to grant of themselves blessings, and that they do so pray, is Jesuitical. We can understand plain Latin sentences and common English. In the "Christian's Guide to Heaven," now before us, we have, "with a great deal more of the same kind, the follo"wing dfrections and prayers : "TO ODB ANGEL GUAEDIAN AND ALL THE HOLT ANGELS. " We should have for our Guardian Angels the highest sentiment of respect, of thanksgiving, of love, and confidence ; their dignity thefr good ofiBces, and the esteem they have for us, most justly de mand this. We should constantly invoke their assistance, and consult them in all we undertake."^ * I beHeve even that one prays to nothing ; the saint, if he be a saint is in heaven. How, then, can he hear any one on earth. Suppose now, while I write in my study, I were to fall on my knees and pray to Pius IX., who is in Rome, to intercede with the Son for me, would not people think me insane ? t The italicising is my own. And I would say, once for all, that, ia quoting, I frequently ita,licise, and cannot stop to notice it. 236 THE GREAT APOSTASY. "A PRAYER TO OUE ANGEL GUARDIAN. " 0 Holy Angel ! to whose care God in his mercy hath commit ted me ; thou who assistest me in my wants, who consolest me in my afBictions, who supportest me when dejected, and who constantly obtainest for me new favors ; I return thee now most sincere and humble thanks ; and conjure thee, O amiable Guide ! to continue stiU thy care ; to defend me against my enemies ; to remove from me the occasions of sin ; to obtain for me a docility to thy holy in spirations ; to protect me, in particular, at the hour of my death ; and then conduct me to the mansions of eternal repose. Amen."* If this is not praying to a creature to grant of himself blessings that God only can vouchsafe ; ff it is not adoring the creature with the highest adoration due only to Jehovah, I cannot understand the meaning of language. Let the intelUgent reader judge. " A PRAYER TO ST. MICHAEL. " Glorious St. Michael, Prince of the heavenly host !" " who didst fight with the dragon, the old serpent, and didst cast him out of heaven ;" " I earnestly entreat thee to assist me also, in the painful and dangerous conflict which I have to sustain against the same for midable foe." "A PRA-YEE TO ST. JOSEPH.-f " 0 Great Saint ! who art the wise and faithful servant whom God hath charged with the care of his family." * * * " Chaste spouse of the mother of God ! thou model of pure, humble, and in terior souls ! be touched with the confidence we have iu thee ; and graciously accept these testimonies of devotion." From the prayer, or thanksgiving, in honor of the patron saint of the place where we dwell, as given in the Romish Litany, I take the following sentence : "And thou great saint! vouchsafe to make us every day experience the powerful effects of thy protection." * Page 177. t The husband of Mary. PRACTICE — IDOLATRY. 237 Who, but a Roman CathoUc, could ever use language Uke this, except to God only ? To St. Augustine, St. Patrick, St. Dominic, &c., &c., petitions are earnestly offered up for protection, assist ance, guidance, favor, deliverance, life ; and devout thanksgivings are poured forth for all these. To quote aU, would be, in part, to give a Roman Catholic Prayer Book. • " PRAYER TO THB VIRGIN MAEY.f " We fly to thy patronage, 0 holy Mother of God ! despise not our petitions in our necessities, but deliver us from all danger, O ever gracious and blessed Virgin " ! " Holy Mary, Mother of Grace, Cause of our Joy, Spiritual Vessel, Ark of the Covenant, Gate of Heaven, Health of the Weak Eefuge of Sinners, Comforter of the Afflicted, Help of Christians." I have not given the prayer in full — ^it is unneces sary ; it is all of the same kind. Now, surely, such language needs no comment. If this is not gi"ving the glory of God to another, and therefore gross idolafry, I cannot understand in what the gi"ving of the glory of God to another consists. The precepts and commands of the Bible must be fables, or a dead letter, or the worship of the "Queen of Heaven," as Mary is fre quently termed, and Juno, and Diana, and Minerva, must be idolatry. In another prayer in the " Office of the Vfrgin," we have this language: " 0 glorious Virgin,f Thou art the gate of the great King, and the shining palace of light. Te redeemed nations, clap your hands, that Ufe is given by a Virgin." * " Litany of the Lady of Loretto." t See the original, O gloriosa Virginum. 238 THE GREAT APOSTASY. In the prayer commencing, "Serenissima Impera- trhx: cceli,"* "Most serene Empress of heaven," we liave these petitions : " Incline, 0 most benignant Mother, the ears of thy kindness to our fervent prayers. Eemember, O glorious Mother of God, the glorious things which are spoken of thee and have been done by thee. * -. * * For thou (Uke Esther) beautiful and fair in the eyes of God, the Most High King, obtainest Ufe eternal for many, who, by their sins, deserved damnation.'' In another prayer, the suppUcant cries out. " I beseech thee, 0 Holy Lady Mary, Mother of God ! most foU of pity, daughter of the Supreme King — mother most glorious — ^the consolation of the afflicted — the way of tl-ose who go astray — the salvation of all who hope in thee — the fountain of compassion — the the fountain of salvation and grace — the fountain of piety and joy— the fountain of life and pardon " ! And in another: " Incline, 0 Mother of Mercy, the ears of thy pity to my un worthy supplications, and be pitiful and propitious to me, a very great sinner, and be thou my helper in all things." If this is not idolatry, idolatry ofthe worst kind un masked, let Roman Catholic theologians show in what it differs from the worship of Diana or Minerva. The argument usually offered does not meet the case — that they petition the Saints and Vfrgin to intercede mth the Son for them — for the above are petitions to the Saints and Virgin, to grant of themselves, grace, pardon, life, which God only can give. Nor wiU the plea answer that these prayers have become obsolete — not used in this country, &c The most of them, I know, are used ; aU of them have been printed and in use in * This prayer has never been given in English by a Papist. PRACTICE — IDOLATRY. 239 the present century, and Rome, " the fiiithful " boast, never changes.* B^ut not only do Roman Catholics offer prayers and supplications to Mary as a Goddess, they chant her praise in fer-vid poetic language, and in songs which clearly indicate that she is coequal with the Son. In the " Guide," f under the head of " VESPERS FOR SUNDAYS," we have the foUowing : " Hail, Mary, Queen of heavenly spheres ! HaU, whom the angelic host reveres ! Hail, fruitful root, hail sacred gate ! Whence the world's light derives its date ! 0 glorious maid, with beauty blessed ! May joys eternal fill thy breast !" In connection with this, we have the subjoined, I may call it, poetic prayer : " Hail, 0 Queen, 0 mother of mercy ! haU, our life, our comfort, and our hope. " We, the banished children of Eve, cry unto thee. To thee we send up our sighs, groaning and weeping in this vale of tears. " Come, then, our advocate ! and look upon us with those thy pitying eyes. And after this our banishment, show us Jesus, the blessed fruit of thy womb O merciful ! 0 pious ! 0 sweet Virgin Mary !" Now, who that had never heard of Mary or of Jesus, * See the " EncycUcal Letter of our most holy Lord Pope Gregory XVL," published in 1832. " Let us," he says, " lift up our eyes and hands to the most holy Virgin Mary, who alone has destroyed all heresies, &c. t Page 319. 240 THE GREAT APOSTASY. upon hearing such a prayer, would suppose or believe for a single moment, but that Mary is a Goddess, and superior to Jesus. The prayer is made dfrectly to her. She is " Queen, mother of mercy ; our life, comfort, hope !" To her the needy " cry" is " sent up," and every "sigh" extorted by suffering in this "vale of tears :" and Jesus is the " fruit of her womb," whom she "wUl show — to whom conduct in heaven. That Jesus was the fruit, or offspring, of Mary in his human nature, is clearly revealed to us ; but, in his Divine nature, he was her Creator; and as infinitely above her as above men, or the reader. If she ought to be adored because she gave being, under the Provi dence of God, to his human nature, then, for the same reason. His grandfather, after the flesh, and Da"nd, and all in that line, ought to be adored also. If blood rela tionship to Him deifies, then all were deities. I would suggest, therefore, that Rome put in her calendar of Gods and Goddesses, all the ancestry of Jesus. Luke gives us .the male line. And, as the Church receives "new light," according to her doctrine of infaUibillty, she can soon make out the female line ! Mary was but a woman, possessing our common fallen humanity, the depravity " naturally engendered ofthe offspring of Adam ;" whence, then, her divinity or even immaeu- lateness ? There is no intimation of either in the Scrip tures, but the contrary. Besides, the Sa"viour clearly teaches, that spiritual relations are above natural, and that "whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is his mother, his sister, his brother." But the tendency of Rome is ever to the sensible, the tangible, the material. In the hymn. PRACTICE — IDOLATRY. 241 "the PLAINT OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN," salvation is ascribed more to the tears and mental anguish of Mary, when her Son died, than to the blood he shed, which only cleanseth from sin. I give several stanzas, just as I find them in the " Guide :" " Under the world's redeeming wood The most afflicted mother stood, MingUng her tears with her Son's blood. " As that stream'd down from ev'ry part. Of aU his wounds she felt the smart ; What pierc'd his body, pierc'd her heart. " Who can with tearless eyes look on. When such a Mother, such a Son, Wounded and gasping, does bemoan ? " Oh ! worse than Jewish heart that could, Unmoved, see the double flood. Of Mary's tears, and Jesus' blood ! " Ah ! pious mother, teach my heart, Of sighs and tears the holy art. And in thy grief to bear a part. " That sword of grief, that did pass through Thy very soul, 0 ! may it now One kind wound on my heart bestow ! " Great Queen of sorrows ! in thy train Let me a mounter's place obtain. With tears to cleanse all sinful stain. " Eefuge of sinners ! grant that we May tread thy steps ; and let it be Our sorrows, not to grieve like thee. 11 242 THE GREAT APOSTASY. " Now give us sorrow, give us love, That, so prepar'd, we may remove When caU'd to the bless'd seats above ! " I wUl give but two more ; and complete just as they stand, on page 341 : " HYMN TO THE BLESSED VIRGIN. " HaU, Mary ! Queen and Virgin pure. With every grace replete ! Hail, kind protectress of the poor ! Pity our needy state. " 0 thou ! who fiUest the highest place. Next heaven's imperial throne ! Obtain for us each saving grace, And make our wants thy own. " How oft when trouble fiU'd my breast. Or sin my conscience pain'd. Through thee I sought for peace and rest. Through thee, I peace obtained. " Then hence, in all my pains and cares, I'U seek for help in thee ; E'er trusting through thy powerful prayers. To gain eternity ! " " ANOTHER. " 0, Holy Mother of our God ! To thee for help we fly : Despise not this our humble pray'r,' But all our wants supply. " 0 glorious Virgin, ever blest ! Defend us from our foes ; From threatening dangers set us free. And terminate our woes." PRACTICE — IDOLATRY. 243 In these two hymns, every word of which is em phatic, the name of Christ does not once appear ; nor is there any allusion to the Scriptural and only true doctrine of salvation through his blood. ' Pnter cession , " "grace," "resi," "help," eternal "gain," are aU ascribed to Mary, " Mother of God!" She, not Christ, " is all in all." Compare the inspired Psalms of David, or the pure, lofty, orthodox strains of Watts or Charles Wes ley with them, and how wide the difference ! David poured out his soul to God as his only Saviour ; then in joyous, heavenly strains, praised him as his deliv erer. And then, that the world might know whom he loved, whom he adored, and whose he was, with a full heart in ecstasy he exclaimed : " Whom have I in heaven but Thee 7 And there is none upon earth I desire beside Thee .'" Watts in his hymn, which has been poured forth by ten thousand times ten thousand tongues, and will be tUl time shaU be no more : — "Alas ! and did my Saviour bleed ?" And Wesley in " Depth of mercy ! can there be ?" And " Come, 0 thou traveUer unknown I" And indeed in all thefr hymns sing of Jesus, look to Jesus, ascribe thefr salvation, their all, to Jesus, and soar away and mingle their rapturous song of redeem ing love with the millions before the throne, as they weave upon the wfres of their golden harps the immor tal sfrain: "Unto him that loved us, and. washed us 244 THE GREAT APOSTASY. from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Eather — to Him be glory and'dominion forever and ever !" The evidence, then, is complete, the proof perfectly indubitable, that the Church of Rome is idolatrous. She "adores " the "host," "with that highest worship due to the true God," and this is her " constant usage." "The images of Christ, of the Virgin Mary, and of other saints," she " consecrates, and retains, and duly worships hy kissing ihem, and with uncovered head bow ing down before them," in open violation of the second command, which she has stricken from the sacred deca logue, or in the one or two instances where she has suffered it to remain, has changed its meaning and position. She worships saints, angels, and the Yirgin Mary. She prays to, invocates, and adores them, as ff they were omnipresent, and almighty to give. The Virgin Mary especially is addressed as a Goddess, Queen of Heaven; is invocated — adored — blessings sought at her hand, which God only can give— the gratitude of the heart poured out to her, and her praises as a deUverer celebrated in lofty strains of prose and poetry. If all this does not demonstrate that Rome is idola- frous, there is an end of moral reasoning — no dogma, no fact, the nature of no practice, can be established by facts and reasoning. The Church of Rome is Intolerant She declares that she holds the only true faith, and that her practice is primitive and Apostolic. This she has a right to do, ff done with a proper spirit. This prerogative belongs inherently to every man and all PRACTICE — INTOLERANT. 245 men. All have a right, under God, (I speak in refer ence to relative rights among men,) to liold whatever faith they choose, and to practice whatever religious ceremonies, or worship as they chose, if not in con travention of the rights of others. But none have a right — any kind of right — to anathematize others for not holding the same faith and practice. The prerogative of anathematizing belongs to God, and God only. "Vengeance is MINE; J will repay saith the Lord."* He has never delegated this to any man or Church. Hence, while Pius IX. has a right, so far as all other men are concerned, to believe in priestly absolution and transubstantiation, I have an equal right to beUeve that none can forgive sins but God only, and that Christ is present only in the holy eucharist figuratively, spiritually — and he has no right to anathematize me ; I have no right to anathematize him. The assumption, therefore, of such a prerogative is an assumption of a prerogative of God, and is in "nolation of the meek, forbearing spfrit of Jesus ; the teachings and practice of the Apostles, and of the laws of ci"vil and religious liberty, and is therefore a damning sin. To this view Rome heartily assents, where she is weak and desires to worm her way into favor; but Avhere she is in the ascendant, or the estabUshed Church of the realm, she insultingly rejects it. In these United States, until she became strong, she prated of freedom of conscience ; in Italy, Spain, Austria, &;c., she spurns it and is intolerant. If intolerant in Italy, and elsewhere, where she has • Michael dared not bring a railing accusation against the Devil. Said he : " The Lord rebuke thee." Jude, 9 v. 246 THE GREAT APOSTASY. power, she ought to be met, in her assumptions and aggressions in this land of freedom, with a proper, faithful spirit of opposition. Nor is this opposition intolerance. Else, Luther was intolerant when he preached against her corruptions and tyrannical power, and trampled her anathemas under his feet, and pro claimed the freedom of the human- mind Else, our sfres of '76 were intolerant when they hurled back the thunders of George IIL, and declared that they of right ought to be free. . Tolerance, or, to change the phrase a little, the inherent, natural right of every man to enjoy ci"\dl and religious freedom unmolested by the tyranny and anathemas of all others, must necessarily, to sustain itself, oppose intolerance. Self-defence is not only " the first law of nature," but the imperative duty of every man. This is the very essence of civil and religious liberty. When man or any body of men, under the name of Church or State, assume to lord it over others, and make all bow down before them and believe as they dictate, or crush them to the earth and destroy with fagot and flame, they violate the laws of God and man, and must be resisted. This the Roman Catholic Church does. This is the " falUng away" from Apostolic precept and practice with which I charge her. Nearly every article of her faitii she enforces with an anathema. If any man believe it not, or deny it, her intolerant sentence is, "Let him be accursed" ! Nor is this empty declamation. It is the fearful penalty one pays for the rejection of that which his head and heart cannot approve ; a penalty which Rome never faUs to inflict when and where she has power. The doc trine may be in conflict with the pure rule of faith which PRACTICE — INTOLERANT. 247 God has given us ; it may be absurd and lead to idolatry and sin, as transubstantiation ; still it must be believed and practiced, upon the pain of etemal damnation ! The following excommunication "istobedUigently studied by the clergy, and to be solemnly pubUshed in the Churches once a year, or oftener, and carefully taught the people'' :* "We excommunicate and anathematize, in the name of Almighty God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and by the authority of his blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul, and by our o-wn, aU Wicklifiites, Hussites, Lutherans, Calvinists, Huguenots, Anabaptists, and all other heretics, by whatsoever name they are caUed and of whatsoever sect they be ; and also all schismatics, and those who withdrav/- themselves, or recede obstinately from the obedience of Eome ; as also their adherents, receivers, favorers, and generaUy, any defend ers of them : together with aU who, without the authority of the ApostoUc See, shall knowingly read, keep, or print any of theii books which treat on reUgion, or by or for any cause whatever, publicly or privately, on any pretence whatever defend them." Give that Church the power, or let her gain the- ascendency, whose priests and people are imbued with the spirit of this anathema, and civil and religious liberty are at an end. Richerius,f a Roman Catholic writer, says: " Pope Gregory VH., contrary to the custom used in the Church for more than a thousand years, introduced that order : ' That all bishops must swear unlimited fidelity and obedience to the Pope.' " The following is the oath: " I, N N , Bishop elect of the See of N , do swear, that from this time henceforth I will be faithful and obedient * 63d Constitution of Paul V. t Dr. of the Sorbonne 248 THE GREAT APOSTASY. to the blessed Apostle Peter, to the Holy Church of Eome, and to our lord the Pope, and his successors canonically appointed. I wiU, to my utmost, defend, increase, and advance the rights, honors, pri-vileges, and authority cf the holy Eoman Church, of our lord the Pope, and of his successors aforesaid. I wiU not join in any consultation, act, or treaty, in which anything shall be plotted to the injury of the rights, honor, state, and power of our lord the Pope, or of the said Church. I wiU keep with all my might the rules of the holy fathers, (decrees of CouncUs,) the apostoUcal de crees, ordinances, disposals, reservations, provisions, and mandates, and cause them to be observed by all others under my jurisdiction."* "Heretics, schismatics and rebels to our said lord the Pope, and his successors aforesaid, J ifiill, to the utmost of my power, PERSECUTE AND DESTROY." Every priest takes a similar oath. The oath of the Jesuit, as Jesuitism does in every thing, transcends in intolerance and wickedness all others. This oath came to Ught in the celebrated trial of Father Lavelatte, in Paris, in the year 1761, when the " Constitutions" of the Society and other holy things! were dragged from the secret CouncUs of in iquity. The existence of such an oath, that the Jesuits take this oath, indeed that they take any oath, has been denied in this country. But as well might the Jesuits deny that Loyola ever lived, or that there ever was an Order of Jesuits. Here is the oath : " I, A. B., now in the presence of Almighty God, the blessed Virgin Mary, the blessed Michael the Archangel, the blessed St. John the Baptist, the holy Apostles, St. Peter and St. Paul,f and * Ousley, p. 389. This oath is given by other Eoman CathoUc and Protestant writers. t Are^they omnipresent ? If not, how do they know tliey are present ? PRACTICE — INTOLERANT. 249 aU the saints and sacred hosts of heaven, and to you my ghostly fathers, do declare from my heart, without mental reservation, that his HoUness, Pope , is Christ's Vicar General, and is the true and only Head of the Catholic or Universal Church through out the earth ; and that by virtue of the Keys of binding and loos ing given to his HoUness by my Saviour, Jesus Christ, he hath power to deposeheretical Kings,Princes, States, Commonwealtlis, and Govern ments, all being illegal without his sacred confirmation, and that they may safely be destroyed : Therefore, to the utmost of my power, I shaU and will defend this doctrine; and his Holiness' rights and cus toms, against all usurpers of the heretical (Protestant) authority whatsoever : especiaUy against the now-pretended authority and Church of England, and aU adherents, in regard that they and she be usurpal and heretical, opposing the sacred Mother Church of Eome. I do renounce and disown any allegiance as due to any heretical King, Prince or State named Protestant, or obedience to any of their inferior magistrates or officers. I do further declare that the doctrine of the Church of England, the Calvinists, Huguenots, and others of the name Protestant, to be damnable, and they them selves are damned and to be damned, that will not forsake the same. I do further declare that I will help, assist, and advise all or any of his HoUness' agents in any place wherever I shall be, in England, Scot land and Ireland, or in any other territory or kingdom I shaU come to, and do my utmost to extirpate the heretical Protestant's doctrine, and to destroy all their pretended powers, regal or otherwise."* I do further promise and declare, that notwithstanding I am dispensed with to assume any religion heretical, for the propagating of the Mother Church's interest, to keep secret and private all her agents' councils, from time to time, as they entrust me, and not to divulge, directly or indirectly, by word, "writing, or in any circumstance whatsoever, but to execute all that shall be proposed, given in charge, or discovered unto me, by you, my ghostly father, or any of this sacred convent. All which I, A. B., do swear by the blessed Trinity, and blessed Sacrament, which I am now to receive, * The Jesuit is an enemy of, and traitor to any Protestant Govern ment in which he may live. And yet they are welcomed to these shores. 11* 250 THE GREAT APOSTASY. to perform, and on my part to keep inviolably ; and do caU all the heavenly and glorious host of heaven to witness these my real inten tions, to keep this my oath. In testimony hereof, I take this most holy and blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist; and witness the same with my hand and seal, in the face of this holy convent, this day of Anno Domini " An edition of the Douay Bible was pubUshed, with notes, at Dublin, in 1816, by Dr. Troy, under the sanc tion of all the " Irish Roman Catholic prelates and chief clergy." " In this work," embracing these notes — (to what else could the remark refer, but the notes ?) — "In this work can nothing be found, but what is agreeable to the doctrine and piety ofthe Catholic Church," said some of the Holy Fathers. Dr. Troy and others, when these notes were severely criticised, and their intoler ant, wicked, blood-thirsty character exposed, and pub Uc odium was about to overwhelm them, denied that they wrote them, or knew anything about them. But Mr. Coyne, a Roman Catholic, who printed the Bible. declared that the notes were in the MS. when it came into his ofhce ! One thing is certain, the notes were printed in the Bible, as published by Dr. Troy, and they were not written by ihe printer. And they embody the views, the faith, and the feelings of Roman Catho lics. * I give a few of them. On Hebrews v. 7, we have * Dr. MUner, in his boasted " End of Controversy," says : " There is not, nor can be in the Estabhshed Church, or other societies of Pro testants, any apostolic succession of ministry ; and, of course, the whole work of the intrusive Church, preaching, sacrament, &.G., being per formed by mere human hands, is invalid, profane, a perpetual impo sition, and must be without hope of divine acceptance at the bar of inorcy" ! PRACTICE — INTOLERANT. 251 this language: "The translators of the English Pro testant Bible should be abhorred io the depths of hell." On Matt. 3 : " The good must tolerate the evU, when it is so strong that it cannot be redressed without dan ger or disturbance of the whole Church; otherwise, where evil men, be they heretics or other malefactors, (?) may be punished and suppressed, without hazard of the good, they may, and ought, by ptiblic authority, either spiritual or temporal, be chastised or EXECUTED." On John X. 1: "All Protestant clergy are thieves, murderers, and ministers of the devil ; leaders of rebelUon against the lawful authority of the Catholic priests: they are engaged in a damnable revolt against the priests of God's Church, which is the bane of our days and coun try." On Mark in. 12: "As the devU, acknowledg ing the Son of God, was bid to hold his peace ; there fore heretics' sermons must not be heard — no, though they preach the truth. Thefr prayers and service, though ever so good in themselves, are, out of their mouths, no better than the howling of wolves." On Rev. xi. 6, 20 : " Christian people, bishops especiaUy, should have great zeal against heretics, and hate them, AS God hates them."* Luke ix. 55 : "As the fact of Elias was not reprehended," for killing false proph ets, " neither is the Church nor Christian princes blamed by Godfor putting heretics io death." On Hebrews xiii. 17 : " When Rome puts heretics to death, and allows thefr punishment in other countries, their blood is not * " Thou shalt not hate thy brother." — Ex. xix. 17. Every man is thy brother — " He that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth." — 1 John u. 11. "He that loveth not his brother abideth in death." — iii. 14. Who is right- John, the God who inspired him, or Eome ? 252 THE GREAT APOSTASY. that of saints, nor is it to be any more accounted or than that of thieves, man-killers, or other malefactors, " And on Acts xix. 19 : "A Christian " (a Roman Catho lic) " should deface and burn all heretical books. " The Bible published by Protestants, or cfrculated by them, papists being judges, is a "heretical book." Hence, they " deface and burn " it. They have burned it in this " land of the free ; " and when they could not do this, they have excluded it from some of the com mon schools, that the minds of the young, reared up without light, and a knowledge of the plan of salva tion, might readily and surely receive the impress of Romanism from the lips of priests. This is sapping the very foundations of our Republic ; for the Bible is the substratum of our Constitution, and of our liberties — ^the palladium of our hopes, temporal and eternal. Exclude, deface, burn ihat, and freedom of thought and action will have perished with it. 'Tis frue, Ro man Catholics publish the Douay translation of the Bible — only in Protestant countries, however,- — and have expunged or left out these " "wicked notes. " But this became a necessity, per force of public senti ment and feeling, through Protestant teaching and influence. Before the Reformation, for centuries, that Church published no Bible in the vernacular tongue of any people. And even now there is no Bible pub lished, of which I have any knowledge, except by Protestants, in Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, or any other living language of any nation or race, wholly under Roman CathoUc influence. And the Douay franslation can only be circulated and read under the license of a priest ! PRACTICE — INTOLERANT. 253 An extract from the life of Dr. Franklin, written by himself, wUl iUustrate the doctrine and feelings of Rome in reference to this subject: ¦" Our humble family had early embraced the reformation. They remained faithfuUy attached during the reign of Queen Mary, when they were in danger of being molested on account of their zeal against Popery. They had an English Bible, and to conceal it tho more securely, they conceived the project of fastening it, open, with pack-threads, across the leaves, on the inside of the lid of a close- stool. When my greatgrand father wished to read to his family, he reversed the lid of the close-stool upon his knees, and passed the leaves from one side to the other, which were held down on each by the pack-thread. One of the children was stationed at the door to give notice if he saw the proctor, an officer of the spiritual court, make his appearance ; in that case, the lid was restored to its place, with the Bible concealed under it as before." "Rome never Changes." And further, in support of this "view, and the propo sition under consideration, I "will give "the bull of Pius the VIL, agaiust Bible Societies, issued June 29, 1816, to the Archbishop of Gnesen, primate of Poland."* This biUl was translated and published in England, and then in this country, in the "National Intelli gencer," (May 26, 1817,) the "Baltimore American," (June 6,) the " National Register," (June 21,) and other papers. About its authenticity there can be no doubt. I have now before me a copy published by a Roman Catholic, accompanied with carefully-prepared reasons in vindication of its appearance, and arguments in de fence of its positions and dogmatism. Here it is, ver batim et literatim .-f * Prussian Poland. t The itaUcising is mostly my own. 254 THE GREAT APOSTASY. " Venerable Beothbr : Health and apostolic benediction ! In our last letter to you we promised, very soon, to return an answer to yours, in which you have appealed to this holy See, in the name of the other bishops of Poland, respecting what are caUed Bible So cieties, and have earnestly inquired of us what you ought to do in this affair. We long since, indeed, wished to comply "with your re quest ; but an incredible variety of weighty concerns have so pressed upon us on every side, that tUl this day we could not yield to your solicitations. " We have been truly shocked at this most crafty device, by which the very foundations of Religion are undermined ; and having, be cause of the great importance of the subject, conferred ia counoU with our venerable brethren, the Cardinals of the holy Eoman Church, we have, with the utmost care and attention, deliberated upon the measures proper to be adopted by our pontifical au thority, in order to remedy and abolish ihis pestUence. as far as possi ble. In the meantime, we heartily congratulate you, venerable brother, and we commend you again and again in the Lord, as it is fit we should, upon the singular zeal you have displayed under cu*- cumstances so dangerous to Christianity, in having denounced to the Apostolic See ihis defilement of the faith so eminently dangerous to souls. And although we perceive that it is not at all necessary to ex cite him to activity who is making haste, since of your own accord you have already sho"(Tn an ardent desire to detect and overthrow the imp'ous machinations of these innovators ; yet, in conformity with our office, we again and again exhort you, that whatever you can achieve by power,* provide for by council, or effect by authority, you will daily execute with the utmost earnestness, placing yourself as a waU for the house of Israel. " With this view we issue the present brief, viz. : that we may convey to you a, signal testimony of our approbation of your ex cellent conduct, and may also endeavor therein stiU more and more to excite your pastoral solicitude and diligence. Por the general good imperiously requires you to combine aU your means and ener gies to frustrate the plans which are prepared by its enemies for the destruction of our most holy religion, whence it becomes an episco- • That's the motto of Eome, "achieve by POWER." PRACTICE — INTOLERANT. 255 pal duty that you first of all expose the wickedness of this nefarious scheme, as you have already done so admirably, to the view of the faithful, and openly pubUsh the same, according to the rules pre scribed by the Church, with all the erudition and wisdom which you possess, namely : ' tliat the Bible printed by heretics is to be numbered among other prohibited books, conformably to rules of the Index (Nos. 2 and 3), /or it is most palpably evident from experience, that tlie Holy Scriptures, when circulated in the vulgar tongue, have, through the temerity of men, produced more harm than benefit.' {1) (Rule IV.) And this is more to be dreaded in times so depraved, when our" [po pery is in danger from pure Bible truthj " holy reUgion is assailed from every quarter with great cunning and effect," [giving the Bible to the people,] " and the most grievous wounds are inflicted" [by the Bible] " on the Church. It is, therefore, necessary to adhere to the salutary decree of the Congregation of the Index, (June 13, '53,) that no versions of the Bible in the vulgar tongue be permitted, except such as are approved by the apostolic See, or published with anno tations extracted fi-om the -writings of the holy fathers of the Church. " We confidently hope that, in these turbulent circumstances, the Poles -wiU give the clearest proofs of their attachment to the reUg ion of their ancestors ; and by our care, as well as that of the other prelates of this kingdom, whom, on account of the faith, we congratulate abundantly, justify the opinion we have entertained of them. " It is moreover necessary that you should transmit to us as soon as possible the Bible which Jacob Which published in the Polish language, -with a commentary, as well as a copy of the edition of it lately put forth, without those annotations taken from the writings of the holy fathers of our Church, or other learned Catholics, with your opinion upon it ; that thus, from the coUating them together, it may be ascertained, after mature investigation, that certain errors ae insidiously concealed therein, and that we may pronounce our judgment on this affair for the preservation of the true faith. " Continue, therefore, venerable brother, to pursue this truly vious course upon which you have entered, viz., dUigently to fight the battles of the Lord for the sound doctrine, and warn the people intrusted to yom: care, that they fall not into the snares which are 256 THE GREAT APOSTASY. prepared for their everlasting ruin. The Church demands this from you as well as from other bishops, whom our rescript equaUy con cerns, and we most anxiously expect it, that the deep sorrow we feel on account of this new species of tares whicii an adversary has so abundantly sown, may by this cheering hope be somewhat alle viated ; and we always very heartily invoke the choicest blessings upon yourself aud your feUow-bishops for the good of the Lord's flock, which we impart to you and them by our apostolic benedic tion. " Given at Eome, at St. Mary the Greater, June the 29th, 1816, the lYth year of our pontificate. " Pros P. P. VH." Among other reasons in "vindication of this singular document, the "writer referred to, gives the following : " It exercises but a right always acknowledged by the Catholics iu their pastors, to control and regulate the business of translating, adding notes, printing and circulating the Divine Book, as commits ted to their special care, with a view of preserving at aU times the integrity of the text and fidelity of versions, and also the proper inteUigence of the inspired sense which they consider as one and unchangeable." Yes, they would " control and regulate the busuiess of translating, adding notes, printing and cfrculating the Divine Book." They do control it in all countries where Rome holds undisputed sway, and never "frans- late," "print," or "cfrculate" it amongthe people; "for it is most palpably evident," says the infallible head, "from experience" (Rome's, not that of the souls of men), " that the Holy Scriptures, when cfrculated in the vulgar tongue, have, through the temerity of men, vroduced more harm than good" — to Rome. Is Roman CathoUcism, then, "ihe religion of the Bible ? " Doing this," the writer continues, " the Catholic elergy may be considered, by Uberal minds, (!) as showing in their own way their best respect and zeal for the Scriptures, the existence and right PRACTICE — INTOLERANT. 257 interpretation and true sense of which do not seem to them likely to subsist in the long course of time, if entirely left to the care of unauthorized editors" ! But the particular version, the circulation of which caUed forth this bull, was translated and printed, as I have shown, by a priest, a Jesuit. He was not aUowed to circulate it — ^to " sow this new species of tares." Both the priest and the Bible were put down. Besides, the Bible Society is anxious, and wiU most gladly cfrculate in Roman Catholic countries, the Douay Bible, or any of thefr own translations, if they would make them in the "vulgar tongue of any people. We are not afraid of the " Di"vine Book." Give us even Roman Catholic translations, and throw open the doors in Spain, Italy, Austria, etc., and we wiU most gladly enter and " sow" broad-cast, not iaj-es, but wheat " Care of unauthorized editors"'! If by this is meant that the "editors" and committees on re"visions of the Bible Societies are iUiterate and incompetent, or that they have no right, no inherent or conventional and divinely-vouchsafed right, to handle, keep, trans late, print, and circulate the "lively oracles," given to every man " as a lamp to his feet and a Ught to his path way" — it is most false. If the "writer meant that they are " unauthorized" by the Pope, or priests, it is true ; and the anathemas the latter hurl at all engaged iu this business, prove the intolerance and tyranny of Rome. Nothing must exist, nothing be done, without her sanction. But, do "authorized editors," the infallible Pope himself, and priests, correctly translate, and publish without error, the Holy Scriptures, so that the " true 258 THE GREAT APOSTASY. sense subsists in the long course of time" ? Translate and publish in the vulgar tongue, with one or two exceptions, they do not. But the Vulgate, the Latin version, what of the "true sense" or errors of that? The CouncU of Trent decreed that the Holy Scrip tures in the Vulgate version, were the inspfred, infaUi ble "will of God. That had already undergone one or two changes since the days of Jerome, who had frans- lated it from Hebrew and Greek into Latin, then the language of the common people. After the decree had passed, a very serious difliculty arose: the Vulgate was known to jc erroneous in some things. This was admitted. Some of the prelates and divines desired, urged, that errors and all be considered as embraced in the decree. One of them thus spoke out: " Either God has faUed in his promise of keeping his Church from error, or it is impossible that he can have left her to make use of an erroneous translation."* No, no, the eternal dogma must be maintained, " ihe Church cannot err" and therefore the errors in the Vulgate, right before thefr eyes, which she had used, were no errors ! Others maintained that a new, faultless version was needed. This opinion prevaUed. A decree passed that a new one should be made. " There was much wisdom in this," says Bungener; "but it made the preceding decree only all the more strange." " In consequence of this last decision, one naturally desires to know through what process it passed. "A commission had been named, which did nothing. Toward the close of the Council, Pius IV. appointed another, but at Eome. Pius V. renewed it, and accelerated its labors. Twelve years ¦* As a rule of faith, tradition they decreed to be of equal force. PRACTICE — INTOLERANT. 259 afterward, at the accession of Sixtus-Quintus, the work had hardly commenced, and that impetuous pontiff began to lose patieuce. He made it his own affair, and, at the commencement of 1589, announced by a bull, that the work was drawing to a close. The new Vul gate was printed under his own eyes at the Vatican, and lie himself revised the proofs. ' 'We have corrected them with our own hand,' he says in the preface. ' The work appeared, and it was impossible,' says Hug,* ' that it should not have given occasion for criticism and pleasantry. Many passages were found, particularly in the Old Testament, covered with slips of paper, on which new corrections had been printed ; others were scratched out, or merely corrected with a pen. * * ' In fine, the copies issued were far from aU presenting the same corrections" ! Was Sixtus-Quintus, the infallible Roman pontiff, an authorized editor? Did the "true sense" of the "Divine Book" "subsist" in any of the copies of the edition, the proofs of which he " corrected with his own hand" ? and did it " subsist" in each of the dissimilar copies that went out with different pen and type cor rections? "Unauthorized editors," indeed — thai the reason why the holy indignation of Pius VII. is hurled with terrible anathemas against the Bible and Bible Societies ! No, no ! The truth is, this is a flimsy ex cuse to cover up Rome's intolerance and real oppo sition to the Bible ; a miserable fallacy, a store of which she constantly keeps on hand, or can manufac ture at pleasure, which every one who is at all read in ecclesiastical history, and especiaUy the history of the Bible, knows full well. Why, this is but one of five bulb which have been issued by four different Popes, against the Bible and Bible Societies, within tho last fifty years. *" A Eoman CathoUc writer. 260 THE GREAT APOSTASY. Now, let any patriot carefully read and weigh the language of this brief — ^this law of the Roman CathoUc Church — its tone, its spirit, the object it designs to ac complish, and the calm, ingenious, fallacious vindica tion of its pubUcation and doctrine by an American citizen, and teU me if she is not the bitter, uncompro mising enemy of the Bible, and of civU and reUgious liberty, and if there is not danger from her growing numbers ? FiuaUy, the chief dignitaries and writers in this Church, even in these United States, have distinctly admitted, nay, asserted, that she is intolerant, and that if she gains the ascendency in this land, liberty of con science — ^freedom of thought and action, are at an end. Bishop Kenric says : " Heresy and unbelief are crimes" [i. e.. Protestantism]. "And in Christian countries, as in Italy and Spain, for instance, where aU the people are Catholic, and where the Catholic reUgion is an essen tial part of the law of the land, they wiU be" [are now] "punished as crimes." The Bishop of St. Louis says : " Protestantism of every kind Catholicity inserts in her catalogue of mortal sins ; she endures it when and where she mu%t ; but she hales it, and directs all her energies to effect its destruction. If the Catholics ever gain-, which they surely will do, an immense nu merical MAJORITY, religious FREEDOM IN THIS COUNTET IS AT AN END." The Bishop of Pittsburg, O'Connor, asserts that — '•Religious liberty is merely endured until the opposite can bo carried into execution without perU to the CathoUc world." The Catholic Review responds : ¦•' No rights for Protestants, or anybody else, except CathoUcs." PRACTICE — INTOLERANT. 261 Brownson, in his Review, October, 1852, re-affirms the above, and thus teaches : " The liberty of heresy" [Prot, to build a house, which describes a continuoiis SPIRITUAL SUPREMACY. 329 work, one which is stiU going on, and going on, not on the foundar tion, Peter, but on the Eock, Christ." * Christ is declared to be, in the Old and New Testa ments, the Rock on which the Church is buUt ; her foundation, and the source of her life and peace, sta- bflity and power. "He is the Rock, His work is perfect." "Then he forsook God who made him, and Ughtly esteemed the Rock of his salvation." (Deut. xxxiii. 4, 15.) "Because thou hast forgotten the God of thy salvation, and hast not been mindful of the Rock of thy strengih." (Isaiah xvU. 10.) " Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation, a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner-stone, a sure foundation — he ihat believeth shall noi make haste." (Isaiah xxviii. 16.) "The stone which the buUders rejected, the same is be come the head of the corner." (Matt. xvi. 42.) " Be it known unto you all, 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." (Acts iv. 10-12.) "For they stumbled at that stumbling-stone ; aa it is written. Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling-stone, a Rock of offence : and who soever believeth on Him shall not be confounded." (Rom. ix. 32, 33.) "To whom conUng as unto a living stone disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious ; ye also" — did not Peter embrace himself ? — " as lively stones are built up a spiritual house." (1 Peter * Quoted from the January number of tho Quarterly Eeview of the M. E. Church, South, 1856, by tho kind consent of the author, Eev. T. V. Moore. 330 THE GREAT APOSTASY. U. 4.) " For they drank of that spiritual Rock that fol lowed them — and that Rock was Christ." (1 Cor. x. 4.) Christ, then, and not Peter, is the Rock, ihe founda tion of His Church. This exposition preserves the harmony of Scripture; while that of Rome breaks it, and soujids a note of jarring discord. Peter the Rock, indeed ! Peter — Pius IX. — the foundation and Lord of the Church of God! But Christ is not only declared to be the Rock on which the Church is built, but the only foundation of ihe Church and of the Apostles and Prophets. "Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, "WHICH IS Jesus Christ." (1 Cor. in. 11.) "Now, therefore, ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but feUow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God ; and are built upon the founda tion ofthe Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself be ing ihe chief corner-stone; in whom" — Jesus — "all the building fitly framed together groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord." (Eph. ii. 19-21.) Now the Apostle teaches here, in this beautiful figure of the Church — ^her foundation — growth — unity — perpetuity — happiness — that the Apostles and proph ets are not, in any sense, her foundation ; that she is not built on them, or on any one of ihem, but on the founda tion OF ihe Apostles and Prophets — Jesus Christ. They are not a foundation, but themselves rest on one—7eteT as well as James and Matthew, &c. Christ is the root of David. Can David, then, be any part of that root? The Church is " built on the foundation of" — not on the Apostles and Prophets, being a foundation. Peter, then, is not the foundation of the Church — ^is not the spiritual supremacy. 331 Rock — ^but Christ Jesus the Lord. He reposed and buUt on Christ, not on himself, and is a living stone, with all true beUevers, in the "spiritual bull ding" that ''groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord." Peter and the other Apostles never understood our Lord, in the text under re"view, to mean, by the term Rock, Peter ; that the Church was to be built on him, and that he was clothed with spfritual supremacy. In all their conversations .and labors, as detailed in the Gospels, in the Acts, and in the Epistles, no intimation of this kind is given, but constantly and everywhere the confrary. Peter was not above the other Apostles, in order or office, but only thefr equal. So they say ; so the Holy Ghost teacheth. How shaU we account for this, if the exposition of Rome be correct? To say the least of it, aU the Apostles were derelict in duty — have kept back a momentous truth — cheated Peter out of his honors, who was totally ignorant of his position and authority, or who was a thousand- times more sub missive and humble than those who have claimed to be his successors for the last thousand years ! Finally, the exposition we have given is sustained by the earUest and most leamed Fathers who have written upon this question, and by many able theologians and doctors of Rome. Justin Martyr says : " Christ bestowed on Simon the name of Peter, because, by the revelation of his heavenly Father, he confessed Him to be the Son of God." Augustine says : " The Church is founded upon a rock, whence Peter derived his name. For the rock was not so called from Peter, but Peter 332 THE GREAT APOSTASY. from the rock, just as Christ is not called from a Christian, but a Christian from Christ. Accordingly, the reason why our Lord said : ' Upon this I will build my Church,' was, because Peter had said : ' Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' Upon this rock which thou hast confessed, he means to say, I will build my Church. Por the Eock was Christ ; upon which foundation, Peter himself built, inasmuch as it is said : Other foundation can no man lay than what is laid— that is, Christ Jesus." Cyprian, CyrU, Eusebius, and Athanasius, held the same "view. Anselm, Lombard, Pole, Aquinas, and a host of others, able, honored sons of Rome, concur in this exposision. The acute, the learned Erasmus, was astonished "that any person would wrest the passage to signify the Roman Pontiff." The Councils of Nice and Constantinople held this interpretation. One member in the Council of Trent, Fragus, asserted that the Church is built "on the living Stone, the firm and divine Rock." "Pope Hadrian, in a letter to the Em press Irene, read and received with acclamation in the second general CouncU of Nice, gave this interpretation. The same Pontiff's letter to Tarasius, containing a simUar statement, was read in this synod, and admitted "with equal approbation. A similar reception attended the letters of Germanicus, concurring -with Hadrian, in this unerring assembly. All the bishops approved." A few other Popes, Celestine, Innocent, Leo, &c., have held the same doctrine. I submit, then, to the candid reader, if the claim of the Roman Pontiffs to spfritual supremacy, based upon this text, is not utterly groundless. It rests upon a false interpretation— it is a fallacy. And this is the main pUIar, the foundation-stone of the mighty super structure. It is "afry nothing." SPIRITUAL SUPREMACY. 333 The text, "I will give unto thee the keys," equally faUs them. This passage, as I have shown, has reference simply to the preaching of the Gospel. The call of God to preach, is the power to loose and bind. And this, not absolutely, but as an ambassador, as an instrumentality : God binds and looses. And this power, as is clear from the New Testament, was conferred upon, and ex ercised by all ihe Apostles alike, and is now by all true, faithful ministers. The supremacy of Peter, then, is not indicated here. And Pius IX. has no authority, from this text, to lord it over the Church, and the con sciences and souls of men. The Man of Sin was to exalt himself in the temple of God. His claim was to be, and is a human invention. But if it were demonsfrated — albeit, this never can be — that Peter was the foundation and supreme head of the Church, it would remain to be demonstrated that he was bishop of Rome, or that he was ever at Rome. Was Peter Pope of Rome ? Where is the proof ? A question so momentous must have evidence to sustain it, as clear as the being of God, the di"vinity of Jesus, the heavenly origin of our holy religion. It would have been written by inspfration in lines of hving light. Gahan, a Roman Catholic Historian, whose history is now before me, says : " St. James the Elder being appointed the particular bishop of Jerusalem, St. Peter removed his apostolic see to the city of Anti och, the capital of Syria and all the Bast, where the followers of Christ's doctrine were first distinguished by the name of Christians. They increased there amazingly, and formed a very numerous Church, 334 THE GREAT APOSTASY. of which St. Evodius and St. Ignatius were the first bishops after the removal of St. Peter from Antioch to Eome ; for this zealous apostle, not content with founding the great Churches of Jerusalem and Antioch, resolved to set up the standard of the cross of Jesus Christ, in the very metropoUs of the world. Hence he went io Rome in the year of our Lord 42, being the second year of the reign of the Emperor Claudius, and planted a very flourishing Church in that city, which he chose for the chief seat of his labors, and made his o-wn particular see, and in that quality the capital of Christendom, and the first and most erainent of all other particular Churches, on account of the authority and preeminence of its chief pastor." " Though the Church of Eome was in a very flourishing condition before the arrival of St. Paul, it made such acquisitions by the labors and preaching of this Apostle, that he is considered, jointly with St. Peter, a principal founder of it. Hence, Si. Irenceus, in the following century, calls the Church of Rome ihe greatest and most ancient Church, founded and established by ihe two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul." » • * " Nothing can be more incontestable in history, than that St. Peter was the founder and first bishop of the see of Eome. In this the concurring testi mony of all ancient Christian -writers, down from St. Ignatius, the disciple of this Apostle, is unanimous. Eusebius, the parent of Church history ; St. Jerome ; and the old Eoman Calendar, pub Ushed by Bucherius, say, that St. Peter held the see of Eorae twenty-five years."* " It was from Eome that St. Peter wrote his two epistles to the converts he had made during the seven years he was bishop of Antioch. He indeed caUed that city Babylon, as St. John also does in the Apocalypse, because Eome was then the the chief seat both of the Empire and of Pagan idolatry, as for merly Babylon had been, but as Babylon in Chaldea was at that time nothing but a heap of ashes,t the best interpreters by Babylon understand heathenish Eome." This is all the evidence that can be adduced that * This would make Peter's martyrdom to have taken place in 67. t This ie a mistake, the city of Babylon was not then a heap of ashes. SPIRITUAL SUPREMACY. 835 Peter was the first Pope of Rome ; the only proof touching this point to support the mighty fabric of Papal supremacy. It is tradition and dogmatism; nothing more. Irenseus, in the close of the second cen tury, or beginning of the thfrd, says: " The Church of Rome" was "founded and estabUshed by the iwo most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul." And this assertion, based on tradition, and without giving the least intima tion that Peter was Pope of Rome and the supreme head of the Church throughout the world, is taken as proof that he was. It as clearly proves that Paul was. Indeed, the e"7idence is ten-fold stronger to prove that Paul was Pope of Rome, than that Peter was ! Euse bius, though he follows him, is more indistinct and uncertain than Irenseus. He does not hint that Peter was supreme head ofthe Church — a Pope.* But I will lay before the reader an argument from the pen of the Rev. Dr. Moore, cle^r, con"vincing, and perfectly satis factory in refutation of this tradition. It is just what I desfre to have written, and I gladly adopt it : " Was Peter the first bishop of Eome ? We answer, most em phatically, no. There is not the slightest evidence of this fact ; but rather the contrary. " (1.) Peter was not a bishop of any Church at aU, and could not be by the very nature of his office. The apostolic office was an itinerant superintendence, estabUshed by Christ for extraordinary purposes, and designed to be temporary in its character. This tempo rary character is proved by the fact, that one qualification of an Apostle was that he must have seen Christ, and thus be a witness * See pp. 63, 82. y " Peter appears," he says, " to have preached," &c., and coming to Eome was crucified. « * * After the mar tyrdom of Paul and Peter, Linue wae the first that received the episcopate of Eome. Not one word concerning the primacy of Peter- 336 THE GREAT A,POSTASY. of the great fundamental fact of Christianity, the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. (See Acts i. 18 ; 1 Cor. ix. 1, &c.) This general superintendency and itinerancy made it impossible for an Apostle to be the bishop of any particular Church; for the two offices were as incompatible as a general travelUng agency for the Post Office Department of the United States, and the postmaster- ship in a particular city. " But, if the bishop of any particular Church, it would have been of a Jewish Church or Diocese, and not a Gentile ; for we are informed expressly by Paul, that the apostleship of the circum cision was assigned to Peter. Hence, if bishop at aU, it would have been of a Jewish Church, unless his province was changed ; a fact of which there is not the shadow of proof. " (2.) But if it had been possible for Peter to be the bishop of any particular Church, where is the proof that he was bishop of Eome? " In the first place, it is by no means certain that Peter was ever at Eome. As this is a decisive point, if it be established in one way, it is necessary to examine carefuUy the evidence on which the opinion of Peter's residence at Eorae rests, and wc shaU be amazed at the dwindling and vanishing character of it, as we try to seek out and grasp it. What, then, is the e-vidence on which it is be lieved that Peter was ever at Eorae ? " There are one or two dates that can be fixed -with tolerable cer tainty, and that will aid us in this investigation. It is commonly conceded, so universally, indeed, as to need no argument, that Peter was kiUed in the Neronian persecution. This, according to Tacitus, (Annal. xv. 44,) broke out A. D. 64 ; for it foUowed the burning of Eome unmediately, which was July 19, A. D. 64 ; (Ib. xv. 41.) Here, then, is one fixed point from which to reckon backward. If Peter was at Eome at aU, it was before A. D. 64. We have his history from the resurrection of Christ to the meeting of the Synod in Jerusalera, A. D. 50, very fully, and not a word is said of his having visited Eome. Had he done so, we would surely have sorae hint of it ; and the utter absence of all aUusion to it proves that it was not done. We reach another step of evidence from the epistle to the Eoraans, -written A. D. 58. There is no allusion to Peter's having visited Eome, but the very contrary. Paul says expressly. SPIRITUAL SUPREMACY. 337 as a reason for desiring to visit Eome, that he wished uot to build ou another man's labors, or trench on another man's sphere ; (Eom. XV. 20, 21 ; 2 Oor. x. 15, 16.) Such language would have been impossible, if Peter had visited and labored at Eome before this time. In A. D. 61, Paul was taken to Eome as a prisoner ; but the book of Acts says not a word of Peter being there, a thing utterly impossible, if he had been there. Between A. D 61 and A. 1). 63 or 64, the various epistles of Paul from Eome, were -written : Phile mon, Colossians, Ephesians, Philippians, and- 2 Timothy. In delivering salutations from various persons, he never alludes tn Peter. This is proof positive that he could not have been there during that time. 2 Timothy, -written about A. D. 64, just before, or during the Neronian persecution, states expressly, that Luke alone, of the apostoUc laborers, was at Eome ; (2 Tim. iv. 11.) This brings us to -within a few months of the date of the death of Peter, and yet not a trace is found of his being at Eome. " Where was he at this time ? The only intimation we have of the place of his labors is, the salutation in his first Epistle, (chap. v. 13) " tlie Church that is at Babylon, elected together with you saluteth you ;" literally, " the co-elect in Babylon, saluteth you." It is plain from this salutation that, at the writing of this epistle, Peter was at Babylon, wherever that was. Now, as this epistle was written near the Neronian persecution (aUusion to which is made in chap. i. 7, iU. 13-16, iv. 12, &c.), wc have the place of Peter about A. Tl. 64, very shortly before his death. Where, then was Babylon ? But two opinions are worth examining : one, that it was, as it naturaUy would occur to every reader, the place thus known aU through the previous ages of the world and books of the Bible ; the other, that it was Eome, so called symbolioaUy, as it is in the Eevelation. It is marvellous that Popery should adopt this symbolical interpretation, when she thus countersigns her own con demnation in the interpretation of the Eevelation. It is Uke buy ing a sword at the price of the arm that is to -wield it. But in the utter absence of aU proof of her claims, Eome, with judicial blind ness, -wiU grasp at those that carry with them her own death-war rant. But we cannot yield this point to her, even though it aUows her to write her o-wn name in the terrible woes of the Apocalypse. The reasons aro : (1.) That Eome was not called Babylon until after 15 338 THE GREAT APOSTASY. the -writing of the Eevelation, not having yet earned that title by he.r bad preeminence in guilt. To have so called her then, would have been unintelligible. (2.) Such a, designation was useless for any conceivable purpose of concealment as is alleged, for no one was compromised by" it in any way that required concealraent. (3.) It would be most unnatural in such a connection. Had the Apostle been denouncing woes on the place whence he was writing, there would have been a propriety in the use of such a symbolical name. But when he was simply dating his episfle ; when aU the other names, Pontus, Cappadocia, &o., are geographical ; when his object was to let all the Church know where this place was, and not to conceal it ; when he^ was writing the siraplest didactic prose, and not prophecy, poetry, invective, or the language of passion at all, the use of so symbolical and so unusual a term as this, before its use was introduced by John in the Eevelation, is inconceivable to us, if not incredible. The main reason, with most interpreters, for adopting- this symbolical view is, the improbabiUty that Peter should be at Babylon. It is commonly assumed, that Babylon was, at this date, a, deserted ruin, just as it is now. But this is a mistake. The old city may have been greatly deserted, but not wholly so ; nnd the surrounding region, called also by the narae Babylon, re tained still a considerable population, and precisely the population that would attract the attention of the Apostle of the circumcision, Josephus tells us, (Antiq. lib. xv. chap. iii. § 1,) that " not a few myriads of this people" (the Jews) dwelt " about Babylonia" in this time. The sarae fact is attested in Antiq. lib. xv. cli. ii. § 2 ; xviii. ch. ix. § 1 ; and Philo. Op. ii. 5'78, 587. Many of the Jews had never returned from the exile, but remained there : a most interest ing portion of the race, and one that would naturaUy attract the attention of a Jew. It was, also, a great centre of ecclesiastical infiuence ; so that, whUst Jerusalem gave the name to one of the Talmuds, Babylon gave its name to the other. Hence, after labor ing at the seats of Jewish influence in Jerusalem and throughout Palestine, nothing' would be more natural than that Peter should turn his steps towards those of his nation that "were dweUing in the fertile satrapy of Babylonia, and, perhaps, in the yet inhabited por tions of the ancient city. This fact would account for the silence of the book of Acts concerning his labors from A. D. 50 to A. D. SPIRITUAL SUPREMACY. 339 64 ; a fact difficult of explanation, if those labors were expended in Palestine or Europe. Peter laboring at Babylon, James at Jerusalem, and Paul at Eome, would seem to be the most natural apportionment that could be made of the field before them. It is no vaUd objection to this view, that Peter speaks of Paul's writings in his second Epistle (iii. 15), and mentions a Marcus iu his first (v. 13), who has been supposed to be the evangelist Mark. Some of Paul's "writings had been before the Churches for twelve years, and could have been seen in many other places than Eome, and and there is no other proof that "Marcus my son" was the evan- eelist, than the whoUy uncertain one of an identity of name. Hence we conclude, that the Uteral and natural interpretation of the word Babylon is the true one, and that Peter, at the time of writing this epistle, A. D. 64 or 65, was at Babylon. But this brings us "within a few months of the alleged date of his death, which occurred, probably, soon after the writing of his second epistle ; (see Pet. i. 14.) This epistle must have been -written soon after the first, as is intimated, ch. i. 13-15 ; iU. 1. Hence, we have but a few months, at farthest, for this alleged visit to Eome ; a visit which, considering the immense distance between Babylon and Eome, is hardly credible. " " We might pause here-; but that we may search this thing to the bottom, we -wUl follow the advocates of Popery into the testimony of the fathers on this point, and determine its meaning : " The first authority that is adduced is Clement of Eome, in his epistle to the Corinthians. We will quote the passage. He has been urging them to constancy by the example of the Old Testa^ ment worthies, and now adduces those of the New : ' Let us set be fore our eyes the holy Apostles : Peter, by unjust envy, underwent not one or two, but many sufierings ; until at last, being martyred, he went to the place of glory that was due to him,' g 5. (Apostolic Fathers, Ed. Wake, p. 148.) This is absolutely aU that he says of Peter. Thore is not one word of where he suffered, or when he suffered, or that he ever set his foot in Eome. And yet this is brought forward as a proof ! " The next witness is Ignatius. In his epistle to the Eomans, § 4, he says : " I do not as Peter and Paul command you. They were Apostles ; I, a condemned man ; they were free, but I am even to 340 THE GREAT APOSTASY. this day a servant.' {id. ut sup. p. 213.) And yet this is brought to prove that Peter was at Eorae ! Surely the cause raust need sup port that can bring such testimony to prove a fact ; the simple statement of a good man that he was not invested with apostolic authority to write to a Church, to prove that Peter was once at Eome ! " The only distinct testimony that we reach is a letter of Dionysius of Corinth, A. D. 176, more than one hundred years after Peter's death, and only a fragment of"it preserved in Eusebius, A. D. 325. Granting that this letter is authentic (a fact that is questioned) , what does even it testify ? We quote the passage. Alluding to Peter and and Paul, he says : ' For both taught alike in our Corinth, having planted us, and both alike also in Italy, in the sarae place ; having taught alike, they suffered martyrdom at (or about) the same time.' Now, if Dionysius is to be understood as asserting that Paul and Peter labored together in person, planting the Church of Corinth, and then travelled and suffered together in person at Eome, he states in the first instance_what he must have known to be untrue ; for Paul alone planted the Church of Corinth, (see 1 Cor. iv. 15 ; iii. 6-10; ix. 1, 2 ;) and, therefore, is wholly unreliable as to the second, which indeed is also untrue, as to Peter's accompanying Paul to Eome ; a fact we know from Acts xxviii. not to have occurred. The only other point of his testimony left is, that Peter died at Eome, which is greatly shaken by the fact we know all the others to have been untrue. If, however, we suppose Dionysius only to have meant that the influence of Peter's teaching went with Paul to Corinth and Italy, they teaching the same things, and that they died about the same time, it will be true ; but it will no more prove that Petff was at Eome, than that he founded the Church of Corinth. Ia either case it is of no avaU. If the witness is true, he testifies what is of no avaU ; if false, his testimony can no more establish this point, that is doubtful, than the others which we know to be certainly false. Hence, although we have come to the beginning of the third century, we have not yet found one reliable witness to the fact that Peter was at Eome at all. When we enter the third cen tury, we find the opinion beginning to prevail that Peter died at Eome, though nothing yet about his episcopacy. Irenaeus, A. D. 218, (Adv. Her. Lib. IH. g 1,) asserte the martyrdom of Peter at SPIRITUAL SUPREMACY. 341 Eome, but Irenseus asserts a great many other things, as every reader of him will see, that show him to be a credulous and unre liable raan. But after this date we find the belief very general, so that we freely concede it. " The fact, however, that we press is, that there is not a particle of evidence for a hundred years after the death of Peter, that it was ever dreamed that he had been in Eome ; that it is not until A. D. 176 that a doubtful testimony occurs ; and that is not until the flrst quarter of the third century, that we find clear evidence that this fact was believed, and then only in connexion with many admitted falsehoods. " We therefore submit that the allegation that Peter ever was at Eome is whoUy unproved as yet, as a simple fact of history, and therefore unfit to stand as the basis of such a theory as that which reste upon it. And this further fact is evident, that, in any event, the Church that claims to be infallible must rest on the testimony of faUible men, and that testimony of the most fallible character. " The main difficulty in the way of this conclusion is, the existence of this tradition in the Church. How did it arise, if it had no foundation in fact ? It seems to have arisen, partly, from the sym boUcal interpretation of the name Babylon, in the first epistle, and partly from a mistake of Justin Martyr, who asserted that a statue of Simon Magus was worshipped in Eome as a god, under the name of Semo Sancus. This was soon coupled with the story of Siraon in Acts viii., and a story invented that Peter had encountered him at Eome, which then assumed the form that he was in Eome in the second year of Claudius, A. D. 42. This is plainly contradicted by the book of Acts, and the whole basis of the story destroyed by the discovery, in A. D. 1574, of the very statue to which Justin refers in making excavations in the bed of the Tiber. It was then found that it was a statue, not to Simon the magician, as it was supposed by Justin, but to Semo Sancus, a Eoman-Sabian deity. " When, therefore, it is remembered, that for a hundred years after Peter's death, we find not a syUable of this tradition ; that then the symboUcal interpretation began to creep in with the in creasing attention paid to the study of the Apocalypse ; and that we do not find the tradition fuUy developed untU the time of Irenseus, early m the third century, we can see how naturaUy the 342 THE GREAT APOSTASY. tradition arose, and how little it can be reUed upon as a historical fact. There is absolutely no clear, satisfactory proof, that Peter ever was at Eome ; the probability clearly is, that he died at Babylon. " But suppose these huge chasms fiUed up, and the fact made certain that Peter did visit Eome, and did die there, where is the proof that he was bishop of Eome ? This fact was not at first coupled -with the tradition of his "visit to Eome. It did not appear untU some time afterwards. At first it was asserted that Linus was ordained the first bishop of Eome, by Paul and Peter. This is the statement of IreuEeus (Adv. Heres, Lib. IH. g 3), and also of Eusebius in one place (Ecc. Hist. Lib. IH. g 2, 4). Tertullian assigns the first episcopate to Clement (De Script. Hser. c. 32), in contradiction of the others. The iirst statement of Peter being the bishop of Eome, is made in a book acknowledged to be spuri ous, and written as a sort of pious fiction, the Eecognitions of Clement. This assertion did not obtain credence for some years ; indeed, not until about the middle of the third century, when we find traces of it in the writings of Cyprian, A. D. 258, and a claim set up for the first time by a bishop of Eome, (Stephen, the 22d bishop of the series,) to be a successor of Peter. This claim was not generally recognized by the Latin Churches for a century after it was made, so that it was not until the fifth century that it was generally admitted that Peter was the first bishop of Eome. Against the probability of its truth are the facts, that it was utterly unknown to the early Church, utterly unknown to the Scriptures, inconsistent with the relations of Paul to the Church at Eome, and at variance with the nature of the apostolic office, and the division of territory agreed upon with Paul, in which Eome would fall to the charge of the Apostle of the Gentiles. Hence we reject this fiction as a mere invention of a later age, whoUy untenable and incredible." But if it were demonstrated that Peter was clothed with spiritual supremacy over the whole Church ; that he was constituted, by Christ, his sole Vicar on earth ; that he was at Rome, and Pope of Rome, it does not SPIRITUAL SUPREMACY. 343 follow that this power and prerogatives were transfer able, much less that they were actually transferred. It would remain to be demonstrated that Linus, and Gregory, and aU the bishops or Popes of Rome, good and bad, have been clothed, successively, with the same power and prerogatives; that Pius IX. is supreme head of the Church, and sole Vicar of Jesus Christ, because, if it were proved, Peter was, eighteen hundred years ago. Where is the evidence of this ? A doctrine so momentous should — must have the clearest and most ample proof to command our faith and obedience. It should, and doubtless would, have been written by the finger of God, on imperishable tablets. But this is not the case. There is not a par ticle of clear proof to support this dogma, but the confrary. " What were the prerogatives of ihe twelve Apostles, EXCLUSIVELY possesscd by them, as distinguished from aU other Gospel ministers whatever?" They were -the following : " Immediate vocation. Gal. i. 1 : ' Paul, an apostle (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead.') " The ordination of an Apostle, in the strict sense of the word, was not only immediately by Christ himself, "without any imposition of hands, but it was complete at once." The inspfred history of Paul, who, I beheve, was Christ's chosen successor to Judas, demonstrates this. "Apostles were taught the Gospel by immediate - revelation." Gal. i. 12 : " Por I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." 344 TgE GREAT APOSTASY. " They were infaUible teachers of it to others." They were infallible teachers because inspired. They taught what God -revealed, nothing more, nothing less. Tra dition was no rule of authority in divine things with them. They were prophets. " Apostles had the power not only of working mira cles, but also of communicating miraculous powers to others. Acts viu. 1^19; xix. 6; 1-Tim. i. 6."* Can these prerogatives be transferred ? Have they been transferred ? Was Alexander VI., that monster of iniquity, inspired, infallible, a prophet; and was he clothed with the power of working miracles, and of communicating that power io others ? If he was inspired, it was by the de"vU ; and if he had the power of working mfracles, it was of the kind of the witch of Endor. If, then, these prerogatives were not possessed by him and handed down to his successors, they are not possessed by. Pius IX. The chain is broken; and the claim to the Apostleship, the authority and prerogatives of St. Peter, is a baseless assumption. In his usual happy, clear style. Dr. Moore shows that, if it were demonstrated that St. Peter was clothed "with supreme spiritual power, and that that power could have been transferred to others, there is no evi dence, but the contrary, to prove that it was actually transferred to, and possessed by, the bishops and Popes of Rome. Hear him : " We demand proof of its actual transfer. Where is the docu ment, the fact, or the person that testifies to such a transaction ? Here is the most tremendous grant of power ever made on earth, * Powel'e Apostolical Succession, pp. 41, 42. SPIRITUAL SUPREMACY. 345 if made at all, and yet there exists not one line of recorded evidence, not a single document to prove this amazing fact ! Indeed, we have proof of the very contrary. Eome herself did not claim this power for centuries after the grant is alleged to havebeen made. Du Pin, a Eoman Catholic historian, adraits this. He is also compelled to admit another fact that is stUl more embarrassing, that this claim of supremacy was actually condemned by the bishop of Eorae, as late es A. D. 588. The Byzantine Emperor Mauritius had bestow ed, or at least permitted the title of universal patriarch to be taken by John, patriarch of Constantinople, A. D. 586. Gregory, bishop of Eome, opposed this assumption very bitterly.* Du Pin's lan guage describing this transaction is: 'St. Gregory does not only oppose this title in the patriarch of Constantinople, but maintains also that it cannot agree to any other bishop, and that the bishop of Eome neither ought nor can assume it.' " In a letter to the Emperor Mauritius, arguing against the per mission of the title, Du Pin represents him as saying that Peter was not caUed universal Apostle, ' that the title of universal bishop is against the rules of the Gospel, and the appointment of the canons , that there cannot be an universal bishop, or the au thority of all the others would be destroyed or diminished, &c.' (B. 4, Ep. 32.) Here is an inextricable dUerama. If Gregory was infaUible, he condemns aU succeeding Popes, who have assumed this supremacy ; if he was mistaken in this matter, then he was fallible, and the chain is broken. In either alternative. Popery perishes, as to its pecuUar claims. If Gregory, near the opemng of the 7th century, knew nothing of this absolute supremacy, we may safely affirm that it never existed. The claims and title of universal bishop were not assumed by the bishop of Eorae until A. D. 606, when the infamous and wicked Phocas gave Boniface HI. this title, in reward for services that he rendered to him in his unholy designs. The title thus assumed in name, expressed no reaUty for nearly two centuries, when Nicholas and John, in the ninth century, began a series of measures which Gregory VIL, the great Hildebrand, devel oped in the eleventh century into that gigantic system of despotism that we now find it. Thus it took a thousand years to establish this • This I have ehown under the head of InfalUbiUty See page 91. 15* 346 THE GREAT APOSTASY. claim of baseless and usurped authority, which now asserts this claim as the grant of Jesus Christ. " Such, then, is the historical basis of the Church of Eome, a tissue of assumptions, none of which are demonstrably true, sorae of which are deraonstrably false. It rests on the positions, 1. That Peter was priraate of the Apostles ; 2. That he was the first bishop of Eome ; and 3. That this primacy was transferred to all his suc cessors. In regard to the priraacy of Peter, we have sho-wn that it could not be granted in the designation of Peter as a foundation, the conferring on hira of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, or the injunction to feed the sheep, for all these things belong equally to tlie other Apostles ; that there is no trace of this priraacy in the words or acte of either Christ or the Apostles, or the priraitive Church ; in the New Testament epistles, in the theory of Church government taught there, in the claims of Peter himself, or the conduct of John after his death ; but on the contrary, that there are facts and statements in all these sources utterly inconsistent with this aUeged priraacy. Hence, the first basis is gone. The second, that Peter was the first bishop of Eome, is equaUy baseless ; for he was not, and could not be a bishop -at all ; and above all, could not be the bishop of Eome ; for it is not yet proved that he ever was at Eome at all, and if he was, it could only have been at the very close, of his life for a short time ; and if ever at Eome, that there is not a shadow of proof that he ever was bishop of Eome, but rather the contrary. But if aU these impossible points were made out, the third step is stiU wanting, that he transferred this primacy to the bishop of Eome and his successors. Such an awful power would not be transferable at all, or if so, must be made out by t'ne clearest evidence. Not a particle of such evidence existe ; the claim was not set up by the bishop of Eome himself for centuries, and was not admitted by the Churches generally until the ignorance and darkness of the middle ages raade any ghostly usurp ation an easy task. Hence we come to the most impregnable conclusion, that the Eomish Church, instead of being founded on a Eock, is founded on a, lib, and stands forth the most gigantic pile of fraud and imposture that the world ever saw." And that the Pope, I may add, instead of being an TEMPORAL SUPREMACY. 347 Apostle, possessing the authority and clothed with the prerogatives of St. Peter, is verUy, truly Antichrist. In the assumption, then, of spiritual supremacy, an - other Unk of evidence is added to the fearfully-over whelming array, that the Church of Rome is the great Apostasy. The dark picture drawn by the pencU of inspiration eighteen hundred years ago is filled up in all its outlines aud mighty proportions, and we see before us the Man of Sin sitting in the temple of God, sho"wing himself that he is God. Temporal Supremacy. That the Pope of Rome claims temporal supremacy has been denied by some of the bishops and priests, and laymen, and their parasites in this country. The denial, sometimes, doubtless, ignorantly made, is at war with the weU-estabUshed and undeniable facts of history. If it were denied that the Pope possesses tem poral power over all governments, there would be, so far as we are concerned, no occasion of controversy. He has never been clothed, either directly or indfrectly, "with such power, by the King of kings and Lord of lords. But the negation is of the claim. Does, then, the Pope claim temporal supremacy ? This question, I am aware, has become, to some ex tent, a political one. It is such per se, of necessity. But with it, purely as 'such, I have nothing to do. I write not as a poUtician. The able statesmen of " our own, our native land, " wiU carefully examine every ques tion affecting our political rights, and guard and defend the sacred ark of our liberties. I enter not their arena 348 THE GREAT APOSTASY. and meddle not with their rights. But "with this ques tion as it effects civU and religious liberty, and the Church of God, and the salvation of souls, I have to do. It is my right and mj duty, as a member of the great family of man, a citizen of this happy Union, and a Christian minister, to examine it thoroughly, to vindi cate the fruth of history, and show the unscriptural assumptions and dangerous doctrines of the Church of Rome, in this and all other things. Popes have claimed, and Pius IX. now claims, su premacy over temporals. Popes have exercised, and Pius IX. now tries to exer cise, such power. The Church of Rome has taught, and does now teach, that ihis claim is of divine origin, and hence valid ; and she has and does now, sustain and defend the Papacy in iis exercise. These are facts which lie buried in the history of the past, and live in the history of the present ; and some of them form epochs in the annals of nations. To bring them out and lay them before the reader wUl be amply sufiicient to refute the denial of interested parties that the Roman Pontiff claims temporal supremacy. And ffrst of all, it may be necessary to observe that spiritual supremacy, in the sense of Rome, logically and necessarUy carries with it temporal supremacy. This is taught by Popes and Councils, and scattered up and down on the pages of a thousand Ultramontane and Jesuit writers. To go no farther back — and the nearer home and to our own day, perhaps, the better — Brownson, iu his Re"view for AprU, 1854, p. 191, says: TEMPORAL SUPREMACY. 349 " Now, although we do not say that the Church commissions the State, or imposes tho conditions on which it holds its right to gov ern, yet as it holds under the law of Christ, aud on conditions im posed by that law, must have the power to take cognizance of the State, and to judge whether it does or does not conform to the con ditions of its trust, and to pronounce sentence accordingly ; which sentence ought to havo immediate practical execution in the tem poral order, and the temporal power that assists it ia not only faithless to its trust, but guilty of direct rebeUion against God, the only real sovereign. Fountain of aU law, and source of all rights in the temporal order as iu the spiritual. She must have the right to take cognizance of the fidelity of subjects, since they are bound to obey the legitimate prince for conscience' sake ; and therefore of the manner in which princes discharge their duties to their sub jects, and to judge and to declare whether they have or have not forfeited their trusts, and lost their right to reign or command the obedience of their subjects. The deposing power, then, is inherent in her as the spiritual authority, as Ihe guardian and judge of Ihe law, under which kings and emperors hold their croums and have ihe right io reign ; for in deposing a sovereign, absolving his subjects from their aUegiance, and authorizing them to proceed to the choice of a new sovereign, she does but apply the law of Christ to a particular case, and judicially declare what is already true by tliat law. She only declares that the forfeiture has occurred, and that subjects are released from their oath of fideUty, who are already released by the law of Ood." " We have seen that she," the Church, " has even direct temporal authority by divine right; but the power we are now asserting, though a power over temporals, is itself, strictly speaking, a spiritual power, held by a spiritual person, and exerted for a spiritual end. The tem poral order by its own nature, or by the fact that it existe in the present decree of God only for an end not in ite own order, is subjected to the spiritual, and consequently every question.that does or can arise in the temporal order is indirectly a spiritual question, and within the jurisdiction of the Church as the spiritual authority, and there fore of the Pope, who as supreme chirf of the Church, possesses THAT AUTHGErTT IN ALL ITS PLENiTurE. The Pope, then, oven by 350 THE GREAT APOSTASY. virtue of his spiritual authority, has the power to judge all temporal questions, if not precisely as temporal yet as spiritual — for all tem poral questions are to be decided by their relation to the spiritual — and therefore has the right to pronounce sentence of deposition against any sovereign, when required by the good of the spiritual order." This language is clear, and cannot be misunderstood. It reveals fuUy, but not too sfrongly, the doctrine of Papists touching this question of supremacy. The spiritual authority necessarUy carries "with it the right to govern the temporal, as the greater the less. Hence, if the Pope had spfritual jurisdiction in this country — say a clear numerical majority — ^he would depose Pres ident Pierce or his successors, if " required by the good of tlie spiritual order." Of the good or evil he is the sole judge. The President, the citizens, could have no voice. The higher-lawism of some demagogues has been emphatically and properly stigmatized as emi nently dangerous ; but here is a higher-law docfrine openly avowed in this country, and sanctioned by a million and more of citizens of this Republic, which would not simply trample upon constitutional rights in liberating a few hundreds of thousands of slaves, leav ing master and slave free, but would make slaves, hope less slaves of the millions of the free and the brave. I repeat what I have before said, that no man thoroughly imbued with the spirit of Popery is capable of repub licanism. If a colony, or a nation were composed of such men as Mr. Brownson, would there be any free dom among them, except to do the bidding of " his Holiness" and the priests ? "If the Church is the spiritual power," he continues, " with the TEMPORAL SUPREMACY. 351 right to declare the law of Christ for aU men and nations,* can any act "of the State, in contravention of her canons, be regarded as a law ? The most vulgar common sense answers, that it cannot. Tell us then, even supposing the Church to have only spiritual power, what question can come up between man and man, between sover eign and sovereign, between subject and sovereign, or sovereign and subject, that does not come "within the legitimate jurisdiction ofthe Church, and on which she has not, by divine right, the power to pronounce a judicial sentence ? None ? Then the power he (the Pope) exercised over sovereigns in the middle ages was not a usurp ation, was not derived from the, concession of princes, or the consent of the people, but was and is heis by divine right ; and whoso resiste it rebels against the King of kings, and Lord of lords. This is the ground on which we defend the power exercised over sovereigns by Popes and CouncUs in the middle ages." In the Civilta Caitolica, from which I have already quoted, of Nov., 1854, we have this docfrine sent out to the Roman CathoUc world. The Jesuit, or Cardinal, or Pope, who wrote it, says : " As the Church commands the spiritual part of mau directly, she therefore commands the whole man, and all that depends on man . for it is the property of man to live according to the spirit, accord ing to reason. This ia the efficient cause of that wonderful power which the Church has always exercised (though under many difler ent forms) in this world ; which she exercises still ; and which is so incomprehensible to mere worldly politicians. She was but a babe in the cradle in Palestine, when she attacked in the Sanhedrim tho chiefs of that people whose inextinguishable vitality has for two thousand years been the puzzle of the phUosophers. From the darkness of the Catacombs she dictated laws to the subjeote of the Emperors, abrogating decrees, whether plebeian, senatorial, or im perial, when in conflict with Catholic ordinances. Emerging from • The Pope has not by divine right, or by any other right, epiritusl supremacy, and therefore has no right to declare the law of Christ for aU nations ; and hence the conclusion, that his temporal power faUs to the ground. 352 THE GREAT APOSTASY. the Catacombs to rule over the Eoman world, she led the auto- crate by the hand in reforming their statute-books and their ad ministration. Did they resist ? The Church unyielding, saw them thrown at her feet either penitent or crushed. * * * * * Bid the Christian eraperors become insolent? The Church armed against them their very electors. To every rampant heresy the Church knew how to oppose the power either of the peoples or of their princes ; and when these supports seemed at last to have been snatched from her by a umversal rationalism, behold ! there is a sudden turning back of both : of the nations, fearing an unbridled royal power, and proclaiming the necessity of a supreme spiritual power; of the princes, beginning to understand, at the light of a bloody communism, that the principles of the Church are a firmer foundation for their thrones than bayonets, which must always be intrusted to a part of the people." " Thus, amid all formal changes, the power of the Church is always immense. If auy doubt it, let them listen to her enemies, who, for so many years, have been proclaiming that the ' Church is dead ;' that ' she remains only as an empty and impotent shadow.' Thoy would not vaunt thus against a mere nonentity : the fearless do not boast. The truth is, that the only power dreaded by the dema^ gognes and the ungodly is that very Church which they unite in attacking, calling it ' clerical party,' ' Jesuitism,' ' theologisra,' or what not. And they are right in that fear. To-day, as in all time, the Church commands the spiritual part of man ; and in ruling over the spirit she rules the body, rules over riches, over sciences, over affections, over intereste, over associations — rules, in fine, over mon archs and their ministers. Petty politicians may conclude that the Church has lost her power, because she does not enlist artillery, cavalry, and infantry ; but the truth is, that the artillery, cavalry, and infantry of the Catholics are in tlie hands of the Church, inas much as in her hands arc the mind, the reason, and the power of every true Catholic." Yes indeed, in the hands of the Church, of the Pope, are the mind, the reason, the power of every true Roman Catholic. And they can be nowhere else, as papists, or TEMPORAL SUPREMACY. 353 they axe guUty of moral treason against the Vicar of Jesus Christ upon earth, and of God himself, as Popes, and CouncUs, and Jesuits teach them. And the mo ment " they are anywhere else, if Rome is in power, they are thrown at her feet, either penitent or crashed." Now with these declarations before his eyes, declara tions published under the sanction of every bishop and archbishop in the United States, and under the eye and approbation of Pius IX. and the Cardinals at the city of Rome — can any man doubt that the Pope claims temporal power ? The fourth Council of Lateran, under Innocent IIL, iu 1215, in the thfrd canon, now a part of the law of the Roman CathoUc Church, for it has never been re pealed, thus teaches this doctrine : " Heretics shall, after their condemnation, be deUvered over to the secular powers. The temporal lords are to be admonished, and, if it shduld be found necessary, compelled by censures to take an oath in pubUc, to exterminate heretics from their territories. If the temporal lord, being thus required and admonished by the Church, shaU refuse to purge his land from heretical pra-vity, he shall be ex communicated by the metropolitan and his sufiragans : on his neglect durmg twelve months, to give them satisfaction, this shall be notified to the Pope, and upon such information, his Holiness shall announce the offender's vassals Jo be absolved by law from, their obligation of fealty, and expose his lands to be occupied by Catholics, Vho, ha-ving exterminated the heretics from it, shall possess them without any contradiction, and preserve them in the purity of the faith." Gregory VH. was the first who fully and unequivo cally proclaimed the supremacy of the Pope over all temporals, and exercised it. It was his aim and the ambition of his pontificate, "to bring," says Du Pin, "aU the crowned heads under his suly'ection, and to 354 THE GEEAT APOSTASY. oblige them to hold their kingdoms as fiefs of the holy see, and to govern them at his discretion." He excom municated Henry IV., declared his throne vacant and his subjects absolved from all oaths of fealty. He thus modestly speak-s of his supremacy, and lords it over the greatest monarch of his day : " rt has pleased thee, 0 Peter, chief of the Apostles, and does please thee, that the people of Christendom, committed specially to thee, should render obedience to me. In this confidence, for the dignity and defence of the holy Church, in the name of Almighty God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, I depose from imperial and royal administration King Henry, son of Henry, sometirae emperor, who too boldly and rashly hath laid hands on thy Church. I absolve all Christian subjects to the empire from that oath whereby they are wont to plight their faith unto i rue Kings ; for it is right that he should be deprived of dignity who doth endeavor to diminish the majesty ofthe Church." In a letter to Hermann, Bishop of Metz, August 25, 1076,* in which he calls the Gallican doctrine "mad ness" and "folly," we have the following: " We, adhering to the statutes of our holy predecessors, do, by apostolic authority, absolve those from their oath who are bound by fealty or oath to persons excomraunicated, and prohibit them; by all means possible, to observe their fealty." Innocent HI. in 1210 deposed OtUo IV. From his bull of deposition I take the following : " The King of kings and Lord of lords, Jesus Christ, has so established the royal power and the priesthood in the Church, that the royal power is sacerdotal and the priesthood royal, as Peter in the epistle and Moses in the law testify, placing over all, one whom he has ordained aa his vicar on earth ; so that to Him (Christ), every knee is bowed in heaven and on earth — so also tohim (the Pope), • He wae Pope about twelve years, from 1073 to 1085. TEMPORAL SUPREMACY. 355 aU should give obedience, that there might bo one fold and one shepherd. Him, therefore, the kings of the earth so venerate, that they cannot suppose theraselves rightly to reign, unless they study to serve him (the Pope) devotedly. " The Eoman Pontiff, who does not perform the part of a mere man, but is the -vicegerent of the true God, looses not by any human, but rather by divine authority." Gregory IX. iu 1239, deposed Frederick II. and ab solved his subjects from thefr oath of allegiance; and Innocent IV. in 1245, repeated it, utterly depriving him of crown and kingdom, of command and subject. Listen at the successor of St. Peter and the servant of Him whose kingdom is not of this world : " We hearing about the foregoing and many other his wicked miscarriages, had before a careful deliberation with our brethren and the holy CouncU, seeing that we, although unworthy, do hold the place of Jesus Christ on earth, and that it was said unto us in the place of St. Peter, the Apostle, ' Whateoever thou shalt bind on earth,' — ^the said prince (who had rendered himself unworthy of em pire and kingdoms, and all honor and dignity, and who for his iniquities is cast away from God) that he should uot roign or com mand, being bound by his sins and cast away, and deprived by the Lord of aU honor and dignity, do show, denounce, and accordingly, by sentence, deprive : absol-ving aU who are held bound by oath of allegi ance, from such oath forever ; by apostolic authority firraly pro hibiting that no raan henceforth do obey him or regard as emperor or king ; and decreeing that whoever hereafter yield advice, or aid, or favor him, as emperor or king, shaU immediately lie under the ban of excommunication." This is a part of the decretal law of the Church of Rome to-day — ^infallible law, and an open precedent for Pius IX. Boniface VIIL, in 1302, issued against PhUlippe le Bel of France a buU of excommunication and depo sition, from which I take the following extract : 356 THE GREAT APOSTASY. " We are taught by the words of the evangeliste, that in his power there are two swords, the spiritual and temporal. For when the apostles said : ' Lo, here are two swords ;' namely, in the Church, when the apostles spoke, the Lord did not say, ' It is too much,' but ' It is enough.' * -* * Both swords, therefore, are in the power of the Church ; namely, the spiritual and the material sword ; but one is to be exercised by the Church — the other for the Church ; the one by the hands of the priest, the other by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the nod and sufferance of the priest. But it be hooves that one sword be subject to the other, and that the temporal authority be subject to the spiritual power; for when the apostle says, ' There is no power but of God, and the powers that be are ordained of God ;' they would not be ordained, unless the one sword were sub ject to the other. " Por, truth bearing witness, tlie spiritual power can appoint tlie earthly power, and judge ii, if it be not good ; for this the prophecy of Jeremiah truly states of the Church and power of the Church : ' Behold I have set thee over nations arid kingdoms,' &c., with the vrords which foUow. Therefore, if the eartldy power deviates, it is judged by its superior ; but if the supreme power deviates, it can be judged by God alone, not by man. Witness the apostle's declara tion : ' He that is spiritual judgeth aU things, but he himself is judged by no man.' " "Moreover, we declare, affirm, define, and pronounce, that it is alto gether a matter of necessity to salvation for every human creature to be subject to tlie Roman Pontiff." H it be "altogether a matter of necessity to salva tion for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff," then every good papist, always and everywhere, is bound by the strongest possible ties, spirituaUy and temporally, to him. That temporal as well as spiritual allegiance is here meant, cannot be doubted. He may live in a Protestant country, and take the oath of allegiance to its constitution or mon archy, but he is a subject of Rome. And if the Pope TEMPORAL SUPREMACY. 857 demand his services, or command him not to obey the heretical government, or ruler, he must, he can but obey; or the Jupiter who holds the thunder in his hands, wUl throw him at his feet, " eithex penitent or crushed." It is obedience to the assumed Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, or damnation. And the good papist, unhesitatingly, undoubtingly believing it — for so he has been taught by infallible teachers — wUl give up his Uberty, his country, rather than his hope of heaven ; rather than hear that anathema, which, if it came from the Ups of God — and he believes it does— would make the stoutest heart quaU, and the mightiest hero waver. The Roman CathoUc, then, say what you will, is bound by stronger fetters than the yoke of Austrian despot ism. "We do not fully know, and cannot fully under stand, the fearful might and tyranny of the power that lords it over him. He must believe and worship, obey and labor, " at ihe nod and sufferance of the priest," or be cast away forever. A bull of excommunication and deposition was ful minated against Queen EUzabeth, in 1570, by Pius V. The foUowing extract is enough to show that Rome, in her falling away and proud exaltation, never retraces her steps, or yields a position. England, at that time, was a Protestant country, and entirely independent, in every sense, of the See of Rome : "Plus, bishop, servant of the servants op god. " In perpetual memorial of the matter. He that reigneth on high, to whom is given all power in heaven and in earth, hath committed his one Holy CathoUc and Apostolic Church, out of which there is no salvation, to one alone upon earth, namely, to Peter, the chief of the Apostles, and to 'Peter's successor, tlie Bishop of Rome, to be by 358 THE GREAT APOSTASY. him governed by plenary authority. Him alone hath He made prince over all people and all kingdoms, to pluck up, to destroy, to scatter, to consume, io plant; and to build, that he may preserve his faithful people (knit together in one bond of charity) in the unity of the spirit, and present them spotless and unblamable to their Saviour. In discharge of which function we, who are by God's goodness, caUed to the government of the aforesaid Church, do spare no pains, la boring with aU earnestness, that the unity and the CathoUc reUgion (which the Author thereof hath, for the trial of his chUdren's faith, and for our amendraent, suffered to be tossed with so great afilictions) might be preserved sincere. But the number of the ungodly hath gotten such power, that there is now no place in the whole world which they have not essayed to corrupt -with their most wicked doctrines ; and, among others, Elizabeth, the pretended Queen of England, the servant of wickedness, lendeth thereto her helping hand. " Being, therefore, supported by His authority, whose pleasure it was to place us (though unable for so great a burden) in this su preme throne of justice, we do, out of ihe fulness of our apostolic power, pronounce ihe said Elizabeth to be a heretic, and the favorer of heretics, and by her adherence in the matters aforesaid, to have incurred the sentence of excommunication, and to be cut off from the unity of the body of Christ. And, moreover, we do declare her lo be diprived of her pretended title to ihe kingdom aforesaid, and all dominion, dignity, and privilege whatsoever, and also the nobiUty, subjecte, and people of said kingdom, and aU others who have in any sort sworn allegiance unto her, in be forever absolved from any such oath, and all manner of du'y, dominion, allegiance, and obedience. And we also do, by authority of these presenfe, absolve them, and do deprive the said Elizabeth of her pretended title to the kingdom, and aU other things before named. And we do command and charge all and every, the noblemen, subjecte, and people, and others afore said, that they presurae not to obey her, or her orders, mandates, or laws ; and those who shall do the contrary we do include in the same anathema." Who can longer doubt, if he doubted before, that the Popes have claimed and exercised temporal author- TEMPORAL SUPREMACY. 359 ity over all people, kings and subjects? And who can doubt, who knows anything of Romanism, that if a majority of the nobUity and people of England had been papists, Elizabeth would have been hurled from her throne and crushed, and a Roman Catholic — true and faithful — placed upon it, to rule over Eng land and destroy Protestantism, and blot out the last hope of the world ? Thanks to Elizabeth with her firm sceptre, and to our forefathers with their bold, heroic hearts, who bid defiance to the thunders of the Vati can, and have bequeathed us the glorious inheritance of a pure Christianity and civU and religious liberty ! Paschal H., in 1099, excommunicated and deposed Henry IV.,; Gregory IX., in 1239, excommunicated Frederick U., and absolved his subjects from their oath of fealty; and Paul LU., in 1536 and 1538, deposed Henry VIH. of England, and absolved his subjects from all oaths of aUegiance, after he and they had sev ered all connection whatever with the See of Rome. Paul had no more right in or authority over the king dom of England, than Pius IX. has in and over these United States. Pius IX., on the 22d of January, 1854, delivered, an allocution against the- laws of the kingdom of Sardinia, declaring them to be"nuU and void." It was the claim and exercise of temporal power. Before I lay a part of this document before the reader, it may be well "to offer a word of explanation of the causes that gave rise to it." " The government of Piedmont has recently deter mined, at the earnest request of many of its subjects, and in view of the imperative demands of ci"viUzation, 360 THE GREAT APOSTASY. as well as of the best interests of the Roman Catholic Church itself, to introduce a better system than has hitherto prevailed in the distribution of the revenues of its clergy. There are, in the country, over six hundred houses of the different monastic orders, with nearly nine thousand monks and nuns, whose annual revenue is said to be about $400,000. The govern ment proposes to suppress the convents, except those ¦ employed as schools and hospitals ; aUowing pensions to such of the monks and nuns as shall return to civU society. The other Church property of the country amounts to about eighty milUons, yielding a revenue of, perhaps, four miUions a year. It is very unequally disfributed ; the higher dignitaries recei"ving so large a share, that the government has had to allow between one and two hundred thousand doUars a year, from the public treasury, for the support of the humbler clergy. It is now proposed to distribute these Church reve nues, on some equitable plan, among the clergy of all classes, as the annual returns are believed to be ample, if properly divided, for the wants of all. These meas ures, which in themselves appear so simple and so just, are bitterly opposed by the bishops and higher clergy generally."* The following extract gives the gist of the matter : " Matters having now come to such a pass," says the Pope, " it is not enough to deplore the -wrongs done to the Church, but it is our duty to use every effort to remedy this evil, according to the duty of our charge, and therefore we again raise our voice, "with apostolic free dom, in this solemn assembly, and we reject and condemn not only all and each of the decrees of ihat gocernmeni, hurtful to tlie rights and * Dr. McClintock'e " Temporal Power ofthe Pope." TEMPORAL SUPREMACY. 361 authority of religion, of ihe Church, and of the holy see, but likewise the law lately proposed. We declare all these acts to be absoldtbly Nm^L and void. Moreover, we seriously warn all those ia whose name, by whose order or exertions these decrees have been pub lished, as well as all who may sanction, approve, or favor in any way whateoever, the law lately proposed, to consider in their hearts the penalties aud censures contained in the apostolic constitution, the canons of holy CouncUs, and especially in the canons of the holy CouncU of Trent, against spoliators and profaners of holy things, against the "violators of the liberty of the Church and the holy see, and the usurpers of their righte." The evidence, then, is clear that the Pope has claimed and exercised authority over temporals, over sovereigns and people ; that the present Pope claims and exercises this power ; that this power is claimed to be of diviue right, and cannot, therefore, be disputed or resisted, and that it can " never lapse." None but the ignorant or interested wUl deny these facts. That it has been denied by able theologians and learned Universities, and by the whole GalUcan party in France and the Uiuted States — a very meagre mi nority, I am sorry to say, of the Church of Rome — ^that the Pope possesses or is clothed with, by divine right, or any other right, temporal supremacy, is weU kno"WTi. All Protestants join them, and deny that he is invested "with any such prerogative. But this denial does not reach and affect the question before us. It is one thing to possess, to be clothed, by the great God, with authority, and another thing to claim and exercise it. The claim may be utterly groundless, and the exercise a usurpa tion. This, we contend, is the case with the Roman Pontiffs. This is the logical sequence of the Galilean's position. Whether the Pope really possesses this awful 16 862 THE GREAT APOSTASY. power, jure divino, is a question which, beyond a sim ple denial now, I leave for the feeble GalUcans — feeble in numbers — and the dominant Jesuits to settle. The question before us, have the Popes claim-ed and exer cised temporal supremacy— claimed and exercised it as of di"7ine right ? is proved beyond all doubt. No intelligent, honest man, I repeat, will deny it. " Dr. Kenrick, Archbishop of Baltimore, asserte positively, that the temporal power of which we speak, was never claimed by the Church, and he challenges the production of a single decree or defin ition in which this power was propounded as an article of faith. ' Such,' says the learned bishop, ' does not exist.' "* Here is a direct issue. Let the intelligent reader, with the papal decrees, just given, before his eyes, with the words of Pius IX., declaring the laws of Sardinia, passed by her supreme legislative authority, " to be ab solutely null and void," still ringing in the ears of that government, decide the question. But his "Grace," or Mr. Chandler for him, leaves a loophole through which td escape. Temporal supremacy, or the claim to it, was never decreed an " article of faith." This we all know ; this never was asserted. Infallibility never has been decreed an "article of faith." It is, nevertheless, a settled dogma of the Church of Rome, and implicitly beUeved in by every true Romanist. Spfritual suprem acy has never been decreed " an article of faith," not withstanding it is a fundamental tenet with that Church. "The learned Bishop" might deny, and doubtless would, if it would serve an" end, that "a single decree or definition " has ever been passed or bodied forth, to constitute this assumed spiritual authority an article of " Chandler's Speech iu the House of Eepresentatives. TEMPORAL SUPREMACY. 363 faith. But no papist denies, though it is not an arti cle of faith, that the Pope claims and exercises spirit ual supremacy. What evasions these infallible men will resort to, Avhen a frank avowal might damage their cause ! I "wUl pit against his grace, presently, Roman Catholic "writers as " learned " and intelligent as he, who will set the bishop and his readers right, if they will honestly examine them. The late Bishop England says : " God never gave to St. Peter any temporal power, any authority io depose kings, any authority to interfere with political concerns. And any right which his successors might claim, for any of those purposes, must be derived from some other source." This has been quoted to prove that the Pope does not claim temporal authority over monarchs. It proves anything else. The bishop denies that he has authority derived from God over kings, or over any poUtical ques tion whatever. But he does not deny, if sincere, he could not deny, that the Pope claims to have, and that he exer cises it. He indirectly admits it. He knew, and the world knows, that he claims it. The bishop denies, and we deny, that he has ever been clothed with such power. The following propositions by Mr. Pitt, the younger, of England, were submitted to the principal Roman Catholic Universities of France and Spain : " 1. Has the Pope, or cardinals, or any body of men, or any in dividual of the Church of Eome, any civii authority, povier, juris diction, or preeminence whateoever, within the realm of England ? " 2. Can the Pope, or cardinals, or any body of men, or any indi vidual ofthe Church of Eome, absolve or dispense his Majesty's sub jects /roni their oath of allegiance upon any pretext whatever?'' 364 THE GREAT APOSTASY. These questions do not meet the case. They have reference to ihe possession, and not to the claim of power. The Pope certainly has no political power in England, or right to absolve her Majesty's subjects from their oath of allegiance, but he claims such power. Clement VIL, Paul IIL, that "prince of glorious memory," as Pallivicini calls him, and Pius V., did. Their views have never been rejected by their successors or the Church — ^how could this be, as they were infallible ? — and their decrees have never been abrogated. Pius IX. has no "civil authority, power, jurisdiction, or pre eminence whatsoever in the realm of " Sardinia, but he claims it. To deny that he does, that he claims supreme temporal authority over all temporals, and that this has been a dogma of the pontiff's ever since the assumption of the claim by Gregory VIL, and that it is the doc trine of the Roman Catholic Church, is to ignore the facts of history and stultify one's self The GalUcans deny, I may repeat once again, that the Pope has ever been clothed "with such power ; and hence, the Uni versities addressed, beiug Gallican, answered in the negative. They denied the authority, but not its claim. Louis XIV., in 1682, summoned &e bishops of France to an assembly, or Synod, at Paris. The object was to interpose limits to papal abuses and usurpations, and define the doctrine of the GaUican Church on this ques tion of temporal supremacy and councils-general. The four following propositions were passed, and received the hearty support of Bossuet, and of bishops, archbish ops, and the laity, and the sanction of Louis : "1. That the Popes have no power from God to interpose, direct- TEMPORAL SUPREMACY. 365 ly or indirectly, in the temporal concerns of princes or of sovereign States. 2. That the authority of General Councils is superior to that of the Pope. 3. That the usages of the French Church are inviolable. 4. That the Pope is not infallible in pointe of faith un less' his decisions are attended with tho consent ofthe Church.""* All these propositions were rejected at Rome, and are now held as rejected. The one especially denying that the Pope has any " power to interpose in the tem poral concerns of princes " was by Innocent XI. de clared to be "null" and "void." The foUowing extract taken from " the notes to Bergier's ^Dictionnaire de The ologie' which has long been a standard work in Roman Catholic seminaries,"f gives us a brief and authentic history of the fate of of these propositions : " On the passage of the ' Declaration,' it was presented to Louis XIT., who in fact had instigated it. The King, to incorporate it ¦with the State law, issued a decree declaring that all who desired to obtain degrees in theology should maintain, as the law of the land the opinions enunciated iu the four articles. Pope Innocent XI. did not hesitate to manifest his disapprobation : he annulled and condemned ihe act of the assembly of 1682, in his brief of AprU llth, in the same year. ' By these presente, in "virtue of the authority given to us by the omnipotent God, we condemn, rescind, and annul the acte of your assembly in the business of the regale, "with all that followed them.' " Nor waa Alexander VHI. behind Innocent XI. On the fourth of August, 1690, he published the constitution Inter multiplices, in which he condemned, made void, and annulled aU that had been done in the assembly of the clergy of France, in the year 1682, as weU -with regard to the extension of the regale as also to the decla ration, and the /o«r articles contained in it : 'AU and singular of the acte, as well with regard to the extension of the jus regalie, as * Dr. McCUntock's " Temporal Power." 1 1 quote from Dr. McCUntock's work, not ha-ving the original work before me. 366 THE GREAT APOSTASY. to the declaration containing the power of the Church, and the four articles contained therein, we do condemn, destroy, annul, and ¦make void.' " Not less important to our understanding of the spirit and doc trine of the holy see, is the fact that the Popes refused for niore than ten years to grant bulls to such of the prelates (nominated to bishoprics) as had attended the assembly, and had signed the dec laration. It was not till the time of Innocent XII., in 1693, that the difi'erence was accommodated, by means of two letters written to the Pope, one by the nominated bishops, and the other by Louis XTV. In the letter of the prelates raark the following expression : ' We profess and declare that we grieve vehemently, and beyond the power of words to express, over the acts of the said assembly which have so greatly displeased your Holiness and your predecessors ; and we declare, moreover, that whatever was decreed by that assembly concerning the ecclesiastical and pontifical authority, we hold to be not decreed, and declare that it is so to be held.'* " In 1794 Pope Pius VL, in his bull Auctorem Fidei, which has been received, without protest, by all the Churches, renewed these declarations of his predecessors Innocent XI. and Alexander VIH. Moreover, he condemned as rash, scandalous, and suprerae ly injurious to tho holy see, the act of the Synod of Pistoia (in its decree de la foi) adopting the ' Declaration.' The terms of this ' Constitution ' are as follows : Wherefore, as the acte of the Gal Ucan assembly were conderaned and annulled soon after their ap pearance, by our predecessor Innocent XI., in his brief of April llth, 1682, and afterward raore pointedly by Alexander VHI., in his constitution Inter Multiplices, August 4th, 1690, much more strongly does our pastoral solicitude require of us to reprove and conderan the recent adoption of those acte by the Synod (of Pistoia) as rash, scandalous, especiaUy injurious in the highest degree to this apostolic see, after the decrees published by our predecessors, and by this present constitution we do reprove and condemn them, and decree that they are to be held as reproved and condemned." Bellarmine thus states the Ultramontane and Galli can theories : ¦* The Pope holds in hie hand the power, and can compel obedience. TEMPORAL SUPREMACY. 867 " The first is, that the chief pontiff, by divine right, hath the full est power over the whole world, as weU in ecclesiastical as in polit ical afiiiirs. " The other opinion, placed on the other extreme, teaches that the pontiff, as pontiOf, and by divine right hath no temporal power, nor can he in auy manner govern secular princes, nor deprive them of their kingdom and authority, although they otherwise deserve to be deprived, — all the heretics of our times teach so." He states and advocates a thfrd and middle theory : " That the pontiff, as pontiff, has not directly and immediately any temporal power, but only spiritual power ; he hath especially indi rectly a certain power, and that supreme in temporal matters."* This is pure Ultramontanism stated in mUder terms. If the Pope " has not directly and immediately temporal power," that is, if he is not the Emperor of Austria, the Queen of Spain, or the President of the United States — and who ever af&rmed that he is ? — yet, as he is supreme in spfritual matters, he is of ne cessity "supreme in temporal;" for the spiritual is above the temporal order. H not the Queen of Spain, therefore, or President of the United States, he is their master, jure divino, as spiritual prince and ruler of the world. Bellarmine sustains his position with a clearness and force of argument that Gallicanism has never been able to refute, and which demonstrates beyond all doubt, that temporal supremacy is a dogma of the Church of Rome :f " This doctrine may be proved in a twofold way, namely, by rea son and examples. " The first reason : The civU power is subject to the spiritual * Tranelation by EUiott. -i- Dr. ElUott's Translation. I give an abstract, but in his words. 368 THE GREAT APOSTASY. power, when each is a part of the same Christian EepubUc ; for the spiritual prince can govern temporal princes, and dispose of tempo ral affairs, for the purpose of a spiritual good, because every superior can govern his own inferiors. " For the poUtical power, as such, not only as it is Christian, but also as political, is subject to the ecclesiastical power. This is de monstrated : '1. From the ends of each ; for a temporal or civU end is subordinate to a spiritual end.' ' 2. Kings andpontiffe, clergymen and layraen, do not make two republics, but pne, that is, one Church.' '3. If a temporal administration impedes a spiritual good, in the judgment of all, the teraporal prince is bound to change that mode of administration, although it may be with the loss of a temporal good.' " " The second reason. The ecclesiastical state ought to be perfect and sufBcient in iteelf, in order to obtain ite o-wn end." " The power of using and disposing of temporal or civU things is necessary to the spiritual end, because, otherwise, bad princes could, -with impunity, cherish heretics, and overturn reUgion. Therefore, the spiritual power hath this authority. "Furthermore, any State, because it ought to be perfect and suf ficient of iteelf, ought to govern another State not subject to it, and force it to change ite administration, nay, even to depose ite prince, and institute another, when it cannot other-wise defend iteelf from the injuries of the other."* Therefore, much more can the spiritual kingdom govern the temporal State subject to it, and force it to change its administration and depose princes, when it cannot otherwise ac complish its o-wn spiritual good." " The third reason. It is not lawful for Christians to tolerate an infidel king or a heretic, if he would endeavor to draw away his sub jecte to his heresy, or to infidelity ; but to judge whether the king does or does not draw them away to heresy, belongs to the Pope, to whom is committed the care of reUgion ; therefore, it belongs to the Pope to judge whether the king is to be deposed, or not to be deposed." "Christians are not required, nay, they ought not, to tolerate an infidel king, at the evident danger of reUgion ; for when divine * The rule would certainly work both ways, and the weaker always certainly be destroyed. Was Bellarmine a fiUibuster ? TEMPORAL SUPREMACY. 369 right and human right are opposed, divine right ought to be pro- served at the expense of human right." "Fourth reason. When kings aud princes come to the Church that they might become Christians, they aro received with express condition, either expressed or understood, that their sceptres should be subject to Christ." "Fifth reason. When it is said to Peter : ' Feed my sheep,' every power is given to him which is necessary to tend the flock. But a threefold power is necessary for the pastor, namely, one respecting the wolves, that he might drive them away in any mannei- he can; another is, respecting the rams, that if any of them should hurt the flock -with their horns, he could shut them in and prevent them, that they should not thereafter lead astray the flock ; the third is about the other sheep, that he would furnish to each of them suitable food. Therefore, this triple power hath the supreme Pontiff" ! The examples he gives are those I have already laid before the reader. They cannot be denied, nor ex- plaiued away. And BeUarmine cites them, and very properly too, to prove that the Pope is {claims to be) " supreme in temporal matters." "Suarez, in his treatise De Primatu (lib iii. cap. 21)] asks the pregnant question : " 'Can the Pontiff, in virtue of his spiritual authority, not merely advise and direct Christian princes, but also coerce them by pun ishments, even to the extent of stripping them of royal power, if need be ?' " This question is answered affirmatively."* Baronius says : " AU those who take from the Church of Eome, from the See of St. Peter, one of the swords, and allow only tlie spiritual, are branded for heretics."^ Mr. Brownson, in his " Review" for January, 1854, thus emphatically opposes Gallicanism, as recentiy set * McCUntock's "Temporal Power." t Quoted by McClintock. 16* 370 THE GREAT APOSTASY. forth and defended by M. Gosselin, and proclauns Ultramontanism to be the true doctrine, and that held by the Church of Rome : " We do not Uke M. Gosselin's theory ; we do not beUeve it, and could not believe it, without violence to our whole un derstanding of the Catholic system of truth. The author, in principle, is a thorough-going Gallican ; and, if he defends the illustrious Pontiffs who have been so maligned by non-Catholics and courtiers, he docs it on principles which seem to us to humiliate them, and to degrade them to the rank of mere secular princes. His theory, at first view, may have a plausible appear ance, but it is illusory, like all theories invented to recommend the Church to her enemies, or to escape the odium always attached to "truth by the world. In saying this, we are not ignorant that many whom we love and respect embrace that theory in part, and explain and defend by it the temporal power exercised by Popes and Coun cils over sovereigns in the Middle Ages. They do not, indeed, agree -with M. Gosselin in his denial that the Popes held that power by divine right, but they think it suffices to explain and defend it on the ground of human right. They agree with us as to the suprema cy of the spiritual order and the temporal jurisdiction of the Popes ; but they think that all the objections of non-Catholics can be ade quately and honestly answered without taking such high ground ; and the ground of human right being sufficient, and less offensive, it should in prudence be adopted, and the other doctrine be passed under the disciplina arcani.* They, therefore, disapprove of the course we take, and wish we would content ourselves with more moderate views, not because we are uncatholic, but because we are imprudent, and subject Catholics to unnecessary odium. " We found a very general disposition, among the Catholic laity, to separate religion from politics, to emancipate politics from the Christian law, to vote God out of the Sthte, and to set up the people against the Almighty. Was this, in these revolutionary times, to be passed over in silence, and no effort made to arrest the tide of political atheism ? We saw our Holy Father driven into exUe ; we saw large * The reader should weigh well this sentence. It lifts a veil that gives us a glimpse of Jesuitism. TEMPORAL SUPREMACY. 371 numbers of nominal Catholics rejoicing at the impious usurpations of Mazzini & Co., sympathizing with the infamous assassins and parricides, who, in the name q/" Liberty and Democracy, were seek ing to overthrow the papacy, and destroy the world's last hope (!). What was, then, our plain duty ? Was it not to assert the suprema cy of God, the jurisdiction ofthe spiritual power, to expose the fatal error of Gallicanism, and, as far as we could, exhibit the real posi tion of the papacy in the Catholic system ? So we have felt, and so we have done. * "* "*" If we had not found Catholics bring ing out an erroneous doctrine on religious liberty, and endeavoring lo prove THAT Catholicity appro"ves of eeligious liberty, in the sense it is assei-ted by non-Catholics, we should not have taken up the subject. ¦*¦¦*¦*¦ As the denial of the spiritual authority soon leads to a denial of the temporal, so the denial of the temporal soon leads to the denial ofthe spiritual. When we found democracy, even by norainal Catholics, embraced in that sense in which it denies all law [Eoman CathoUc] , and asserts tlie right of the people, or, rather, of the mob, to do whatever they please, and making it criminal in us to dispute their infaUibillty, we felt that we must bring out the truth against them, and if scandal resulted we were not ite cause. The responsibiUty rests on those whose obsequiousness to the multi tude raade our opposition necessary." Now, can any unprejudiced man read this article without being deeply con"vinced that Romanism is the implacable, eternal enemy of democracy, of civil and re ligious liberty? Listen again at this honored son of Rome and expo nent of Roman Catholicism in this country : "In proportion as we "wish to serve reUgion and society, we must raise our voice against GaUicanism, turn to the Holy Father, and, instead of weakening his hands and saddening his heart, by our denial of his plenary authority, re-assert his temporal as weU as spiritual prerogatives. We have no hope but in God, and God helps us only through Peter,* and Peter helps us only through his successors, in whom he stiU lives and exercises his apostolate." * "Wbere is the Virgin 1 372 THE GREAT APOSTASY. In the following extract he shows, in complete refu tation of some who have so affirmed, that the Pope never deposed kings by thefr consent, or by the con sent of any one : "AU history fails to show an instance in which the Pope, in de posing a temporal sovereign, professes to do it by the authority vested in him by the pious beUef of the faithful, generaUy received maxims, the opinion of ihe age, the concessions of sovereigns, or the civU constitution and public laws of CathoUc States. On the con trary, he always claims to do it by the authority committed to him as the successor of the prince of the Apostles, by the authority of his apostoUc ministry, by the authority committed to him of bind ing and loosing, by the authority of Alraighty God, of Jesus Christ, King of kings and Lord of lords, whose minister, though unworthy, he asserte that he is — or some such formula, which solemnly and expressly sets forth that his authority is held by di-vine right, by virtue of his ministry, and exercised solely in his character of vicar of Jesus Christ on earth. To this, we believe, there is not a single exception. Wherever the Popes cite their titles, they never, so far as we can find, cite a human title, but always a divine title. Whence is this ? Did the Popes cite a false title ? Were they ignorant of their own title?" * ****** "There are documente enough in which the Pope not only excommunicates, but solemnly deposes a prince ; and in these very documente we find that the title set forth, and the only title set forth, is that derived from his apostolic ministry. Never does the Pope profess to depose, any more than to excommunicate, by virtue of any other than a divine title. Whatever he does in the case, he always professes to do by his supreme jurisdiction as the "vicar of Jesus Christ, and successor of Peter, the prince of the Apostles. That the Popes wilfuUy erred, M. Gosselin cannot pre tend." " One of two things, it seems to us, must be admitted, if we have regard to the undeniable facte in the case ; namely, either the Popes usurped the authority they exercised over sovereigns in the middle ages, or they possessed it by virtue of their title as vicars TEMPORAL SUPREMACY. 373 of Jesus Christ on earth. We do uot, therefore, regard M. Gosse lin's theory as tenable ; and we count his attempted defence of the Pope, on the ground of human right, a failure." "The Tablet," imblished in DubUn, boldly and em phatically teaches the temporal supremacy of the Poj)c. In a criticism of Mr. Chandler's speech, it affirms that his positions are untenable, his conclusions false, and his language disrespectful to "his Holiness." "The Civilia Caitolica," at Rome, was established for the very purpose of maintaining this theory, and does maintain it most effectually ; the Historisclie Politische Blatter, the most eminent papal journal in Germany, is strongly Ulfraniontane ; the Univers, of Paris, is more Ultra montane than BeUarmine ; the Belgian papers, I think, without exception, are on that side.* " Our doctrines," says Brownson, in his "Review" for AprU, 1854, "is stated and taken by Padra Cercia, in his Tractatus de Romano Pontifice, published at Naples in 1851, as unquestioned and unquestionable, and ad duced as an unanswerable reason why the Pope should not be subject to any temporal power, but should have an independent principality, and the status of an inde pendent and sovereign prince. Moreover, the Abb6 Rohrbacher, a doctor of theology and a most learned French theologian, defends it throughdut his ' Universal History of the Catholic Church,' the second edition of which has just been completed, under the eye,, and "with the express encouragement of Rome." Finally, Pius IX. has not only claimed and exer cised temporal authority over the laws, and therefore over the king and parliament of an independent king- * Dr. McCUntock. 374 THE GREAT APOSTASY. dom, but he has condemned Professor ISTuytz' recent work on Canon Law, because it maintained the Galli can theory, and also for the same reason, " Bailly 's Theology," which was used for some time in the ecclesi astical seminaries of France. Gallicanism, then, has ever been iu bad odor at Rome ; it has been repeatedly condemned and rejected, and there it is now dead and its memory loathed. Ultramontanism is dominant. It is clear, then, that the temporal supremacy of the Pope is a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. It is not an article of faith, decreed by Pope or CouncU, I state again ; nor is spiritual supremacy and infaUibUity, which are not denied to be, nay, are proclaimed, and known to be, fundamental doctrines in her creed. The proof, as the preceding facts and arguments show, is as clear and irrefragable that the former is a doctrine of her creed, as that the latter are. Interested persons may deny it, but no intelligent, honest man, wUl doubt it. Has this doctrine any foundation in Scripture ? Has the Pope been clothed with authority over all people and rulers, by the " King of kings and Lord of lords " ? Where is the proof? Where is the imperishable record of the grant of such power? A doctrine so momentous ought, would have been written by Him who has re vealed all things necessary for our government and sal vation, with the clearness of a sunbeam. Is it found in the passage, "I wUl give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven " ? The kingdom of heaven in this place is the Gospel, which Peter was to preach, and which all the disciples received and preached. "The keys ofthe kingdom of heaven" — that TEMPORAL SUPREMACY. 375 means the keys of the kingdoms of this ivorld! "My kingdom is noi of this world," said the Lord of glory. "Be subject to the powers that be," infallible Paul taught the Church ; temporal powers he meant, beyond all question. Is it found in the passage, "Feed my sheep"? Then, all the Apostles were clothed with temporal au thority, and every true minister is, " Monarch of all he surveys." BeUarmine's af&rmation and exposition are ground less -and sUly : "A triple power hath the supreme pontiff," conferred upon him by this language ! ! Is it taught in the reply of the Saviour, when his disciples said: "Behold, here are two swords;" and he said unto them : " It is enough " ? Do those two swords symbolize spfritual and temporal supremacy? And did the Lord teach this doctrine in this expression? No, verily. And by the same rule of interpretation by which you torture such a meaning out of it, you may make a thousand passages of Holy Writ prove just what you please. " The ten camels on which Rebecca rode when she went to Isaac," an illiterate expounder once taught, "represent the ten commandments; the servants who went after her. Gospel ministers ; Rebecca, the penitent, returning sinner ; Isaac, the Son of God, and Abraham, the Father, the Lord Almighty" ! 1 Now, does this mighty fabric, this unlimited power, at the bare mention of which nations have trembled, and at the simple exercise of which monarchs have been hurled from their thrones, and the sceptres of a hundred iUustrious predecessors have crumbled in thefr grasp, 376 THE GREAT APOSTASY. rest upon such a foundation ? Where, then, we again demand, is the evidence that it is of divine right ; that the Lord of lords, and King of kings, has ever con ferred it upon the Popes of Rome ? There is not a particle of such proof. It is a baseless assumption, and a most wicked usurpation of power. And in this doc trine the Church of Rome has added the last link of e"vidence that she is the Man of Sin, " who sitteth in the Temple of God, as God and above God." In the assumption and exercise of spiritual and temporal power, the prophecy of the two-horned beast is fulfiUed. We have thus examined some of the doctrines, and the practice and assumptions of the Church of Rome, in each and all of which the evidence is clear and irre sistible that she has departed from the faith and is the great apostasy predicted by Paul and St. John. She, and she alone, meets and fulfils, in every particular, the prophetic announcement and description of the great falling away. And yet, with the prophecy before our eyes, and every mark of the Man of Sin, of the Beast, of the corrupt Woman drunken with the blood of the saints, upon the forehead and huge form of this fallen Church, she proclaims that she has not and cannot err, that she is the true Church of God, the pure spouse of Jesus Christ, and that out of her pale there is no salvation ! What blind presumption ! What sfrange infatuation ! That the Church, the Church of God, who rejects His Word as a rule of faith and exalts the doings and sayings of falUble men to be superior to it, makes vain tradition a guide to heaven ! That the Church of God, who proclaims that she is infaUible amid a TEMPORAL SUPREMACY. 377 thousand errors and profound corruptions — infallible, and yet cannot divine where this heavenly attribute resides ! That the Church of God, who compels her members to confess their sins to men, who, though Avicked as themselves, can — she affirms — and do remit them! — ^thus rejecting the doctrine of the Gospel of the grace of God of justification by faith, the only way of pardon and salvation. That the Church of God, who holds that a certain temporal punishment due to sin, though the sin has been pardoned, remains to be atoned for by suffering or removed by indulgences, the power to grant which Christ left "with her ! That the Church of God, Avho holds that a priest, a mere man, good or bad, can, by a hastily-mumbled prayer any time, create the uncreated God out of bread ; that that God is whole and entfre in each place, though in ten thousand pieces on ten thousand altars, and in heaven, at the same time ; that He is broken by the hands of the priests and ground by the teeth ofthe faithful, and inwardly digested, and yet is none the less to be adored, though thus eaten ! That the Church of God, who has exalted the simple anointing with oU into the dignity of a sacrament, whicii sacrament remits sins and confers grace upon the dying, though the priest had remitted all his sins and indul gences — ^had removed all the temporal punishment due to them, and though he had been made a partaker of the divine nature, having eaten the flesh and drunk the blood of the Son of God ! That the Church of God, who has created a middle state and place of the dead, a place of purgation, of atonement by fire, by which sins, that the merit of Jesus' blood could not blot out, nor the priest remit, nor indulgences, nor transubstantiation, nor 378 THE GREAT APOSTASY. anointing with oil, with the form of the cross seven times, cancel, before entering that place, may be entfrely burnt out, or in some way cancelled ! That the Church of God, who adores bread and wine with the highest adoration due to the true God, who bows down before the pictures and relics of saints, and venerates thera, in violation of the express command of God, which, for con science' sake, she has cut out of the law ; who invocates saints and angels and worships the Virgin Mary, and sings her praises as the Queen of Heaven ; who anathe matizes the Bible and Bible Societies, and all Protestants and every good thing ; who persecutes to death and wears out the saints of the Most High ; who has drunk the blood of millions of the servants of Jesus, and now "whets her fangs and plumes her wings for a more sublime flight of ruin;" who is corrupt in doctrines and manners, corrupt in every department and throughout — deeply, foully corrupt ! That the Church of God, who assumes universal sovereignty over the souls and bodies of men, who dwarfs and blights and damns the one, and manacles and enslaves the other ! That the Church of God, the pure spouse of Christ, who holds these unscriptural, damning doctrines, who is guilty of these cruel, impure practices, and who wickedly lords it over souls pur chased with the precious blood of Jesus! No! no! She is the Man of Sin seen and described by Paul ; the corrupt harlot seen by John — " Babylon the Great, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth." She is not the Church of Christ, but Antichrist. " But we are sometiraes asked by the advocates of Popery : If you deny us to be the true Church, where wiU you find it ? And with a mocking sneer of anticipated triumph, they ask : Where was your TEMPORAL SUl'KEMACY. 379 Church before the time of Luther ? This is a question which would suffuse with shame and conscious guilt any cheek but the shameless cheek of Eome. Where was our Church before the Eeformation ? " This is a question that Eome, at least, should never ask, without frembling, if she believes that there is a God who site in heaven. Where ? It is Uke the grinning mockery of Cain, asking where is Abel ; a daring mockery too ghastly and hideous even for Cain. Where are the victims of her cruelty, that pined and perished in the darkness and filth of her countless dungeons ? Where are the bones of the murdered Waldenses, who were butchered with the sword, and dashed, the mother with her babe, down the rocks, and left to be a prey for the vultures ? Where are the Cathari of Flanders, Savoy and MUan, who were hunted as beaste to the death ? Where are the slaughtered Alsatians, of whom one hundred, in a single day, were burned, because they ate meat on Friday ? Where are the poor LoUards of England, who were hung, quartered and burnt, for reading the Bible ? Where are the ashes of Wicklifie, and Huss, and Jerome of Prague, and Savonarola, and the victims that smoked in the market places of England, and on the plains of Bohemia, before the Eeformation? When Eome shall have an swered such queries as these, and disgorged the blood that she drank for ten centuries of persecution before the Eeformation, and brought forth to the Ught the bones and ashes that lie mouldering in her dun geons, and charnel-houses, and Golgothas, then we shaU be better able to answer the question : Where was your Church before the Eeformation ? Until then, we say, wherever the hatred of Eome was deadliest, wherever the sword of Eome was reddest, wherever the blood-hounds of Eome were fiercest and fastest in scenting and throttUng the hapless heretic, and her auto-da-fes thickest, and richest with the blood of martyrs, there were probably traces at least of our Church before the Eeformation. But, blessed be God, there was never a time when God was without a witness, and Christ with out a people on earth. There were always the seven thousand that bowed not the knee to Baal. They were found in the wUds of the mountains, in the soUtudes of the foreste, in the obscure streets of the cities, in the hovels of poverty, in the chambers of sickness, and even in the ceUs of convente and the halls of palaces. There was never a time when there were not hearts that loved Christ, and lips that praised Him. and knees that worshipped Him, and hands that 380 THE GREAT APOSTASY. served Him. The lips of John had not ceased to breathe their words of burning love, untU those of Polycarp, Ignatius, and TertuUIan caught them up, and they had not yet ceased to speak of Him who loved them until Origen and Cyprian, Lactantius and Jerorae, pro longed the glorious tidings. Nor were their lips closed until Augus tine an3 Chrysostom took up the high argument, and rang out the glorious aocente with a voice that ceased not to echo through a thousand years of darkness and degeneracy ; when the lips of the Gregories and Bedes, Anselms and Gotteschalks, Bernards and Bradwardines, Arnolds and Wickliffes, Husses, and countless others, proclaimed the same truth, that soon shook the world from the lips of Luther, whose trumpet-tongue awaked the slumbering Church of Christ and brought her forth terrible as an army with banners. Since that period, no tongue dares ask, no tongue needs ask : Where is your Church since the Eeformation ? Many, alas ! many, have been butchered by the crusading legions of Eome ; have died in her dungeons, or perished at her stakes, or fied from her fury to the land of strangers, and the islands of the sea ; and the same dark rendering that is reckoned up against Eome before the Eeformation has been registered since. And now where is your Church of the Eeformation ? We answer, wherever there are liberty, and law, wherever there are thrift, industry, and prosperity ; wherever there are schools and colleges, and printing presses ; wherever there are smUing fields and happy homes, and virtuous people ; wherever th»e is all that is strongest, purest, mightiest of modern civilization, and modern thought, there you will find the Church of the Eeformation. Wherever Christ is worshipped, and not Mary ; wherever beggary and vice are uncanonized and unconsecrated ; wherever the Bible is opened freely to the gaze of the world ; wherever a pure ritual and a pure rainistry are the adjuncts of the cause of religion ; and wherever the righte of thought and speech, person, property, and reputation are revered, there you find the Church of the Eeforraa- tion. And, on the other hand, wherever you find the superstition, the beggary, the rags, and tho degradation of Italy, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Ireland, Mexico, Central and Southern Am.erica, the fairest regions of the earth as they came from the hand of God, and the foulest as they lie in the hands of man, there you will find the Church of Eome, the undying, unchanging, unforgiving 'foe to an open Bible and a free Saviour, the gigantic anti-Christ of the world.'' CHAPTER VI. END OF THE GREAT APOSTASY; OR, DESTRUCTION OP THE MAN OF SIN. We have seen, as was predicted, the rise, and pro gress, and "wide-spread baleful influence of the Great Apostasy. The Man of Sin has been revealed, and sitteth in the temple of God, sho"wing himself that he is God. Prophecy now takes up to the mount of vision, and points us to his coming doom ; his complete overthrow and utter destruction ; and spreads out before us the glorious dawn, and bright, heavenly day of the MU- lennium. The end of the Apostasy is as clearly revealed as its rise, and power, and antagonism to God. The instru- mentaUties employed in the mighty contest of truth "with error ; the means by which the Lamb, in his war "vvith " that Wicked," "wiU overcome and destroy him, and all the varied forms of evU, are most distinctly stated: the Scriptures of truth, the preachings of the Gospel, and civU government. The Scriptures. "And then shaU that Wicked be revealed whom the Lord shaU consume with the spirit of his mouth and the brightness of his coming." — 2 Thess. ii. 8. The spirit of his mouth is his Word, and the bright ness of his coming, the light which is inherent in and accompanies that Word and the work salvation wrought by it " The entrance of thy words giveth light," saith (881) 382 END OF THE GREAT APOSTASY. the inspired bard. " Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path." " The Word of God," Paul affirms, "is quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the di"viding asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and m. ar row, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." " The sword of the Spirit is the Word of God." "All Scripture is given by inspfration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correc tion, for instruction in righteousness ; that the Man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." The Bible, then, is a means, in the hands of Him who inspfred it, in enlightening the mind and in consuming the Man of Sin. It is scarcely necessary in this connection, especially since it has been demonstrated that the Bible is the source and rule of faith, to offer an argument to sustain this position ; to prove that the Bible is the only Book which can make man wise in the science of salvation ; that it can and does do this wherever it is received and obeyed ; and that, consequently, oral instruction, as is vainly contended by Rome, was never designed, by the Author of lUe, to supplant it, or even to be a means of sa"ving souls, only in so far as it is accompanied with, drawn from, reflects, and is sustained by it. Oral in^ struction receives its authority and effectiveness from the Bible as the revealed will of God, which has priority of existence and is independent of it. The former, therefore, must be accompanied with and sustained by the latter, and not the latter by the former. The Bible, then, in itself, as God's Word — ^how can it be otherwise ? — ^is a savor of life unto life; and hence was designed for and should THE SCRIPTURES. 383 be given to every man. And wherever it goes, has free course, with or without oral instruction, it will make man wise unto salvation. Give it, therefore, uni versal circulation, and the Man of Sin will be con sumed, and heathen glory and Mohammedan pride bow before it. Ecclesiastical history, aside from all other evidence, sustains these views, with proof that admits of no doubt or cavil. The Apostolic Church gave the Bible to the people ; and pure doctrines and a holy practice mark that era. The Church of Rome, in her faU, and pride, and high pretensions, denied it them, and gave theni, instead, oral instruction and miserable traditions ; and a thousand years of superstitious error and moral dark ness and death proclaim the results. And even now, the miUions of her devotees, who are yet denied it, and have oral insfruction, beUeve in and are destroyed by the same superstitious errors. No Ught breaks through the gloom which shrouds them, no life-giving word thrills and di"vinely stirs them to repentance and to a sa"ving' faith in Christ. The Church ofthe Reformation enfranchised it — brought up the Bible, as of old, from its long burial, and scattered it as it were upon the "wings of the wind, and, where the thunder of the Vati can, the "voice of the dragon, did not scathe and crush, it consumed that Wicked, and made man wise unto sal vation. And all that we now hold dear, a pure Chris tianity, the peace of the present and the hope of the future, and civil and religious liberty, we owe, under God, to an open Bible— a Bible published in our own tongue and freely cfrculated, and in security read. Give U to the world, and the days of Popery wiU have 384 END OF THE GREAT APOSTASY. been numbered ; the end of the Apostasy wUl have come. Great, then, beyond computation, is the responsibUity which rests upon the Church — ^the Protestants of this country and of Europe — to preserve the Bible intact, and multiply it as the sands of the sea, and send it out among all people. This responsibiUty, I am happy to know, is sensibly felt, and is being met in the rapid multiplication and distribution of this Ught of the be nighted and hope of a perishing world. The British and Foreign Bible Society, which was organized in 1804, has issued and distributed in Europe, and Asia, and Africa and the islands of the sea, in a word, wherever an effectual door has been opened, among all people, over thirty mUlions of copies of the Word of God. The American Bible Society, instituted in 1816, has issued and distributed, wherever it could send a copy, over eleven millions. Other Bible Societies, and publish ing branches, organized since the British and Foreign Bible Society, and the most of them since the American, numbering in all sixty-eight, have issued and given to benighted men, nearly six milUons. In tifty-two years, then, seventy Bible Societies and publishing branches have been instituted, and near fifty millions of copies of the Word of God, in nearly one hundred and fifty languages, have been pubUshed and sent forth to con sume that Wicked, and all false reUgions, and bring in everlasting righteousness. The day of redemption draweth nigh. When the British and Foreign and American Bible Societies were organized, doubt and gloom hung upon thefr future. A few friends with but little means, but THE SCRIPTURES. 3S5 "with praying heai-ts and earnest faith and determined wills, laid thefr foundations ; God sent them help, and behold the results ! " Wlien he first the work begun, Small and feeble was his day ; Now the Word doth swiftly run. Now it wins ite widening way." The means and facUities for multiplying the Scrip tures, and the success which has crowned earnest effort, have franscended, perhaps, the hopes of the most sanguine. The future is redolent of hope. In the next half century, under a gracious Pro"videiice, taking the success ofthe past as a basis of calculation, three hundrea and fifty millions of Bibles and Testaments, at least, will be sent out to pour the light of life upon the inquiring mUlions of the four quarters of the globe. Europe, I trust and hope, will be flooded with them. Then, will not the Man of Sin be consumed with the spirit of His mouth, and by the brightness of His coming ? Portugal and Spain, Tuscany and Naples, Belgium and Austria, some of them, in natural scenery and climate, gems on the bosom of Italy, gardens in the lap of Europe, may reject for a long time the message of God and turn away the Ught of their salvation, but He who is Lord of lords and King of kings, wUl break them in pieces like a potter's vessel, and breathe the spfrit of His mouth upon thefr -^dne-clad hUls and sunny vales, and thefr enfranchised, redeemed, happy millions, now wor shippers of the beast and of his image, shall come to Zion with songs of everlasting joy upon their heads. 0, Lord of Hosts, hasten that day! 0 Thou, who didst iuspfre of old the Scriptures, send them hence. 886 END OP THE GREAT APOSTASY. till Romanist and Greek, Mohammedan and Heathen, shall bask in the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ 1 Preaching. Another instrumentality in the destruction of the Man of Sin, is the preaching Of the Gospel. This is most impressively brought to our view in the four teenth chapter, sixth and seventh verses, of the Apoca lypse, under the symbol of an angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting Gospel to preach to them that dwell on the earth. "And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, saying with a loud voice, Pear God, and give glory to him ; for the hour of his judgment is come : and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters." The prophet had just seen (ch. xui.) two ferocious beasts rise up, the one in political society, the other in the Church, but one in religion and one in mind, who had made war with the saints and overcome them. The beast with two horns, or Popery, had changed the pure Gospel into lying wonders, the cross into an idola trous crucifix, the fear of God he had turned to himself; His worship perverted to a worship of the beast and his image, and His glory he had obscured by ages of moral darkness which hung as the pall of death upon the myriad hosts who foUowed and worshipped him. The prophet's attention is now suddenly arrested by the flight of an angel in the midst of heaven, who has the pure Gospel to preach to these benighted, deceived PREACHING THE GOSPEL. 387 beast- worshippers. He cries with a loud voice : "Fear God"! "Worship Him"! " Give Him glory" ! Nothing can be more impressive than this scene. The angel, the time of his appearance, his flight, his message, the e"vils against which it is directed, and the effects which foUow — the fall of Babylon, announced by another angel which immediately follows him. This angel especially symboUzes, beyond aU doubt, the Protestant ministry. The time of his advent — after the rise of the beast, or Popery, and his war "with the saints and triumph over the Gospel ; his message, "Fear God " — this had been transferred to the beast who, in the name of God, lorded it over the people — " Worship Him;" the beast and his image were worshipped — "Give Him glory ;" this had been usurped by the foul monster who sat in the Temple of God as God ; the flying of the angel, representing haste, energy, zeal ; and the success of his mission, the faU of Babylon— all demonstrate that this angel typified the preachers of the Reformation and of this day. And who can thinl?: of the zealous, infrepid Luther; the earnest, faithful Zwingle ; the indefatigable Calvin ; the gentle, deter mined Cranmer, and the bold Knox, and the message which they heroicaUy, in the very face of the beast, deUvered, "Fear God "—" Worship Hun"— "Give Him glory," and the haste, and zeal, and fire with which they deUvered it, without having before the mind this scene ? And who contemplate the effects which fol lowed the faithful, zealous preaching of those holy men, if not the fall of Babylon, the shaking of this great city — ^Romanism — ^to its very foundations, without being convinced that they were the messengers seen by 388 END OF THE GREAT APOSTASY. John under the emblem of this flying angel? But this angel is stUl flying in the nUdst of heaven ; keeps on his way, amid storms or sunshine, for his work is not yet done. His clear voice is now heard : "Fear God — Worship Him — Give Him glory." Ear afber ear will catch the sound, and heart after heart feel its power. Nations wUl listen and be converted to God. And the hour of the judgment of Babylon the Great wUl at length come, and, as a mighty miUstone cast into the sea, God "wUl dash her down to rise no more forever. "And there foUowed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen "! " Where is now her former glory ? Where is now her pride and show ? One brief day relates the story Of her final overthrow : Eaise your waUings, kings and nobles, Prieste and people, rich and poor — Babylon is fallen ! is faUen ! is faUen I Babylon is faUen to rise no more " ! Civil Government CivU government is another instrumentaUty, in the hands of Him who rules the destinies of nations, by which the Man of Sin wiU be desfroyed. This is most distinctly stated in the seventeenth chapter and six teenth verse of the Apocalypse : "And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the Whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shaU eat her flesh, and burn her with fire." This corrupt Avoman, the Church of Rome, it wiU be remembered, is represented in this chapter as sitt,ing upon the beast with seven heads and ten horns. These CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 389 very horns, or kings, therefore, for a time, give all their strength and influence to maintain her usurped author ity and wicked, tyrannical power. Hence, it is said, they make war with the Lamb. This contest is now being waged. Mighty hosts are marshalled by these kings for the onset, and the battle-cry rings amid the hUls and over the plains of Italy, and Germany, and even in this country. Long has been the struggle, but the issue is not doubtful. "The Lamb shall over come them; for he is ihe Lord of lords and King of kings: and ihey that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful." The means of this conquest, as we have just seen, are the Scriptures freely circulated, and the Gospel faithfuUy preached. A free and enlightened press, and the system of colportage, are auxiliary of these, and materiaUy, greatly aid in the contest. The Holy Ghost pours Ught upon the written page, and attends the preached Word with power and demonstration, giving success to both. The truth wUl finally prevail ; and these kings wUl be overcome, converted to God, and then they " shall hate the Whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh and burn her with fire." The signs of the times clearly indicate that this change is not very remote. Hungary, Bohemia, Lom bardy, &c., are ready to throw off the yoke of the beast and stand up regenerated and disenthralled. Spain, even, shows some signs of returning life. Sardinia is leading the van of the kingdoms in It;ily, who begin to feel the tyranny of Rome and to see her moral de formities, and are preparing to reject her assumed claims of unUmited authority. The recent buU of Pius IX., 390 END OF THE GREAT APOSTASY. declaring her laws null and void, has excited an inqufry as to the right of the Pope to supreme temporal power; and the King and Parliament are convinced that he has no right, diviue or human, over the temporal order in Sardinia. His Majesty rejects his claims and defies his thunders. Nor is this all ; he proposes to other sovereigns to embrace his views, and to unite with him in the negation of this assumed claim.* This will be a conquest opening a breach into the main citadel, and, according to Brownson, "wUl shake the spiritual authority to its very foundations. Moreover, Protest ants, in this realm, are now allowed, under some restric tions, the exercise of thefr reUgion, and to build Churches, to preach the Gospel, and to circulate the Scriptures. Through them, with His di"vine favor, the Lamb wUl overcome this kingdom, and thence push his conquering way over Italy. Revolutions, doubtiess, "will be overruled by the King of kings, to accomplish the purposes of his wUl in overcoming the ten horns, and in destroying the Man of Sin. That revolutions wiU stfr to thefr deep foundations many of the kingdoms of Europe and ut terly overturn some of them, the most casual observer may read in the signs of the time. ReUgion, or oppo sition to, and hatred of Popery, as a system of intensi fied, relentless tyranny and corruption, will enter into and be a controlling element in some of them. "If we can only get these French away," said an ItaUan to the Rev. Dr. Murmy, on his recent tour in Europe, "we * Spain is moving in the same direction. And the government of Mexico, under Comonfort, bas thrown off the incubus of priestly domination, and is about to adopt a constitution allowing freedom of conscience. CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 391 will show you Americans what we will do. "And what wUl you do ?" said I. He replied in a most en ergetic undertone, " We wUl establish an Italian repub lic, ancl the first thing we will do wdl be to kill off ihese d — d priests, for they are ihe enemies of ihe people and the spies of despotism." " The next revolution in Italy," adds this close observer of men and things, "will be a terrible one for the priests. The people have a terrible retribution- in store for them, and they know it." * That revolution will come ; the long pent-up fires wUl break forth at length, and this corrupt Church, who has withstood the storms of five hundred years, because her time was not yet come, may go down with a fearful crash, amid its con-vulsive throes and the burn ing "wrath of God and men. But I will not speculate. The doom, however, of the Roman Catholic Church, is written. God has declared that that Wicked shall be consumed, that Babylon the Great shall be cast down to rise no more forever. And the means of this desfruction, of this overthrow, he assures us, are the Scriptures, the preaching of the Gospel, and civil gov ernment. And these means, under God, are in the hands of the true Church, and by her must be employed to accomplish His "wUl. How delicate her position ! How great her responsibUity ! When the Man of Sin will be destroyed is not clearly revealed. Twelve hundred and sixty prophetic days, or Uterally, years, inspfration declares, will be the life of the beast, the term of the apostasy. But when those years commenced — when the Church of Rome became the beast — for her faUing away was gradual— we can- * Letters to Taney. 392 END OF THE GREAT APOSTASY. not fully determine. If fri 606, when the Emperor Phocus proclaimed the Bishop of Rome universal bishop, or supreme Pontiff, and the kingdom of God thus became a kingdom of this world, and Antichrist, according to the solemnly-expressed opinion of Gregory the Great, an infallible Pope, infallible Rome assures usr— then in 1866 Popery wUl be overthrown, that Wicked wUl be destroyed. If, however, Rome did not fully fall away tUl 787, when the second CouncU of Nice decreed image worship, and the veneration of relics, and the adoration of saints and angels, and the Virgin Mary, thus making her idolatrous, the very essence of rebellion against God — then this apostasy will curse the world for two centuries more, the end will not be till 2047. Who can tell ? God has revealed to us that that Wicked shall be consumed ; the time He has reserved in the councils of His own "will. The day will reveal it. It remains now to notice that the destruction of the Man of Sin, the overthrow of Babylon, wiU be sudden and complete. This is revealed and most graphicaUy described in the eighteenth chapter of the Apocalypse : " 1. And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, ha"ving great power ; and the earth was lightened with his glory. " 2. And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, a,nd the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. " 3. For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her deUcacies. CIVIL GOVERNMENT. ,393 " 4. And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Corae out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ys receive not of her plagues. " 5. Por her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath re membered her iniquities. " 6. Eeward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works : in the cup which she hath filled fUl to her double. " 7. How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her ; for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow. "8. Therefore shaU her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine ; and she shall be utterly burned with fire ; for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her. " 9. And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deUciously -with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her, when they shaU see the smoke of her burning. " 10 Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city ! for in one hour is thy judgment come. " 11. And the merchants of the earth shaU weep and mourn over her ; for no raan buyeth their merchandise any more : " 12. The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine Unen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and aU thyine wood, and aU manner vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble, " 13. And cinnamon, and odors, and ointmente, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine fiour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men. " 14. And the fruits that thy soul lusted after, are departed from thee, and aU things which were dainty and goodly, are departed from thee, and thou shalt find them no more at all. " 15. The merchants of these things, which were made rich by her, shaU stand afar off for the fear of her torment, weeping and wailing, " 16. And saying, Alas, alas, that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold and precious stones, and pearls ! " 17. For in one hour so great riches is come to nought. And 17* 894 END OP THE GREAT APOSTASY. every shipmaster, and all the corapany in ships, and saUors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off, " 18. And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying. What city is like unto this great city ! " 19. And they cast dust on their heads and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas, that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea, by reason of her costliness I for in one hour is she made desolate. " 20. Eejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophete ; for God hath avenged you on her. "21. And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying. Thus with violence shaU that great city Babylon be thro-wn do-wn, and shaU be found no more at all. " 22. And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee ; and no craftsman, of whateoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee ; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at aU in thee ; " 23. And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee ; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee : for thy merchante were the great men of the earth ; for by thy sorceries were aU nations deceived. " 24. And in her was found the blood of prophete, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth." In the second verse the angel proclaims "mightily with a strong voice" that "Babylon the great is fallen ;" and to impress us with the certainty and fearfulness of the catastrophe, he repeats "isfaUeri''l Her punishment, as stated in verses 6 and 7, wiU be double that which she has inflicted upon the saints ; ihe cup which she filled will be filled io her double. And also, as "she hath glorified herself," exalted herself above God and men, opposing the one and trampling upon the rights of the other, " and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her." Profound, then, must be her punishment, indescribable her woe, un- CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 395 utterable her agony. Deep and bitter the cup of ven geance that she must drain to the very dregs. The suddenness and entfreness of her destruction are announced inverse 8: "Her plagues shall come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire." And this, too, when she feels secure and fears no danger : "For she saith in her heart, Isii a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow." How expressive of the present position and proud self- sufficient spirit of Romanism ! The merchants and merchandise mentioned in verses 11, 12, 13, &c., symbolize the hierarchy of Rome, and the spfritual things of which they have made merchan dise. Their power "wUl be annihUated, and their traffic in indulgences, and dead men's bones, and the sins and souls of men, come to an end. "No man buyeth their merchandise any more." Hence they bewaU her, and cry: "Alas, alas! that great city thai was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls ! For in one hour so great the riches is come io nought!" The utter extinction, the desolation of this Church, is described in the simple, clear, beautiful, figurative language of the 22d and 23d verses : "And the voice of ihe harpers, and musicians," &c. " No pen of mere human genius has ever sketched such a picture of the loneliness, the solitude, and the death-like silence of a desolate city. No comment upon them, no effort of genius or fancy to heighten or improve their effect, could do anything but offend their chaste and striking simplicity, and impair the awe and solemnity with which they inspire us."'=^ " "Apocalyp.so Unveiled." 596 END OF THE GREAT APOSTASY. The opening verses of the nineteenth chapter peal forth the exultant shout of the pure spouse of Christ, at the fall of Babylon, the complete victory gained over the apostate Church, and at the universal spiritual reign of Christ her Lord : "1. And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, AUeluia ; Salvation, and glory, and honor, and power, unto the Lord our God : " 2. For true and righteous are his judgraente : for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth "with her forni cation, and hath avenged the blood of his servante at her hand. " 3. And again they said, AUeluia. And her smoke rose up for ever and ever. " 4. And the four and twenty elders and the four beaste fell down and worshipped God that sat on the throne, saying. Amen ; AUeluia. " 5. And a voice carae out ofthe throne, saying. Praise our God, all ye his servante, and ye that fear hira, both small and great. " 6. And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, AUeluia ; for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth." This scene is laid in heaven ; but heaven, in this place, and generaUy throughout this book, symbolizes the Church. The "great voice of much people" cer tainly, is the voice of the Church on earth, who, with her Son, has triumphed over all her foes. The prophet hurries us away to behold the glory and catch the triumphant song of the nUghty miUtant host, gathered from all people, the "great multitude" of numbers without number, who, " as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings," shout "the grand mUlennial reign." and ascribe all the glory and praise of their salvation to God and the Lamb. From the mount of vision we see them, and hear the far-off music of voice and harp. With glad hearts we take up their chorus and roll back the swelling strains : "AUeluia! for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth." YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 3 9002 08837 751 ' Tv, i**^. 1 . .i'