POPERY DEIINRATED;

vH

IN}'ORMATION

FOR PROTF~STANTS,

REV,

WILLIAM
DUNDEE.

CATTTJli~,

DUNDEE:
Wlf,J,J AM .MHlDI,li:TON, 64 HIGH
H. WALKER. BRIGGATE, I.EEDS IUMILTOSLONDON,
MDCCCXLVI.

STREB T.
AD.HIS,
&

CO.,

ll'COSB,

P.lBK,

.)lV

In:W.&:ae, PIUNTlaS,

DtrNlIEE.

PRE:FACE.

THE substance of the following chapters was delivered ill the form of Lectures, in the Wesleyan Chapel, Dundee. It was from a strong conviction of the duty of Ministers in reference to Popery, especially as it presents itself to us in the present day, that they were undertaken. There is no fact more notorious, than that, as a nation, we know nothing about the abominations of Popery. We have a kind of hereditary hatre~ to it, as a bad thing; but in what its badness consists, we know not: and thus, we are made an easy prey. The enlightenment of the people depends upon the ministry of the Church. The aspects of the times clearly point us to them, as the conservators of Protestantism. And it is high time that they should a~ake out of sleep. It was not the original intention of the writer to present them to the public in their present form; and it is with considerable hesitancy that he does so. There are several defects in them, arising chiefly from the haste with which they were passed through the press. The whole has been written in the midst of the full duties of my office, nor had I time to read over a single sheet before it was printed. The facts and arguments have been taken principally from that best of all works on Popery-namely, " Elliott's Delineation of Romanism," as " edited by the Rev.

VI

PREFACE.

work I would earnestly advise all, who wish to understand the system thoroughly, to secure. In the meantime, I have some hope that this stripling may be useful to the young, and such as cannot purchase the larger work. May the blessing of God attend its perusal.

J. S. Stamp"-a

w. c.

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTORy-POPERY

AND PROTESTANT8-

THE POSITION OF THE FORMER, AND THE TIES OF THE LATTER,

DuPage

3
20

II. III.
IV.

SCRIPTURE, TRADITION, INFALLIBILITY,

50

73
103

V. TRANSUBSTANTIATION,

VI.
VII. VIII.

CONFESSION, CELIBACY, PuRGATORY, THE POPE'S SUPREH"CY.

133 157 183
208

IX.

ERRATA.

Page 35. Em'" rose of wax" read" nose of wax" ., 49. For '" Oh England!" read 0 England:" " 73.. For it necessary follows" reaa v it necessarily fcllcws"
U Ii

POPERY

DELINEATED.

CIL\P. !.-!:>;TIWDl:CTORY.
THE PRESENT POSITION OF POPERY ANn TilE Ill:TY OF PRUTEl-lTA:"T8

1>1 CO~~ECTIO:>l

TlmREWITH.

SCARCELY any question of a public character has been more frequent within the last few years than the following-" Is Popery on the increase?"' and hardly any jmpression more common than that it is so. This has been participated in by all parties, both political and religious; but in the extent there may be some difference of opinion. The liberal will give an affirmative answer, but invariably maintain that the increase is not unnatural-that it only corresponds with the multiplied population; "while the adherent of old English principles as firmly maintains that its advances are fearfully rapid and equally dangerous." That it is increasing, all agree, whether the causes are natural or unnatui"al; and we think that it is difficult to look upon its present position in our Protestant isle but as a MONSTROUS ANOMALY. A reference to statistics will be 'our best guide in this matter. The number of Popish chapels in England and 'Vales, in the year 1792, was 35; and, in 1839, there were 453-being an increase, during 54 yellors, f 418. o In Scotland, in the year 1829, there were 51 Popish chapels ; and, in the year 1839, there were 79-being sn increase, during 10 years, of 28. Number of Roman Catholics in Great Britain, obtained by order of the House of Lords, in

1769, . 1839,

about

67,916 2,000.000

and, if we may judge from tbe reports of newspapers, in the
3

POPERY

DELI:>EATED.

building of cathedrals, chapels, convents, and nunneries, their increase and multiplication is more rapid now than it has ever been. The following is extracted from the Roman Catholic Directory for 1846;Number of Chapels in EnglaDu, .. Ditto in Wales, Ditto in Scotland.,; Total in Great Britain, Colleges in Great Britain,...... Convents in ditto, Monasteries in ditto, Priests in England and Wales, Ditto in Scotland, ., Total in Great Britian 514 8 80 -602 11 34 6 683 93 -776

_.........

From what takes place in Dundee, as I am informed, as well as in several other large towns, the number of chapels but very imperfectly indicate the number of members belonging to the Romish Church-inasmuch as the same chapel will be attended by several congregations in the course of the same day, amounting to several thousands. And not only are monastic institutions being established in this country, for the purpose of harbouring monks and nuns, but also in our dependencies. "The confraternities of monkery, of different orders, once desolated the nations of the world like a flight of locusts in the East. ITnder the guise of religious vows, seclusion from the world, holy contemplations, the purgation of the soul from the filth of sin, the performance of divine offices, and the promotion of works of charity, the idle vagabonds of all nations betook themselves to the monastic life. Mendicity was the profession of nearly all the orders of friars, monks, and nuns, when they were commenced by their founders; hut they invariably ended in the acquisition of great wealth, the purchase of land, the erection of large and commodious houses, and, as a consequence, a life of sin and profligacy by the inmates. The wealth, resources, and much of the population of nations, have been gradually swallowed up by this system. It was always fostered by the Papacy, no doubt for two reasons-it deducted something from the strength of the State, and gave it to the dominion of the Church. These corporations of beggars, by the long accumulation of their gains, became, to a great extent,
4

rOPERY

DELl~EATED.

the lords of the soil. Every nation has been obliged to reform this system or break it up. This was the case in this nation at the period of the Reformation." But, notwithstanding the experience of past ages-from which we may learn a useful lesson-these societies are allowed to re-establish themselves in this country. In the present session of Parliament (February 184fi), a "bill has been laid on the table of the House of Lords by the Lord Chancellor, with the full concurrence of' the Government;" for the purpose of a further repeal of' the penal statutes against IlisHl'lItcrH awl Roman Catholics; which, Sir It, Inglis suid, .. WIIS a hill to repeal the Act of Supremacy-a bill to enable tho Roman Catholic bishops to assume the sees of the prelates of the Established Church-it was a bill to le<;alise processions of a sed at a time when they prohibited processions of other persons, lest public hostility and disturbance should be provoked-it was a bill to repeal the act for expelling the Jesuits," and this at a time when it ought to be put in force for preventing the increase of the order. A person who can introduce a bill of this kind must himself be a Jesuit; or profoundly il'llorant of the sect; or something worse: if indeed a thing can be found on earth, worse than a Jesuit. Such a state of things suggests an interesting quostion:-

How is it that, in a country things should. be?
To this we shall endeavour

80

universally Protestant, 8ttch
answer.

to give a threefold

amount of energy infused into the system itself, and which is seen in all its ramifications, by unwearied exertion and perseverance.

First, This state of things arises from the amazing

" We have the 80ciety of Jesuite re-organised. and spreading themselves everywhere. The principles and rules of Loyola,
and hiB famous sect, are, for anything which appears, adopted again as the basis of a Dew crusade against the peace of the world, and the religion of the Son of God. It is impossible to define the nature of this society, when its one great rule, carried out in universal pmctice, seems to have been that of DECEPTION. The object it proposes is to support the Papacy, in all its claims, against every fnterest; and adopting the principle that the end 113nctities the means, it has never scrupled to employ every mode of deceit to aeeomplish its purpose. Jesuits have informer times perambulated the world, in every possible guise and character,
5

POPER Y DELI-SEATED

The orders of religion, the learned professions, the avocations of trade and commerce, and even the meanest mendicity, have furnished them with a mantle, beneath which they have accomplished their deceptions. By an inimitable plausibility, they have wormed themselves into all kinds of society, to infuse the poison of their principles. They have succeeded, to an amazing extent, in obtaining the instruction of the rising generation: they have politely, and courteously, whispered mischief in the ears of the fair sex; they have become the fathers' confessors to most of the Popish monarchs and statesmen of the countries of Europe; they have, in their own persons, assumed the most influential posts, in both Church and State; they have interfered with the regular functions of even the clergy themselves; and by a profound, ghostly, and hidden system of lying, they obtained, for many years, the mastery of the Popish world. Their course was so pestiferous, their principles and practice so subversive of the very foundations of morality, and the confusion they introduced into all things, became 50 complete, that even all the Popish sovereigns in Europe banished them from their territories, and the Pope was obliged to abolish the order. "Strange to say, this society has been restored. Who are Jesuits none can tell. They are angels of night. The darkness covers them. Their movements are unseen. It is their business, like their great prototype, to 'lie in 10ait to deceive.' Many things amongst us begin to present so un-English an appearance; to be so completely at variance with a straightforward and honest course; to be so involved in perplexity and mystery; and, moreover, to shadow forth so much which is dark and threateniQg, that, it really requires no great skill to select PLACES, OFFICES, and even CHURCHES, and pointing the finger o the spot, and to the event say,-A JESUIT lIlUST liE THERE. " • The Propaqandi Fide,' or the society for the Propagation of the Faith, on the profession of the best Popish authorities, is employing its utmost resources to proselyte this country. To us Protestants, many of the documents of the Popish Church are not very intelligible. In the Directory for the present year, for instance, we find an address from the Vicar-Apostolic for the London district, prohibiting. the priesthood from allowing certain Frenchmen the privilege of performing divine service in their places of 'worship; and also icforming the 'faithful:
6

POPERY DELINEATEIl. that they were not allowed to hear mass in their own dwellings, from the same class of persons, unless regularly licensed. A list is then given of those licensed French priests who are permitted to perform the service of the Church. The number, recollect, is limited to the London district only? How many of these men are found at work in this locality alone? One hundred and ten. Now, these hundred and ten French priests, must, of course, either belong to the soicety for the propagation of the faith, or to the Jesuits, or both. If other parts of England are favoured to an extent equal to that of tho London district, then our conversion may be much nearer than any of us imagine. "In addition to this, we find another most powerful and active association recently formed, and ealled • THE CATHOLIC INSTITUTE GREATBRITAIN.' It is stated that the objects of OF the Institute shall be limited to the exposure of the falsehood of the calumnious charges made against the Catholic religion, to the defence of the real tenets of Catholicity, to the circulation of nseful knowledge, upon the above mentioned subjects; and to the protection of the poorer classes of Catholics in the enjoymentof their religions principles and practices! The defence, exposition, and extension, of the tenets ofthe Popish faith, are stated to be the avowed objects of the Institute. It could not, possibly, propose much more. The press, it seems, is to be employed for these purposes; and that which is so powerful an instrument for good' and evil, in other departments may be made, no doubt, subservient to the interests of Popery by these several means. This Institute is now filling the nation with its tracts, which in many of its large towns are left at the door of the householders each Sabbath morning"* • We see here the workings of a mighty system-a vast and powerful body of people exerting themselves with the utmost vigilance, down to the lowest members; we see men of learning and talent trained to the most subtle and insidious practices, worming themselves into every possible office; some of them, perhaps, wearing the mask of Protestantism, and under the name of zeal for "poor Ireland," may mean zeal for the Church of Rome. Secondly, We will now speak of the doings of GoTernment &I another reason for the recruited strength of the "Man of Sin."
'" Dr Dixon'. Lecture, pp. ~, 41. 42.

1

POPERY

DELINEATED.

\Ve know something of what they have done, and we know something of what they intend to do; but we shall pass over "The Roman Catholic Relief Bible," "The Irish Educational Measure," &c., and come to other matters. For some years past, our semi-popish governments have been acting most nefariously in the countenance which they have given to Popery in our colonial possessions. " The North American colonies, the West India Islands, the Cape of Good Hope, the Continent of India, and Australia, are being regularly organized as Popish sees, and are filling with bishops and priests. These estsbllshments are, in part, ilUpplied at the nation's expense. The public money is now employed to equip and send out bishops and priests, and partially to maintain them, in the distant colonies of the empire. How this can be consistently done, it is difficult to divine. By what right any government can apply the public money without act of parliament, to set up a hierarchy which is avowedly alien to the religion and eonstitution of the country, must be determined by a more learned authority! The fact, however, is so; and those Protestant missionary societies which have, for a long series of years, been toiling in these distant regions, to sow the seed of evangelical truth, to plant in these infant nations the principles of British Christianity, and to attach them to the parent state by the ties of a common religionnow suddenly find themselves confronted and opposed by regulaz establishments of Popish priests, PAID, PATRONIZED, AND PUBLICLY RECOMllElllDED BY THE GOVJ;:RNMENT. Without debate, or even any kind of notice being taken of the matter in the British Parliament, or the least knowledge of what was going on by the people of this country, we are suddenly startled by the fact tllat, whilst Protestants were asleep or W1'lIllgling,the Popish Church, with silent and stealthy industry, has establisbed her infl:ReIWe and authority in all the colonies of the empire." There can be no question but that our colonies are as open and free for Popish, emissaries as for Wesleyan and other milsionaries ; and they offer a fair opportunity for the exerci •• of the zeal of both parties. But if Protestant misaionarieaare to be left to the liberality of their own people, let Rome'. members support Rome's emissaries. But they are not thus left. We have abundant proof of the attachment of her M..
8

POPERY

DELI~EATED.

jesty's advisers to the religion of Rome-to say the least, of their culpable disregard to Protestantism. The following is an extract from the "Catholic Directory" for 1839:" 'Under the protection of her Majesty's Government, the British eolonies, East, \Vest, and North, have received new bishops and vicars - general; Bishop Olancy, for British Guiana; Bishop Smith, as coadjutor to the Bishop of Trinidad; Bishop Carew, as coadjutor to the Bishop of Calcutta; Bishop Griffiths, at the Cape of Good Hope; and Bishop Hynes, as coadjutor to the Ionian Isles; all of whom, as well as in Austulia, are sUPIlliedwith a well-selected accession of assistant missionaries.' " "The protection of her MaJesty', Government is no barren and useless friendship, as may be seen by the following extract from a most valuable paper on the' Statistics of Popery in Great Britain and the Colonies,' in Frazer's l[agazine for April, 1839;"In Upper Canada there are, as declared in parliamentary papers of 1836, which are our authorities in the following statements on the Colonies, thirty Roman Catholic priests receiving from Government £50 each, and ODebishop receiving £100. " In Lower Canada, according to the same documents, the Roman Catholic Church has all their tithe, liable only to a few exceptions, in favour of Protestants. A numerous priesthood produces a colonial epitome of Ireland. The Popish bishop receives from our Government £1000 per annum. " In Newfoundland, the Romish bishop has £75 per annum by parliamentary grant. " A grant of eight acres of land," says!& Gladstone, in his work on Church aad State, "has lately been made for the erection of a Roman Catholic cathedral. It is stated by parties connected with the Colonies that the contributions of the Roman Catholics of Newfoundland to the support of their bishop and clergy amount in value to not less than £6000 or £7000 lmIlually. " In Jamaica, OIl1l Romish bishop and two priests. It seems that the Jamaiea House af Assembly aiforda no usistanee to Popery. Query-Is thi. the reuon. for ita proposed anaihilation by the Queen's minwwrs?
9

POPERY

DELINEATl':D.

"Trinidad-Two Romish bishops, Drs ~l'Donnell and Smith, and twenty-two priests; to whom it appears, by the parliamentary papers referred to, £2-187 was granted by Gonrnment in 1835, whereas £860 only was given to the clergy of the Protestant church. This reminds one of the Irishman's idea of reciprocity, which was all on one side. " G"allada-Six priests, to whom are given certain lands , as their support. " St ViII celIt- Two priests. " St l-ttci".-Six priests, to whom are granted 11,000 francs per annum. The Catholic Diredory for Ib:HI adds, ' Permanent salaries have been granted by the Colonial Government to these four, and a similar provision made for an additional one.' " Dr Smith, the coadjutor bishop, is now in England, begging from 'Vest India merchants, under the plea that the priests alone are able to quiet the emancipated negroes. Better that the children of Africa had remained in such slavery &s they were born in, than come under the iron crosier and foul despotism of Rome. "Dominica-Five priests, paid by the Colonial Government. "Mountserrat and Bm'badoes-Two priests, do. " Gibraltar- Church of Rome receives from Government £196 per annum, of which the vicar-apostolic takes £100. " Malta-A Romish chaplain is supported by our Government, and military salutes paid to Popish festivals. " Ionian [.,lands-Thirteen popish chapels, with salaries amounting to £1010 per annum. " Australia-One Romish bishop, and twenty-two priests : and these are endowed by our Government on the same terms as the clergy of the English and Scottish churches. To the deep disgrace of the Presbytery of New South 'Vales, a unanimous vote was passed approving of these 'judicious and impartial regulations;' and ~Dr Laing has lauded this sacrifice of principle in no measured terms. Dr Polding, the Popish bishop, was sent out by our Government. On the 27th of August 1838, the following estimateswer9 moved by the secretary, and agreed to by the Legislative Council:10

POPERY DELlSEATED.

ROlES

C.~THOLlC CLERGY.

The Right Rev. the Roman Catholic Bishop, The Viear General, . . . . . Fourteen Roman Catholic Chaplains at £150 each, "nnuUl, . • • . . . • To provide salaries for six additional Chaplains, pee ted to arrtve in the year 1839,

£500 0 0
• per . ex. 200 2100 900
£3l;(JO

0 0 0 0

0 0

0
0

1'1.1''''.I'E(''11

\' .':

I~:\:('ot

H:\IlI:Ml~NT.

Allnwnnrr, to ('hlll,l:dni16 (.,r trJl\'t·lliul{ ,xftt.:nl(·', . ''j'ownrd'' flrf,dinll (:hnpf'J!(, RfIIl d\4 dlir"l~ for f 'hAp" I.,\tl'll, (lU ('oh' ''',nn (I) "n ("/uol #,,,'Ii ''''In:1 '-'f'.f,1 "!I ,)rit!ot~ (;(l11fril,ultml,

.t::"~IO II

..

1';00

(I

U

nOMA1'l

("ATJl0I.1C

fo"{·1I00J .s,

Towards the support of Roman CAtholic Schools at p rt 'sent astab ll-hcd in the Cnlon\". . . . In aid of additional Schools. on condition of PUOl~ to a~ equal amount being raised by private aubscrip-

£ll(l()

fI

0

uon,

.

.

.

.
Roman

.

.
Catholic

300 0
1000 £2100 0 0

(I

Towards the support children. .•••

of destitute

0 0

" J/adras JHssion j<,r Inc/ia- Two bishops and ten priests; to whom are given, by the State, 16,697 sieca rupees, or £1669,14s. If to these endowments of the Romish Church be added the annual grant of Maynooth, it will be found that our Government- Tory or Whig, for both arc equally guilty-grants, for the dishonour of God, the ruin of souls, and the extinction of truth, not less than £(;0,000 per annum. If, to all these, thl! grants to the National Schools of Ireland be added, the countenance shown to the Papal Church, by our country, is most painful. Disastrous policy! Surely individual Protestants will neutralize this pernicious conduct by doing much more than they have done for the downfall of Babylon."· The next step in the descending scale brings us ~ • atill more fearful point, viz., the direct countenance, support, patronage, and ;mdO'Wme71t of the Church of Rome by the present Government. Popery is now endowed by the State; fed
C<

11

POPERY DELINEATED.

and upheld by the fostering hand of a Protestant Legislature. Nay, no longer Protestant! we have lost that dignity ! Yon deceivers of the people, and betrayers of the truth, have plucked from V~toria's crown its brightest gem! Now that the I pearl of Protestantism has gone, its fine gold has become dim -its glory has departed. And, unless Protestants take care, we shall have the transactions of the days ofthe dastardly John acted over again. What can we expect, when the united voices of 1,000,000 of her Majesty's subjects were treated with contempt and insolence? The protest of the nation weighs nothing when Popery is in the opposite scale. Not only are we to give £20,000 or £30,000 to Maynooth, with whose priests our country is to be deluged, but the payment of the priests is also talked of with the utmost audacity. I was strongly tempted to think, during the late struggle, that the events which occurred at Jerusalem about 1800 years ago, are not to be looked upon merely as historical facts, but also as wearing a prophetic character. One might think that the chief priests typified her Majesty's privy counsellors headed by Sir Robert Peel; that the thirty pieces of silver, given to Judas for the death of his Lord, pointed to the £30,000 given to the papacy, of which Judas was the prototype-for the death and downfall of Protestantism. It is difficult to find language sufficiently expressive of their conduct in connection with the Maynooth Bill. Save Protestantism from such friends ! The third reason we assign, is, the remissness of Protestants themselves. It is too true, that, while we and our forefathers have been asleep and wrangling, Popery has been gathering strength, secretly and silently putting forth her energies, until at last all were astonished by the appellZ'anceof a powerful and well organized system, threatening to carry all before it. We have been like a garrison spending their time in sleep or playdreaming of security-fondly thinking that the besiegers could make no impression on their ramparts-e-until at last they are suprised in an almost defenceless state. They look up, and, to their utter confusion, they eee the soldiers on the waIl_ the enemy within the gates; and now, in the midst of noise and uproar, they are seizing their arms, flying to order, and amid, perhaps, inlU1'11lOuntable ifticulties, are attempting to d 12

POPERY

DELINEA.TED.

undo that which they might have prevented. Thus it has been with ourselves. Now we find, when it is well nigh too late, that an impression has been made on the ramparts of our constitution, which we fondly dreamed were impregnable-an impression deep and wide-one stone after another has given way-bill after bill has been carried-our Government has been gained, and the enemy is within the gate; but, thank God, the battle is not decided-the citadel is not yet wonnor will it be. Only let Protestants up as the heart of one man-join vigorously in the struggle-and the victo'''y u'ill yet be ourB. We will now allude to what we coneider senne of the dutitB of Protestants in regard to this all-important matter. Recent events have brought us to an era in our Country's history which calls for exertion on a more systematic and expansive scale than has been witnessed since the glorious Reformation, There has been a revulsion in the feeling of the na.tion-the forebodings of sagacious men have been but too fully realized; the consequence is, that the canting notions about Rome's peacefulness and Rome's purity are passing away. And it is important that the crisis should be embraced in order to diffuse more enlarged and correct views of a system and hierarchy which again threatens our Country's peace, and our Country's privileges. "\Ve remark, then, that there ean be no question but the fint thing is, in the present juncture, " the creation of a morat feeling suited to the emergency." But how is this to be done? One of the most efficient means 1vill be found in the MINISTRY of the Church. We have referred to a supposed citadel, and the carelessnese of the soldiery; but this would be owing to the remissness of the officers. And, whoever it may condemn, we must say, that the matter has been lost sight of too much by the }Iinisters of the Church; and, if they have to complain of the tardiness and thoughtlessness of their people, the fault is their own. And, unlese the" watchers" whom God hath plaeed on "the walls of Zion" see to it, with the moat untiring assiduitj', latitudinarianism in politics-and it may be right for any thing I know-1I'i.lllead 10 what I am aure is not rightlatitudmarianiBm in morals afld religioo. And we shall see,
13

POPERY ELINEATED. D as we have seen, men holding the most apposite views on great Gospel truths, " very dear brethren in Christ Jesus." The matter, then, ought to be taken up by the ministry -; and let the line of demarcation between the two religions be distinctly drawn, and the principles thereof clearly understood. And " let it not be imagined that we have nothing to do with it; that we are crazy volunteers in a Don Quixotic expedition against windmills. Everything we hold dear is involved in this question. Are we CHRISTIANS?The religion we hold more valuable than life is in danger of being corrupted and despoiled. Are we BRITONS? Our national independence, our constitutional rights, our equal laws, and our glory as a nation, are in jeopardy. Are we FREEMEN? Our rights of conscience, our freedom of judgment, our indefeasible claim to possess the Bible, and worship God under our own vine and fig-tree, are all in hazard of forfeiture. Are we in possession of the blessings of DOMESTIC LIFE~ Let this system prevail, and, through the confessional, the secrets of our families will be revealed; the freedom of confidence and love between husbands and wives, parents and children, masters and domestics, be broken in upon, and every movement be directed by an invisible spy. Are we leaving a POSTERITYO INHERITOUR T NAMES? Our children are in jeopardy of being caught in the arms of this monstrous Moloch, and offered in sacrifice at his shrine.*" " It is a qttestion worth considering, whether it would not be usefttl to form an ANTI-POPISH TRACT SOCIETY, which a in series of papers should be prepared on the principle of attempting to convince the lower classes of Papists of the injuries and oppression« of their system. The questions at issue betwixt the Popish and Protestant parties, including, as they do, the entire range of national and social rights and duties, it seems clear that the time is come for the free and full discussion of these pointe. No means of bringing such enquiries home to the understandings and feelings of the Irish people, appear to be so easy us the creation of a plain and telling literature, embracing the points of differenee between the two systems. As the rights of conscience,
• Dl.lol1'o Letters, pp. 67.

14

os.

POPERY

DELINEATED.

respect for private opinion, religious and civil liberty, as well as all the elements and means of socialorder and elevation, are on the side of Protestants, it is of great consequenceto employ these advantages skilfully. Surely somerays of light on these great subjects may be introduced into the chaos of Popish ignorance. The despotism of Romanism being as clear an invasion of all human rights, as it is an audacious perversion of Divine truth, ought to be assailed on this ground. The success of such lin attempt would be gradual and slow. Moral victories are not like cutting down an opposing army-visible and obvious-but grow from conviction, lind develope themselves in individual wisdom, piety, and putriotism.t " AnothCl' duty devoll'iny upon Protestants is ulldoubtedly in connection 'with the El.ECTIVE FRANCHISE, Politically speaking, 'Whigs and Tories are two of the greatest curses of a nation; as the past history of our own sufficiently proves: especially when MEN, lind not measures, are the objects of support or opposition. And how many of these worse than useless creatures have we in the House of Commons, who are prepared to AYE it, or NO it, whatever the measure, providing it be introduced by this or that Premier? And what are the consequencesupon the electors? Why, the universal anxiety is, to have a 'Vhig or to have a Tory, as the case may be. There is hardly one in a thousand who ever thinks of enquiring into the private character of the man who solicits their suffrages-whether he be a deist or an athiest, a papist or a pagan. It matters but little whether he thinks more highly of the church or the gambling-house, or whether he esteemsthem both alike. Is he 'Whig or Tory?-that's the question! Not whether he will vote for the better observance of the Lord's-day, or the maintenance of our Protestant privileges! Not whether he would pay the priests of Rome, by a state allowance, or revoke the edict in favour of Maynooth ! is he Whig or Tory ?-is the anxious inquiry of all. But why should not religion be the question? 'What reason can be assigned why we should not carry into politics, what it is our duty to carry into the common concerns of every day life. " SEEKFIRST THE KINGDOM OF GOD 1" This would teach us that our anxiety should be to seek for men truly religious, at
• Dr Dixon's Lectures, P. GO. 15

POPERY

DELINEATED.

least thoroughly Protestant, whose watchword would be "No Popery." Yes, this infidel-hated, infidel-scouted motto must be Ot£l"s-aye, and theirs' who represent us. The national cry must be, " No compromise with Rome." " Corn-laws" even, must not take the precedency of this. This must be fint, foremost, the order of the day. Lose sight of party for the sake of your religion. Rather than vote for an infidel Whig, vote for a religious Tory; and rather than vote for a gambling Tory, vote for a Protestant Whig, "Seek FIRST the 1cingdom of God." And if you cannot find a man of these principles, vote for none. Let others send gamblers, atheists, papists, but be not you partakers of their sin. It is God that has given us the privilege of electors-let us use it RELIGIOUSLY. "Seek FIRST the lcingdom of God." We shall find another duty in connection with the cultiva~ tion of a spirit of unity among the different sections of tM Ohristian Ohurch. It is hardly possible to expect too much, when the spirit of the" Liverpool Conference," where the" EvangelicaIAlliance," was so auspiciously commenced, shall have pervaded all the ministers and members of all the evangelical Protestant churches, both at home and abroad-all standing on the platform of great Gospel principles. When we can look upon each other ss brethren, and love as such; and especially demonstrate our oneness by a lasting and united effort against the insidious encroachments of the " Man of Sin." Common danger often unites contending parties ; and Popery is our common foe-the enemy of all, and the friend of none. It will show our wisdom to choose the same field of conflict, and our prudence to fight with none but tried weapons. Parliamentary effort may prove a valuable auxiliary; but Popery will never be conquered by tnere political tactics. We must stand where great Luther stood, and fight where Luther fought. Popery must be opposed as a 8Oul-damning system-a system of the grossest heresy-alike the foe of God and man. "The weapons of our warfare" must be the Word of God and prayerthe spirit's swoN, and the spirit's gTOans. These we shan find" are not clO'llal,but mighty through God, to the pulling down of strongholds, casting down imaginations, and evel'1 high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God." IS

POPERY DELINEATED.

2 Corinthians x. 4-5. Here there is no denominational distinction to separate us. These can be used by all, for they are possessed by all. These unite us, and make us onethe Word of God and prayer. The victory of the blessed Reformation was secured by them, and by them the world shall be brought to the obedience of Christ. "\Ve should thus take out of the hands of Rome one of the chief sources of her power and success-ow' d i"i"i"n.~. She hoasts of being one, and we too might boast. 'Ve can, indeed, already; and we arc one in a far higher sense than the Ilom ish Church is, or "an be. She prides herse-lf on her "unity:' 'tiR true, while her contentions arc almost innuruerablo and altogpther without end. She is united as a menugo of wild beasts are united: owned by one master; confined in their respective dens; cclls ; and would tear each other to pieces if they could. And devils, too, "firm concord hold," Traitors can conspire against their country's weal: and robbers act in unison: but unity, in an abstract sense, is no proof of truth and !!()odness in principle and practice. You must know the principles of the parties who thus fraternize. And it needs no argument to show, that the uorst of men may confederate for some common purpose. Therefore, we mtl st not_ and cannot separate the principles of the Church of Rome from her unity. Yet her unity we acknowledge-we admit that she is one! And we also are united-we also are one, But there is this difference between us, and it is a glorious difterence:-The Pope is their head and Jesus Christ is OURS: they may be one in Pope Gregory the XVI., but lI'e aI'e O:SE in JEHOVAH JESUS. The last we shall name as devolving upon Protestants, is the duty of prayer. None will question the propriety of such a step. Our enemies employ it for our conversion to Popery; and surely we shall not be less urgent with Almighty God for the enlightenment and salvation of these who" bear the mark of the beast in their forehead," and "who are perishiug for lack of knowledge." At the request of Bishop Wiseman, several continental bishops have ordered their respective clergy to pray and to sav masses, I believe, for our salvation; and a letter from R~me states that, on the 17th ultimo, the congregation of J esuite were employed a whole day with the same gracious views, on whinh occasiou their church was filled from morning till B Ii

POPERY

DELINEATED.

night. And let us remember that, "above all things, it is our duty to unite in ardent supplication to God for the interposition of his blessed providence. He has often so interposed. Let us remember the Annada, scattered by the winds of heaven, when freighted with implements of torture, now hanging in the chambers of the Tower, as the ensigns alike of Popish cruelty, English courage, but especially of the mercy of God. Let us think of the Gunpowder Plot. The plan complete, the combustibles ready, the train laid, the day approaching, the whole power of Protestant England ready to assemble; and yet the whole scheme thwarted as by miracle. Let us not forget tbe remarkable manner in which the craft of James was suppressed. Though he appeared to be strong in his own purpose, much countenanced by the lethargy of the people and the zeal of his own partizans, had laid his plans with great skill and confidence, under the guidance of his J asuitieal leaders; yet, when the time came, the whole was blighted, as if by an invisible power. Let us recur to the now proved intention of Anne to restore the throne after her own decease to the descendants of James. This whole matter was so well arranged by perfidious statesmen, that it appeared certain of success; and yet one of themselves, a fickleman, and one who had, as it was believed, favoured the design, came forward, as if by some supernatural impulse, and frustrated the whole design. And now, although the aspect of public affairs and the movements of parties may appear to favour the overthrow of the religion and liberties of the country, 'yet he who Ilitteth in the heavens shall laugh, and hold the attempt in derision.' 'Ve know that Popery is doomed of God. " And then shall that wicked one be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming." "0 yes, in this country thousands of precions saints exist who have power with God in prayer. The boldness of the pontiff, and the audacity of his agents, may affright timid Christians; the cunning of the Jesuit may outwit simple integrity; the machinations of an ever-wakeful priesthood may sow the seeds of error widely; the worldly politician may judge it to be expedient not only to wink at the near approach of the danger, but also to ally the state to this apostacy; and the whole case may appear hopeless. Yet only awaken the
18

PJPER

Y DELIXEATED.

slumbering faith of the true Christians of the nation, get them to feel the urgency of the danger, let them unitedly bear the matter before God; and then, though a thousand appearances puzzle human sagacity, and alarm our fears, He will blight the hopes of the wicked, and establish the cause of the just."
"Avenge, 0 Lord, thy slaug'htercd Saints, whose bones Lie scattered on the .Alpine mountain cold; E'en them, who kept thy trut.h, so pure of old, \Vhen all our fathers worshipp'd stocks and stones, Forget not: in tlty book record their gronns. Who were thy sheep, and in their ancient fold, Slain 11y the bloody Piedmontcse. that rnlt'd Mother with infant down the rocks. Their moans The vales redouhl'd to the hf lls, and they To heav'n, Their rnartyr'd blood and ashes sow O'er all the Italian fields, where still doth ijWUY The triple tyrant ; that from these may grow A hundred {old, who, having' lear-n'd th y way, Early may fly the Bubylunian woe."9 MJLTON.

In concluding this introductory chapter, we wish to observe that in the following brief delineation of some of the principal doctrines of the Church of Rome, we shall take for our guide their own acknowledged standards and recognised authorities, and shall endeavour to illustrate the whole with a variety of facts from the most authentic sources.
,... Dr Dixon's Lectures, p. 51.

19

fOfERY

DELINK\n:n.

CRAP. II.-ECRIPTURE.

IN accordance with the statement' made at the conclusion of the preceding chapter, we shall first state the doctrine of the Church of Rome respecting the Scriptures, as contained in their own standards and acknowledged authorities. " When the Roman Catholic speaks of the Scripture, he does not mean thereby the Hebrew and Greek of the Old and New Testaments, but the Vulgate Latin Edition, or the Douayand Romish translations, embracing also the Apocrypha. This is his Bible, and this, together with tradition, constitutes his rule of faith, or what he calls the revealed or inspired word of God. Thus the writers of the Trent Catechism say-' All the doctrines of Christianity are derived from the word of God, which includes Scripture and tradition.' Again-' If we would have the whole rule of Christian faith and practice, we must not be content with those Scriptures which Timothy knew from his infancy, that is, the Old Testament alone, nor yet with the Xew Testament, without taking along with it the tradition ot the apostles and the interpretation of the Church, to which the apostles delivered both the book and the true meaning of it.'* 'The Catholic rule of faith is not merely the written word of God, but the whole word of God, both written and unwritten; in other words, Scripture and tradition, and these propounded and explained by the Catholic Church. This implies that we have a twofold rule or law, and that we have an interpreter or judge to explain it, and to decide upon it in all doubtful points.'t "Thus we find that the Scriptures, Apocrypha, tradition, written and unwritten, and all as interpreted by the church or clergy, form the word of God or rule of faith, according to the Church of Rome. " The doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, on the canon, authority, publication, and use of the Scriptures, is embraced in the decrees of the Council of Trent, in its fourth session, held
• 'll'lte of the Homan Cethottc V~'r~f(ln on 2 Tim. nt. 18. t Ent1 "r ('o'l~l'nV,'rf-)'. t.euer x. i\, .:-., ' (;2

POPERY

DELINEATED.

April 8. 1546. The decree concerning the Oanonical Scriptures is as follows :-' This sacred, holy, ecumenical,and general councilof Trent, lawfully assembledin the Holy Spirit, the three legates of the apostolical see presiding therein, having constantly in viewthe removal of error and the preservation of the purity of the Gospel in the Church, which Gospel,promised before by the prophets in the sacred Scriptures, was first orally published by our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who afterwards commanded it to be preached by his apostles to every creature, as the source of all-saving truth and discipline; and, perceiving that this truth and discipline are contained both in written books and in unwritten traditions, which have comedown to us, either received by the apostles from the lips of Christ himself, or transmitted by the hands of the same apostles under the dictation of the Holy Spirit, following the example of the orthodox fathers, doth receive and reverence, with equal piety and veneration, all the books as well of the Old as of the New Testament, the same God beirrg the author of both-and also the aforesaid traditions, pertaining both to faith and manners, whether received from Christ himself, or dictated by the Holy Spirit, and preserved in the Catholic Church by continual succession. Moreover, lest any doubt should arise respecting the sacred books which are received by the council,it has been judged proper to insert a list of thorn in the present decree.'* Here follows a list of the books, which we omit for brevity sake. The decree concludesas follows :" Whosoever shall not receive, as sacred and canonical, all these books, and every part of them, as they are commonly read in the Catholic Church, and are contained in the old vulgate Latin edition, or shall knowingly and deliberately despise the aforesaid trad itions, let him be accursed. The foundation being thus laid in the confession of faith, all may understand the manner in which the council intends to proceed, and what proofs and authorities will be principally used in establishing doctrine, and restoring order to the Church. "The decree concerning the edition and use of the sacred books is as follows :-' Moreover, the same holy council, cousidering that no small advantage will accrue to the Church of God, if, of all the Latin editions of the sacred books which are
.. Coo, Trtd. ..... Iv, I,

21

POPER Y DELINEATED.

in circulation, some one shall be distinguished as that which ought to be regarded as authentic,-doth ordain and declare, that the same old and vulgate edition, which has been approved of by its use in the Church for many ages, shall be held as authentic in all public lectures, disputations, sermons, and expositions ; and that no one shall dare or presume to reject it, under any pretence whatever.' " In order to restrain petulent minds, the council further decrees, that in matters of faith and morals, and whatever relates to tbe maintenance of Christian doctrince, no one, confiding in his own judgment, shall dare to wrest the sacred Scriptures to his own sense of them, contrary to that which hath been held and still is held by holy Mother Church, whose right it is to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of sacred writ, or contrary to the unanimous consent of the fathers, even though such interpretation should never be published. If any disobey, let them be denounced by the ordinaries, and punished according to law.'* "The following is the fourth rule of the Index, showing the restrictions which the Church of Rome lays on the indiscriminate reading of the Scriptures, and the injury they attribute to such reading 'Inasmuch as it is manifest, from experience, that if the Holy Bible, translated into the vulgar tongue, be indiscriminately allowed to everyone, the temerity of men will cause more evil than good to arise from it: it is, on this point, referred to the judgment of the bishops or inquisitors, who may, by the advice of the priest or confessor, permit the reading of the Bible, translated into the vulgar tongue by Catholic authors. to those persons whose faith and piety they apprehend will be augmented, and not injured. by it; and this permission they must have in writing. But if any shall have the presumption to read or possess it without any such written permission, he shall not receive absolution until he have first delivered up such Bible to the ordinary. Booksellers, however, who shall sell or otherwise dispose of Bibles in the vulgar tongue to any person not having such permission, shall forfeit the value of the books, to be applied by the bishop to some pious use; and be subjected by the bishop to such other penalties as the bishop shall judge proper, aecording to
• Con. Trid. eeee, iv.

22

T'OI'ERY DELINEATED

the quality of the offence. But regulars shall neither read nor purchase such Bibles without a special license from their superiors.' * " The following particulars are derived from the above extracts :1. "The original Scriptures, Hebrew and Greek, are of no authority in the Church of Rome. ("It is notorious, that from the era of the origin of printing to the present hour, has issued from the Roman, or even Italian press, not one edition of the original New Testament -that is, the Greek.")t 2. "All Protestant translations are pohibitcd, 3. "The Latin Vulgate is put in the place of the original<, and is to be considered as authentic in all public lectures, &c. 4. "They make the Apocrypha a part of Holy Scripture. 5. "Tradition, both written and unwritten, is added to Scripture, and made of equal authority therewith. 6. "The Church-that is, the clergy-are the only interpreters of Scripture. 7. "Every person who is permitted to read the Scriptnre is bound not to exercise his own judgment in matters of faith and morals, but to understand them as the clergy understand them, &c. 8. "The promiscuous reading of Scripture is prohibited to most, permitted to few, and restrained in its exercise to all."t The doctrine of Protestants is, that the Scriptures of the Old and Nen: Testament contain a fall, plain, and .~af' rule of faith and practice. In favour of this, the following arguments are offered, which we think establish the position :_ First, 'Ve have the direct testimony of Scripture itself, "And that from a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ Jesus." 2 Timothy, iii. }5. -We have just seen that the writers of the Trent Catechism say, "'Ve must not be content with those Scriptures which Timothy knew from his infancy-that is, with the Old Testament alone." This is, to a certain extent, true; nor does the Almighty require us to
• De Librls prohlb., reg. 4.

* EUlot'. Romani .... , pp. 8, 9,

t

Metb. Mag. Oct. 18«.

23

POPEI1Y DELIXE.ATED.

be content, since he has put the New Testament within our reach. But they also say, "Nor yet with the New Testament, without taking along with it the traditions of the apostles and the interpretations of the church." Now, we must contend, and from this text, that tradition is altogether unnecessary, since it is here plainly stated that the- Old Testament alone, through faith in the promised Messiah, is able to make ~vise unto salvation. And he further adds, in reference to the Old Testament-" All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in r ighteousness : that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Timothy, iii. 16, 17. If this were true of the Jewish Scriptures, can there be any question about their sufficiencynow, when we have the New Testament annexed to the Old? And, we may add to this what is said by Luke i. 3, 4" It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed." This may be compared with John xx. 30, 31-" And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing, ye might have life through his name." " From the passage in Luke, it appears that what was written by Luke alone was sufficient to afford certainty in those things in which Christians had been instructed. From the passage in John, it is clear that what was then written was sufficient to enable people to believe, and to lead them to life eternal; and if to this we unite the sufficiencyof the Old Testament Scriptures, as in Timothy's case, we must conclude that the light they shed on the pathway to the skies is abundant, 'and a wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err therein.' " Now, that the evangelists intended to write every thing necessary to salvation, I think there can be no question; that they should not do what they intended to do is passing strange, and more especially so since Christ had promised them that
Jl4

Porl:RY

DELISEATED.

the Spirit would "bring all things to their remembrance, whatsoever he had said unto them." John xiv. 26. " "That the doctrines of Christ were, we find in the four Evangelists; to what belief his disciples converted men, we find in the Acts; and what they taught them afterwards, we read in the Epistles." Secondly, "It is in every respect possible that the Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation. No person will douht but that God could cause such a book to he written-that is, a book containing every thing necessary to salvation. That he did so to the Jews, we have the testimony of the Apostle Paul, to which allusion has been already made. Now, since this was true of the Jews, there can be no doubt of its truth as to Christians. We think it is therefore certain that we need nothing at all beyond what is recorded in the Sacred Scriptures to guide us to heaven." The following reasons will serve to confirm this second proposition :(1.) There are many things written in both the Old and New Testament which are not absolutely necessary for salvation; therefore, to suppose that they omitted anything absolutely necessary thereunto, is absohttely absurd. (2.) "The ancient fathers make no mention of any defects in the records of Scripture in regard to anything necessary to salvation, but they unanimously taught the contrary. (3.) "The enemies of Christianity always opposed the doctrines contained in Scripture, and supposed by this means that they opposed Christianity, and they knew no other repository of it." (4.) The fathers, in defending the doctrines of Christianity, went to no other source but the Scripture. Therefore we find that St Augustine, in opposing the Donatists, says :-" Let human writings be removed-let God's voice sound-bring me one voice of Scripture for the part of Donatus." That is, let the Donatists support their heresy by one single Scripture, and I am silent. Observe, the Donatists, an ancient sect of heretics, supported their absurdities by tradition, and rejected. the Scriptures. Does this prove that the Romanists are Donatists 1 Nay, but it is a strong proof that they are heretics. Thirdly.-It is worthy of remark, "that there is no saying, miracle, or story of Christ, in anything that is material, pre25

POPERY

DELIXEATED.

served in any indubitable record but in Scripture alone." " Some things," says Dr Elliott, "were reported to have been said by Christ and his Apostles, some of which are not believed, and the others are unknown. The Scripture, therefore, contains all things, or else we have no Gospel at all ; for, except what is in Scripture, we have not a sufficient record of any miracle or saying of Christ. St Jerome records one, said to have been uttered by Christ, viz., 'Be never very glad but when you see your brother live in charity.'" This is a good saying, but whether it fell from the lips of the Lord Jesus is very uncertain. And if it did, does it contain any thing necessary to salvation which is not taught us again and again in the written word of God? We think, then, that we must inevitably come to one of the following conclusions-either that we have no rule at all, or that the Scriptures are a full, plain, and safe one. We know that the Roman Catholics tell us otherwise. In their opinion they are "exceedingly obscure" and "mysteri. ous," of "doubtful and double meaning," and therefore of no certain rule for our guidance, unless explained by their clergy. Now, in opposition to this, we would observe, that we think the Evangelists and Apostles were not WOl'se writers, when divinely inspired, than other men are without such assistance. And further, were they not plain and perspicuous in preaching the truths ere they not well to be understood whenthey taught orally? If they were not, it was of no use their speaking at all. But if plain in speaking, is it likely they would be otherwise in 1uriting ? It is the end of speaking and writing to make things to be understood. And so easy of comprehension were the sacred writings. that those of Moses were read in the synagogue, in the hearing of both men, women, and children. And the Apostles charged those to whom they wrote, that their epistles should be read to all the churches. And this only agrees with the representations they give of themselves. They are spoken of as a light-as opposed to darkness and doubtfulness-as calculated to instruct and guide, and be profitable for doctrine, reproof, and instruction in righteousness. "Certain passages," says Dr Elliott, "indeed, might be difficnlt to some persons at first, and others doubtless become

'V

26

rOrERY

DELINEATE'll.

so by length of time. But that the principal part of the New Testament is plain enough, cannot be with any modesty denied. And as it regards the rest, what at first is difficult may, with due consideration of our own, and the help of others, he made easy; what is obscurely expressed in one place, may be clearly defined in another-and what is altogether ambiguous, we may safely, for that very reason, conclude is not now necessary for us to understand. 'Secret things belong to God.' .. \Ye thus take the Scriptures as our rule and only rule of faith and practice. It may not be uninteresting to enumerate the 'nile and only rule of a Papist. " To the (sacred) Scriptures, the Roman Catholic adds, (1.) the Apocrypha; (2.) 'I'raditions ; (3.) Acts and Decisions of the Church, embracing eight folio volumes of the Pope's Bulls; ten folio volumes of Decretals ; thirty-one folio volumes of Acts of Councils; fifty-one folio volumes Acta Sanctorum, or tbe Doings and Sayings of the Saints; (4.) add to these, at least, thirty-five volumes of the Greek and Latin Fathers, in whicb he says is to be found tbe wnanimous C01lsentof the Fathers; (5.) to all these one hundred and thirty-five volumes folio, add the chaos of unwritten. traditions which have floated down to us from the apostolical times. But we must not stop here, for the expositions of every priest and bishop must be added. The truth is, such a rule is no rule, unless an endless and contradictory mass of uncertainties could be a rule.'·* I should be surprised at any man who could believe that his priest, or any priest, from his holiness the Pope downward through the scarlet ranks of cardinals, the mitred hosts of bishops, the whole fraternity of vicars-apostolic, general and particular, to the most imbecile parish priest, hooded. monk, or cloistered nun,-that any of them have ever tumbled over, or blundered through this huge wagon-load of fusty folios-which they call their rule of faith. Not one of them can know their own rule. But, indeed, the member of the Romish Church gives himself very little trouble on the subject. He has committed the keeping of his soul to his priest ; and what his priest says he believes, and he knows nothing more. Most people have
• ElIlott'. Romanfsm, 1" 13.

2i

heardof the collier's faith-" Fides carbonal'ia," as it is caned in Italy ; from the noted story which gi"es an account of a collier's answers to one who had made some inquiries res pecing his faith;Ques. "'Vhat do you believe ?" Ans. "I bdieve what the Church believes." </. "'V hat does the Church believe?" A. "The Chureh believes what I believe." </. "'Veil, then, what is it that both you and the Church believe ?" A. "'Ve both believe the very same thing." This is what the Rornanists call "<Ill acl of faith." The following is from the Douay Catechism, ,. A N ACT OF :FAITfIo great God! I firmly believe all those sacred truths which thy holy Catholic Church believes and teaches; because thou, who art truth itself, hast revealed them. Amen." So that the answers the poor collier gave were not in the least by the mark, but perfectly in accordance with his instructions. What monstrous nonsense! they convert their people into mere machines; and use them for the purpose of making " .... OF CTS
FAITH."

It seem» but jU8t that we should, before we proceedfurther, olle OJ' tll'O objection», which the Papists U)'geagainst the Bible alone I"'illg the nIle of faith. Pirst.-It is said, "If the Scriptures had been the rule of faith, the Church would always have had them in writing, but before "Moses there was no writing." To this paltry objection the following brief reply is sufficient. True, there was no writing before Moses, but they had the revelations of the ancient Patriarchs, which were transmitted to them by a tradition infinitely superior to that which Rome boasts to poosess ; for it wa.~handed down by inspired men ; therefore it was 8S God speaking to them from generation to generation. To this WA shall refer more particularly in the chapter on tradition. Then, again, the absurdity of the objection will also appear from this, for the written Scriptures to have been in the hands of all men from the beginning, the transactions of four thousand years, must have been recorded before they took place, and written by men before they existed. There would be as much propriety in saying, if the New Testament forms a part of the rule of our faith and practice, the Church would
II/Me

28

POPERY

DEU;>;EATl;D.

always have had the New Testament; but before the days of Christ there was no New Testament. 'Ye may as well complete this syllogestiC; argument-thatfore, the Xew Testament forms no part of the rule of faith and practice. And such is the legitimate conclusion of their objection, .. Because the rule of tilt' ancient Patriarchs, as to [aitl« and 1'I'/lc/icc, was imlu)ditd in u.n u.ritt cn. tradition, tlurrforc 'UUtL'I~'itfcH, trad aion. is to 1)/, the rul« {if oil ayoJ and nativlI~.JI Sccosul., "It is also said, • that the hooks of the X"W T.·,lumont were not written till lon~ atur th« .,slubli,lillH'nt of Hcripture, uIHI therefore the eur ly (,hri,tians hud nut till' Bible for their directory and rille!' But tl", lJintlill1( obligB' tion of the Old Tostamont rernnined till the crucifixion . And in the interval, the Church was favoured with tho personal presence of the Apostles. whose living voice supplied a rule of' faith of equal authority with that of Christ ; for according to his own declaration, they that heard them heard him. The Apostles left their writings as their only successors; end until these writings were completed, some of them remained alive to give instruction, under the Inspirat ion of the Holy Spirit, with regard to eoery doctrine and every practice I'€peeling which a question might be agitated in IIDJ of the churches. And when they had not personal Intercourse, th€] were consulted by writing. • '" The Hebrews,' it is stated, ' were without the written word of God for fourteen generations. Hence the Scriptures cliuld not have been their rule of faith.' But we learn, to a IHtainty. that the Jews did pos,ess the book of the law; for Ezra read it to the people, uud, as a preacher, gave the sense, and made the people to understand it . • It is also said, by way of objection to the Bible as the only , rule, • that twenty books of the Old Testament are lost.' If this be so, how did it come to pass. that the Church of Rome perrnittcd them to he lost when she boasts of being the preserver of the Holy Scripture? Beside". a~ she makes the Church and not the Scriptures the infallible rule, the Church n.ust have eorumitted a mortal sin in allowing these portions of Scripture to btllo,\'''* To say that the Jews were" fourteen generations without th 29

POPERY DEI.INEATED. written word of God is false. Ani as to the lost books, we have no proof that they were inspired. And most of them were undoubtedly historical records, according to references made in the books of the Kings and Chronicles; and therefore t}jere need be no fear as to any thing being lost-the knowledge of which was essential to salvation. 'Ve now proceed to another fact, viz.-" that the Holy Scriptures we,'ept,t into the hands of thefltithrul with an obligation to read them." This is the doctrine of Protestants; and the proofs that it is according to the will of God arc at hand. But we shall first give the doctrine of the Church of Rome on this subject. Reference has already been made to the fourth rule of the Index, which prohibits the reading of the Scriptures in the vernacular tongue, except to those who obtain a written license for that purpose from their bishop or inquisitor. .And if any witless wretch be found reading the word of God without such permission, his sins are not to be forgiven until he gives up his book. " And the reason for prohibiting the general reading of Scripture is, that the faith and piety of most would be injured." Such is the doctrine of the Council of Trent. That the views of the said Church are unchanged, the following bun will abundantly testify. The date of it is June 29, 1316; issued. by Pupe Pius VII. to the Archbishop of Gnesen, primate of Poland. The passages which we think worthy of special attention we have given in italics.
" PIUS P.

VII.

"VENERABLEBROTHER,-Health and apostolic benediction! In our last letter to you we promised, very soon, to return an answer to your's, in which you have appealed to this holy see, in the name of the other bishops of Poland, respecting what are called Bible Societies, and have earnestly inquired of us what you ought to do in this affair. We long since, indeed, wished to comply with your request; but an incredible variety of weighty concerns has so pressed upon us on every side, that, till this day, we could not yield to your solicitation. We hao« been truly shocked at this most crafty device by which the very foundations of religion are undermined; and having, because of the great importlnce of the subject, conferred in council with our venerable brethren, the cardinals of the Holy Roman
30

POPERY

DELINEATED.

Church, we have with the utmost care and attention deliberated upon the measures proper to be adopted by our pontifical authority, in order to remedy and abolish the pestilence as far as possible. 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 circumstances so dange'ro1!s to CI"'istianity, in having denounced to the apostolic see this drfilcnu-nt. '1' tl.e faith 80 eminently danguo1! .• to souls. And although we !'l'Pccive that it is not all necessary to excite him tu activity wllo is making haste, since, of your own accord, you have aln-ady showII an ardent desire to detect and overthrow 11/1.' iJJ/piollx 1Ullchina, tion .• "I these innovators; yet, in conformity with our office, we again and again exhort )'ou, that whatever you can achieve /'/1 power, provide for by council, or effect by authority, you will daily execute with the utmost earnestness, placing yourself as a wall for the house of Israel. " With this view, we issue the present brief; namely, that we may convey to you a signal testimony of our approbation uf your conduct, and also may endeavour therein still more and more to excite your pastoral solicitude and diligence; for the general good imperiously requires yomto combine all your means and energies to frustrate the plans which are prepared by its enemies for the destruction of our most holy religion; wllence it becomes an episcopal duty, tha& you, first of all. expose the wickedness 01 this nefarious scheme, as you have already done so admirably, to the view of the faithful, and openly publish the same, aecording to the rules prescribed by the Church, with all the erudition and wisdom which you possess; namely,' that the Dible printed ['/1 heretics is to be numbered among other prohibited books, conformably to the rules of the Index, (sect. 2, 3) ; for it is evident from experience, that the Holy Scriptures, when circulated in the vulgar tongue, have, throuqh. the temerity 01 men, produced more harm. than benefit.' (Rule IV.) And this is the more to be dreaded in times so depraved, when our holy religion is assailed from every quarter with great cunning and effort, and the most grievous wounds are inflicted on the Church. It is therefore necessary to adhere to the salutary decree of the congregation of the Index, (June 13th, 1757,) that no versions of the Bible in the vulgar tongue be permitted, except such as 31

POPERY

DELlXI:AT2D.

are approved by the apostolic see, or published with annotations extracted from the writings of holy fathers of the Church. •, \Ve confidently hope that, in these turbulent circumstances, the Poles will give the clearest proofs of their attachment to the religion of their ancestors; and, by your care, as well as that of the other prelates of this kingdom, whom, on. account of the stand they have made wonderfully for the depository of the faith, we congratulate in the Lord, trusting that they all may very abundantly justify the opinion we have entertained of them. " It is, moreover, necessary that you should transmit to us as soon as possible the Bihle which Jacob Wulek 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 collating them together, it may be ascertained, after mature investigation, that certain errors lie 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 pious course upon which you have entered, namely, diligently to fight the battles of the Lord for the sound doctrine. and warn the people intrnsted to your care that they fall not into the snarcs which a,.e prepared fOI' their euerlo.etiru; ,.uin. The Church demands this from you, as well as from the other bishops, whom our rescript equally concerns; and we most anxiously expect it, that the deep sorrow we feel on account of this new species of fares, lOTtieh ott,. adversary has so abundantly sown, may. by this cheering hope, be somewhat alleviated; and we always very heartily invoke the choicest blessings upon yourself and your fellow-bishops for the good of the Lord's flock, which we impart to you and them by our apostolic benediction. "Given at Rome, at St Mary the Greater, June 29th, 181 G, in the seventeenth year of our pontificate. "PH'S P. VI!."'" For the sake of brevity, we give but two or three extracts from a second bull, beuring date -- "ROME, Court of the
1II

~~lli(lt·:. Humanism,

pp. Hi, 20.

POPEltY DELINJ!ATED.

Sacred Oongregation for the Propagation of thB Faith, Sept. 18th, 1819." The bull itself may be seen, in Elliot's Romanism, P- 20, or in J'lI'Gavin's Protestant, vol. ii. p. 243. The following will shew it to be in the same strain as that to the Clergy of Poland. It was fulminated against the Irish Schools, and the circulation of the Scriptures therein, which it calls "sowing tares;" the children are, by this means, " infested with the fatal poison of depraved doctrines." "It is farther stated"-'which is an enormous aggravation of the crime-" that the directors of these schools are, generally speaking, Methodists, who introduce Bibles, translated into English by 'the Bible Society,' and abounding in errors, with the sole view of seducing the youth, and entirely eradicating from their minds the truths of the orthodox faith." "Every possible exertion must, therefore, be made to keep the youth away from these destructive schools; parents must be warned against suffering their children, on any account whatever, to be led into error." And, finally, their Lordships-Bishopsare, "with unbounded zeal, to endeavour to prevent the wheat from being choked by the tares." The Romish Church seems to have a wonderful liking for the cautionary-parable of the " \-Vheat and the Tares, " when Bibles are in question; if she had thought of it, understood it, and applied it, in past ages, there would have been less blood in her skirts, crying to God for vengeance against the murderers of his saints. "And ,hall not God avenge his own elect ?" " The following extract of a letter from the Rev. J. Spaulding, a Protestant Missionary, under date of Sept. 23d, 1837, Rio Janeiro, in South America, will furnish a true specimen of what exists, and always has existed, when the circulation of the Scriptures depended on the Church 'of Rome. From generation to generation, it may be truly said, such has been the practice. " The Bible, to an astonishing and almost incredible extent, is a new book, and a real curiosity in this country. An elderly lady, who in other respects appeared quite intelligent, said-she had lived so many years in the world, and never heard of it till lately! . How many are thus totally ignorant of the Holy Scriptures is unknown. A gentleman, a Catholic, and with no great faith in missionary operations, remarked to me, that he did not SUpp0Be there were 400 Bibles in tbi 53 c

POPF.RT

DELINEATED.

Brazils-among a population of at least five millions. What is this but an awful famine of the Word of God! And what an awful fact, that this famine, which carries moral death and ruin wherever it goes, has continued from generation to generation t" " The Rev. J. A. Clark, of the Protestant Episcopal Church of St Andrew, Philadelphia, in a letter to his congregation, dated Rome, March 24th, 1838, says :-' The Bible in . Rome is a strange and rare book. The only edition of it authorized to be sold here, is in fifteen large volumes, which are filled with Popish commentaries. Of course none but the rich can purchase a copy of the sacred Scriptures. Indeed, very few of the common people know what we mean by the Bible. The question was proposed the other day by one of my fellow lodgers, to the lady from whom our lodgings are obtained, and who may be considered as a fair representati ve in point of intelligence and religious information of the middle class of society in Rome-if the people generally had a copy of the Bible within their houses? The reply was-' 0 yes, all the religious people have.' She al§o added, that she had a.very fine copy of the Bible, and immediately went to fetch it. When produced, it proved to be a massbook, with here and there a passage of Scripture, accompanied with Romish glosses. "Then it was more fully explained to her what we meant by the Bible, she replied,'0 yes, I know what you mean; that book is in several of the libraries in Rome, and some persons who are very religious have also a copy of it.' This plainly shows in what estimation the Bible is held in the very centre of Roman Catholicism."* The following are some of the very gracious and respectful expressions used by Romish priests towards a book inspired by a God of infinite wisdom, for the purpose of guiding the sinful sons of men to the skies. "According to them an unprejudiced person, who was a stranger to Scripture, would take the Bible to be the worst book in the world. The Roman Catholic clergy, at the diocese of Cloyne and Ross, Ireland, in a set of resolutions drawn up in 1820, recognise all the doctrines of Trent on this SQ bject, and carry them out to the
• ElUol'. RolllllDlam, p. 23.

POPERY

DELINEATED,

ntmost. As specimens, we give the following', quoted by Mr Breckenridge, in his answer to Huges, p. 283, when referring to tho general reading of the Bible :-' With Pighius, you might have called it,-a rose of wax which easily su,ffers itself to be drawn backward and forward, and moulded this way and that way, and however you, like. Or with Turrian,-a shoe that will fit any foot, a Sphinx riddle, a matter for strife. Or with Lessius,-imperfect, doubtful, ohscure, ambiguous, and paplc.Ted. Or with the author, De Tribus Veritatibus,-a forest for thieves, a shop of herdics." The following blasphemous sentiment is uttered by Mr Muguire, in his discussion with Mr Pope, page 51 :-" The royal Prophet laughed at the gods of the Gentiles, because they could not speak: those who make the Scr-iptures sole judge of controversies, expose them to similar contempt, because, at the best, they are but a dumb judge, and, consequently, unable to pronounce." "At a discussion at Carrick-upon-Shannon, Ireland, in 1824, Roman Catholic priests expressed themselves as follows :-.Mr M'Keon said, "The Scriptures of themselves, un- . less accompanied by such notes and explanations, lead directly to every species of fanaticism and infidelity. The Catholic Church oppose their indiscriminate circulation." (Page. 9.) Mr Brown says,-" Infidelity most assuredly would follow the Indiscriminete reading of the Scriptures, were the people deprived of the fostering care of their pastors, We maintain that the people are to receive their instruction from the priests, and that it is the duty of the priest to promulgate the Word of God committed to him. Individually, I will admit that the pastors are not inspired; but collectively, they most assuredly are, There never was an instance where the people were allowed the indiscriminate use of the Scriptures, that revolution and disorder did not ensue," {Page 18, &c.)* The above specimens of anti-biblical eloquence are perfectly in accordance with the canons of the Council of Trent, above quoted; and, therefore, agree with the doctrine of the Church. It is true, they frequently speak with great reverence of that book-sealed up as it is from the people in the Latin tongue; but when it appears in the vulgar language of any
• EIliol'. RoDlllllillm, p. 1Il. 311

POPERY DELINEATED.

country, and becomes the study of the common people, they apeak of it as the most pernicious book in the world, &c. &0. To answer a certain purpose, however, in a Protestant country like ours, some of them may be found putting forth statements like the following, from a letter written by the Rev. Andrew Scott, a Popish priest of Glasgow, bearing date, Fe b. 11th l8l! :-" If it really were a principle of the Roman Catholic Church to deprive her members of the use of the Divine word, by forbidding them to read and search the Scriptures, she would indeed be cruel and unjust. But I can confidently declare (without danger of being contradicted by my brethren, or censured Ly my superiors), that it is not at present-that it never was-a principle of the Catholic Church, that the Scriptures should be withheld from the laity; and there never was any law enacted by the supreme legislative authority in the Catholic Church, by which the reading of the Scriptures was prohibited." To prove that l\Ir Scott was either profoundly ignorant of the laws of his own Church, or capable of uttering a base fulsehood, we have only to refer the reader to the decrees and bulls quoted in this chapter. And if the" supreme legislative authority" has made no law on the subject, we can only say, that the" supreme legislative authority" ought to have done so, if the statements of the Irish priests and others, as given above, be correct. "\Vhen the British Bible Society proposed to publish the Douay Bible, without note or comment, for the use of the English Papists, the Roman Catholic clergy would not allow it." The Rev. Mr Gandolphy, however, a Popish priest of London, not being aequainted with the distinguished generosity of the managers of the Bible Society, and, acting on the principles ofMr Scott, the Glasgow priest, thinking to remove some degree of Protestant prejudice by a bold stroke, said,-" If any of the Bible Societies feel disposed to try our esteem for the Bible by prosenting us some copies of a Catholic version, with or without notes, we will gratefully accept, and faithfully distribute them." Yet,lo and behold, "when the Society was abont to fulfil its engagement, the Roman Catholic clergy objected, and poor Mr Gandolphy was under the necessity of eating his wOrds,-" The English Catholic Board," said he, .. did not now intend to disperse gratuitously even their own stereotype edition with notes; for they could not go about to desire
36

POPERY

DELTNEATED.

to receive Testaments (what zeal!) becaulle the Catholics did not in any wise C/}llsiderthe Scriptures necesaary ,." and added, " they learned and taught their religion by means of catechisms and elementary tracts."* Such, then, is people the doctrine of the Church of Rome on the promiscuous reading of the HoI)' Scriptures. Tho following are among the strongest reasons given in support of it :First, " It is objl'..tcd, that the Scr iptures arc wrested by some to tlwir d" ..t.ru ct uni, That tlu-y lII"y b" IlCrvcrt"d, needs not to he <It'll ;e'l. Our ,'om III on ;;",,1 hus In-un abu ..,,,1 to purposes of gluttouy ; intellect has been 1'1II1'1"y"d in the servieo of irreligion; civil liberty lu,s been cor-rupted, and made tho instrument of anarchy. But still these gifts lIIay be used to good advantage." And because a few make gluttons of themselves, are all to be denied food 1 Because intellect has been sometimes employed in the service of irreligion, is all intellect to be bound down and stultified by priestly superstition and tyranny? Because civil liberty has been sometimes perverted, would it be better for us if we were all slaves 1 The preaching of the cross has been to many, the savour of death. unto death, but is that a reason why it should not be preaehed at all? It is possible that some may do themselves harm by possessing the Scriptures, but it is certain that they would suffer more harm by their being withhelcl ; for there it such a thing as " perishing for lack of knowledge." The question is, which is the greater evil, running the risk of a few doing themselves harm by possessing the Scriptures-which, after all, is very problematical-or allow unnumbered myriads to perisll, by refusing them that knowledge by which alone they can be saved ? But it has been asked, "Why do not the Catholics show the same caution in other cases as they do in this? Why do they not forbid image. worship, lest the people fall into idolatry? Why do they not forbid the use of indulgences, lest they should be used as a license to commit sin 1" It seerM to us rernm'kably ominous, that the Papists should be st£8piciolu of Bothing so much aM the Bible. And, further, although men in all ages have been liable to fall into error, "yet neither file Prophets, nor our Saviour
• Elliol'. Romanl8D, Po 26.

POPERY DELINEATED.

lind his Apostles, ever thought of preventing these evils by forbidding the reading of Scripture. St Peter himself, who mentions the danger of destruction from wresting the Scriptures, so far from blaming, commends every man for reading them. St Paul, whose Epistles were the very Scriptures they wrested, never required them to be kept from any Christian of the several Churches to which he wrote. On the other hand, he required the contrary, concerning an Epistle as liable to be misunderstood, as any of them, and which actually was misunderstood immediately. " I charge you, by the Lord, that this Epistle be read unto all the holy brethren." (1 Thess. v, 27.) The ancient Christians, in whose days heresies abounded, did not restrain the people from reading the Scripture in order to preserve them from those evils. With them, a man who surrendered his Bible was deemed an apostate from the faith. Nothing was so much insisted on by fathers and councils, as the necessity of all persons becoming acquainted with the Holy Scriptures. The primitive church was apprehensive of no danger from this practice. The Church of Rome, we acknowledge, has cause to be apprehensive; for, had the people but liberty to read and judge from Scripture, they would speedily be brought to see what they who now see dare not own, how widely the Scripture differs from the doctrines which they are commonly taught. They are wise in their generation. The Scripture is against them, and they will be against the Scripture; they will lower its credit as far as they dare; keep it out of men's hands where they can; and where they cannot they will pervert it by erroneous translations, obscure it by false glosses, and make it of none effect by setting up a pretended authority of interpretation, which affixes to it a sense quite different from what it evidently means."* Secondly. "It is objected, that fanaticism results from the exercise of private judgment in the interpretation of Scripture. " But it is not from reading the Bible that these excesses arise; for this book is entirely overlooked by fanatics, or they are so much wiser than what is written, that they place their own notions in a far more elevated scale than the Word of God. Fanaticism should be rather considered &8 the "if• Elliot'. ltomaDlom. p. Ill.

38

POPEl!. Y DELINEATED.

sprlng of' heated passion, a. weak understanding, or extremely superstitious, mistaken, and absurd views of a few truths, than as the result of private judgment in reading the Scriptures. But are members of the Church of Rome, who are either forbidden to read the \V ord of God, or to exercise their jndgment in order to understand it, exempt from fanaticism 1 Instances of this evil, and of the perversions of Scripture which have disgraced Protestant countries from the days of Munster down to those of Joanna Southcote, are far out-done in countries where the Bible stood foremost in the list of heretical books, and where the authority of the Church of Rome • was predominant. " Witness the horrible crucifixion of females so minutely detailed by Baron De Grimm, who was an eye-witness of them duri'1g his residence at Paris, and which were suppressed, not by the interference of the clergy, but by order of the Lieutenant of Police."* In the Edinburgh Review for September 1814, p. 302, 303, we have an account of the most horrible fanaticism. De Grimm has preserved an exact detail of what took place among some unhappy women called Convul8ionaire8, who pretended to receive particular visitations of the Holy Spirit, during which they either fell into convulsions, or were irresistibly impelled to court certain severe bodily afflictions at the hands of their spiritually-minded confessors. "The first scene was that of the crucifixion of the Sceur Rachel and the ScourFelicite, two women from thirty to forty years of age, who were inwardly moved, as they pretended, to exhibit this lively image of the passion of our Saviour, in a mean lodging in Paris, in August 1759. These two wretched creatures were actually nailed to two wooden crosses through their hands and their feet, and continued fastened to them for upwards of three hours, during which they sometisnes pretended to slumber in a beatific trance, and at other times uttered a quantity of infantine nonsense and gibberish, asking for sweetmeats, and threatening and fondling the spectators in lisping accents, and all the babyish diminutives of the nursery. The nails were at length drawn out, and a considerable quan·· tity of blood flowed from all the wounds; after washing and bandaging which, the patients sat down quietly to a little repast

POPERY

DELINEATED.

in the midst of t1e apartment. Various womerr were stretched on the floor, and beat with bludgeons on the head and breast, a.nd trodden violently under the feet of their spiritual assistants, to their infinite relief and gratification, as the managers of the spectacle most solemnly asserted. They had also the points of ~words pressed forcibly against their sides and bosoms: and were not only miraculously protected from wounds, but received the greatest consolation from the most serious and continued thrusting." The Baron relates a second exhibition of the same kind, and the following may be considered a third :-" The Scour Frangoise had announced that Go(l had commanded her on that day to burn the gown off her back, and assured her of much comfo ..t from the operation. After a great deal of grimacing, accordingly, fire was actually set to her skirts, but instead of appearing to experience any delight, the failing saint very speedily screamed out in terror, and they were obliged to pour water upon her petticoats and carry her off halfroasted, half drowned, and utterly ashamed of her exhibition." I'm afraid she was mistaken about the promise of comfort-poor thing. But of course there was no fanaticism in all this. Such a thing never occurred in the Romish Church. Nor yet the Flaqellantes, in whose processions such fanatics as the King of France and the Cardinal Lorraine have frequently joined. " There is nothing that will contribute more to convince us of the miserable state of religion in this century, and cf the frenzy that almost generally prevailed in the devotion of these unhappy times, than the rioe of the sect called Flagellantes or Whippers, which spl'Ung up in Italy in the year 1260, and WW! propagated from thence through almost all the countries of Europe. The societies that embraced this new discipline, presented the most hideous and shocking spectacle that can well be conceived; they ran in multitudes, composed of persons of both sexes, and of all ranks and ages, through the public places of the most populoult cities, and also through the fields and deserts, with whips in their hands, lashing their naked bodies with the most astonishing severity, filling the air with their wild shrieks, and beholding the firmament with an air of distraction, ferocity, and horror; and all this with a view to obtain the Divine mercy for themselves and othe1'll,by their voluntary mortification and penance.""

POPERY

DELINEATED.

After these wild fanatics had been suppressed for some time, they again sprnng up, in the fourteenth century, of whom Mosheim says, vol, iii. p. 381, that "they held, among other things, that flagellation was of equal virtue with baptism, and the other sacraments-that the forgiveness of all sins was to be obtained by it from God, without the merits of Jesus Chris~ that the old law of Cbrist was soon to be abolished, and that a new law, enjoining' the baptism of blood, to be administered by whipping, was to be substituted in its place, with other tenets more or less enormous than these." " Directly the reverse of this melancholy sed was the merry one of the Dunccre, wi.idl, in the year 1:17:1, ar"K" at Aia-laChapdlc, from whence it spread through the district "I' Liege, lIainault, and other parts of Flanders, It was customary among the fanatics fur persons of both sexes, publicly, as well as in private, to fall a dancing all of a sudden, and, holding each other's hands, to continue their motions with extraordinary violence, till, being almost suffocated, they fell down breathless together; and they affirmed, that, during these intervals of vehement agitations, they were favoured with wonderful visions. The ignorant clergy of this age looked npon this as the work of evil demons, who possessed, as they thought, this dancing tribe. Accordingly, the priests of Liege endeavoured to cast out the devils, which rendered these fanatics SO merry, by ,inging hymns and applying fumigations of incense: and they gravely tell us, that the evil spirit was entirely vanquished by the"

poweiful charms. "*
One of the most powerful sects of fanatics which arose in the thirteenth century was that of the Brethren and Sisters of the Free Spirit. .. This new sect took their denomination from the words of St Paul, Hom. viii. 2, 14, and maintained that the true children of God were invested with the privilege of a full and perfect freedom from the jurisdiction of the law." There were some of them who carried their views to the most extravagant height, and maintained, "that, by continual contemplations, it was possible to eradicate all the instincts of nature on the heaven-b<;rn mind, and to introduce into the soul a certain divine stupor, and holy apathy, which they looked upon 88 the great characteristics of Christian perfection. The perscma who

t IlIll111eim'.

EeOI. BIa. flII. ilL p.lIllI.

POPERY

DELINEATED.

adopted these sentiments took strange liberties in consequenceof their pretended sanctity, and showed, indeed, by their conduct, that they had little regard to external appearances; for they held their secret assemblies stark naked, and lay in the same beds with their spiritual sisters, or, indiscriminately, with other women, without the smallest scruple or hesitation."* But these wretches having found that the "instincts of nature" were not 80 easily" eradicated," annexed another article to their creed, namely, that the soul and the body acted independently of each other. "Some held," says Mosheim, "that the motions and actions of the body had no relation at all to the soul, which,by its union with God, was blended with the divine nature." And what are all their monkish orders but sects of fanatics, founded by fanatics in their maniacal ravings? Many of their leading ceremonies and rites may be traced to the same source. We have no doubt but the preceding extracts will interest the reader; but we have introduced them to prove that fanatics may be found elsewhere than where the Bible is read; and that the Church of Rome may, beyond all dispute, claim 'the honour af taking the lead in such disorders. "Fanaticism is occasiona.lly to be found in every Church." Out of the pale of the Romish Church, the most notorious of the present day, are the Mormonites ; within her pale, the worshippers of the host. "It is proper, however, to make one important distinction between Protestants and Romanists respecting the instances which have occurred. Protestants provide against them by sound Instmotlon, and discourage and disavow fanaticism and enthusiasm when they arise. But the Church of Rome does not llCl'ipturally make such provision; she does not discourage or disown, but she rather fosters, the examples of delusion which have arisen among them." .. Thirdly, It is objected that the miscellaneousreading of Scripture produces heresies. " Mr Hughes says: • The Protestant rule of faith has given rise to all the heresies that exist' (Controwrsy with Breckenridge, p. 22). But are the poor and illiterate those who originate heresies? Not at all. Du Pin, a celebrated Doctor of the Sorbonne, and a Roman Catholic, informs us, • If there be ebseure and difficult passagesin the Bible, it is not generally the
• JIoII*m'. BcoL BJa. po ..

POPERY

DELINEATED.

simple who abuse them, but the proud and learned wbo make a bad use of them. For, in truth, it is not generally the ignorant and simple who have formed heresies in perrerting the word of God. They who do so are generally bishops and priests, learned and enlightened persons; so that, so far from knowing by experience that the reading of the Scripture is dangerous to the simple and the ignorant, one may say that we learn therefrom that it seldom causes any but the learned to fall into error, and that the simple have generally found there nothing but what is edifying and instructive: Cardinal Bellarmine writes as follows :-' Heresies originate with men of rank rather than with the common people. Without doubt, heresiarchs were almost all either bishops or presbyters. So that heresies are certain factions of leading men, without whom there would be no revolts of the people in the Church: From these two testimonies of Roman Catholics, who in this respect speak the words of soberness, the reading of Scripture by the common people does not produce heresies."* We now return to the doctrine of Protestants, as contained in the last proposition,-namely, that the Holy Scriptures were put into the hands of the faithful, with an obligation to read them. First, As to the Jews. "'hen God gave his law to the Israelites, he said to Moses,-" Gather me the people together, and I will make them hear my words, that they mllY learn to fear me all the days that they shall live upon the earth, and that they may teach their children." Deut. iv, 10. The following are the words of Moses, when he assembled all Israel together, just before his death :-" Now therefore hearken, o Israel, unto the statutes, and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and posBessthe land which the Lord God of your fathers giveth you. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you." Dent, iv. 1,2. And he again said to the same people :-" And these words which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart. And thou 'hali teach them diligently unto thy children, and shali
• EIIl.\'. Itomanltm, pp. Ill, 'It.

.

POPERY DELINEATED.

talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up." Deut. vi. 6, 7. " Thus the fathers were bound to teach diligently these things to their children; and this shows that every father had access to Scripture, ina language which he and they understood." Secondly, " Nor shall we find this order of things changed under the Gospel; for we need only peruse the first verses of the Epistles written by St Paul, Peter, James, and Jude, and we shall find them addressed to the faithful of all the Churches as well as to the pastors." We only give one-" To all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons." Phil. i. 1. "Thus the private members of the Church were addressed, from which we learn that they could understand them, as they were placed in their hands for the express purpose of making them wise unto salvation. "Moreover, the use which Jesus Christ would have us to make of Scripture is, that we might know him to be the Messiah: 'Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me.' John v. 39. Indeed, we find our Saviour attributing the erroneous opinions of the Sadducees to their ignorance of the Bible: 'Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.' Matt. xxii. 29. It was out of the same book that St Peter and St Paul proved our Saviour to be the l\fessiah, and converted the Jews to Christianity. The Bereans are praised for having searched the Scriptures, and judged of its contents. 'These were ,says St Lulre-' more noble than those in Thessalouica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so: Acts xvii. 11. After this, how can anyone affirm that the faithful ought blindly to believe their pastors, and not to exercise their own judgment ~ Is not this to condemn what the Scriptures praise 1"'* Nor did the primitive Christians, in whose days there were heresies in abundance, ever think of restraining any person from reading the Scriptures. There is no subject so much insisted on by the Fathers and Councils of early times, as the 1W:esnty for all, without exception, becoming aequainted

POPERY

DELINEATED.

with the Word of God. "Hear, I beseech, you, all yon secular men;" says Chrysostom, in the fifth century, "provide you Bibles, which are the medicines for the soul: at least get the New Testament."" One of the most abSU1Y{ statements put forth by Popish priests is,-That we cannot ascertain what books constitute the canon of Scripture, without reference to the authority of the Romish. Church. Such twattle hardly deserves an answer. They should be told that the Protestant Churches would disdain to trust to the authority of tlceir church for anything. Surely Protestantism has been able to boast of men as learned and as qualified to investigate these matters as any in the ranks of Popery r And after all their boasting as to our inability to know the truth in reference to what is, and wbat is not, canonical, witbout having recourse to the dictum of their church, we are independent enough to reject the Apocrypha, contrary to their authority, and despite of their anathemas. It seems necessary that we should here say a little about the Apocryphal Books, and our reasons for rejecting them. The great antiquity of the Books of the Apocrypha is indisputable. They are supposed to have been written between the days of the Prophet Malachi and the coming of Christ. That they were never admitted into the canon of the Jewish Scriptures, by the Jews, is certain. The following is a quotation from the works of Jerome, by the learned and candid Du Pin, himself a Papist :-" Thus all the books of the Old Testament among the Jews are two-and-twenty; of which five belong to Moses, eight to the Prophets, and nine to the other holy perimen. Some reckon four-and-twenty, by separating Ruth from Judges, and the Lamentations from the Prophecy of Jeremiah, and placing them in the number of holy writings. This preface, adds he, may serve as II head or preface to all the books which we have translated from the Hebrews; 3Dd we are to take notice, that whatever is not contained in the number of these books is Apocryphal. From hence it followa that the book of Wisdom, commonlyascribed to Solomon, Eoclesiasticus, said to be composed by Jesus the Son of Sirach, Judith, Tobit, and the Pastor, do not belong to the eanoa, no
• Cbr)'-. 0,..... Bomil.ix. tOI>l. xl. 1" Sf I.

P6PEKY

DELINEATED.

more than the two books of the Maccabees, of which one was in Hebrew, and the other (as appears from the style) was written in Greek."* Another important fact, in connection with these books, is, that they were not admitted into the eanon of Scripture during the first four centuries of the Christian Church. " The first and most ancient catalogue that we have of the canonical books drawn up by a Christian author, is that of Melito, Bishop of Sardis, who flourished under the empire of Marcus Anton inus. It is taken from a preface which he had put at the head of several extracts he had made of the books of the Law and the prophets, and mentioned by Eusebius in the fourth book of his history, chap. xxvi. He reckons only two-and-twenty books of the Old Testament, among which he does not include Esther, dividing Ruth from that of Judges. Origen, in a passage extracted from his commentary on the first Psalm, and mentioned by Eusebius, book vi., chap. xxv., reckons also two-and-twenty; but he takes in Esther, joining Ruth with Judges, and observes, that the booksof the Maccabees are excluded out of the canon. The Council of Laodicea (held between the year 360 and 370, and representing the Catholic or universal Church) which is the first Synod wherein the number of canonical books was determined, assigns only two-and-twenty books of the Old Testament, including Esther, and joining Baruch, the Lamentations, and the Letters, with the Prophecy of Jeremiah."t The same historian says, that this catalogue is followed by St Cyril and St Athanasius, The catalogue of Melito is followed by Leontius, Anastatius, and St John Damascene, &c., &c. So that it seems that the introduction of the Books of the Apocrypha.into the canon of Scripture, is rather a modern than a primitive act. " The first catalogue wherein the Books of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, and the two Maccabees, were admitted as canonical, and as having the same authority, is that of the Third Council of Carthage, held in the year 397; which confirms the Decree of the Council of Hippo of the year 393, wherein these books were received into the canon, &c."t
• Do Pin', Hist. of the canon, eke., toL, vel. I, p. 7, London, law. I Ibid, p. 8. 11bid, pp. 8, P.

POPERY

DELINEATED.

Of the Apocryphal Books it may be observed,(1.) " They possess no authority whatever, either external or internal, to procure their admission into the sacred canon. (2.) "The Apocryphal Books contain many things which are fabulous, contradictory, and directly at variance with the canonical Scriptures. (3.) " They contain passages which are in themselves false, absurd, and incredible. (4.) "Many parts contained therein nrc at variuuee with the authentic records of profane historians. (5.) "The Apocryphal Hooks nrc not quoted in the Now Testament; but those which were received into the canon of the Jews are frequently quoted."'!! In concluding this chapter, we may observe, that" when other methods of disparagement fail, Papists attempt to undervalue the English version of the Scripture, \Ve have the testimony of the best and ablest scholars-such as Selden, Louth, Horsley, Whitaker, Taylor, Scott, Adam Clarke, t and others-in favour of the correctness and fidelity of our authorized translation. The singular pains which were taken with it, give strong assurance of its accuracy. It has been stated by a gentleman, who has collated the original Douay Bible, Dr Challoner's and Haydock's editions, and the
• ElIiot·s Romanism, p. ::SI. t The following is the testimony of the Rev. Dr Clarke :-" The oldest recorda among both Jews and Christians mention the books, both by number and name, which constitute the Old Testament Scr-iptur-es, and these are the identical books, both in number and name, that remain in the Hebrew canon to the present day. Not one has been added; not one has been taken away. Nor have we the slightest evidence. that e ven one chapter or parugrapb , in any ODe of the books come down to us, has been either added or omitted. And it it! the same with the New Testament. We have not IOfSt or received a single book or chapter which the genuine Church of God has ever accounted divmciy msptred 4Dd canonical. I have dtlgent.ly examined this quest.ion in all the accounts we have from antiquity, and in all the collections of Hebrew and Greek MSS., both of. t.he Old and New Testament, and their various readings, which the ablest ertttcs have produced to public view, and some of the dud of those 1\188., I have collated myself', and most. if not all, of the nncient versfons, and I can conscientiously say, that we have the Sacred Ornt-Ies , at least in c!'lbCntIul sum and eubstanoo, as they were delivered by God to 1\105C5 and the Prophets s and to tbe Church of Christ by Jesus. his Evangultets and Apostlcs ; and thd nothing in the various readings of the }leLrew and ('rcck M~8. can be found to etrengthen any error in doctrine, or obliquity in mora l practrce, All is safe and liOund,-all pure and holy. It is the perfect law of the Lord, that converts the BOuI; the tetitimuny of the Lord, that abideth for ever : and the unadulterated I08pel of .Jesus Christ. which is able to make men witit' unto salvation, throulJa fallll ill Bim."-ClarA<', Tlwologv, bV 8am"dDtl" .., PI' 61, /ill.

POPDY DELI. EATBD.

authorized English version, that he is cemviftced

that 0001-

lonw', and Haydock's editions are corrected and amended by
King Jamu's Bible. A few years ago, in England, in consequence of the JD.ia.. repre ntations of the Papacy, and of others, reapecting the 'ngliah Prote t nt ver ion, su picions were awakened l'8specting its integrity. harges of numerous and ide departure from the ilr t dition of the tran lator had be n fr Iy eireulat d. • I ny lett r8 and pnmphl 11w r publi h d to sub t ntiate th e chare . In tb cir um tan " the authorized printers of th Bible, at th University of Oxford, publi hed a fae- imil of the fir t dition of King' James's Bible, issu d in 1611, in order that it might be compared with modern edition. This copy i prepared with great minuteness, not only as it respect the text, but the orthography, punctuation, and even the embellishments. The Board of hnager of the merican Dible ociety procured ODe of these copies, and in tituted a rigid comparison between it and the standard copy of the Society. A committee of upervision was appointed by the Board, consisting of one member from eseh denomination of Christians connected with the ociety. A skilful reader first compared the early and modern copies, word for word, noting all the discrepaneiea. Professor Bu h, the Editor of the ociety's publications, having in the library a. great variety of Bibles, issued during the last three hundred years, examined these diffe"rences, ascertaining where and when these ebanges were introduced. The Committee, each having a copy of the Bible to be lel'lltini.aed before him, then carefully followed the editor, and tried his • T tigations. Th ult was, that the variations existing bet eon the pre ent and early eopie of the Engli h Bible consiRed in unimportant particulars, ueh as capit4lletter., _. __ , il<alic word" ., not in an !I degree affecting the sense:" 'rhe two preceding extl'fUlts 11'0 con ider-and we think just1y-of great importance. The former puts a weapon into the hands of Protestants before which, even a Papist will l]uil :-Dr Challoner', and Haydock', editWtuJoj t~ n-., Bible, OORBECTED FBOM OUR ENGLlllB VEBSI0!l I Forget it tICIIl The latter is calculated to inspire WI with the 1ItJJINt eoat-

I'OPElt Y DJ:LI.a:.l. Tl:D.

D

49

POPERY DELIKEATED.

CHAP. IlL-TRADITION.

IN the last chapter we had occasion to refer once or twice to the traditions of the Church of Rome. And as they constitute a very important, if not the most important part, of the rule of faith and manners, as held by the said Church, we will endeavour to present the subject to the reader as briefly and explicitly as possible. And, according to the plan laid down (p. 19.),we shall allow Romanists themselves to define the doctrine. And for this purpose we must again refer to the Council of Trent. We do this the more readily, as the decrees of that Council are acknowledged to contain the doctrines of the Church of Rome in all subsequent ages; at least until another injamble Council alters some of them. The said Council, speaking of the Gospel as preached by Christ and his Apostles, says, that it was contained in written books, and in unwritten traditions. It then states, in regard to traditions, that "they have come down to us, either received by the Apostles from the lips of Christ himself, or transmitted, by the hands of the same Apostles, under the dictation of the Holy Spirit; that these traditions relate both to faith and morals, have been preserved in the Catholic Church by continual succession, are to be received with equal piety and veneration with Scripture, and whosoever shall knowingly and deliberately despise these trsditions, is accursed." It will perhaps place the doctrine more clearly before us, if we !live an extract or two from some of her authorized writers. Bishop Hay thus speaks :"Ques. What is meant by tradition? "Ans. The handing down, from one generation to another, whether by word of mouth or by writings, those truths revealed by Jesus Christ to his Apostles, which either are not at all contained in the holy Scriptures, or at least are not clearly contained in them. "Q. What is the principle upon which tradition proceeds?
60

POPERY

DELI:'OEATED.

"A. It is the laying down, as an invariable rule to be observed in every generation, firmly to adhere to the doctrine received from the preceding generation, and carefully to commit the sameto the succeedinggeneration, without addition or diminntion."* Dr Milner asserts, that the Roman Catholic rule of faith is "Scripture and. tradition, and these propoutuled anti ,.l"~ plained by the Roman Church. This implies that we have a uoofold. rule or 1,,10; and that we have an interpreter or judy" to explain it, and to decide upon it in all doubtful points."t Speaking of the preaching of the Apostles, he says that Christ "inspired some of them and their disciples to write CERTAIN PARTS of these doctrines and precepts-namely the CoLlIonical Gospels and Epistles."t Again," The Catholic rule is tlu. whole word of God, together with her living authority, in explaining it."§ Dr Milner also says, "The first part of this rule conducts us to the second part; that is to say. tradition conducts us to Scripture." "That is to say," putting Dr Milner into plain language, the Scriptures derive tlieir a/tthority from tradition; that they cannot have a meaning contrary to tradition, or the interpretation of the Romish clergy. According to these extracts, tradition may be taken in three or four senses. That we may be saved from mistaking the points controverted, we will name them. (1.) It means the written Scriptures. To this we have no objection, so long as we understand the application of the term. (2.) Written opinions, interpretations, or comments" either not at all contained in them (Scriptures), or at least not clearly contained in them." (3.) Unwritten opinions, interpretations, or comments" either not all contained in them (Scriptures), or at least not clearly contained in them," (4.) The explanations given by the Romish priesthood. To this we shall not object: for they are at liberty to call the preachings of their priests Bywhat name they think proper-straditions, :or traductions, it matters not. Only, they must
• The 8incere Christian Instrncted, .ltc., voL I. P. loo. t End of Controveny, LeU.. s .. r- 1).9. ~ Ibid, Letter x., p. 511. I IbId, Letter 11. p, 62.

"
si

r-or rn

Y IH.::L!XEA TED.

not impose them upon us, as of equal authority with the word uf C;odo The point of controversy is contained in the second and tlii;'d view, especially the latter, as givcn above, and may Le oxprcssed thus :-·That the traditions (/1/11 n. torittcn. 01' 111/u-rittcn, are to be rcceirc/I U'~'thall " pil't.'! a m! 'l'f''nt/'lltion (fS f.' rt icl c« of 'j·el;v~·on. (l1Hl of O)Hol (lutluu'it/,with the rcr-l a-. til 11101 t~l(ind, (f.~ cont alno]. 'iii the Ilo/H ~'·I·I'iJdlfi·(::'. 'I'hr-se things we have rrasou to gain::';:I)": nnrl it l){'('OIli('~ a 11111y to rrsist : for" in vain do they worship (;od, tt'nl'!]ill~ ftlT dottrine the oornmandments of l1Iell." .\Iatt. X\·. !J.
H

Having seen, then, what is meant hy tradition, as sanctionI'd by the Church of Rome; we will examine the grounds of their belief therein. But we will first remind the reader, that it consists of eertuin doet/'incs and precepts which Christ and his Apostles are said to have spoken, but which were not committed (0 writing; Ladng been handed down from age to age by word of mouth, ::;,.1 which have come down to us as pHre, as the word con. t.' ined in the gospels and epistles. Indeed, some of their doctors assert, that the knowledge of Christianity might have been J"'. hiTI'd and pr"l'o(j«td[ in the world, if the Ncu: Testament. 1,,;<1never been written. L'ndoubtcdly ! if it had pleaeed .t\..lmi,;·htr Ga(l to rai;>:e "P :l succession of hu:rii'td nun. But the history of Ihe Rcmish Church shows, that she was not qualified to l,rescrve it. " One would think that the simple statement of what the Roman ists mean hy tradition, would be sufficient to convince any man of the folly of depending upon them." It seems imposs ihle, that any person should believe that those" certain doctrines and precepts" could be transmitted by word of mouth, and in as pure a state as when first delivered, for 1800 years. .. Common sense dictates, that tradition, after any lapse of time, having gone through many hands naturally unsettled and variable, must be altered, extended, or diminished, since these changes happen in process of time to all things: and thus it would become too vague to regulate the conduct of men." In support of tradition, the following passages are quoted with great confidence: •. Xo'w I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in 1\11

I'OPEP..T

DELI:-'"'"EATED.

th inrs , awl keep the ordinances,

as I delivered them to you." 1 Cor. xi. 2. " Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hol.l the trud it irr s which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." 2 Thess. ii. 15. Xow we communi!you, brethren, in the name of our Lori! Jesus Christ, that yc with.lruw yourselves from en'ry brother that wulkuth ,li801',I"r1y, nd not after the t rud ition II'h'..\, I", a
h

rec'{~in~llof us."

~ T\1{~~~.iii.

(j.

In order to show that the above texts nflor.l 110 slIpI'"rt to Popish tradit ions, we observe, J"i,·.<I, That the worrl rendered Irrulili.m in 0111' trnnslut inll of the ~cril'tllres signifios nny thin({ddi"~I·,'d to nnotl",r, wb,·· ther 11'l'il1ln or .s1",,,""II. This is cluur from tlH1second of tl", above p<lss:tges-" whether by /l'ol'd or our ''J,iRtle.'' Secondbt; No one ever imagined, who thought at all upon the subject, that /'I'el'g t!lillg the apostles s'lid in their prw,h. in!! and ]'riv!!te convers!!tions are contained in their epistles, 'I'he subetauce, itowever, of all they said and !:lught is undoubtedly to be found in one epistle or another, At least, nothing essential to the healthy constitution of the Church will be omitted: and they are sufficiently intelligible to save men from serious error, TILi,'dly, Whether the traditions delivered by " word " are found in tbe Epistles or not, we are certain that they were not such as the Romish Church boasts to posiless; because the Apostles, being inspired men, they could not say one thing in conversation and the opposite in writing, But the traditions of the Romish Church are utterly opposed to apostolic writings, which is one reason why they fear the Scriptures, and, therefore, cannot be apostolic traditions. Fourthly, Allowing that St Paul did deliver to the churches at Corinth and Thessalonica. truths, of which we have no trace in the Scriptures, "we may ask, luno and at ,,,ltat time dill they come into the possession of the church at Rome 1 and by what means did the latter assure herself that thev were the same instructions which the Apostle delivered by divine inspiration ?" Admitting that the church at Rome received them in a state of purity, what proof have we that they are in that &tate now 1 It is certain that they are not; for" the Church of Rome esnnot adduce a single article of religion, or ordi.53

POPERY

DELINE.'>.TED.

not impose them upon us, as of equal authority with the 'word of Goel. The point of controversy is conta.ined in the second and third view, especially the latter, as given above, and may be expressed thus :-. That the traditions of mrn, written or u ntl'ritten, are to be received with 'all " piety and veneration" as articles of religion, and of equal authority with the revelations of God, as contained in the Holy Scriptures. These things we have reason to gainsay: and it becomes a duty to resist: for" in vain do they worship God, teac~ing for doctrine the commandments of men." Matt. xv. 9. Raving seen, then, what is meant hy tradition, as sanctioned by the Church of Rome; we will examine the grounds of their belief therein. Bat we will fi rst remind the reader, that it consists of certain doctrines and 'PTecept8 which Cln-istand his Apostles are said to have spoken, but which were not committed to writing; having been handed down from age to age by word of mouth, and which have come down to us as pure, al\ the word conta ined in the gospels and epistles, In deed, some of their doctors assert, that the knowledge of Christianity might have been pi'csm'ued and propagated in the world, if the New Testament had never been written. Undoubtedly I if it had pleased Almighty God to raise up a succession of inspired men. But the history of the Romish Church shows, that she was not qualified to preserve it. s c One would think that the simple statement of what the Romsnists mean by tradition, would be suffioient to convince any man of the foUy of depending upon them." . It seems impossible, that any person should belie ... that those" certain e doetrines and precepts" could be transmitted by word of mouth, and in as pure a state as when firstdelivered, for 1800 years. "Common sense dictates, that tradition, after any lapse of time; having gone through many hands naturally unsettled and variable, must be altered, extended, o:r diminished, since these changes happen in proeess of time to all things; and thus it would become too 'fague to regulate the eonduet of men." In support of tradition, the following pallagee are quoted with great confidence: .. Now I praise you, bretuen, th~ ye remember me in

an

·l'OP"€RY DELINlMTED

.

.things, and keep the or'dinances, as I delivered them to you." 1 Cor. xi. 2. . "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the trad it ions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." 2 Thess. ii. 15. . " Now we command you, brethren, in the na.me of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us." 2 Thess. iii. 6. In order to show that the above texts afford no support to Popish traditions, we observe, First, That the word rendered tradition in our translation of the Scriptures signi£es any thing delivered to another, whether written or spoken. This is clear from the second of the above passages-" whether by word or our epistle." Secondly, No one ever imagined, who thought at a.ll upon the SUbject, that everg thing the apostles said in their preaching and private conversationa 'are contained in their epistles. The substance, however, of all they said and taught is undoubtedly to be found in one epistle Or another. At least, .nothing essential to the healthy constitution of the Church will .be omitted: and they are sufficiently intelligible to save men from serious error. ' Thirdly, Whether tbs tr aditions delivered by "word" are found in the Episflea or hot, we a:.re certain that they ware not such as the Romish Church boasts to possess; because the Apostles, being inspired men, they could not say one thing in conversation and the opposite in writing. But the traditions of the Romish Church are utterly opposed to "apostolic writings, which is ODe reason why they fear the Scriptures, and, therefore, cannot be apostolic traditions. FOii/rlhly, Allowing that St Paul did deliver to th& churches at Corillth and The8sa.loniea truths, of which we have no traee in the Scriptures,. "we may ask, hOtJJ and at what tim6 did they come into the possession of the church at Rome 1 and by what mean8 did the latter usura herself tha.t they were tho lIame inlltructionll whiQlk the Apo.~le delivered by divineinlipi-

:ratWIl~" A..dmittmgthat the church at Rom. received them in .. ata.te of purity, what proof haY9 we that they are in that .... ItO'" t It ia cmsift.~ illeyare not; fat "the Church OUtlot add.- .. tiDgle article •• f nllgion, or ordio

or ...

'158

POPERY

DELINEATED.

nance of worship, which she has derived from oral tradition, that is not contrary to, or inconsistent with, some part of the written Word;" and that those churches were not infallible from whom she must have received the traditions delivered to them, if she did receive them, we have abundant proof; for the church at CoriDth erred respecting the Eucharist, and the church at Thessalonica concerning the Day of Judgment. Fifthly, Romanists, as well as Protestants, admit the sacred Scriptures to be inspired. Is it unreasonable, then, on the part of the latter, to refuse to receive anything as the Word of God which is plainly opposed to the inspired volume ~ and is it unreasonable to ask them to point out or name a single oral tradition which is not in substance found in the Word of God nor contrary to it ? They cannot. The following argument is adduced in support of tradition: -"Hethathearethyou,hearethme." (Lukex.16.) We readily grant, and maintain, that it is the duty of all men to hear what the Apostles say; but what on earth has this to do with hearing what other people have to say? for the traditions of the Church of Rome consist in the sayings of other men; and we deny that either Christ or his disciples uttered one of them. Again-" If he refuse to hear the church," &c. (Matt. xviii, 17.) If the reader will be at the trouble to refer to the two preceding verses, he will see that this quotation has no reference at all to traditions, nor to doctrines in any form. The whole passage alludes to private quarrels between members of the same church or congregation. The subject is one of offence between brethren. The following is the plan recommended :-1. " Go and reprove him alone." If this does not succeed, then, 2. "Take one or two more "-men of piety and intelligence, and it would be better if they were the particular friends of both parties; but if he neglect to hear them, then, 3. "Tell it ~othe church "-that is, to the particular eongregoaton or community to which they both belonged, or to peri 80m who may have the oversight of such congregations. In favour of tradition, the following text is also adduced" I have many things to say to you, but you cannot hear them now." (John :xvi. 12.) But they should have added the 13th verse, which is as follows-" Howbeit when he, the spirit of truth, is come, be will guide you into all truth; for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall .M

POPERY

DELINEATED,

he speak; and he will show you things to come," " Accordingly, the Holy Spirit was afterwards given to them; and the different parts of the New Testament were written, which contained 'all truth' necessary for the edification of the Christian Church." There is one fact stated in the 13th verse which proves beyond dispute that the 12th verse referred to none but the disciples-" And he will show you things to come," Here is a promise of the spirit of prophecy-a gift which the Romish Church has had sense enough not to lay claim to. " Dr Milner argues in favour of tradition from the Lex non Scripta of England, 'All written laws,' says he, 'necessarily suppose the existence of unwritten laws, and, indeed, depend on them for their force and authority.' ' You know,' he continues, 'that in this kingdom we have common or unwritten law, and statute or written law, both of them binding; but that the former necessarily precedes the latter.'''* I am sure I cannot pretend to say that I understand much about the laws of "this kingdom," written or unwritten; but we may be allowed to observe, that this case of his seemshardly parallel. We humbly opine that there is a vast of difference between religion and the imperfect laws of this or any other nation; and we should not have thought that anyone would have argued the ineompleteness of the law of God, from the incompleteness of the laws of nations. And as to the written laws of England deriving their force and authority from England's unwritten laws, it may be so, for any thing I know; but, in my ignorance, I have always thought that the laws of Britain derived their authority from the crown, and that they were not dependant for their force upon any previous law, written or unwritten; at any rate, when previous laws contradicted subsequent enactments. And such are the traditions of the Church of Rome. They" are either contrary to the Scripture, or embraced in the Scripture, or not found in it at all." But how does Dr Milner wish us to understand this? Why, that the written word of God depends upon the unwritten word of God, or tradition, for its force and authority. Thus "tradition leads to Scripture," and the Scriptures can hsve
• End of Controveroy, Letter x., po 54.

POPERY

DELI~EATEIi.

no meaning contrary to the interpretation ofthe Church. "\Vo might, however, ask, whether the law of the Ten Commandments, written on tables of stone 011 Mount Sinai, ncccssarils] supposed the existence of anotherlaw prior to it, but not written, and upon which this written law depended for its force and authority?" Dr Milner himself would hardly assert it. Tint there had been unwritten law from the beginning, to the duy when the decalogue was produced, no person wishes to deny; but, if there had not, would the Ten Commandments have had less force and authority? It would be interesting; to know Dr :tIiiner's views on the recent Maynooth Bill; as from what, for instance, it derives its" force and authority;" and as to whether he considers the former enactment, which secured to Maynooth College £7000 or £3000, or the latter, which secures about £30,000, the most binding on her Majesty's Government. It is not to be expected, however, that the Romanists will lose sight of the years before the flood. "Accordingly, we are told that the faithful had nothing but trad ition to guide them for above two thousand years-that is, from Adam to Moses. Dr Milner's words are, 'It is then certain that the whole doctrine and practice of religion, including the rites of sacrifice, and, indeed, the whole sacred history, were preserved by the patriarchs in succession from Adam to Moses, during the space of two thousand four hundred years, by means of tradition ; and, when the law was written, many most important truths regarding a future life, the emblems and prophecies concerning the Messiah, and the inspiration and authenticity of the sacred books themselves, were preserved in the same way.''' To this we reply:"(1.) The principles of religion during the antideluvian agea were very few, and, therefore, were easily transmitted and remembered. " (2.) It is not true that the patriarchs depended on tradition. in the Romish sense of that word; for they had direct COlnmnnication with God. Consequently, what he revealed to them, and what they imparted to their families, was not luimat» tradition, but divine revelation. "(3.) Supposing the truths of religion, in the patriarchal
...End of Coutrovcrsy, Letter It., p. 70,

POPSILY

DELI~a:.\.TED.

ages, had been matters of mere tradition, they passed through so few hands that they might have been preserved to the time of '1I10ses without any great admixture of error, Adam WaS alive in the days of Methuselah ; Methuselah was contemporary with Shem; and Shem lived at the same time with Isaac; so that the whole narrative of the creation, and the promises of redemption, came down to the family of Jacob through jiJH)' hands onb], But what is the truth as to the apostolicat traditions of the Romish Church? Why, that tlu-y cannot have como down to us without having passed through upwards offift!! gCllcmti,JIls. "( 4.) But we do not admit that the family of .J a"oh rel'civctl the knowledge of God by tradition, even through hands SI) few and clean. For not only did God reveal his will to Enoch, Noah, and Abraham, but Jacob himself was an inspired murr, and a prophet of the Lord. (Psalm cv. 15.) " (5.) Moreover, thoexumplc of both patriarchal and Jewish times is utterly destructive of Popish traditions; for, notwithstanding the doctrines of religion in the first ages of the world were few and simple, all flesh had corrupted his way; and, even posterior to the flood, for want of written documents, the doctrines of religion were either corrupted or lost, or superseded by the degenerating influence of tradition. The Jews, by their traditions, transgressed the commandments of God, and rendered them of none effect. And can it be otherwise with Popish tradition, which has come down to us through ages of gross darkness, and through hands polluted u·ith eve,?}
crime ?',

We will now present to the reader two or three arguments again3t oral tradition. First,from the Scriptures. St Peter says, "Moreover, I will endeavour that you may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance." (2 Peter i. 15.) It seems that "St Peter was not of opinion that oral t"adition was better than writing to preserve the memory of these things, or that, without writing, they might be preserved." Rather unfortunate this, that Peter, their first pope, should have no confidence in unwritten tradition. It must have been a slip of the pen. :Moses also was commanded to write the Pentateuch; but why, if it were better unwritten 1 The pro57

POPERY

DELINEATED.

phets likewise committed to writing their revelations. The evangelists and the writers of the New Testament did the same. " And he said unto me, write; for these words are true and faithful." (Rev. xxi. 5.) Secondly, "Oral tradition in its very nature is so uncertain and changeable as not to be capable of becoming a rule of faith. The following quotations from one of our English divines will place this in a strong light :-' Suppose but the easiest common story were to be told from one person to another, without being written down for one hundred or two hundred years, and let each person as he receives it have never so strict a charge to tell it in the same manner, yet, long before the end of that time, what security could we possibly have that it was true at first, and unaltered still? And you cannot but see there is much less security that a considerable number of doctrines, especially such as compose the Popish creed, should be brought down safe for seventeen hundred (eighteen hundred) years together, through so many millions of hands, that were all liable, through ignorance, forgetfulness, and superstition, to mistake them, or, through knavery or design, to alter them. But it will be said, in a case of such importance as religion, men would be more careful in delivering truth than in others. Undoubtedly they ought, but who can be secure that they would? It is of equal importance to be careful in practising it too, yet we all know how this hath been neglected in the world; and, therefore, have reason to think the other hath been no less so. " , But whoever made the first change, say they, must have been immediately discovered. Now, so far from this, that persons make changes in what they relate without discoveringit themselves; alterations come in by insensible degrees; one man leaves out, or varies, or adds one little circumstance; the next another; till it grow imperceptibly into a different thing. In one age, a doctrine is delivered as a probable opinion; the following age speaks of it as a certain truth; and the third advances it into an article of faith. Perhaps an opposition rises upon this, as many have done. Some have said such a doctrine u-a« delivered to them, and others that it was '/lot; and who can tell whether at last the right side or the wrong have preva iled 1 Only this is certain, that whichsoever prevails, though by a small majority at first, will use all means
68

POrERY

DELII'E~TED.

of art and power to make it appear an universal consent at last, and then plead uninterrupted tradition.'''* It cannot be doubted but that the priesthood, for five or six ages before the lteformation, were exceedingly corrupt. According to their own historians, they were monstrously ignorant and vicious, that nothing was too bad for them to do, or too absurd for them to belie've. Then, if it were admitted that tradition contained nothing but sound doctrine for an age or two after the Apostles, it must almost necessarily have become corrupt when transmitted by such men. Vfhatever came in contact with them must have been defiled. And further, it has always seemed rather inexplicable that these traditions have never been collected and published. ., So far as we are aware;' says Dr Elliot, "there is no publication which contains a summary of what this Church believes under the head of tradition." She is very backward in communicating information with regard to those particular doctrines which she designates tradition. And the fact that she refuses to collect and publish them, shows there are none which she dare publish. It would go far towards re-establishing the authority of the Popedom, if a publication of well-authenticated tradition. were given to the world. This she knows, and would give them if she could. I do not believe that she knows herself in what her traditions consist; further than general terms express them-namely, all that is written, and all that is unwritten; all that the priests say, and all that they don't sa!J. Thirdly. " It is maintained by the advocates of oral tradition, that it is preserved incorrupt by the Church, and that the Church is aided by the Holy Ghost for this purpose." Now, it will be readily admitted that what the blessed Spirit utters as truth, will be the same everywhere; that he cannot contradict himself, and therefore if traditions contradict one another, they cannot all be true. That this is the case we are prepared to prove. ., Papius himself, as Eusebius testifies, had made a collection of fables and new doctrines, under the title of unwritten traditions, which he had learned from the mouths of those wbo had seen the Apostles, and bad conversed familiarly with them,"]
• 8ecker'.llermoD8, vol. "I., pp. 801, 302Eccl. Hla. lib. ilL c. 311.

t Ewoebius,

POPEIlY

DELI~EATEn.

Dr \Vh,tby, speaking of Pup ius and Irenseus, those of the Christian writers who were the nearest to the lbys of the Apostles, says, " It is very remarkable that these two earliest writers of the second century, who, o~ the credit of idle reports and uncertain fame, have delivered to us, things said to be done by the Apostles and their scholars, have shamefully imposed upon us by the forgery of fables and false storie s, · " iIany were evidently fals«, Irenrcus speaks of a certain tradition which had passed current in his time in Asia, as coming immediately from the Apostle Jolin; namely, that Cln-i-.t tanght after his fortieth year, which is now held by all chronologers to be false." " Some traditions are contradictory to each other, and to Scripture. 'The churches of Asia, who have the feast of Easter celebrated precisely on the fourteenth day of the moon's age, after the vernal equinox, boast, for that purpose, of the tradition of St John and St Philip; and the rest of the church hold, on the contrary, by apostolical tradition. also, that it ought to be celebrated on the Sunday of our Lord's resurrection. The Greeks, Ncstcrians, Abyssines, Latins, Armenians, have their contrary traditions; for tradition changes its face and form, according as the nation changes: one sort hold for tradition, the necessity of three immersions in baptism, and that of the use of leavened bread in the sacrament of the eucharist; and the other mock at it, and reject it: the one sort believe a purgatory by tradition; others believe it not: the one by tradition circumcise their children; the others hold that practice in horror, as being a relic of Judaism: one sort fast by tradition on the Saturday; the rest have that fasting in execration; one sort by tradition sacrifice lambs at this day, after the manner of the Jews; the rest detest that custom. Who can say justly, in so great a confusion, ' This is apostolical, and this is not ¥' ':Moreover, there are a grcat many ancient traditions, which public use heretofore authorized, and which time has so abolished, that there remains not the least shadow of them among the Latins; as that of not buptiaing, without a case of necessity, but only at the solemn feasts of Easter and Whitsuntide ; of giving of milk and honey to the baptized; of administering the eucharist to little children after baptism; of praying standing upon the Lord'sday, and from Easter till Whitsundtide; of celebrating the
60

rorETI y Dr.LI~EATl-:D.

corumunion on the evening of fast days; of everyone's carrying home with him a piece of the bread of the communion; of distributing the cup to all the faithful communicants; of receiving the communion not on one's knees, but standing; of mutually kissing one another before the communion; and divers others, which the Latins have abrogated. " , On the other side, how many Latin traditions are there which the use of the Church of Home author izcs at this day, "I' which 1/'(; can-not jiil/I tl//; lrart trace in 11/1' primitir« d'II'Y!t,
lIlid

which from thence

'I'i...:,;[)(,/ tli.~(,OV(T tj,t'ui~(:ll'n;

tu be 1~"JlOU''11,

'ITlr!hy consequencc fals», and 110t opostolicul l as the wor~hipping of images; invocacion of saints; trunsubstuntion ; ar]oration of the host : use of altars; that of lights or tapers ; masses without any corumunion; the di vine service in a tongue not understood by the people; the sovereign authority of the Church of Rome over all other churches; auricular confession; the number of the seven sacraments; and as many more, that the primitive church, which came 1warest to the apostles, never
knew.'
"j<

" Xor can the Church of Rome boast that her traditions have preserved her from controversy; since even tbese have been the subject of sharp and protracted dispute. The supremacy of the Pope, the sacrifice of the mass, &c. have long agitated her community. Thus confusion and uncertainty surround them: we will give one important instance of this. Those who support the doctrine of the immaculate conception, allege that they have the consent of nearly the universal Church, and of all universities, especially that of Paris, where no man was admitted to be master in theology, unless he bound himself by oath to maintain that doctrine. On the other hand, Cajetan brings the irrefragable testimony of fifteen fathers against it; others bring no less than two hundred; and Bandellus adduces nearly three hundred. To this array of witnesses the friends of the immaculate conception reply, that some of these authors have been brought in falsely, and that the multitude of witnesses is of little avail, seeing their opinions may all be traced to some individual doctor, Thus they contend, and decide nothlng."]
--Claude'. Defence of lhe Refonnalion, vol.!. pp. 316.318. 45* Taylor's Di.. uaalv. from Popery, put u, book L, sec. iii.,; .,01. x, PT>. 461.

6~

POPERY

DELINEATED.

Fourthly, "The discordant opinions held by the Romanists themselves, respecting tradition, form an overwhelming- argument against them. Some believe tradition to be equal to the wrttten Word; others consider it to be supe,-ior; whilst some hold it inferior to Scripture. The Council of Trent taught, that ecclesiastical and apostolical traditions are of equal authority with the Word of God." On the other hand, .. the famous Gerson says, 'In the trial of doc~rines, that which is first and principally to be considered is, whether a doctrine be conformable to the holy Scriptures, &c. The reason of this is, because the Scripture is delivered to: us as a sufficient and infallible rule for the government of the whole ecclesiastical body, and its members, to the end of the world.' ".. Lyra says, "As in philosophy truth is discovered hy reducing things to their first principles, so in the writings delivered by the holy doctors truth is discovered, as to matters of faith, by reducing them to the canonical Scriptures."t Additional instances might be given, where Romish doctors speak: of Scripture as superior to traditional authority. Other doctors of the Church of Rome declare tradition to be BU perior to the written 'Vord. Thus, Cardinal Baronius teaches, traditio» is the foundation of Scripture, and excels them in this, that the Scriptures cannot subsist unless they be strengthened by traditions,. but traditions have strength mough without Scriptures. Lindanus says, "Traditions are the most certain foundation of faith, the most sure ground of the sacred Scriptures, the impenetrable buckler of Ajax, the suppressor of all heresies. On the other side, the Scripture is a nose of u'ax, a dead and killing letter without life, a mere .l,ell without a kernel, a leaden rule, a woodof thieves, a shop of heretics·"t Again, at the Council of Trent, Vincent Lionel, a Franciscan. maintained that the Church was above both Scripture and tradition, inasmuch as they both derived their authoritv from the Church. "When the decree of the Council Trent was proposed for consideration, and that part was read which enacted that the Scripture and tradition should be regarded with equal piety and veneration," Bertani objected

crt

• Gersonii Opera., tom L. pars Il., conoid. I.. foL 1llll6t Lyra. Posttlln, tom I•• Prolog. de Lib. Bib •• foL. Rom.,. 1471. i: Llndanl Panoplla Evansellca. Paris. 1564.

6J

POPERY

DELINEATED.

that the fact of so many traditions having fallen into distlu, seemed to indicate that even God himself did not intend that they should be venerated equally with the Scripture. Tte Bishop Chazza ventured to assert that it was impious to equalise the authority of Scripture and tradition. It is very pleasing to find that several in the Council of Trent spoke in this common sense way. Notwithstanding, the" impious" decree was carried. " W,;shall now collect the vicll's of the ancient fathers I·C specting traditions." The following wero contemporary with the Apostles: Barnabas, Clement, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp. Thcse are called apostolical fathers. "Traditions, on the first publicacation of Scripture, were clear, evident, recent, easily remernbered, and talked of by Christians in their meetings both public and private; so that, to misunderstand or to pervert them, was equally difficult; to remember them was an easy task; and, had there been a mistake, one of the Apostles, or an immediate disciple, was present to rectify it." 'Ve shall, therefore, pass over the two first centuries, and give the opi, nions of men who knew not the Apostles. " Fathers of the third centur1j." Iren<eus,a Greek, born about the year 140, ordained Bishop of Lyons A.D. 178, and suffered martyrdom in the year 202 or 203. In writing against the ancient Gnostics, he says :-" For when they are accused by Scripture, they turn upon the accusation of Scripture itself, as though it were not entirely correct or of authority, and because it furnishes different modes of expression, and because truth cannot be obtained from it by those who are ignorant of tradition; for the truth was not delivered by writing, but by the living voice; on account of which Paul said, • We Ilpeakwisdom among them that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world,' And each of them calls that wisdom which he derives from himself, although it be only a fiction. But when we again recall those who are averse to tradition, to that tradition which is from the Apostles, and which is preserved by succession of presbyters in the churches, they will say that they are not only wiser than the presbyters, but also than the apostles, and have found out the unsdulte,
63

t-oi-cnv

DEU"EA

TED.

1'.1t(;(]truth. ";f Hardly anything" could be more applicable to the Homan ists than the above, who may, without much impropr iety be called the Gnostics of the present day. "In another place, Irenreus declares, '\Ye have known the method of our salvation by no others than those by whom the Gospel came to lIS, which Gospel they then truly preached; but afterwards, l,y the will of God, they delivered to us in the Scriptures, to l,e for the future the foundation and pillar of our t,tith."t COlIl,l anything be spoken more Iully to our IUll'j,()se than this." ., He says also-' Read more diligently that (;o,pd which is given to \IS hy the apostles, and rcud more diligCll11y the }>rophets, and yOIl will find every action and the whole doctr-ine of our Lord preached in them.' "t Tertullian; a Carthaginian. flourished under the Emperors Severns and Caraculla. from the year 194 till the year :!1;3 or 216. and died about 220. In refuting heretics, he says. " Whether all things were mude of >lny subject matter I hn ve as yet read nowhere. Let the school of Hermogencs show that it is Wl'itten; if it is not written. let them fear the curse allotted to such as add or dimini"h."§ If there is any danger of those who place what is not written above what is urritt en; experiencing the curse of Rev, xxii. 18-19, the Papists will have secured to themselves a !luge share. Again," They confessed, indeed, that the Apostles were ignorant of nothing, and differed not among themselves in their preaching; but they are unwilling to allow that they revealed all things to all; for some things they delivered openly, and to all, some things secretly and to a few; and that because Paul uses this saying to Timothy, 0 Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust. And again-That good thing 'which ,/laS committed 1Into thee keep."~ Observe, these very texts which the ancient heretics adduced in favour of tradition, are the same that the doctors of the Church of Rome adduce! the very argument is theirs. Would any IlUt heretics adnpt it? " Clemens of Alexandria. who flourished from A.D. 196: to .'.D. 220, when he died. He employs the following language
• Irenmns Arlver!'>u:iHoc-res, lib. llt., cap i' p. 169. t Jdern, lib. 3., cap. L, p. )t;'9. :t Idem, lib. iv., cap. 66, p- 296. i Ter-tuf l, Opera. Contr. Hermog., p. 272 ,. Idem, De Priescrtp, p. 79.
I

POPERY DELINEATIDo

in his Stromata :-' He hath lost the character of a man of God, and of being faithful to the Lord, whohath kicked against ecclesiastical tradition, and hath turned to the opinions of human heresies.''' The reader will remember that tradition refers to things written as well as unwritten; and what Clemens means by " ecclesiastical tradition" he explains as follows:" But he who returning out of error obeys the Scriptures, and hath intrusted his life to truth, he is, of a man, in a manner made a God. For the Lord is the principle of our doctrine, who by the prophets and the Gospel and the blessed Apostles, at sundry times, and in divers manners, leads us from the beginning to the end. He that is faithful of himself, ic worthy of faith in the voice and Scripture of the Lord, which is usually eXe<rcisedthrough the Lord to the benefit of men; for this Scripture we use for the finding (nit of things; this we use as the rule of jwlging. But if it be not enough to speak ouropinions absolutely, but tha.t we must prove what we say, we expect no testimony that is given by men, but by the i.oiee of the Lord we prove the question; and this is more worthy of belief than any demonstration; by which knowledge, they who have tasted of the Scripture alone are faithful." Again, he says: "They who are ready to spend their time in the best things, will not give over seeking for truth until they have found the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves."* Oriqen. was born about the year 185, and died in the year 252. In his fifth sermon on Leviticus, Origen hath these words: In which (the two Testaments) every word that appertaineth to God may be required and discussed; and all knowledge of things may be understood out of them. But if :my thing yet remain which the holy Scripture doth not determine, no other third Scripture ought to be received for authorizing any knowledge or doctrine; but that which remaiaeth we must commit to the fire, that is, we will reserve it for God. FOI' in this present world, God would not have us know all things." Again:" Consider how imminent their danger is, who neglect to study the Scriptures, in which alone a knowledge of their condition can be ascertained."] It cannot be
H

• Clem. Alex. Opera. Strom. lib. vii., sec. 11'1., P. 893. t Lib. x., cap. xvI., in Rom. Baoll edit
E

65

OOPERY

DELINEATED.

said of the Romanists, however, that they" neglect to stndy the Scriptures," for they are not allowed. Cyprian was Bishop of Carthage from A. D. 248 to A. D. 258, when he died. Cyprian wrote to Pompeius against Stephen, Bishop of Rome, in the following strain :-" Whence comes this tradition? Doth it descend from the Lord's authority, or from the commands and epistles of the Apostles? for those things are to he done which are there written," &c. "If it be commanded in the gospels or the epistles and acts of the Apostles, then let this holy tradition be observed.?" Father.' (i th c fourth. ccnt ur-], JIil'pulytus, who fum'red murtyrdorn A. D. 330, writes as follows against the heresy of Noetus :-" There is one God, whom we do not otherwise acknowledge, brethren, but out of the holy Scriptures. For as he that would possess the wisdom of this world cannot otherwise obtain it than by reading the doctrines of the philosophers, so whosoevr r of us will exercise piety towards God, ca'nnot learn. tMs lnit otit of the ltoly Scriptures. Whatsoever, therefore, the holy Scriptures do preach, that let us know; and whatsoever they teach, that let us understand. "t Enstl>i"., Pamphilu s was born about the year 264, was ordained Bishop of Ccsarea A.D. 313. and died A.D. 338. The follow in« remarkable sentence was dcl ivered in the name of three hundred and eighteen bishops, assembled at the first general council of Nice :-" Belicce the things that are written: the things that are not written, neither think upon nor enquire after."t I Athanasius was born about the year 300, ordained Bishop of Alexandria A.D. 3.'16, and died about the year 375. In his oration against the Gentiles, he says :-" The holy Scriptures, g: ven hy inspiration of God, are of thernsel Yes sufficient toward the discovery of truth." § And, speaking of the true orthodox Christians of his age, he says :-" The Catholic Chris. tians will neither «peale 'nor o,dure to hear any thing in religion that is foreign to Scripturo ; it being an evil heart of immodesty to speak those tl.inrr» which are not written."] Bt Amb"ose, who died A.D. 396, says :-" How can we use
• Cypriani Opera, epis. T.~,}\_211. .+: Concifla, General. et Provine, tom S Atbanaeii Opera, tom. t., P, 1.

i.:

t Hippu1. Opera, tom Ii. Po 459 . Gl'la~ii, eec., lib. ii , (·ap.w.
(Ibid, tom.

66

u, p.709.

POPERY

DELINEATED.

those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures ?"'* Again :-" 1 read that he is the first, I read. that he is not the second : they who say he is the second, let them show it by reading."t Hilary, who died A. D. 367, says in his second book, addressed to Constantius Augustus: -" You seek the faith, 0 emperor. Hear it then, not from new wl'itings, but from the books (1God. Remember that it is not a question of philosophy, but a doctrine of the Gospel."t G~"fJol'!1 A'y"."n, who was born about the year 3:W, and died A. n, ~W5, says :-" Let a man be persuaded of the truth of that alone which has the sea! of the written testimony." Cyril of Jerusalem; who died x.n, :11'6, speaks thus :" Not even the least of the divine and holy mysteries of the faith ought to be handed down without the Divine Scripture«. Do not simply give faith to me while I am speaking these things to you, except YOlt have the proof of ",hat I say from the holy word. For the security and preservation of our faith are not supported by ingenuity of speech, but by the proof» '1
A.D. 407. He says that the Scripture, "Like a safe door, doth prevent an entrance to heretics, guarding us in safety in all things we desire, andn ot permitting us to be deceived."11 He, therefore, concludes:-" Whoso useth not the Scriptures, but cometh in otherwise, that is, cuts out for himself a different and unlawful way, the same is a thier:'~ Chrysostom writes also :-" Formerly it might have been ascertained by various means which was the true chnrch, but at present there is no other method left for those who are willing to discover the true church of Christ, but hy the Scriptures alone. And why? because heresy has all outward observances in common with her. If a man, therefore, be desirous of knowing the true church, how will he be able to do it, amidst so great a resemblance, hut solely by the Scriptures? Wherefore, our Lord, foreseeing that such great confusion of

the sacred writinqs" § Father» rf the fifth cent urst: Chrysostom was born A.n. 347, and died

• Ambr03ii

t Idem. in Verglnis Insttt., c. II. I 8t C)'rilli·Opera, Cut. iv., Dogm

Opera,

tom

tt. ; De Offl., &c., lib. L, cap. 2.1. t Ad Constant. Agust.. lib. H.
, 'Vii.

I Cbryaost. Opera, lorn vll.lIom.liv.,

p. 346.

,. ChlJllOOt.,

&6-.

POPERY DELINEATED.

things would take place in the latter day, ordered the Christians to have recourse to nothing but the sacred writings."* Whole pages might be given from Cbrysostom to show, that \ not tradition, but Scripture, was the rule of conduct to tbe Christians." • Theophilus Alexandrinus, who died A.D. 412, says plainly:" It is the part of a devilish spirit to think any thing to be divine that is not in the authority of the holy Sc/·/JJfw·es."t Jerome, who died A.D. 420, writes thus; -" The kingdom of Christ which flourishes here possesses churches in all the world, is joined by the unity of the Spirit, and has the cities of the law, the prophets, the gospels, and the apostles. She has not gone forth from her boundaries, that is,frorn the holy 8cripfures.'t Again :-" Those things which they make and find, as it were, by apostolical tradition, without the authority and testimony of Scripture, the sword of God smites."§ Again, on the question whether the Zachariah slain between the porch and the altar was one of the minor prophets, or the father of the Baptist, Jerome would admit of no decision on the case, because Scripture did not decide. "This," says he, " because it hath no authority from Scripture is, with equalfacility, despised as it is proved." II St L!lrgnstine, Bishop of Hippo, who flourished from A.D. 387, the time of his conversion,till his death in 430. 'Ve select the following pertinent remarks of this prelate :-" In those things which are clearly laid down in Scripture, all may befound which per:ain to faith and morals." And again, "'Vhatsoever ye hear from thence (the Scriptures), let that be well received by you; whatsoever is without them refuse, lest ye wander in a cloud" *'* And in another place, "All those things which in times past our ancestors have mentioned as having been done towards mankind, they have delivered unto us; all those things also which we see and deliver to our posterity, so far as they pertain to the seeking and maintaining true religion, the holy Scripture hath not passed in silence." tt
.. Chrysost., &-c., Homil. ix. in 2 Tim. c.Itt., tom tx., p, 714. t Thwph. Episc. Alex. Opera, tom vii. ; Beiron, Opera, t0I.!l iii. j <:~mment in Mich. lib. iO cap. I, t Idem in AJtgB.l,~.1., tom lb. I Idem in Matt. 23, tom Iv, " Augustin! f!pera, .tom, iii., lib. ii , c. s, ..ldem, tom, Ix., c. il, tt Idem, tom n-, Ep",t. 42t

68

POPERY DELINEATED.

" Whatever our Saviour would have us read of his actions or sayings, he recommendedhis apostles and disciples as his hands to write." * Again, Augustine declares, "\Vho knows not that the sacred canonicalScriptures of the Old and New Testament are containedwithin certain bounds; and ought EO far to be preferred to the latter writings of bishops,that we are not to doubt or call in question any thing written therein, whether it be true and right or not." t "I am unwilling that the Church be demonstrated by human documents, but by the divino oracles." t Referring to the Donatists, he says, "Let them if they can demonstrate their Church, not by the talk or rumour of the Africans-not by the councils of their own bishops-not by the books of their disputers-not by deceitful miracles, against which we are cautioned by the Word of God, but in the prescript...of the law-in the predictiinu of the prophets-in the verses of the Psalms -in the voice of the Shepherd himselfin the preaching and iuork«of the evangcliMs-tlwt is, IN ALL
CANONICAL AUTHORITIES OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES."§

It may be proper here to remark, that, although Augustine teaches many things which are in direct opposition to the traditions of the Church of Rome, yet he does not always speak with sufficientclearness to prevent his sentiments appearing to favour some of the doctrines of the said Church. But this only shows that he is to be looked upon as a fallible man, and liable to error. The following extract is a proof of what we have said: "I would not believe the gospel, unless the authority of the Catholic Church moved me thereto." 1\ This on the face of it seems to favour the high pretensions of the Romanists-the attthority of the Church-and is quoted with great confidence for this purpose. There is no difficulty, however, in showing that the above quotation is perfectly reasonable, and cannot therefore countenance the pretensions of the Romish Church, which are altogether unreasonable. (1.) St Augustine acted in reference to the gospel as all reasonable men would act in a matter of such vast importance. For instance, suppose that the gospel of St Matthew had not been received by the primitive church, or the greater portion of it, nor by the Church universal in any subsequent age, this

* AUllUatinl Opem, tom

*

Iv., lib. I., cap. 35. t Idem. tom vii., lib. 2. c· 3· Idem. tom vU.. cap. Iii. § Idem, tom vIL cap. xvi. I Idem, tom ri.. lib. 1.• cap. v.

69

rOrERY

DELINEATED.

would be a sufficient reason why it should not be admitted as a part of the canonical Scriptures. So that Augustine's position is, that he would not receive anything as the veritable word of God, which had not been so recognised by the whole Church of Christ. A very laudable resolution. Had the Church of Rome followed it, she would have been saved from a multitude of errors. That this was the view of St Augustine is evident from the following extract from his treatise on the city of Goel, which is as follows :-" Therefore, let us leave out the fables contained in those writings which are called apocruplca], because their obscure and private origin was not evident to the fathers, from whom the authority of the true Scriptures has reached us, in a succession which is at once well certified and generally known. Many things are brought forward by the heretics under the name of other prophets, and other more recent writings under that of the apostles; all which, designated apocrypha, have, after diligent examination, bee I) removed by canonical authority."{' (2.) When Augustine speaks of the Catholic Church, he does not mean the Roman Church, but the Church universal. That he did not mean the Church of Rome singly, may be considered as substantiated by the fact, that he was himself at the head of a number of African bishops, and did not acknowledge the authority of the Romish Church, for he opposed appeals to that See. Several Roman Catholic divines of eminence refer the saying of St Augustine, not to the present church, but to the church in the time of the Apostles. Thus Durandus de St Sourcain, after having quoted the words of that father, ob8erves-" That which is said concerning the approbation of the Scriptures by the church is to be understood only of the church which was in the time of the Apostles, who were filled with the Holy Spirit, and, withal, to the miracles of Christ, and heard his doctrine; and on that account were fit witnesses of all things which Christ both did and said, that by their testimony the Scriptures, containing the actions and sayings of Christ, might be proved."t And Gerson also, commenting on this passage of Augustine, says-" By the church, Augus• AURllstinl Upera , tom v., lib. x v., cnp., 32. t Durandue, Jib. Iit., dist. xxb, q. 1.. lK'C.O.

70

POPERY

DELINEATED.

tine means the primitive assemblies of those who had seen and heard Christ, and had been his witnesses.':" "Indeed, Augustine was no friend to such tradition as that authorized hy the Church of Rome. In his fifty-fourth and fifty-fifth letters, which arc addressed to J anuarius, he declares that 'the Christian religion was so burdened with human traditions, rites, and ceremonies, in the times in which he lived, that the condition of the Jews under the law was more tolerable than the state of Christians under the gospel; for that the Jews were subject only to the burden of the law, and not also to that of human traditions.' " (Jyril (:( Alc.cu ndri«, who died A. n, 444, says, "The holy Scripture is sufficiently able to make those who are instructed in it wise, well approved, and to furnish them with excellent understandings."] "That which the holy Scripture hath not said, how should we receive and account it among such as ar .. true In the writings of Theodoret, we meet with the following: -" By the holy Scriptures alone am I pcrs¥aded.'·§ "I am not so bold as to affirm anything which the sacred Scriptures passeth by in silence. "II Fathers of the si.cth. century. We have now arrived at the period when the mystery of iniquity began to work, when human tradition and new ceremonies were in considerable request; so that, from this period till the Reformation by Luther, the church was burdened with a load of traditions and unmeaning institutions. AnastltSins Sinaita, who died about the year 599, in giving instructions respecting a pious life, observes :-" 'Ve must f:lepersuaded that the church has traditions about these things which are not in the holy Scriptures, as, for instance, that one ought to be fasting wben be receives the eucharist, that he should turn toward the east in the time of prayer, that the mother of Christ continued a virgin after she had brought forth a child, and that she brought forth Christ in a cave."~ In the above extract we see the change. Henceforth, the Scripture was to be a suppressed book. Darkness was gathering over the Church of God. Weare now to see human writings tab

?"t

o Gersonll, Opera, tom. tti., teet. Il., corot vtl., part 4. Cyril contra Jill. lib. vii. t Idem. tom. I.; Glapby. in Gen., lib. ii. Then. Opera, dial I, , Idem. dial. il. I D" Pin', lkcle. Bilt. vol. I., cent Iv., p. 66.
t

71

POPERY ELINEATED. D the place of the divine, and man take the place of God. The darkness was not unbroken, however. John Damascene, who flourished in the eighth century, says-" We receive, and acknowledge, and reverence all things which are delivered in the law, the prophets, the apostles, and evangelists; and we seek after nothing beyond these."'" But the day had arrived when it was not safe for a man to speak thus, and Damascene was condemned by the Iconoclaust Council A.D.754. We cannot do better than conclude this chapter in the language of the immortal Chillingworth, who says, "THE BIBLE, THEBIBLE ALONE, OUR RELIGION.""I profess plainly," exIS claims that acute and learned writer, "that I cannot find any rest for the sole of my foot but upon this rock only. I see plainly that there are popes against pores, councils against councils, some fathers against others, the same fathers against themselves, a consent of fathers of one age against a consent of fathers of another age, the church of one age against the church of another age. Traditive interpretations of Scriptures are pretended; but there are few or none to be found. No tradition but only of Scripture can deride itself from the fountain, but may.be plainly proved either to have been brought in, in such an age after Christ, or that in such an age it was not in. In a word, there is no sufficient certainty but of Scripture only for any considering man to build upon. This, therefore, and this only, I have reason to believe-this will I profess, and according to this I will live. Propose me anything out of this book, and inquire whether I believe it or no, and, seem it never so incomprehensible to human reason, I will subscribe it with hand and heart, as knowing no demonstration can be stronger than this-God hath said so, therefore it is trne. In other things, I will take no man's liberty of judgment from him, neither shall any man take mine from me. I will think no man the worse man, nor the worse Christian; I will love no man the ·1essfor differing in opinion from me ; and what measure I mete to others, I expect from them again. I am fully assured that God does not, and therefore that men ought not, to require any more of any man than this-to believe the Scripture to be the Word of God, to endeavour to find the trne sense of it, and to live according to it."t
.. Johanllis Demaseenl Opera, Ik Jo"ldeOrthodo.s.a.. t Cbillingworth', wurke, chap. ~\.

i

I..
~

72

POPERY

DELINEATED.

CHAP. IV.-INFALLlJULITY.

THE Latin Church, and those in communion with her, claim for themselves the high prerogative of infallibility in doctrine, and rules of morality. They say that this prerogative was given by Christ to their Church. They also pronounce all other churches to be sunk in the most pernicious errors. The Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches, "But as this one Church, because governed by the' Holy Ghost, cannot err in faith and morals, it necessary follows that all other societies arrogating' to themselves the name of Church, because guided by the spirit of darkness, are sunk in the most pernicious errors, both doctrinal and moral." Infallibility is thus defined by Bishop Milner :-" The infallibility of our Church is not a power of telling all things past, present, and to come, such as the Pagans ascribe to their oracles, but merely the aid
of God's Holy Spirit, to enable her t"uly to decide what her faith is, and eve" has been, in such articles as have been made

known to her by Scripture and tradition."* The infallibility of the Papal Church has been one of the perpetual controversies between the Protestants and Romanists. By this assumed privilege she declares that she cannot at any time cease to be pure in her doctrine, nor fall into any destructive error. She asserts herself to be the supreme arbitrator in all religious disputes ;' and from whose decision there is no appeal. Under this delusive notion she claims,-l. To determine what books are, and what are not canonical, and to compel all Christians to receive or reject them, as she may determine. 2. To impart authority to the word of God. 3. To determine and publish the sense of divine truth, which all must with submission receive. 4. To declare what is necessary to salvation-it being of no consequencewhether such declaration be consonant with the sacred Scriptures or not; and
• End of Conlro ...... :r, Letlei' .'Ill.. Po 84. 73

POPERY

DELINEATED.

5. To decide all controversies respecting subjects of faith and practice. These are important claims. But it is no more than what they uniformly arrogate. Dr Milner says, in reply to his Protestant correspondents, "Before I enter on the discussion of any part of Scripture with you or your friends, I am bound, dear Sir, in conformity with my rule of faith. as explained by the Fathers, and particularly by Tertullian, to protest against YOll'rand their right to W'guc from Scripture ; and, of course, must deny that there is any necessity of replying to any objections which you may draw from it. For I have reminded you, that no prophecy of Script«.» is of any private interpj'etation ; and I have proved to you that the whole business of the Suiptw'e belongs to the Church (the clergy)-she has preserved them-she vouches for them-and she, alone, by confronting the several passages with each other, and by the help of tradition, authoritatively explains them. Hence it is impossible that the real sense of Scripture should ever be against her and her doctrine; and hence, of course, I might quash every objection which you can draw from any passage in it, by this short reply, The Church understands the passage differentli] [rom. you; therefore Yolt mistake its meaning. Nevert heless, as c!writy bearctli all tld nqs, and never [ailcth, I will, for the better satisfaction of you and your friends, quit my vantage ~round for the present, and answer distinctly to every text not yet answered by me."'" How very complacent and obliging of the Reverend Doctor! "This, however, is telling us plainly what the claims of the Church of Rome are, and what she is ready to enforce when powe'r or policy will furnish a proper opportunity. 'Ve have no right to dispute with her; she needs not descend to argue with us; she is the sole judge of every text in the Bible, not one of which can have 'a meaning different from her own! By this summary process, any Romanist, as well as Dr Milner, lUay quash every argument. Truly, according to this, there is no use in reasoning with her. But the urrogan t sentiment contained in the above quotation, affords its own re iutut ion to every Protestant, and indeed, to many serious Roman Catholics." 'Vhen her Bishops maintain such subversive tenets, we wonder not that
• End of Controversy, J.elle.

"iI., p. 77·78.

74

POPERY

DELINEATED.

a. motto like the following should pass as current among them

as fine gold, " Iionu: hath spoken, the cause is ended." IVe will now ('.,'amine the grounds on which they rest these prepostti"6!/.~claims. \'1e shall first refer to those texts of Scripture which are . commonly quoted to establish the vaunted infallibility of the Papal hierarchy. "'Ie may premise. that if such an important doctrine as the infallibility of the Romish Church be taught in Scripture, we should expect to find it clearly revealed, because on it rests the most weighty conclusions, both to the Church and the world. 'oNe assert, however, that it is not taught in the Scriptures at all. And the texts they adduce, if they refer to it, only do so, as far as they are applicable to the Apostles. "In proof of the Church's infallibility, the following words of our Saviour to Peter are urged :-' I say unto thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.''' (Matt. xvi. 18.) The greatest advocates and writers of the Church of Rome acknowledge that this is a principal text for the doctrine in question. It will save much of both the reader's time and mine, as well as place the matter more distinctly before us, if weobserve, " that there is no controversy between Romanists and Protestants, as to who is the great foundation of the church;" for they, as \ well aswe, apply it to Christ. The pointcontroverted here is the supremacy of Peter-to justify, in the first place, the high honour they have conferred upon him, in calling him the" Prince of Apostles," and, in the secondplace, to exalt their church above all others, on the ground that Peter, as they assert, was the first Bishop of Rome-an assertion, by the way, which they Cannot prove. The point debated then, is, does the teI'7n ROCK refer to Peter or to Christ? To see this, we must refer to the text and the context. For the sake of perspicuity, we beg permission to substitute the original words for Peter and Rock. "Thou art Petros (Peter), and upon this Petre (rock), will I huild," &c. The substance of the following arguments is the result of deep research by different learned men, and nearly nIl that we can claim in connection with them is the arrangement. In order to shew, then, that the two words, Petrol and Petra, have a different application, we observe :(1.) That they are of different gender,. Petros is a ma,75

POPEllY

DELlNEATED.

culinenoun, and Petra «feminine noun. Therefore, according to the grammatical construction of the text, if Petra referred to Petros, they would both have been in the same gender. (2.) They are of different signification. Granville Sharp says Petros signifies" a piece of rock, or a stone dug out of a rock." Parkhurst says, "Homer uses it constantly, I believe, for a large stone, i. e., a piece or fragment of a rock, but such as a strong man might throw." That Peter, or Petros, signifies a "stone," we have our Saviour's testimony-" Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation a stone"-(John i. 42.)-that is, Petros, the same word being used to express the meaning of Cephas, as our Lord employed when he said, " Thou. art Peter." But, on the contrary, Petra, rendered" rock" in our version, signifies a rock, a real rock, not a stone or a piece of a rock, but a rock, in the most extensive and legitimate sense of the term. And, says Granville Sharp, ii cannot signify anything else than a rock, or a strong mountain of defence. (3.) Then, to what does the word Petra or rock refer, if not to Peter? We answer, to Peter's confession. "Thou art the Christ, the SOilof the liviItg God." (Verse 16.) This was a foundation truth. And what Peter himself says, 1 Peter ii. 6. agrees with it, " Behold I lay in Zion a chief corner stone," called "rock" in the 8th verse, "elect, precious, and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded." (4.) It cannot be denied, however, but that there is a sense in which it is applicable to Peter. But, not to Peter's person, only to his office and ministry. We consider this a very necessary and a very important distinction. It is upon this point that the right or wrong of the thing turns. The Romanists apply it to his person. But we mnst distinguish between the man and the Apostle. Taking the latter view, it is equally applicable to all the apostles, and agrees exactly with what St Paul say"" Rph. ii. 20, "And are built upon the foimdation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;" that is, upon the doctrines of the g08pd which they all preached, and which are all involved in the truth nttered by St Peter, "Thou art the Christ, the Son oftbe living God." And this agrees again with Rev. xxi, 14, " And the wall of tbe city had twelve foundation" and in them the names of the twelve apostlea of the Lamb." Its meaning
76 ...

POPERY DELINEATED.

is, that the Church of Christ typified in its most happy and flourishing state, by the" holy Jerusalem," depended for its very existence on the preaching of the gospel. Thus it was "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets," If this be true, then the "rock" could only have reference to Peter as an Apostle, not as a man. (5.) But if it does not refer to the person of Peter, why did Christ gi ve him the title Petros? A remark or two will be sufficient to show the propriety of our Saviour's conduct on this occasion. Peter had made a most important confession. Christ knew it to be a foundation truth, and his mind might at once revert to Isaiah's prophecy, " Behold, I lay in Z ion for a foundation, a stone, a tried stone. a precious corner-stone, a sure foundation." And as it was no uncommon thing for masters to give names to their disciples, suited to some particular feature of their character, persons, or circumstances, so Christ honoured Simon Barjona with a name corresponding with the great truth he had given utterance to: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." But, observe, the name was not of equal dignity with the confession-the name was a stone; the confessiona rock. And it must be acknowledged, that a name signifying a stone, was more appropriate to some points in Peter's subsequent conduct, than one implying stability and firmness. "But he turned and said unto Peter, get thee behind me, Satan; thou art an offence unto me, for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." (Math, xvi. 23,) His denial of his Lord also, on the night of his betrayal, was an additional proof of his moveability." His" dissimulation,"t too, when Paul" withstood him to the face," hardly agrees with our notions of a rock. The last fact especially shows that Paul did not look upon Peter as his prince. (6.) But why were these remarks addressed to Peter alone and not to the rest of the disciples1 Because Peter was the spokesman, and he was ever forward to speak. True, it is said that it was revealed to him from haaven ; but this is no proof that it was not revealed to the rest :-but whether or no, we can only consider Peter as speaking in the name of them all. No anliwer contrary to this can be given with truth.
-Mattbew xxvI. 69-75. t Glliallon.11. 11-14

77

POPERY

DELINEATED.

It would have altered the case in some measure, had the question been proposed to Peter only; but it was not so: "But whom say ye that I am?" (Verse 15.) This interpretation is also supported by the most eminent of the Itt/hers.
"Upon the rock-that is, upon the faith Again," Christ said that he would build his Church upon Peter's confession:" And again, "Upon the rock, he said, not"pon [><-11'1'; for he did not build his Church upon the man, but UPOIl his faith." "Our Lord," sai.l Theodorat, ",lid permit the first of the apostles, whose confession he did i1X as a prop or foundation of the church, to be shaken." That Origen was of the same opinion is evident from the following: "That every disciple of Christ is the rock, in virtue of his agreement with Peter in that holy confession." This sense even Popes have embraced, as we could instanco. Then the supremacy of St Peter, as far as this text is concerned, amounts to nothing. But if Peter had been created Prince of the Apostles, how would his supremacy have made the Romish Church infallible? It is difficult to say. But the following is something like their argument, if argument it may be called :-8t Peter was created Prince Bishop ofthe Church; hut St Peter. in his official character, was infallible; therefore, the Romi-h Church is infallible. As a syllogism, this is quite as CONed and conclusive as some advanced by their own doctors. It is right, however, to say, that they conclude that their church is infallible, because, as they tell "s, Peter was Bishop of Rome; and, on account of the promise onr Saviour made, when he addressed Peter, "And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,"-that is, in the form ofa Popish gloss, the church of which Peter was the bishop should successfully resist all the muchinations of wicked men and wicked spirits. If this interpretation and consequence be just, it would at least imply that purity of faith and morals would he maintained. nut what are the facts as to this infallible church? Why, just the reverse. They themselves admit "that, should the church believe or inculcate any doctrine contrary to those which were taught by Christ, the gates of hell would prevail against it. ",Ve ask, did Christ or his Apostles teach the doetrines of extreme unction, purgatory, transubstuntiation, sacrifice of the mass, &c. &c.? Now, the testimony of Popish 78 Chrysostom says,

of his profession,"

POPERY DELINEATED.

writers can be easily adduced to show that they are new doc t/'ines, and are consequently heresies:" As to morals, her case is equally desperate. "She tells us of twenty seven mortal sins which corrupt and destroy the soul; that whoever, whether clergyman or layman, allows himself in desire or act to practise any of them, he is not of Christ or his church, hut of the syna,gogue of Satan." Such has he en the langu::ge of several of their doctors, yet how awiully have t hes« sins prevailed ag-ainst the members of that clnu ch ' ckrg)', '''' well as laity! All history proves it-all nations know it. '1'1",)' sa)' that the Reformation was of the ,levil, brought ul.out I,)' th" I,,,wers of darkness. Be it so: then have 1I0t the gates of hell prevailed against their church? If not, how is it that she does not now number Olio-half of the uat.ions of the earth which formerly submitted to her yoke? Is she, then, infullible i Douotlee«, "0111' Lord's expression means," nrul it means nothing else, than" that neither the plots, strataqcni», nor slr!'J1!!th of Satan and his angels should ever so far provail as to destroy the sacred truths in the above confession." X at that the wicked one should never exercise a baneful influence upon the church, either as to its faith or morals, but that the truth should never be wholly lost-the church should never be oanquished and subdued, " Such has been the glorious fact, the church still survives the conflicts of centuries; it still lives and flourishes, in spite of persecutions and corruptions; from its lowest depressions, it has risen with renovated vigour, and it is again seen carrying on a successful warfare against the kingdom of darkness throughout the world." It is not a promise, therefore, of infallibility, but of indistructibiliuj. He did not say that his church should never err, but that it should never

perish,
There can be no doubt, however, but the Lord Jesus intended to confer some special honour upon Peter. This i. evident from verse 19-" And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." "Some who apply these words to Peter exclusively, understand by the gift of the keys the honour assigned to Peter to open the gates of the kingdom of heaven-that is, the perfected evangelical dispen-

79

POPERY

DELINEATED.

satlon to the Jews at the day of Pentecost, and then afterwards to the Gentiles, when he went down to Cornelius at Cesarea. Others, as the Papists, understand by the phrase the committal of a special authority to Peter over the Church of Christ, of which it is certain that we have no evidence or illustration in the New Testament. The emblem of the keys was a familiar one to the Apostles, if the later Jewish writers have correctly described the ancient ceremony of constituting a rabbi or doctor of the law; for, according to them, the person admitted to this officehad a key given to him as an emblem both of his ability and duty to OPEN THE MEANING of the law, which key he wore as a badge of his office. Still, without any reference to this custom, supposing it as old as our Lord's-day, the :figurenaturally expresses the opening of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven by PUBLIC TEAClllNG, and 80 setting open the doors of evangelical knowledge, and, by consequence,ofthe Christian Church. This is a much more natural exposition of the emblem in this connection than that which regards it as signi:ficantof the committal of power and authority to govern the church, and is, indeed, pointed out with great clearness to be its meaning, by what follows as to the power of binding and loosing, which must be taken as exegetical of the power of the keys. These expressions are manifestly Jewish, and may therefore be satisfactorily explained by reference to this mode of speaking. With the Jews, to bind and loose was a usual phrase for declaring what was lawful or unlawful-what was BINDING upon men's consciences,and that from the obligation of which tbey were LOOSED or free. Lightfoot, Schoetgenius, and others, have produced a great number of examples from the Rabinnical writings. One or two instanees will suffice. "He asked one wise man, and he bound; do not ask another, lest/perhaps, he loose!" "The school of Schammai binds it, the school of Hillel loosetls it." Under these terms, therefore, our Lord gave his disciples authority to declare the laws of the Gospel dispeusation under the guidance of his own teaching and the inspiration of the Holy Gbost; which authoritative declaration of tbe terms of man's forgiveness, and how Christians ought to walk 60 as to secure the approbation of God, and that infliction of the Divine displeasure which should follow disobedience, he promises should be con:firmedin heaven; as con80

POPERY

DELINEATED.

stituting his own law and rule of moral government to be laid down by them, first in their preaching, and then in their writings. It is this which distinguishes those writings from all others. They not only contain a certain revelation of truth from God, but they have an authority as LAW derived from this, that God himself acts upon them. Whatever the Apostles have in those writings BOUND is a matter of conscience,it must be obeyed, not of choice merely, but necessity, since our salvation depends upon it; but whatever they have not bound is LOOSE to us, we are free from it, and no lower authority can make it binding upon the conscience,or connect with our disregard of it the penalty of the divine displeasure. But that this promise looked to that future time when they should bo fully qualified for this great office, is evident from what took place after Christ's resurrection, when the same power, under a somewhat different form, but of precisely the same import, was ratified. After breathing upon them, he said, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost; whosoever sins ye remit, they are remitted to them; and whosoever sins ye retain, they are retained." To qualify them for this authoritative declaration of what was obligatory upon men or otherwise, and of the terms upon which sins are remitted, and the circumstances under which they are retained, they previously received the Holy Ghost-a sufficient proof that this power was connected with the plenary inspiration oftheApostles, and beyond them it cannot extend. The manner, also, in which the Apostles exercised this power elucidates the subject, which has been greatly abused in the Romish and some other churches. "\Vehave no instance of their forgiving the sins of any individual by virtue of any authority deposited with them, much less did they affect to transmit this power to their successors. They merely proclaimed and laid down the terms of pardon under the authority of Christ; and we have no instance of their retaining the sins of anyone, except by declaring the offender condemned by the la.ws of the Gospel, of which they were the teachers. They authoritatively explained in their writings the terms of forgiveness; and, as to duty, they state what is obligatory, or not obligatory, upon Christians. They pronounce sinners of various kinds to be under God's wrath, and they declare certain apostates to be put beyond forgiveness, but by their unbelief and blasphemies, and not by apostolic excommunication;
p

&

rorznv

DELINEATED.

and thus they bound or loosed, remitted sins or retained them. It is also to be remarked, as on the preceding verses, that whatever this power was, it was not given exclusiveI)' to Peter. Still he stands before the Lord as the representati ve of the rest of the Apostles, and receives nothing but what they all received; and hence, in chapter xviii, 18, our Lord says to them collectively, and in the plural form of address, " \Vhatsoever no shall bind Oil earth shall be bound in heuven ; and whatsoever YE shall loose on earth shall he loosed in heaven. (;oll will act '!!}lun youl' illspi,·,'d deci,'i"Il,'." It is clear, thercfor«, that there is not the least ground for Peter's supremacy in this passage, and stilt lees proof that the Popish Church is infallible. \Ve have been the more particular in referring to this text of Scripture, because it is the main support of their arrogant claims and anti-christian assumptions. The other passages are of less importance. But we think the above interpretation is easy and natural, nothing strained to fit the place, and in perfect accordance with every other part of sacred writ; while, on the contrary, the meaning that Romanists would put upon it, and the inferences they deduce, are forced, unnatural, ahsurd, and without the least support from any other portion of the holy Bible. The follo\ving words, cut out of the middle of a paragraph, are brought forward to prop up this airy castle :-" If a man neglect to hear the church," &c.* (;)latt. Hili. 17.) But what may not the Scriptures be made to support, if we are allowed to cut and quarter passages and paragraphs as we think proper, and take and leave what we like? This is a privilege which we shall not allow, even to the Church of Rome. Now, the "church" which the" man" refuses to hear, must first be told; " tell it to the church," said Christ. But what or where is the church to which the offenceis to be toln? It cannot mean the universal church; such a course would be impossible. "Nor can it be the church met in council,much less the Church of Rome tbus assembled, that is here intended; for, l. No such council existed for the first three centurie8. 2. The church must always be assembled in such a council, becausethere are, and doubtless will be always,persons thus offending against 82
• For the meaning of the passage,""" p. 54

POPERY

DELINEATED.

their brethren. And, 3. Every private member would be obliged, at what distance soever he be from it, to travel to this council, and lay his grievance before it." It cannot mean anything more than the" slighting the admonition of a particular church concerning some known sin; and these churches are fallible." This-the fallibility of particular churches-even Ro, rnunists admit. This passage, therefore, is no proof that their church is infallible. "Again, it is stated that Christ has promised infallibility to his church in the following words-' Lo, 1 am with you alwuy, even to the end of the world.' (Matt. xxviii, 20.) It is true, that Christ will not only be with tho governors of his ChUTCh. but also with its members, by the influence of his spirit. even to the end of time; but this does not imply that every member or bishop is infallible." It is, in fact, a promise of Christ's spiritual presence with all his faithful ministers and people, and agrees with 2 Cor. vi. 16, where our Lord promises his followers to be with them, and to dwell in them. And this promise to be with his Apostles and faithful servants, was very gracious-cgracious to the world, because his object was to render them instrumental in turning men from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God. Bnt then the promise of his spiritual presence is no promise of infallibility, save to the Apostles. It would be as easy to prove that the church is impeccable, from this passage, as that she is infallible. Besides, this promise is only fulfilled where the commandments of Christ are taught and observed. "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and 10," &c. But do the Romanists either teach or observe them? Again, "From the promise made by Christ to his Apostles, that he would bestow upon them the Spirit of truth, &c., the Roman Catholic writers also claim infallibility for their church. 'Ve will qnote the passage entire, because they usually take detached words and expressions from which to prove their favourite doctrines, and thus wrest Scripture." "If ye love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with yon for ever." (John xiv, 15-1G.) " But the Comforter, which)s the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach yon all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (Verse 26.) "Howbeit when he, 83

POPERY

DELINEATED.

the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth; for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak; and he will shew you things to come." (John xvi, 13.) We cannot do better than give Dr Whitby's note on this passage, which furnishes a correct interpretation:" The Spirit of truth will lead you into all truth necessary to your apostolic office, and to direct the Christian church to the end of the world in all saving truth. For, as Irene-us notes, 'the doctrines which they taught, they after delivered in the Scriptures to be the pillar and foundation of our faith.' And as St Austin adds, ' Christ having committed to them the writing of those things which he would have us read, they chooseout of those things to write what they judged sufficientto be written for the salvation of the faithful.' It is, therefore, certain that the Apostles, in compiling the canon of Scripture, were so assisted by the Holy Spirit as to write all truths necessary for the salvation of believers, and consequently, that all things necessary to be believed or done by Christians are fully and perspicuously contained in the holy Scriptures." In addition to the above comment, we add two or three remarks, which prove beyond dispute, that the promise of the Spirit to guide into all truth, as given in the above texts, cannot apply to any but the Apostles. (J.) The promise was, to bring to their 1'emembranee, tie. Now this implies previOlt8 knowledge of the facts to be brought; but IV hieh, if not aided by the Spirit, the apostles might misstate or omit. (2.) It is a promise of the gift of prophecy: "show you tlti11[J8 to come." A gift which neither Popes or Councilshave challenged. (3.) ., Besides, the promise is made to those who love God and keep his commandments; which gives no very good ground for many Popes and others of the Roman Catholic clergy to put in a claim to the privilege which the promise thus implies." ,,: e give but one more text, 1 Tim. iii. 15-" But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." ;rhe Romanists have long assumed to themselves the name of " the Catholic Church" to the exclusion of all other churches ; and have lIoffirmed that, as the only true "Church of the living
a.&

POPERY

DELINEATED.

God," they are" the pillar and ground of the truth," so that her decisions are infallible, and her constitutions and discipline are binding on the whole Christian world. In opposition to such conclusion, we observe ;"(1.) That the Church of Rome has no authority to call herself • the Church of the living God,' to the exclusion of all others. Every society of believers who, with their pastors, meet to worship God in spirit and in truth according to the gospel form, is as really a true Church as that of Rome, and is so called in Scripture, whether the members thereof be more or II'S. numerous. Thus,' the Church of God which is at Corinth,' (1 Cor. i. ~); 'The Churches of Galat:!a,' (Gal. i. 1); •The Church of the Thessalonians,' (1 Thess. i. 1); and in the conelusion of some of Paul's epistles, ' The Cliurch. in such: or BllcI, a houee is saluted: All associated are represented as making one groat community, which is sometimes called 'the Church of God'-sometimes, • the body of Christ'-and sometimes, • the honse' and' temple of God.' This will prove that no particular society of Christians, however numerous or pure, is in Scripture called' the Church of the living God,' to the exclusion of all other Christian societies ; and that the whole of these taken together form "the pillar and support of the truth." Besides, if the Apostle, in this passage, had spoken of any particul.rr church at all, not the Church of Rome, but that at Ephesus must have been alluded to; because Timothy, when this epistle was written, resided at Ephesus, and not at Rome. Wherefore, the claim of Rome to be exclusively the only Catholic Church, ought to be rejected with contempt, because it is a usurpation which is contrary to Scripture . .. (2.) But what is the truth of which the Church is said to be the pillar and support? The truth referred to cannot be any particular system of doctrine expressed in the words of human invention, such as the Rymbols of faith composed by councils or synods, whether general or particular, in ancient or modern times. The truth • is the revelation of God to man.' ' Thy word is truth: (John xvii, 17.) 'The truth' belonging to the Christian Church is composed of the writings of the Old and New Testaments. It was expressed in • the form of sound words,' which St Paul exhorted Timothy • to hold fast.' (2. Tim. i. 13.) The gospel revelation is called 'the truth' in several passages of Scripture. (Gal. ill. 1; v. 7, &c. &c.)
85

POPERY

DELINEATED.

"(3.) And towards preserving Scripture truth, the Church of Rome has done no more than her share. And had she never existed, or were we to judge of the preservation of truth by those documents which we have, without having recourse to any belonging to her, the truth of Scripture and of revealed religion would stand on the same immoveable basis as it does at present. "(4.) The CltlIrchcannot here be styled "tl.e pillar and ~round of truth'-the fou.tidati.m on which the truth is built. and which gives to it its authority: • Tru tli being,' saith ('hrpostom, ' the pillar and !f"Oltllrl of ~he CII/II'''''.' St Paul ,ays that the Church is • built all the foundation of the apostles;' and our Lord declares, 'on this rock will I build my Church'-that is, on the trutli, The Church, therefore, is emphatically the Church of Christ, because she holds the truth, and because it is essential to her existence, that she maintain and teach 1111 necessary truths." The following argument is also urged by the Romunists in favour of infallibility :-The neces,<ity there is Jill' a judge in matter. of controversy; and if such a judge has not been appointed, they charge the Almighty with indiscretion. "Otherwise ollr Lord had not seemed to be discreet:' (Canon Laoi.]

Two or three simple statements will show the folly of this hypothesis :(1.) \Ve have a " judge in matters of controversy;" and an infallible one -the holy Scriptures. These we are commanded to search. And St Paul asks, " "'hy of your ownselves judge ye not what is right 1" (2.) Although the Church of Rome boasts herself to be this judge, yet her infallibility has not saved her from confusion, c(tn~l"ary opiui,ms, and contending factions, to this day. Let her adjust her own differences, and then we will talk to her. (3.) 'We could easily suggest a better plan than theirsmake CVC}'!! man infallible. But God has not done so. \Vas he therefore indiscreet 1 . (4.) An infallible judge would have been of equal advantage in civil matters as ecclesiastical. It would have saved the world from a vast of confusion and bloody strife, according to their way of arguing. But does it become man to charge God wjth folly, because he has not done what we think would have 86

POPERY

DELI~-':ATED.

been better done? "0 man, who art thou that repliest against God ?" (.3.) \\'e doubt their conclusions, even if such a judge existed. Paul was an infallible judge, and all the rest of the apostles; yet there were heresies and divisions not a few in the churches they had established, and while they were yet alive to instruct them. (IL) And then, lastly, this infallible church herself has not yet ,Iel'ido,} '1(./", t his inf:tllihle jud:.:;c is, or Wllt'l'd II<' i, to be tound ; no r can they detr-rm ine as to the r-xtcut "I' hi, uut hur ity.

There is yet nnothor llrgunll'ut, which is-"

Tholll"

Ill/lIIi,h

('h",.,.h ('tlltHot ('j'" in hrr doctrine», 11(("(I1f~I~ tlu'J! ',,11'1' 1'·""U~ lorl!! d'''~ft:Htlt'(l to !IIT, link hy !illl.', in (111 u.n';j·okf·1t t'/H~;n, fn)/n the «poetlc» thcms ..Lrc •. "

Now the truth of this we at once deny. 'Ve have alrpllrly seen-in the preceding chapter, and shall still further before we have done-that several traditions, held by the primit ivo church, have been abrogated by the Church of Home, and that others have been substituted; such as transubstantiation, sacrifice of the mass, worship of the host, purgatory, indulgences, confessions, absolution, extreme unction, and. others. "And although we cannot point out tlte precise period when they began to exist, we can determine the time when they did not e.,'ist, which answers every purpose sufficiently to overthrow the argument under consideration."
Ilavinfj e"'amined those paswfjeg of Scripture, 01' the jJi';ncip(tl of litem, jN,m u-hictc they dcduce injallibility, and findill!! nothing to the 1"0'[l0SI:, !I'e ",ill now examine the variou.

opinions entertained by Romanists themselves, respecting the seat and extent of infnllt/lility . .. If infallibility belonged to the Church of Rome, we should certainly infer, that it would not be difficult to ascertain nhere it was, and who were the depositories of it. For if the seat of it were II. subject of doubt and uncertainty, the fuct Itself'must be viewed as suspicious. That this is the case can easily be proved. At the same time, we cannot but observe, that Protestants are far more favourably circumstanced than Romanists. We know where to find infallible directions in all things necessary to salvation: T1J&WOBD OF GODJS 4LW4TS TRUE. But
f5l

POPERY

DELINEATED.

in the Romish Church, some place it here, others there, and the greater part know not where to place it, In order to have this subject as clearly before us as possible, it will be necessary to observe, that they have what are called mattrr« offaith. and matters of opinion, The former, all must believe on pain of damnation; the latter, they Illay believe or reject at pleasure, Xow, it is a lIo,tt,,. of);I'lh that the Homish Church is infallible; hut t he /' <It all'! ".'1, "" thereof nre 11/(111,'/', "f "I,i"i"",' of whi ..h four ge!lt'ral views Dlay be g'inm. The .ti 1'.< t , re,pl,,'ts tJ,., illf:dJibility of th(' Pol'''' The '''''011.1, embrures the 1'''1''' and connr-il nn itcd. The thirel, a council (·ollll".,,-,1 of all the bishops, The fourth, comprehends tho whole church. or hod," of clergy: for the laity have neither hand nor part in this high prerogative. These gfll(l'ol views contain a considerable number of subdivisions, which we need not specify. Were I a Rornanist, I should stand up fur the Pope. For I cannot see what the old man is good fur, if it is not to gi ve infallible counsel. Certainly, he is not worthy of his titles, such as, " Our Lord God the Pope;" ,. Christ's vicar ;" .. Holv Fatber," and such like: nor of the honour done him in kis;in!I his ',ig toe, if he is nothing more than a fallible old man. The Jesuits seem to be of t:,is opinion. They consider the Pope the SO:1tof infallibility, '" th:tt he is the source of that unlimited and universal power which Christ has granted to his church; that bishops and subordinate rulers derive their authority from him; that he is not bound by any Iaws of the Church. nor by any decrees of the councils; and that he is supreme Lawgiver. whose decisions it is in the highest degree criminal to OppOSlJor disobey." The followinf{ is a thesi» put forward by a Jesuit in 161H, and which the Order has since supported with great zeal :-namely, that" '.Jesus Christ has granted to St Peter and bis successors, as often as they speak in the chair (ex cathedra), the same infallibility which hIJ himself possessed ;' from whence the Jesuit concluded, ' that tbere is in the Homan Church an infallible judge of controversies, even excluding a general council, as well in questions of right as in those of fact.' A short time after, the author of the thesis published an explanation of these propositions, wherein he de .. 88

POPERY DELINE.iTED.

elared :-' Fi"M, that he did not acknowledge in the Pope tbe same personal infallibility which is in Jesus Christ, but only an infallibility of assistance, whereby the vicars of Jesus Christ are rendered infallible in their detiuit ions. Scc..iull« - L pon his havin~ extended this infallibility ttl questions of tact, that he spoke only of facts joined to questions of failh.'''* Pope Leo muintainc.l t.l.e s.uue in tl.e Lateran Council, in tl.e fulliJwill;,!; wur.ls, nn.l \'dJil"h tlHit ('ulllll'il ("olitirllll'd. w lu-u lu- d.·· dared u hi~ ability tq t\1~1'1'1)' tIll' d.·j"\·ch tt(,th of rigll1 alief f.1t·t, frolJl Iii. (,(·rtuitl kuo"!('I)gP, aud frow t}lf' l,Jf"'JllJdl~ .,1 Iii" apostolie )1l)wl'r."1 Tiw ":III1I~ batt'hd tlc,cfriHt' ii't ill~ihtt··1 IIpon ill l Iungur y in t ho I'rt',,'nt rvnt ury. TIll' following i. 1111 extruct from t lu- (·lInli·",ioll "I' fllith ill'l",,,·<1 111"'11 nil 1"""']yI1'8 10 !'(lI'"ry;-" \\'" ('(Iliff· .•.• ull,1 1>"1>"",, t},at thll I'ul''' of ltome is the head of ti,e Chllrd" 111111 that In; ('A:'<l'iOT rnn.' t Others deny the Pope's infallibility. without his d ... i~iollF c arc reeeivcd by the whole Church. .-\.:';:1in, some assert that he is uot infallible unless he be assisted -in couneil by at least a few bishops. And then, again, this is denied. unless their opinions are received by the whole church. Pighius says, s , The ju.lgrnent of the apostolic see, with a council of domestic pr-iests is far more certain than that uf an universal COUllcil of the priests of the whole earth, set apart from the pontineal authority."§ The Rev. T. Maguire, an Irilh priest, says, "The Pope at the bead of a council regularly convened, in their decrees regarding faith, are admitted to be infallible. That is one instance. Al;;o, if the Pope, with a few bibhops &8sembled, shoul<! issue decret:s touching the deposit of faith, and which are su!Jse(jllentiy received by the "hurch dispersed, we aeeount them infallible." ii The Rev. :\Ir Xolan, another Irish priest, says, .. Some Catholic divines, ind(led. maintain that the Pope, in his minist('riaJ capacity. speaking O' wl/wh'a on matters of faith, is infallible; and there are othNs who do not hold this opinion. But all Catholics know and believe that the Church is infallible, whether assembled in a general council of her bishops, with the chief Pontifi' at their head, or
,. Du Pin', Ecc1. Hi,!, ""nt. xvii., Po 147. t Lab!>"xix._ .:t London Pro(.e:iitant" lS:J1" p. 2OR. I Pigh. Albert. He Hierarch. Eccl.,.lib. via, c. 1., p. 212 , Discu.. ion with Pope, p. ~6.

POPERY

DELINEATED.

when dispersed throughont th" world, her bishops receive and assent to the definitions of faith promulgated by the Chief Pastor. Every Catholic knows and believes this."'* Now, all must see, that if the decisions of a Pope, or a Pope and a few bishops, or a Pope and council, depend for their infallibility upon their being received by the whole Ohurch, that this is to transfer its seat to the whole Church. For whatever those opinions may be, they cannot decide upon their mfallibility, until they know whether they have been universally approved. And into what does this resolve itself, but the private and Individual opinion of each priest 1 We have already seen, in the chapter on the Scriptures, that Mr Brown, an Irish priest, says on the infallibility of the church :-" Individually I will admit that the pastors are not inspired; but collectively, they most assuredly are." Now, Mr Brown either means that an aggregate amount of common sense --a1lowing to each priest his share--oonstitutes infallibility; or else, being assemblea, they are hononred with the gift of inspiration; and are thns placed beyond the possibility of error. That is, when assembled, they are individually inspired, although, when separated; they are not so. It cannot amount to other than this-for how can there be collective inspiration, if there is not individual inspiration f Is an aggregate of common sense anything else than common sense? But there would be more of it ? True, but would the quantity alter the qua. lily? Then, how can an aggregate of fallible judgment be anything else than fallible judgment? Then collective inspiration neeeaearily involves individual inspiration. If not, how many are necessary to constitute infallibility of judgment 1 I suppose the number is immaterial, so long as they are "regularly convened" and met" regarding faith." Then the Pope, _isted by a few "domestic priests," will be as infallible as a eonneil of bishops, or as the" whole church." Why cannot they call things by their proper names 1 There can be no doubt but that in a multitude of faithful counsellors there is, in ~neral, .afety. (Prov. xi. 14.) It is this common sense truth that the Romanists have corrupted, and which they have dignified with tbe groundless title of infallibility. " That system which places infallibility in the chmch virtual,
• Dbcusslon at Carlo1r. po IH.

POPERY

DELIKEATED.

or the Roman Pontiff, is called the Italian system. The Italian clergy, placed under the influence of the Pope, concurwith abject submissionin this opinion." This view, in all its absurdity, has been maintained by Popes, Councils, and Doctors. Popes-Pascal, Pius, Leo, Pelagius, Gregory, &c. Oouncils-Florence, Lateran, Trent. Doctoi's-Bellarmine, Duval, Pole, Aquinas, &c. The same view has also been opposed bl -Popes-Damasus, Celestine, Innocent, Adrian, &c. CUlmfils-Pisa, Constance, Basil. Doctol's-Almain, Du Pin, Victoria, Lyra, Bossuet, &c. Thue w have Pop. guin t Popes; Councils aginst Councils j Do tl)rS ngainst D ,'tor . For tho infallibility of ind ividual doctors, we uppos wo 11111 t not contend; but the above may be consider II II. pro f that neither popes nor councils are infallible, for infallibility cannot pronounce a thing both tl'lte and/alse. Bishop Hay, in his" Sincere Christian," gives ua two systems of infallibility as the doctrine of the church . .. Quest. In whom, then, does the infallibility properly reside? "Ails. In the body of the pastors, joined with their head. "Q. How so? "A. In either of these two ways. 1. When the pastors of the church are called together by the chief pastor, in a general council, to decide anything about religion, whether regarding faith or manners, they are then infallible in their decisions, and their decrees are considered as dictated by the Holy Ghost. 2. When the head of the church, without calling together the other pastors, publishes any decree concerning faith or morals, and this decree is accepted and received by the body of the pastors, either expressly or tacitly, it then becomes a decree of the whole church, and of the same infallible authority as if it had been made in a general council."* The Doctor himself, however, seems to be of the opinion of the Jesuits. He proposes the following question :-" When the head of the church publishes any decree concerning faith or morals, to which he requires submission from all the faithful, is he himself infallible in what he teaches?" And after supporting it by several reasons, professedly those of others, but evidently as much his as theirs, he adds, ""'hence it fol101"Sthat t
• Sincere Christian, vol, I., p. I •

91

POPERY

DELINEATED.

Peter, as head of the church, and consequently his successors in office, shall nevei' fail iil faith and teach false doctrine." "~Iany Roman Catholics, and especially the French, place infallibility in a.general council lawfully a sembled, and affirm that the Pope, as distinct from the council, is liable to error. According to this cla s, n ecumenical synod is the soverei n tribunal, which all ranks of men, even to the Roman Pontiff him elf, are bound to ob y. An as embly ofthi kind. uided by tho lIoly Spirit, is superior to tho Pope, and upreme judge of controver y. Tho Pontiff, in C' .0 of disob dienco, is ubj t to d po ition by tho me authority.'" Th foJlowin' i' ad claration of th Faculty of Divinity of Paris, 10 ,1 to th King, Iay ,1631, which e. pre 8 th true opinion of th French church at that period on this subject :-' That it is not the doctrine of the Faculty that the Pope i above a " neral council '-' That it is not tho doctrine or opinion of the Faculty that the Pope is infallible when he has not the concurring COllseiltof the church.' "t Then the Pope i dependent upon the church for his infallibility. " The Oallican Church ha distinguished itself in every age by its oppo ition to pontifica.l usurpation and tyranny. The Pontiff's authority, in consequence, never obtained the same prevalence in France as in several other nations of Christendom. II is infallibility is one of those claims which the French school never acknowledged. The general councils of Pisa, Constance, and Basil, enacted a similar decision. These proceeded, without any ceremony, to the demolition of pontifical supr macy and inerrability. All this is contained in the superlorlty of a council to the Pope, as establi hcd by these .ynod , as wcll as by their depo ition of B nedict, Gregory, Joho, Eu nius, Th pontiff, the fathers of Pi a, Cont oc , aod B sil, foun I guilty of contumacy, incorrigibility, simony, perjury, schism. and heresy, and founded ynodal authority on the ruins of pap 1 presumption and despoti m. The Basilians, in expre s terms, declared the Pope's fallibility, and in many instances his actual heresy. Some of the supreme pontiffs, said these legislators, • have fallen into heresy and error. The Pope may, and ofteo does, err. History and experience show that the Pope, though the head and 92
• Du Pin. lii., 233.

t Du Pin', Eccl. nisi. cent xvil., p. 150.

POPERY

DELL-;:ATED.

chief, has often been guilty of error.' ,,* .According to some, however, these deadly errors and sins don't affect their infallibility when deciding on matters of faith. Bellarmine and Dens admit that prioateb] the Pope may err. Costerus says, they may be guilty of ',u<$y an'} infidelity; and yet, in his official character, he cannot t"act allythillg cont,'a,'!! to pure do tr 'ne and moral . Thu Pope who h v b en 1II0,Iltt ," of 'JtiIJtlit!! wer at the ~:111l time ;"falliiJle til Emilia It" l, Th n, agnln, it i stron ,Iy di 1.1It d 1l1l101lg dum to what rr th Jll'Op r "11j,, of papal illl; Ilihili y, wh tlu r m It of faith or lIIatt '18 of f ,'t. .'01l1 I tl. fj,rm I, IUlIl h 1 tt r, nod Othl'rB both; in conn tion WIth ern! thor gari 0 (" arily ari in from a do trin 80 Ii natl 1. It will not be unint re ling to X min thi i hjc li II further, and in a mor formal manner. And, ir the fir8 1'1 we have:Popes against Pop '-a proof that infallibility was not in them, At the close of the sixth century, Or gory, surnamed the Great, sat upon the papal throne. He 8a)'8-" J confidently say, that whosoever calls him-elf the universal priest, or desires to be so called in his arrogance. is a forerunlIer of antichrist."t Yet this title and office have been strenuously claimed and used by succeeding Popes, who declare that the Roman Pontiff may be called Universal Bishop, Thus Gregory YII. declares, .. that the Roman Pontiff alone can be properly called universal. "t Innocent 1., and his followers, until Pope Gelasius, asserted the communion of infants as necessary, which was condemned by stlbse'1UC71t Popes, Popes Leo and Gelasius condemned commttllion in one kindwhile all modern Popes enjoin it. Gregory the Great condemned the "'o"sMp of ima!fe., the title of Unioer al Bi,hop, and the canonicity of the books of .laccabee8. toph n '1., in a provincial council held at Rome, annulled all Ihe act. of For7/lOSU8, one of hi predecas ors, John L"., his succe or, in a council held at Ravenna, annullt d St'l"'tll'S acts tgil" re8pect to POrm08!!8. 'ergius allnulled the acts of FormoBtI' II. second time. Some Pope acknowledged their own f"llibility, Innocent IV, taught that a Popei not to be obt'yed when his commands are heretical. Urban Y., Gregory XL, and Cle-

r.

Q,

• Du PiD, 361, 404,

t Idem. lib. ii., ep ~

t Greg. Max, F.p., lib" vL, ep. 30.

93

POPERY

DELINEATED.

ment VI., disavowed everything which they had advanced contrary to the faith, either in consistory or council. And not only have we Popes contradicting one another, disavowing their own, and undoing each other's acts, but several of them have been heretics. Pope Vigilius erred, as Pope, in first condemning and then approving the decision of the fifth general council, held A.D. 553.*' Pope Liberius, in the fourth century, erred, as Pope, in condemning Athanasius, and in consenting to the heretical faith of the Arians, and holding communion with them. On this acccount, he was anathematized by Hilary. t Honorius, who Wl\S made Pope A.D. 626, and died A.D. 638, became a. Monothelite; that is, he believed there was in Christ but one will and one operation. Forty-two years after his death, he was condemned in the council of Constantinople, held A.D. 680; therefore he must be a heretic, if a general council cannot err. The most celebrated Roman doctors acknowledge the heresy of Honorius. Du Pin says,." Honorius was a favourer of heresy, because he forbade speaking both of one and two operations in Jesus Christ. He was a heretic, because he owned but one will in Jesus Christ: and the Roman Church hath so plainly acknowledged that Pope Honorius did ad vance the error of the Monothelites, that, in her ancient breviary, she declared that he was condemned, with the other Monothelites, for maintaining the doctrine of the one will." Again, he says, concluding his proofs of the alleged heresy by saying: "This will stand for certain, then, that Honorius was condemned, and justly too, as a heretic, by the sixth general council. "t The sentence was approved by the legates of the reigning Pope, Agatho, who afterwards confirmed the decree. It is said, however, that Honorius was deceived in that matter. Be it so: therefore he could not be infallible. "The council of Basil pronounced Eugenius a pertinacious heretic, deviating from the faith."~ " What became of this assumed infallibility, when there were two or three Popes at the same time excommunicating one another, and all claiming to be infallible ?" Further, we should have thought-had not this infallible
• Du Pin's Eccl. Htst., vol. i.. p. 709. t Il1em, vot L, p. 100. Idem, 01. tt., p. 16. § Cuneil. D iJ., ..... 2~

t

9~

POPERY DELINEATED.

church decided to the contrary-that immorality, especially such as some of the Pontiffs were guilty of, would have dis. qualified them for being incapable of error. In proof that many of them were extremely wicked men, we have the testimony of Romanists themselves. 'if " Many of these hierarchs carried miscreancy to an unenvied perfection, and excelled, in this respect, all men recorded in the annals of time. A John, a Benedict, and an Alexander, seemed to have been born to show how far human nature could proceed in degeneracy; and, in this department, outshine a Nero, a Domitian, and a Caligula, Several Popes in the tenth century owed their dignity to :Marozia and 'I'heodora, two celebrated courtezans, who raised their gallants to the pontifical throne, and vested them with pontifical infallibility. t Fifty of these viceroys of heaven, according to Genebrard, degenerated, for one hundred and fifty years, from the integrity of their ancestors, and were apostatical rather than apostolical. Genebrard, Platina, Stella, and even Ba. ronius, call them monsters, portends, thieves, robbers, assassins, magicians, murderers, barbarians, and perjurers. No less than seventeen of God's vicars-general were guilty of perjury. Papal ambition, usurpation, persecution, domination, excommunication, interdicts, and deposition of kings, have filled the earth with war and desolation." We shall leave the reader to his own judgment as to the infallibility of Popes. If be can receive it, let him receive it. Oouncils against Councils, " Some Roman Catholics, especially the French, who reject the infallibility of the Pope, contend for the infallibility of the Catholic Church, and maintain that it is deposited with each general cmtncil regularly called, as the representative and organ of the Church." But they cannot agree as to what makes a council general. Some contend that there have been eighteen general councils, and others that there have not been more than seven or eight. Nor can they decide as to what constitutes a regular call, or whose right it is to convene II council. The Popes, for many centuries, exercised the authority, and claim it as II right.

• Du

Pin,

t Baron, 012, ,-iii.; I'\)on. 900, 1.:.Genebrard tv.

9"

POPERY DELINEATED.

But five of them were summoned by Emperors, * and contrary to the will of the Popes; therefore, considered by someillegal. If general councils were infallible, their decisions would agree one with the other: that they have not done so, we have the most indisputable testimony. " The council of Nice, A.D. 325, and of Ephesus, A.D. 431, decree with an anathema, ' That no new article for ever shall be added to the creed or faith of Nice.' But the council of Trent, more than twelve hundred ysars after, added twelvenew articles to this creed, pronouncing an anathema on all who will not embrace them. " The council of Laodicea, A.D. 360, or A.D. 370, and the council of Trent, A.D. 1545, decided in direct opposition to each other respecting the canon of Scripture. The former decreed on the canon which Protestants acknowledge, rejecting the Apocrypha; and the latter pronounced the Apocrypha canonical. "The council of Constantinople, A.D. 754. unanimously decreed the removal of images, and the abolition of image worship; but the second council of Nice, A.D. 787, decreed that image worship should be established."] The councils of Constance and Basil declare supremacy and infallibility to be in a genm'al council, that they are above popes; and that they are heretics who deny this. On the other hand, Pope Leo and the Lateran council assert that it is necessary to salvation that all Christ's faithful people should • be subject to the Bishop of Rome, and that the Pope has aI~thority over councils. " The thirteenth session of the council of Trent declares, that the bread is constituted only the body, and the wine is changed only into the blood of Christ. 'There becomes a. conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, andof the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood.'t But the twenty-first session of the same council declares, that under one kind only the uhole and perfect Christ and true sacrament is taken. 'If anyone should deny that tbe whole and entire Christ, the fountain and author of all grace, is

* 96

-I at Nice; 2 at t Faber's Diffie.

ConsiBntinoplc; 1 nt Ephesus; 1 at Chalcedon. of Rom., p, 13. Cap. tv., De Trans Cau, et Decreet.

POPERY

DELINEA.TED.

received under the speciesof bread alone, let him be accursed.'* Thus the Council of Trent contradicts itself, and therefore cannot be infallible." The above are a few specimens of the infallibility of councils presided over by the Holy Ghost, who cannot err or contradict himself. They remind one of tho waggishness of one of their own clergy, who said that all the Holy Ghost they had in their councils went from Rome every day in the Pore's post-bag; and I verily believe he was right. "Could the fourth council of Lateran be infallible, in which tho Pope was acknowledgedto possess the power of disposing of tho temporalities of sovereigns, depriving them of their crowns, and of delivering their subjects from the oath of all glunce I Could the fifth council of Lateran be infallible, which, in it first session, ga-veto the Pope the appellation of Prince of the Universe, commended Boniface VII. for having taken the kingdom of France from Philip the Fair,-which, in its second session, called the Roman Pontiff' a Priest and King, who is to be adored by all people, and who is very like unto Godl' which, in its fifth session, spoke of Leo X. in these terms• Weep not, daughter of Zion, for behold the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, the Root of David-behold, God hath raised thee up a Saviour l' Thus they applied to a sinner tho prophetio words which desig-natethe Saviour of the world. Could the Holy Spirit inspire such blasphemies as these P"t For the edification of the reader, we will present to him a picture of one or two councils, drawn by tho pencils of Romanists. " Many of these conventions, in point of respectability, were inferior to a modern cock-fight or bull-baiting. Gregory N azianzen, who is a Roman saint, has described these sceneswith the pencil of truth, and with the hand of a master. • I never,' says the Grecian Bishop, • saw a Synod which had a happy termination. These conventions, instead of diminishing, uniformly augment the evil which they were intended to remedy. Passion, jealousy, envy, prepossession, and the ambition of Victory, prevail, and surpass all description. Zeal is actuated
• Cap. tv., De Commu, &c., Idem. t The Council of Lateran ~\id of the Pope, All power in heaven and earth it riven to thee." .And Punurrnitan Ub, "The Pope can do all thing. that God can do." Tbe ambassadors of Sicily cried to one Pope, ThOllthat takest away the Bini of the worW, luwo'l1lelcy on UI." 97 G
It

.1

POPERY DELINEATED.

rather by malignancy to the criminal than aversion to the crime.' He compares the dissension and wrangling exhibited in the councils to the quarrels of geese and cranes, gabbling and contending in confusion; and represents such disputation and vain jangling as calculated to demoralise the spectator rather than to correct or reform. This portrait, which is taken from life, exhibits in graphic delineation and ill. true colours, the genuine features of all the general, infallible, apostolic holy Roman councils. The general Synods of Cl\Ilstantinople, Nieeea, Lyons, Constance, and Basil, are, in a particular manner, worthy of observation. These conventions were composedofthe lowest rabble, and patronised the vilest abominations. The Byzantine Assembly, which was the second general council, has been described by Nazianzen. This convention the saint characterises as a cabal of wretches fit for the house of correction,-fellows newly taken from the plough, the spade, the oar, and the army.' Such is a Roman saint's sketch of a holy, apostolic, unerring council.* The Constantine Council was characterised by Baptiza, one of its own members. His portrait is frightful. The clergy, he declared, were nearly all under the power of the devil, and mocked all religion by external devotion and pharisean hypocrisy. The prelacy, actuated only by malice, iniquity, pride, vanity, ignorance, lasciviousness, avarice, pomp, simony, and dissimulation, had exterminated Catholicism, and extinguished piety."t " The Councils of Niceea,Vienna, and the Lateran, patronised the hateful and degrading doctrine of materialism. Angelsand soulsthe Nicreansrepresented as corporeal. The angels of heaven and the souls of men, if the Nieman doctors are to be credited, possess bodies, though of a refined, thin, subtile, and attenuated description. These angelical and mental forms, the learned metaphysicians admitted, were composedof a substance less gross indeed than the human flesh or nerve, and less firm than the human bone or sinew, but nevertheless material, tangible, and visible. The Councilof Vienna improved on that of Nicma. The holy infallible fathers of Vienna declared the soul not only of the same substance, but also essentially, and in itself of the true and perfect form, of the body.
• Du Pin, I, 259.

t Daptlza,

III Leurall,

11. Ol\.

98

POPERY

DELINEATED.

The rational and intellectual mind, therefore, in this system, possesses a material and corporeal shape, and has circumference, diameter, length, breadth, and thickness. This definition the sacred Synod issued to teach all men the true faith. This doctrine, according to the same authority, is Catholicism, and the contrary is heresy. The Lateran Councilin its eighth session, followed the Viennese definition, and decreed that the human spirit truly, essentially, and in itself, exists in the form of the human frame. t Three holy universal councils, in this manner, patronised the materlalism which was afterward obtruded upon the world by a Priestley, a Voltaire, and a Hume." Yet they ignorantly ascribe all the infidelity that is in the world to Protestantism! when it has actually been taught and promulgated by their own infallible councils, and all under the guidance of the Holy Ghost I " FOOLS AND UNWISE." Facts and proofs of the above character could be adduced to almost any extent, but the above are sufficient to show that infallibility is an arrogant and ambitious claim, to which they have not a shadow of right. ",Ve shall, therefore, conclude this chapter by noticing some of those difficulties and conlequences which arise from this groundless assumption. "The title to this infallibility, and spiritual supremacy which is connected with it, is extremely dubious. The reality of it, in order to be the guide and ru!e of faith, ought to be a subject not of authority but of proof. He who claims obedience in virtue of delegated power, is bound to prove his appointment. The Church of Rome maintains that Christ made Peter the head of his Church, and gave the same power to the Popes of Rome; and that to the Church thus united under Peter and his successors, Christ insured infallibility in doctrine and morals. It might reasonably have been expected that Peter, in his discourses or epistles, would have removed the doubt resting on the passage from which they derive his authority-" Thou art Peter, &c."and that since the grant of infallibility to him, to his peculiar Church, and to his successors in the See of Rome, was made the only security against the attacks of hell, he would have taken eare to explain the true meaning of Christ's address to him. Peter, however, does Dot make the slightest allusion to

*

Caraoza, .7 • L"bb. TIlL HjG.

POPERY

DELINEATED.

such privileges, either for himself or his successors; nor doe. he ever mention Rome, but dates his epistles from BsbyIon." This was an oversight on the part of Peter which his successors have greatly lamented. However, rather than lose their claim, they say that he meant Rome by "Babylon." They should be careful how they apply Babylon to Rome, lest the Babylon of the Apocalypse should mean Rome too. "We cannot believe that Christ has any infallible Church on earth, because none of the primitive Churches made any pretensions to it, not even that of Rome herself. \Ve do not find that the doctrine of the infallibility of the Church, much less the Roman Church, is asserted by any ancient councilor father. Moreover, other Churches never thought of ascribing infallibility to the Church of Rome, which appears from their behaviour in opposing her decisions as vigorously as they did those of any others that differed from them." " The Pope and his council, by the claim of infallibility, have deprived the faithful of the privilege of the use of reason, which Christ has granted to them in the gospel. Placing themselves between mankind and the Redeemer, they only allow those to approach him who have first surrendered their judgment to Popes and to councils. The broad foundation of Christian evidence is removed, to make way for the exercise of that authority which proscribes reason and requires blind submission. The Roman Catholic ACTOF F AITH-' I believe whatsoever the Church believes and teachcs'-prepares the Romanist to receive anything taught by his spiritual leader, however ridiculous and absurd." The ground of infallibility is opinion, not Scripture. They UllUIDethat which is in question-the necellsity of her infallible judge. And then, upon the strength of this assumption, they interpret certain passages of Scripture to favour thi. opinion. If it had been left to the dictation of the Word of God, the doctrine would never have been heard of. .And 80 contradictory are their opinions on this subject, that, while it prevents unanimity among themselves, it fully justifies the «:ontempt with which all Protestants must treat it. "Now, mark the consequence. to which the whole of thil system leada. The only .ens,jble mark of a legitimate eouneil is the approbation of the Pope; and the only 'bl, mark of a legitimate Pope is hil po_sion of the lee of Rome. They haTe there100

,en..

POPERY DELINEATED.

fore, (1.) Entailed the gift of infallibility on the strongest of the rival candidates for that see. (2.) And as moral worth is denied to be a necessary characteristic of the vicar of Christ, they have added one chance more for their living "ule offaith, the candidate who shall contend for the popedom under the least restraint of moral obligation. Hence, no episcopal see has ever been so polluted by wicked and profligate bishops as that of Rome; for, what prospect of success could a true follower of Christ have of filling the chair of St Peter, when a Borgia was bent upon occupying it ? Gold, steel, and poison were the instruments of acquiring it, while the belief that the faith was still safe, prevented opposition from the force of public opinion. Thus Alexander VI. was considered the true representative of Christ upon earth." We have already seen, that profligacy of manners does not in the least disqualify a person for the chair of 8t Peter, or affect the infallibility of the church. "He may be a monster in vice, and yet not cease to be the vicar of HIM who did no sin." This doctrine was easily transferred from the Pope to the inferior clergy. Therefore, it matters not how jlebased a priest may be ; he teaches righteousness as authoritatively as the most holy man on earth. So teaches the infallible Trent Catechism: "'V ere even the Iives of her ministers debased by crime, they are still within her pale, and, therefore, lose no part of the powel' with which her ministry invests them."'/< The same principle also affects the laity, who will claim to themselves the privileges of Christianity without partaking of its spirit or practising its duties; and all this by virtue of membership with the infallible church. In this false doctrine, they are instructed by the last-mentioned authority: " However 1vicked and flagitious, it is certain that they still belong to the church." t Having examined the subject of Popish infallibility, as far as our limits will allow us, we leave the facts and arguments adduced to the reader's reflections. In conclusion, " Have I not a right to say to any man, or to any set of men, who would impose upon me their decisions, • Who made you a ruler or a judge over me?' I am bound, indeed, to receive truth from whatever quarter it be addressed
• The atoch.of Coua.of Trent, p.9G. DnbUn. t Ibid .

101

POPERY DELINEATED.

to me; and if I do not, I sin unquestionably: but I myself must judge of what is truth; and no man may presume to say authoritatively, ' This is, or is not true.' T am God's creature, and therefore I am subject to him; but I am subject to no man. God had bestowed upon me intellectual and moral powers, and therefore I am res ponsible to him for the purposes to which they are applied; but, whilst he is my Master, lac. knowledge no master besides. 1\1ymind and my conscience are the gifts of God, not the gifts of man; and no DIan may usurp authority over them, or comm nd or control their movements in one direction or another. The que tion is obvious at 0. glance, 'Vhy am I endowed with an intelligent moral nature? Why have I conscience to sit in judgment OIl xi ht or wrong, truth and error? 'Vhy am I capable of thinking and willing? Why has God bestowed such faculties on me if I must not exercise them, and if I must believe and act just as I am told to believe and act? "'hy have I eyes, if I must keep them shut, or only open them as far as I am permitted? As surely as God has distinguished me with the attributes of mind and conscience, so surely am I responsible to him, but to him alone, for the manner in which they are employed. And if I myself must answer to God and not another; and if the consequences of error and of sin must come down upon my head and not another, how can I suffer my rational, and moral, and responsible nature, to be in any keeping but my own? Carry with you this conviction, that although none but God is, yet God is the Lord of the mind and the conscience. If you be answerable to no human tribunal for your religious belief, you an amenable to the tribunal of heaven; and if no man, and no set of men, may interfere with his or their authority, to impo I' upon you articles of faith, yet you are r sponsible to God for every sentiment you liold, and he will one day call you to account. You are free in so far as man is concerned; but you are not free to err or to sin-not so free as that y:lU may sin or err with impunity. •We must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ,' to render account, amongst other things, of the UBI' which we have made of that high but awful right, TIlE RIGIIT 01' JUDGING FOB OUBS:BLVIlS
UfMATTERS 01' BELIGION.~*

10:

t Young'. Leclur

• pp.lH-1I8.

POPERY DELINEATED.

CHAP. V.-TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

(JUdI.

"What

i the holy eu harist ?
!lOUT r

An •. "It is th sacrament, which eont ina Til Loon, TIn. 01 I. and IlIVI IT\" of J u Chr! t, unci lind pp aranc of hr ad and Willi • for the celebration of the ma ~ A ... Yes ; it i alwaj' br ad and win till th

nd
for

th

Q... Is it not bread and wino which i firet put upon th

11 r

1ri t p nounces the word. of con ration during th m Q What happens by the 0 word ? A The bread is changed into tho body of Je u Christ, and the wine into his blood. Q. "What is this change called 1 A. "It is called ' transubstantiation'-that is to say, a change of one substance into another."4The following canons which were passed at the thirteenth session of the Council of Trent, whose decisions are supremely authoritative, will give us a fuller view of this doctrine :.. Canon (1.) 'Whosoever shall deny that in the most holy sacrament of the eucharist there are truly, really, and substantially contained the body and the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, together with his soul and divinity, and consequently Christ entire, but shall affirm that he is present therein only in a sign and figure, or by his p'HVcl'; let him be accursed. "(2.) Whosoever shall affirm, that in the most boly sacrament of the eoeharist there remain a the ubstanee of the bread and wine, together with the body aIltl blood of our Lord Jeau Christ; and .hall deny that wonderful and peculiar conversion of the whole substance of the bread into his body, and of tbe whole substance of the wine into his blood, the species only of bread and wine remaining, which conversion the Catholic Church most fitly terms 'transubstantiation;' let hlm be aeconed.
• C&thechlsm oJ tile BomIJb Churell ill America.

100

POPERY

DELINEATED.

"(3.) Whosoever shall deny that Christ entire is contained in the venerable sacrament of the eucharist, under each species, and under every part of each species when separated; let him be accursed. "(4.) Whosoever shall affirm that the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are not present in the admirable eucharist, as soon as the consecration is performed, but only as it is used and received, and neither before nor after; and that the true body of our Lord does not remain in the hosts or consecrated morsels which are reserved or left after the communion; let him be accursed. " (5.) Whosoever shall affirm that remission of sins is the chief fruit of the most holy eucharist, or that other effects are not produced thereby; let him be aeeursed, "(6.) Whosoever shall affirm that Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is not to be adored in the holy eucharist with the extemalsigns of that worship which is due to God; and, therefore, that the eucharist is not to be honoured with extraordinary festive celebration, nor solemnly carried about in processions, according to the laudable and universal rites and customs of holy Church, nor publicly presented to the people for their adoration; and that those who worship the same are idolaters ; let him be accursed, " (7.) Whosoever shall affirm that it is not lawfulto preserve the holy eucharist in the sacristy, but that immediately after consecration it must of necessity be distributed to those who are present; or that it is not lawful to carry it in procession to the sick; let him be accursed• .. (8.) ·Whosoever shall affirm that Christ, as exhibited in the eucharist, is eaten in a spiritual manner only, and not also sacramentally and really; let him be accursed. .. (9.) Whosoever shall deny that all and every one of the faithful in Christ, of both 8exes, are bound to communicate every year, at least at Easter, according to the injunction of holy Mother Church; let him be accursed. "(10.) Whosoever shall affirm that it is not lawful for the officiating priest to administer the communion himself; let him be accursed. c' (11.) "'l10s0ever shall affirm that faith only is a strlIIcieJIt preparation for the reception of the 1II08t holy _ment of the eucharist; let him be accursed. ADd !eat 10 great a sacramea'

ICN

POPERY

DELINEATED.

should be taken unworthily, and therefore to death and condemnation, the said holy council doth decree and declare, that previous sacramental confession is absolutely necessary, if a confessor is at hand, for those who are consciousof the guilt of mortal sin, however contrite they may thinkthemselves to be. Whoever shall presume to teach, preach, or obstinately assert the contrary, or to maintain opposite opinions in public disputations; let him be ipsofacto excommunicated." * This most holy andblessed council seems to have had greater skill in cursing than in blessing. But as saith Solomon, .. As the bird by wandering, as the swallow by flying, so the curse causeless shall not come." And therefore, "Let them curse, but bless thou." " For in defiance of thoir brutish execrations, I both detest and deny their monstrous and blasphemous doctrine.' ,J In the first of the chapters preparatory to the foregoing canons, we read, "The holy council teacheth, and openly and plainly professeth, that our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained in the pure sacrament of the holy eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, and under the species of those sensible objects. Neither is it to be regarded as contradictory that our Saviour should always sit at the right hand ofthe Father in heaven, according to his natural mode of existence; and yet be sacramentally present with us in his substance in many other places." In the third chapter of the same session, the council declares, "Wherefore it is most certain that all" (Christ's body, soul, and divinity) "is contained under either species and under both; • for Christ, whole and entire, exists under the species of bread, and in every particle thereof, and under the species of wine, and in all its parts." As this is one of the most ridiculous doctrines, as well as one of the most important of their catalogue of ridiculous doctrines, we shall be excused giving another extract or two, as it is of importance that it should be clearly laid down and well-understood. The following quotations are from the catechism of the Council of Trent :-" The eucharist also contains Christ our Lord, the true grace, and source of all heavenly gifts." .. 'Vhen preserved in a pyxis (box). or deposited in a tabernacle, under
• Cone. Trid., Cell. ztiL

106

POPERY

DELINEATED.

either species,ceases not to be a sacrament." "In the eucharist, that which before consecration was bread and wine, becomes, after consecration, really and substantially the body and blood of OUT Lord." "Care must be taken not only to mingle water with the wine, but also to mingle it in small quantity; for, in the opinion of ecclesiasticalwriters, the water is changed into wine." .. \Vhen, therefore, it is said, 'this is the chalice of my blood,' these words are understood to mean, < this is my blood which is contained in this chalice.''' "As, however, to the bod)' are united his blood, his soul, his divinity, they too mast be found to co-exist in the sacrament; not, however, by virtue of the consecration, but by virtue of the union which subsists between them and his body; and this theologiansexpress by the word concomitance. Hence it is clear that Christ, whole and entire, is contained in the sacraments; for when two things are actually united, where one is, the other must also be. Hence it also follows that Christ, whole and entire, is contained under either species; so that, as under the species of bread are contained not only the body, but also the blood and Christ entire, so, in like manner, under the species of wine are contained not only the blood but also the body and Christ entire. These are matters on which the faithful cannot entertain a doubt." "The pastor will also inform the faithful, that Christ, whole and entire, is contained not only under either species, but also in each particle of either species."* The following is an extract from the catechism fer the use of all the churches in the French empire :"Ques. 'Vhat is the sacrament of the encharist 1 "Ans. The eucharist is a sacrament which contains really and substantially the body, blood, sonl, and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the forms and appearances of bread and wine 1 " Q. What is at first on the altar, and in the chalice1 11it not bread and wine 1 .. A. Yes; and it continues to be bread and wine till the priest pronounces the words of consecration. " Q. What influence have these words 1 "A. The bread is changed into the body, and the wine i. changed into the blood, of our Lord. 106
• Catechism of tbe Conncil of Trent, pp. 207, 210, 214, 218.

POPERY DELINEATED.

" Q. Does nothing of the bread and wine remain 1 " A. Nothing of them remains except the forms. " Q. 'What do you call the forms of the bread and wine? "A. That which appears to our senses-as colour,:figure, and taste. "Q. Is there nothing under the form of bread except the body of our Lord? " A. Besides his body there is his blood, his soul, and his divinity, because all these are inseparable. " Q. And under tho form of wino? "A. Jesus Christ is thero as entire as under tho form of bread. "Q. When the forms of bread and wine are divid d, is Jesus Christ divided 1 "A. No; Jesus Christ remains entire under each part of the form divided. "Q. Say, in a word, what Jesus Christ gives us under each form. "A. All that he is-that is, perfect God and perfect man. "Q. Does Jesus Christ leave heaven to come into the eucharist? "A. No; he always continues at the right hand of God, his Father, till he shall come, at the end of the world, in great glory, to judge the living and the dead. c s Q. Then how can he be present at the altar? ••A. By the almighty power of God. "Q. Then it is not man that works this miracle? "A. No, it is Jesus Christ, whose word is employed in the sacrament. "Q. Then it is Jesus Christ who consecrates? "A. It is Jesus Christ who consecrates; the priest is only his minister. "Q. Must we worship the body and blood of Jesus Christ in the eucharist 1 "A. Yes, undoubtedly; for this body and this blood are inseparably united to b is divinity." "The priest, in giving the consecrated wafer to the communicant, says, • Behold the Lamb of God I Behold him who taketh away the sin of the world I' " The following points, with several others, are clearly contained in their doctrine concerning the eucharist·107

POPERY DELINEATED.

"(1.) That, after the words of consecration are spoken, there is neither bread nor wine left on the table. " (2) That, though there be neither bread nor wine, yet the accidents or species, that is, the colour, size, weight, taste, and other qualities of the bread and wine remain. "(3.) That, by virtue of the five words of consecration, Hoc est autem corpus meum, there is, in the place of the substance of the bread and wine, the substance of the body of Christ, truly, really, and substantially, together with his soul and divinity. And though they confess that Christ had but one body, and tho» body Is in heaven, yet they maintain that the body of Ilhrist il. the eucharist is the same that was born of the Vil'gin, which was crucified, ascended to heaven, und is now in heaven. " (4.) That the body, blood, bones, sinetl'S, &c., of Christ, his soul and godhead, are contained in either the bread or the wine, or in the smallest particle of the bread, or the smallest drop of the wine. "(5.) That the body of Christ is eaten by every communicant, whether good or bad. "(6.) That this body remains in those wafers that are not eaten; so that, should any animal happen to devour any of them, it would as really eat the body of Christ as any Christian. And should anyone of these wafers be burned in the fire, the body of Christ would be as really burned as in the former case it was really eaten. "(7.) This very bread, as Protestants are apt to call it, which they receive and eat, and the wine which the priest drinks, they worship and adore as very God Almighty, and require this worship under pain of damnation." " A mere statement of what this doctrine is, and a reference to the several propositions which express it, will be sufficient to prevent every unbiased individual from assenting to it. Can any person believe this doctrine, unless education, fear, interest, or blind submission has already made it familiar to him? There never was a mystery in any religion in the world so unintelligible, so inconceivable, so loaded with contradiction, and so averse from reason and common sense, &s this." We will now attempt a confutation of this horrible nonsense, if it needs confuting.
lQ8

POPERY

DELINEATED.

The following are the words of the institution as given by 8t Matthew :"And, as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and g~ve it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it, for this is my blood of the ew Te tament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (:Matt. :xxvii. 26·2 .) .. TJII~ l~ MY EOllY." These ro tho words from whieh thl'y derive ann upon which they rost tho doctrine of tran ub tan tiation. The following is their argument :" Does not our S viour most oxpr 1y d elnr • 7'/. " i my body?' and if ever it were n edful that h shoul p k pl inly and without Il figure, it certainly must hav b 11 wh n h IIstituted tho Christian sacrament, "'hat can b I or ell' r than that which Christ has spoken concerning it? l.very Christian ought to submit his reason to the revelation of Christ, inasmuch as his reason is fallible; but Christ can neither deceive, nor be deceived. To the word and to the testimony which is your own Protestant rule. Christ hath said of the bread, , This is my body;' and, therefore, such it certainly is, whatever our senses or reason may suggest to the contrary." That we are bound to believe everything that Christ has said, we admit; that he spake plainly to his disciples, and that he can neither deceive nor be deceived, we readily maintain; but that he taught transubstantiation when he said, " This is my body," we deny. The difference between Romanists and Protestants on this expression of our Saviour is this-" They contend for a direct literal meaning. 'This is my body '-that is, the bread Christ held in his hand, was nothing else than the body wAich held it." Protestants say, that our Saviour speaks by a figure; the figure is this-that the bread and wine are symbols, or emblems, of the broken body and shed blood of Christ. 'Ye have to examine which of these views comesnearer to our Saviour's meaning, the literal or the figurative-theirs or ours. First, In 'Prosecuting this argument, we shall show that the Romish interpretation is impossible and absurd. "If we take our Saviour's words in the literal sense, we must make him say in effect that the bread which be brake 109
T

POPERY

DELINEATED.

and commanded them to eat was not bread, but truly and really his dead body-his body sacrificed for them ;" and that the disciples had actually eaten and swallowed Christ, although he still sat before them, and they heard him speak. " To evade the foregoing contradiction, they say what was bread before the words of consecration were uttered, became his body and blood afterwards." But how long afterwards they say not. Whether it was while the disciples were eating it, or after the crucifixion, or resurrection, or ascension, is not determined. Besides, Christ did not say, this will be my body, but this is my body. And they must see, that in altering the tense, they have forsaken the literal meaning, and have taken themselves to a figurative one. And if we were to allow that the bread our Saviour held in his hand, "became, by some inexplicable process, his very body," then we must ask, "how it came to be his dead body, his body given, broken, or sacrificed for us? If, therefore, we understand the words literally, as Roman Catholics would have us, we must admit one of the grossest contradictions in the world. We must believe that the body of Christ was both alive and dead at the sametime. If we cannot believe this, then it is impossible that our Saviour's words should be taken in a literal eense-s-uamely, that the bread he gave them was truly and really, and without figure, his dead body." But, if possible, there are stiU greater difficulties implied. The Romanists maintain that there was not only the body and blood of Christ in the consecrated bread, but his .oul and divinity a.l8o, and all under the form of bread and wine. Then, did the disoiples swallow the seul and godhead of Chriet, with the bread that they received from our Lord 1 or did that ma.ticated bread becomethe soul and divinity of Christ after they had eaten it? If the bread our Saviour held in his hand were really transubstantiated, it must have been into another body and soul; for Christ, body, soul, and divinity, stood before them. And, further, if we mark our Saviour's words, we shall find other absurditiel. We must not forget that the papists contend for the literal meaning. Then, if the bread were the body of Christ, the" eup" must have been the blood of Christ. Mark his words, "And he took the cup, &c., laying, driDk ye aU of it ; for tlW, i. blood," &c. So that, aooording to their mode of interpretation, we are to •• llentaad &Jl tile

m,

no

OPEBY

DELINEATED.

disciples actually gulped down the cup-a very sensible mouthful. But not only must we hold that the cup was the body and blood of Christ, but also and actually the" New Testament," or "New Covenant." "This cup is the New Testament in my blood." (1 Cor. xi. 25.) But how absurd such an interpretation would be! And even Romanists, whose capacious throats are not at all inconvenienced by the bones of a whole human body, have no taste for the cup; they contend for the figurative form of speech here. In contradistinction, then, to a view involving such shocking absurdities, we observe, that the interpretation Protestants give of this passage, is at once easy and natural, and that the apostles could have understood it in no other sense. We have shown the absurdity of the literal sense; they must therefore be considered figuratively, and thus all Protestunts understand them; namely, that the bread which our Saviour had broken, and the wine whichhe had poured out, were signs, emblems, or representations, of his broken body and shed blood. " No sense can be more easy than this; and, to prove it, we advance the following reasons ;" (1.) \Vhen Christ said, , This is my body,' he had nothing in his hands at that time, but a part of the unleavened bread which he and his disciples had been eating at supper; and therefore he could mean no more than this, namely, that the bread which he was now breaking represented his body, which in the course of a few hours was to be crucified. To suppose that the bread and wine, and every particle of each, contained the body, blood, bones, sinews, &c., and the soul and divinity of Christ, and that Christ had his own body in his hands, and tbat he and his disciples did eat it, baffles all human and divine faith. "(2.) There is no figure more common in every language than that whereby we give tbe sign the name of tbe tbing signified." \Vbat more natural than to say of a picture of the Duke of Wellington, ' That's the Duke r Or, when examining a map of Europe, than to say, pointing to a few lines, that is • Great Britain r But who ever would suppose tbat you intended to say that that painted canvass was really and substantially tbe body, blood bones, sinews, and soul of the n ble Duke? Or that those black lines on the map were really and truly the :roeke and rivers, the meads and mountains of our sea-girt
III

POPERY

DELINEATED.

isle? But this is the mode of interpretation they contend for-" This is my body;" when it is most evident that his only meaning could be, this represents my body which is to be shortly crucifiedfor you. " (3.) This is not only an ordinary figure in commonspeech, but it is peculiarly eoin the sacred Scriptures; and it is worthy of remark that, "in the Hebrew, Chaldee, and ChaldeoSJriac languages, there are either no words which express to mean, signify, or rep"esent, or else such words are of very rare occurrence. Thus,' the seven kine are seven years '''that is, 'I'epresent seven years; • the ten horns are ten kings't-that is, signify ten kings; 'that rock was Christ't -that is, j'epresented Christ. We shall only refer to one more-' I am the vine, ye are the branches.'§ And let it be remembered, too, that our Saviour 'did not speak in the Latin tongue,' but 'in the Chaldee, or Chaldeo-Syriac, and must, therefore, have spoken according to the idiom of that tongue.' And any man speaking in that language would say, • This is my body,' 'this is my blood,' when he intended to convey the meaning that the bread and wine represented/ the body and blood of Christ." 'Ve may here observe, that the Romanists admit that Christ spake figuratively when he said, "I am the vine, ye are the branchel." But this, as well as the other, arose from the idiom of the language in which he spake; and they have not the slightest ground for saying that there was more figure in the latter case than in the former. And it is certainly as monstrous to say that a piece of bread is changed into the body, soul, and divinity of Christ, as to say that the Apostles were changed into vine branches. But it is obvious that they were not eo changed. Not more so in one case than in the other. The matter stands thus :-1 see the Apostles walking; I hear them talking; I feel that they are flesh, not wood; and that they smell more like men than vine branches. Well, then, we have four sensesout of five in favour of a figurative interpretation; and we admit that this makes it obvious. Then, how does it stand in the other case? Thus :-1 see that the consecrated bread is still bread; I feel that it is more like bread than flesh; it smell'
• Gen. IL 26.

t Dan. TU. 21.

* 1 Cor.

X. ..

I lou n. Ii.

112

POPERY

DELINEATED.

like nothing but bread; and it tastes of nothing but bread. Thus we have four senses out of five against transubstan iation. Therefore, it is certain, that what was bread before consecration is bread after it. (4.) "It is impossible that the Apostles could believe that they ate the body of Christ when they saw that body before them; or that they drank his blood, when they knew that blood was still in his veins. Or how could they have been persuaded to drink blood against the express letter of the law, or to eat human flesh, or even swallow their blessed Lord and Master ?" Several other arguments might be adduced to show that tho • interpretation Protestants give is easy and natural, while the contrary is ridiculous and absurd. Then further, not only is there no support for transub,talltiation in the Word of God, but it is utterly opposed to it. "In our Lord's celebrated discourse at Capernaum, on the subject of feeding the Church with hIS flesh and his blood, the language he used was so strong that his hearers exclaimed, < How can this man give us his flesh to eat l' To correct their misapprehension, he declared that his language was figurative, in the following manner, ' It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the fleeh. profiteth nothing. The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.' John vi. 63. Here, therefore, and on a subject which had a close affinity to the eucharist, our Lord teaches us that his style is flgurativs when such expressions are employed as, , Christ is the rock;' 'his flesh is bread, his blood is drink;' and, therefore, the exposition of Roman Catholics is opposed to that of our Saviour. "It was foretold by David that God 'would not suffer his Holy One to see corruption.' Psa, xvi. 10. St Peter applies this to the fleshof Christ (Acts ii. 23-32), which' saw no corruption ;' but if the doctrine of transubstantiation be true, his body continually undergoes corruption by the necessary process of digestion. " But the most accurate rea oners in the Olmrch of Rome are aware that tbe Scripture does not inculcate the do rna of trunsubstantiution. 1\ ccordlngly, III HoY have dwelt principally on the authority of tr dition, nnd upon the support to be derived from eccl in tical decisions. ~ hen they have td avour d to maintain it by cripture, tb ir arguments have 11 II

POPERY DELINEATED.

invariably failed; while others have candidly acknowledged that it is not among those doctrines which are to be proved by holy writ, Scotus himself, the great oracle and schoolman, is represented by Bellarmine and others as having said, that the doctrine of transubstantiation cannot evidently be proved from Scripture; and Bellarmine himself grants that this is not improbable. And Octiam and other famous school en, say m expressly that' the doctrine which holds the substance of the bread and wine to remain after consecration. is neither repugnant to reason nor to Scripture.' The Cardinal of Cambray says plainly, that' the doctrine of the substance of the bread and wine remaining after consecration is more easy and free from absurdity, more rational, and noways 1'epugnant to the at£thority of Scripture: Nay, he says expressly, that' there is no evidence in Scripture' for it. Cardinal Cajetan confesses, that' the Gospel doth nowhere express that the bread is changed into the body of Christ; that we have this from the authority of the Church;' nay, he goes farther, ' 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, having understood them in a proper sense, they are to be explained.' Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, who is ranked by the Church of Rome among her martyrs, candidly admits that there is not one word in Scripture' from whence the true presence of the flesh and blood of Christ in our mass can be proved.''' On the 6th chapter of John, Pope Pius II. thus writes, in his 130th epistle to Cardinal de Cardival, '" That is not the sense of the Gospel of John which you ascribe to it, for there is no injunction given there to drink of the sacrament; but a spiritual manner of drinking is there taught: And shortly after, 'The Lord there maketh known, by these words, the secret mysteries of spiritual drinking, and not of carnal, when he says, It is the '-'Pirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth. nothing; and again, The wOl'ds that I speak unto you al'e spirit and life, Do you wish to know certainly whether the Evangelist appaks of the spiritual manducation which is performed by faith? Con ider what the Lord says in these words, He that eats and drinks : these words are of the pres nt, and not of the future tense. Therefore, ever since th Lord spake them, tbere are persons who have eaten and l!runk; aad, nev nile·
114

POPERY

DELINEATED.

less, the Lord had not yet suffered, nor was the sacrament yet instituted.''' The following extracts are from a letter, sent by the Rev. Roderic Rider, a converted Irish priest, to Dr French, one of the Romish Bishops of Ireland. In assigning his reasons for leaving that heretical community, he says, "I love my Roman Catholic countrymen, but I renounce for ever their religion. I have weighed their Church in the balance of eternal truth, the 'Vord of God, and have found her wanting. I could not find one tittle in the holy Scriptures to confirm her assumption of infallibility-the supremacy of her Popes-her Rule of Faith-her restriction of the Scriptures-her Image worship-her invocation of saints-her transubstantiationher sacrifice of the mass-her purgatory-h r prayer in an unknown tongue-her auricular confession-her communion in one kind-her indulgences, or her justification by works. On the other hand, the Scriptures directly and distinctly contradict her doctrines on each and everyone of these heads. Now, to make the matter clear to you, I shall merely refer to two of the foregoing, viz., transubstantiation and auricular confession, and show you and your priests that I had strong and convincing reasons for renouncing your Church. " Your Church teaches that in the eucharist there is really and substantially present, the body and blood, soul and divinity, of Jesus Christ under the appearance of bread and wine; and, in proof of this doctrine, she advances those passages of Scripture, John vi. 51-57, 'I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever. Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you: And now your Church understands the foregoing words in a literal sense, and consequently teaches the five following absurdities :-First absurdity-When our Saviour says, 'I am the living bread which came down from heaven.' If these words have any reference to the eucharist, it would follow that the humanity of Christ came down from heaven-c-s doctrine contrary to the Athanasian creed. Your Church and all Christians deny it ; therefore it has no reference to the eucharist. Second absurdity-It would fo ow from these words, if taken liter lly, that the divinity of Christ was changed into bread, and flot that bread was changed into his bod1J. Third absurdity-It would follow from the words,' If any JD n eat of this br d,
116

POPERY DEMNEATED.

he shall live for ever,' if taken in a literal sense, that whoever goes to communionin your Church shall not suffer death in this world, and in that to come shall go to heaven; but you deny this, and facts disprove it; therefore, the words are figurative. Fourth absurdity-If the words, 'Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you,' be taken in a literal sense, it would follow that the laity in your Church, from whom the cup is withheld, can have no hope of salvation; it would follow that children, who die before their first communion,shall perish for ever; it would follow that the penitent thief and John the Baptist are excluded from heaven. And fifth absurdity-It would follow, if the rite be not commemorative, that there is no necessity for repeating it; for if the words be taken literally, salvation is secured by doing it once. I should never end were I to enumerate the inconsistencies and contradictions into which your Church falls by adhering to the literal sense. I defy any man with two ideas to consider them for one moment without coming to the conclusion that your Church teaches error, and that her doctrine of transubstantiation is false. " I will make it as clear to you as any proposition in Euclid. You will admit that any two sums, or two lines, each of which is equal to a third given one, must be equal one to another. You cannot deny this-it is a self-evident axiom. Now, Christ has said (verse 54), that' Whoso eateth his flesh, and drinketh his blood, hath life everlasting.' He also says that life everlasting cannot be obtained by any other means-' Except ye eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man, ye have no life in you;' verse 53. Again he says, ' He that believeth in me hath life everlasting,' verse 47. Therefore, to believe in Christ produceth the same effect-that is to say, is the'sams as to eat his flesh and drink his blood. I am as eonvin~edof this truth as I am of my own existence." We shall now pass to another argument, namely, " Tlie doctrine of transubstantiation contradicts our ~en8e8." " To obviate this difficulty, it is said that the species of bread and wine remain in appearance as they were before, ever after they have been changed into the body and blood, soul and divinity of Christ. In their manual they also teach tb t we should in this my t ry I' I unce utterly the jlldgt of our B 7IB B and all human 'lind r talld·ny. 'ow, if
116

POPERY DELINEATED.

Our senses cannot be tru,sted, how do we know that these words, , This is my body,' are to be found in Scripture or on this paper 1" The following quotations will show that the senses present an insuperable difficulty, and that it is not possible to receive this dogma but by renouncing them :-" In its belief human reason experiences the greatest difficulties."* "To explain this mystery in a proper manner is extremely difficult. On the manner of this admirable conversion, the pastor, however, will endeavour to instruct those who are more advanced in the knowledge and contemplation of divine things; those who are yet weak, may, it were to be apprehended, be overwhelmed by its greatness."] "The faithful are to be admonished against the danger of gratifying a prurient curiosity, by searching into the manner in which this change is effected. It mocks the power of conception, nor can we find any examples of it in natural transmutations, nor even in the wide range of creation. The change itself is the object, not of our comprehension, but of our humble faith; and the manner of that change forbids the temerity of a too curious inquiry. The same salutary caution should also be observed by the pastor with regard to the mysterious manner in which the body of our Lord is contained, whole and entire, nnder the least particle of the bread."t " The pastor will, first of all, impress on the minds of the faithful the necessity of detaching, as much as possible, their minds and t<nclerstandings from the dominion of the senses; for were they, with regard to this sublime mystery. to constitute the senses the only tribunal to which they are to appeal, the awful consequences must be, their precipitation into the extreme of impiety. Consulting the sight, the touch, the smell, the taste, and :finding nothing but the appearances of bread and wine, the senses must naturally lead them to think that this sacrament contains nothing more than bread and wine. Their minds, therefore, are as much as possible to be withdrawn from subjugation to the senses, and excited to the contemplation of the stupendous power of God." § It is clear, then, according to their own admission, this nonsense has no parallel in the whole range of the world's history; and, without any :figure of speech, transubstantiation is only
• Reman CILteehlsm. p, 219. t Idem. p.ll3O. 1: Idem, p. 23 . f Id m, p, 220.

117

POPERY

DELINEATED.

admissable on the principles of nOfl,-sense; therefore, no foolery in the world was ever, with greater propriety, called nonsense. We see, then, that the Church of Rome denies the evidence of the senses in the grossest manner. We are called upon to renounce them utterly, And shall we, when "the testimony of the senses is infallible? We allow that one or more of the senses, through disease or some other cause, may prove fallacious ; but we maintain that the uniform evidence of the senses is infallible. Such evidence, then, testifying that the bread and wine remain unchanged, must be admitted as demonstrative of the falseness of the doctrine of transubstantiation. The thing in question is not subject to the evidence of one sense only, but to the evidence of four of the senses," as we have seen. "The Almighty deals with us as rational creatures. He never called us to believe anything that is unreasonable, impossible, or contrary to the evidence of our senses; and whenever he condescendeth to work a miracle, the senses of men were appealed to as the judges of the reality of the miracle. " If the evidence of sense be denied, we cannot be certain of anything. If the notices of sense may not be received as true, then we are liable to be deceived by ten thousand impositions. A man may pass for a bat, or a whale for a wingedhorse, if bread and wine may be the real body and blood of Christ. Only allow the evidence of sense to be denied, and we cannot be positively certain of anything." While I may think that I am contemplating the fair proportions of a ponderous elephant, I may be gazing all the time upon a child's rocking-horse. Dean Swift, in his Tale of a Tub, when ridiculing the doctrine of transubstantiation, "represents Peter, by whom he means the Pope, inviting his two brothers, Jack and Martin, by whem he means Calvin and Luther, to dine with him on a shoulder of mutton. Having sat down to table, Peter says, 'Come, brothers, fall to and spare not; here is excellent good mutton; or hold, now my hand is in, I'll help you.' At which word, in much ceremony, with fork and knife, he carves out two good slices of a 101lf, nd presents a eh on a plate to his brothers. The elder of the two, not suddenly entering into lord Peter's conceit, began with very civil language to examine the mystery. • .Iy lord,' said he, 'I doubt, with great submission, there may be some mistake.'
18

POPERY

DELINEATED.

, What,' said Peter, ' you are pleasant; come, then, let us hear this jest your head is so big with.' 'None in the world, my lord; but unless I am very much deceived, your lordship was pleased a while ago to let fall a word about mutton, and I would be glad to see it with all my heart.' , How!' said Peter, appearing in great surprise, 'I do not comprehend this at all.' Upon which, the younger, interposing to set the business aright-' My lord,' said he, 'my brother, I suppose, is hungry, and longs for the mutton your lordship hath promised us to dinner.' • Pray,' said Peter, 'take me along with you; either you are both mad, or disposed to be merrier than 1 approve of. If you, then, do not like your piece, I will carve you another, though I should take that to be the choice bit of the whole shoulder.' '\Vhat, then, my lord,' replied the first, , it seems this is a shoulder of mutton all this while.' ' Pray, sir,' says Peter, 'eat your victuals, and leave off your impertinence, if you please, for I am not disposed to relish it at present.' But the other could not forbear, being over-provoked at the affected seriousness of Peter's countenance. 'My lord,' said he, 'I can only say that, to my eyes, and fingers, and teeth, and nose, it seems to be nothing but a crust of bread.' Upon which the second put in his word-' I never saw a piece of mutton in my life so nearly resembling a slice from a twelvepenny loaf.' • Look ye, gentlemen,' cries Peter in a rage, , to convince you what a couple of blind, positive, ignorant, wilful puppies you are, I will use but this plain argument - I swear it is true, good, natural mutton, as any in Leadenhall market; and confound you both eternally if you offer to believe otherwise.''''* Such an absurd doctrine as transubstantiation, deserves to be ridiculed; for, according to their non-sense mode of interpretation, the most important evidences of Christianity would be overthrown, inasmuch as the Scripture receives the leading evidences of its truth from the testimony of sense. "St Luke, in the commencement of his gospel, professes unlimited confidence in this kind of proof, for the facts which he relates, he informs us tbat he received them from those who were 'eye-witnes es, and ministers of the word.' (Luke i. 2.) In like manner St John declares that the evidence of the saliSI" was not fallacious,

119

POPERY

DELINEATED.

but true: ' That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have beheld, and our hands have handled, of the word of life.' (1 John i. 1, 2.) So that the Apostles fully depended on the infallibility of their own senses, and of those who gave tbem information. With their own ears they hearel Christ preach, and beheld the miracles which he taught. The resurrection of Christ, that cardinal doctrine, and without which our faith is vain, was proved by the evidence of sense." And it was proved no otherwise. "Come see the place where the Lord lay." said the angel to Mary. Our Saviour gently reproved Thomas for his unbelief, but the papists are much worse. He would believe his eyes and hands, but they will neither believe sight, feeling, taste or smell. Indeed, if this logic of nonsense were universally adopted, we should be certain of nothing. Not only might our faith be vain, as to some, if not all the most important facts of our religion, but every man m:l.Y a shadow, and be this solid earth a fleeting cloud. " The doctrine is not only contl'aI"Y to 1'eaaon, but it also involves absolute impossibilities. " \Vhen Roman Catholics attempt to make proselytes, they inform them that Protestants deny the omnipotence of God; for so they term our rejection of their absurdities." This is the common subterfuge of all heretics. It was the custom of "the Manichees, the Eutyehians, the Appolinarists, the Arians, &c., to fly, when assailed, to this attribute of the deity. The Fathers, referring to this abuse, call it the' sanctuary of heretics' " \Ve need not wonder, therefore, at its being the refuge of Romanists. They call transubstantiation, a sacred and holy mystery. We call it an infamous absurdity. 'I'hat is a mystery which is above the comprehension of the human mind, but which no system of ratiocination can prove to be contral'y to reason. or opposed to our senses. That is an absw'dity which is plainly at variance with our reaSIm, our senses, or botl.. And, therefore, out of their own mouths we condemn this doctrine of nonsense. They tell us, as we have seen, that before a perIon can receive it, he must utterly renounce his understanding nd his senses. This purgative regimen is only necessary in es of absurdity. And then, we do not hesitate to say, that God himself cannot create himself, nor one equal to himself. But if traDsubstantiation be true, this bas been done in hundreds 120

POPERY

DELINEATED.

of thousands of instances. The Popish priests profess to do every day what it is impossible for the Almighty to do. For, every consecrated wafer contains-nay, is-not only the body and soul, but the Eternal Son of God. And if you break this wafer into a thousanll pieces, and divide the wine into ten thousand drops, each and all contain the Lord Jesus Christ, body, soul, and divinity really, truly, and substantially. The body of Christ was born of the Virgin Mary; but was the bread, which constitutes the sacramental Christ, thus born? Then Christ was both born and not born. The Christ that was born of the Virgin, ascended to heaven, and he sitteth at the right hand of God, till he shall come to judg-e the quick and the dead; but, according to the Romanists, he is always on the earth, in numberless places at the same time. They convert the Lord Jesus into a dumb idol; he has eyes but cannot see, ears but cannot hear, feet but cannot walk, nor can he speak through his throat. They can convert matter into spirit; and create divinities by wholesale. He who has all power, is incapable of saving "himself from robbers and vermin, corruption and rottenness. " They say, that only the accidents of bread and wine remain, that is, colour, taste, smell, &c. Now, can mere colour, make a man drunk? "For Thomas Aquinas supposes that the sacramental wine intoxicated the Corinthians, of whom St Paul observes, 'One is hungry, and another is drunken.''' If that which is in the cup can make a man drunk, I suspect there is more in the chalice than the blood of Christ. "Again, can the species, or in other words, the colour, shape, &c. kill a man? But the young Emperor of the house of Luxemburg is said to have been poisoned by a consecrated wafer; Pope Victor III., was in danger of suffering in like manner; and the Archbishop of York, according to the testimony of Matthew Paris and Malmsbury, was poisoned by the chalice. If Christ be really said to be touched and eaten because the accidents are so, then he may be literally made hot, or cold, or mouldy, or venomous, by the change of the accidents. We are weary of pursuing these absurdities, to the end of which we could never arrive." Again, This doctnile is horribly bla8phemous and impious. "Roman Catholics hesitate not to declare, that, did their , nseB perceive wbat their faith obliges tl em to believe, the horror of it would be so great as to lead tb m to det t the sa121

POPERY DELINEATED.

crament. And who can say that this was not the reason why the Christian faith was, and is still, execrable both to the Gentile and to the Jew, to the Pagan and to the Mahometan?" They can only be considered as the worst of all cannibals! for they not only eat the flesh of man, and drink human blood. but they eat their God! and, worse still, they eat him because he is their God! And this is done by gluttons, drunkards, adulterers, and the most unclean of mankind! Why, the lodging of Jonah in the belly of the fish was clean and wholesome, compared with the filthy stomachs in which they imprison the Lord Jesus. " As the highest infamy which the Mahornetans can cast upon us, we are by them reproached as the devourers of our God. 'And they affirm that, by thus eating of Christ's flesh, the Christians use him worse than did the Jews, because, say they, it is more savage to eat his flesh and drink his blood, than only to procure his death.''' One of the greatest accusations which the heathens made against Christians was, that they ate human flesh. " This Trypho owns to be a commonimputation upon Christians, thongh he judged it incredible. Justin Martyr, Irenreus, Tertullian, Minucius, and others, take notice of it, and refute it, and constantly reject it as the vilest calumny, and an abominable thing, saying, "Ve Christians do not own the eating human flesh;' 'it is an infamous thing, and falsely is reported of us.' 'This is,' saith Theophilus, 'the most wicked and inhuman of all crimes objected to us, that we partake of human flesh; it is not possible that we should be guilty of so vile a thing.' 'Amongst us there is no eating human flesh,' saith Tatian. 'You are false witnesses who thus accuse us.' , No man,' saith Athenagoras, 'who is not mad, can charge us with this thing; for we may not eat human flesh: 'It is the calumny of the devil,' saith Minucius, ' You may be ashamed to object it to us,' saith Tertullian.''' And yet this is what the Papists glory in doing; and seem to considerit quite a feast to eat the flesh, grind the bones, and suck the blood of Jesus. They call Thomas Aquinas their angelical doctor, and they tell the following tale of him :-namely, that when he had been vindicating the doctrine of transubstantiation, he was saluted by a wooden cmcifi.r, with these words, " ThO'Uhast writt n well of me, Thomas," And what had he written 1 Why, that it does no more detract from the dignity of our Saviour to be aten by 122

POPERY DELINEATED.

dogs and mice, than his being willing to be crucified for our sins! A goodly argument truly! As if, because our Lord, in his humiliation, was willing to die for the redemption of a world of immortal spirits, that, therefore, he should be willing that his glorified body should be eaten by dogs an d mice 1'"
THEY EAT THE GOD THEY WORSHIP ~!

!

" The very heathens owned this to be the most absurd and abominable thing, to be abhorred more than death. ' When we call wine Bacchus,' saith Cicero, 'and our fruit Ceres, we use the common mode of speaking, but can you think any person so mad as to imagine that which he eats, to be a God?' Averroes was a learned heathen, and flourished in the eleventh century, when this p irtentous doctrino first obtained; and it forced him thus to blaspheme the Christian faith: 'I have inquired into all religions. and have found none more foolish than the Christians, because that very God they worship, they with their teeth devour; and thus,' he concludes, 'because the Christians eat what they do worship, let my soul go to the philosophers.' And Bellarmine himself confesseth, 'tbat this, among the heathens, was always judged the most foolish paradox,' as, saith be, 'from the words of Averroes doth appear.' " And ye shall know them to be no gods, by the bright purple which rotteth upon them; and they themselves afterwards shall be eaten, and shall be a reproach in the c01mtry." (Baruch vi. 72.) If we were to admit transubstantiation to be a true and holy mystery, there are so many chances against a legitimate consecration, that it is utterly impossible for the communicant to be certain, that he is not worshipping a piece of bread, instead of the Lord Christ. The following extracts from the Roman Missal will abundantly substantiate this :" Of defects in the bread. " If the bread be not of 1vheat, or, if of wheat, it be mixed with such quantity of other grain that it doth not remain wheaten bread, or if it be in any way corrupted, it doth not makea. sacrament. " Of defects in. thl 1vine. " If the wine be quite sour or putrid, or be made of bitter or
• Mornlng £Xu. Crlpper, 01. yL p. 461.

123

1'0PERY

DELISEATED.

unripe grapes, or if so much water be mixed with it as spoils the wine, no sacrament is made. " The defects of the minister. " The defects on the parts of the minister may oclfurin those things required in him: these are, first and especially, intention after that disposition of the soul, adjustment of the body, disposition of garments, and disposition in the service itself, as to those matters which can occurin it. " The defect of Intention. " If anyone intend not to consecrate, but to counterfeit; also if any wafers remain forgotten on the altar, or if any part of the wine or any wafer lie hid, when he did not intend to consecrate but what he saw; also if he shall have before him eleven wafers and intend to consecrate but ten only, not determining what ten he meant; in all these cases there is no consecration, because intention is required."* These quotations might be considerably enlarged, but the above are sufficient to show, that, in their insane ravings, they have added ridiculousness to absurdity. How is it possible for the recipient to know whether the wafer is made of wheat or barley? or whether the wine was made of bitter or unripe grapes? or that the priest intends to consecrate? for if he does not, the bread remains bread, and he worships it as his God. The Rev. Roderic Rider gives one or two instances, when they actually worshipped bouled porter and ginger ale! It seems that it is necessary also, that the garments should be properly adjusted, otherwise, the power of God is withheld. What arrant nonsense to make the creation of the Lord Jesus to depend upon a girdle, a maniple, or a stole! Or if the body of the priest should not be in a right position, this foot too far back, or that too far forward. Or if, in the performance of the drama, he should step to the front, instead of the side of the altar; or omit any of the lessons or collects, or misplace them, &C., there is no sacrament! Surely the Almighty has permitted these follies, that the whole may be laughed to scorn. " Throughout the Latin Church, nnleavened bread is used at mass. It is made thin and circular, and bears upon it either the figure of Christ, or the initials I.H.S., and is commonly called' the wafer.' This is the real Christ of the Church of t JIll
1.

11M

Rom_""m.

pOPlmy

DELINEATED.

Rome, their God and Saviour, and object cf worship. 10 reference to the manufacture of this contemptible monument of superstition and idolatry, the following statement of the Rev. Edward Nangle, in one of his letters to the notorious John M'Hale, Archbishop of Tuam, is worthy of special notice. He says: 'The writer is personally acquainted with a pOQr woman in this country (Ireland), who was delivered from the influence of Popery in the following manner. A friar one day came into her cabin, and, after the usual salutations had passed between them, he called for :1 saucepan. Placing the vessel on the fire, with :1 Iittle water in it, he took out of bis pocket a p:1per containing some flour, which he poured into the' suucepan, stirring it as if, to use my informant's words, • he was making stir-about.' When the paste was thickened to the consistence of wax, he ordered his hostess to provide him two smoothing-irons; and, having pressed the paste between these instruments to the thickness of a wafer, he cut it into round pieces with a pair of scissors, and then, holding up one ot the pieces, he said, , 'Vhen I have consecrated, whoever will not believe it to be the very body, blood, sOttl, and dit'inity of Jesus Christ, will be damned to all eternity.' It hu been observed, that there is but a step between the sublime and the ridiculous: the transition from superstition to scepticism n:3Y be equally rapid: it was in the mind of the friar'> hostess. he had passed the bound, the spell was broken, • I thought it,' said the woman, ' such folly and wickedness, to say that the things which the friar carried in his pocket in a bit of paper, which I saw boiled in :1 saucepan on the fire, pressed out between two smoothing-irons, and clipped with scissors, was God, and that I should trust in it and worship it, that I determined never to enter the chapel again.' The poor woman, notwithstanding much persecution, has adhered to her resolution; and I would advise my Roman Catholic countrymen to follow her example; for however Dr ~l'Hale, and hie more talented colleagues in the priesthood, may exhibit superior tact in the manufacture of the wafer idol, and cast a cloud of mystery round tho wh aten deity, by a more dexterous management of this h C1l'-1 ~t8, yet their God is no better than the friars. Tho' rd of tho prophet are 8S appllcabl to tho one us to the otl cr : 'The workman made it, therefore it i not God.'" Hos VIii. G. "" n tad u 0 th t timony of th ncl nt Fath rs r 1...

POPERY

DELINEATED.

specting the doctrine of transubstantiation, and assert, that it was not a doctrine of the primitive church." It m:.y be necessary to remind the reader, that the Fathers were uninspil'ed men: and, although the earliest of them are clearly on the side of Protestants, we would not, on that account, lift them out of their proper place: for, as they werenot infallible, their opinions should be taken for no more than they are worth-the opinions of erring mortals. Many expressions could be selected from their writings, of an isolated character, which seem to support the views of the Romanists; but, when taken in their connection, they are evidently to be understood in a limited and :figurative sense. Indeed, some of the expressions are so disgusting, that it is impossible for any but Romanists to read them with a relish. We give one or two. " 8t Cyprian says, , We stick closeto the cross, we suck his blood, and fasten our tongues between the very wounds of the Redeemer: 8t Chrysostom also :-' Thou seest him, thou touchest him, and thy tongue is made bloody by this admirable blood; thy teeth are fastened in his flesh, thy teeth are made red with his blood.''' It is not unlikely, but that horrible story told by Romanists, was conjured out of such sentences as these. Weare told, that, as soon as the wafer was put into the mouth of the communicant, that it was converted into a mouthful of flesh and blood! How LUSCIOUS! especially in Lent! But that the abore quotations are to be understood :figuratively, the following extracts from the same Fathers will abundantly testify :"In the third century, Cyprian says-'Because his blood,by which we are redeemed and quickened, cannot SEEM to be in the cup, if the wine that represents the blood of Christ be not in the cup.'* Again-' Therefore, our Lord, in his table in which he did partake his last banquet with his disciples, with his own hands gave bread and wine; but on the cross he gave to the soldiers his body to be wounded, that, in the Apostles, the sincere truth and the true sincerity being more secretly imprinted, he might expound to the Gentiles how wine and bread hould be his fleshand blood, and by what reasons causes might agrce with effect, and divers names and kinds mig1it
, p.l00.

126

POPERY

DELINEATED.

be reduced to the essence, and the signifying and the signified might be reckoned by the same words.' " "Chrysostom says-' For as in the eucharist, before the bread is eonsecrated, we call it bread, but when the grace of God, by the priest, has consecrated it, it is no longer called bread, but esteemed worthy to be called the Lord's body, although the nature of bread still remains in it.''' * " Ignatius says-' 'Vherefore, putting on meekness, renew yourselves in faith, that is, the flesh of the Lord; and in charity, that is, the blood of Jesus Christ: t " Ireneeus, in the second century, says-' The bread which is from the earth, receiving the divine invocation, is now no longer common bread, but the eucharist, consisting of two things-the one earthly, the other heavenly.'t " Tertullian says-' Tho bread which he had taken and distributed to his disciples he made his body, by saying, , This is my body;' that is, 'the figure of my body.'§ "Justin Martyr says-' The bread of the eucharist was a figure, which Christ the Lord commanded to be celebrated in remembrance of his passion.' " The words of Eusebius are very decisive in favour of the doctrine of Protestants-' He gave to his disciples the SYMBOL~ of divine economy, commanding the image of his own body to be made.'] " From Cyril of Jerusalem we select the following :-' With all assurance let us partake as of the body and blood of Christ. For under the type of bread, his body is given unto thee; and under the TYPE of wine, his blood is given unto thee; that so thou mayest partake of the body and blood of Christ, being one body and one blood with him." "Jerome informs us that Christ 'did not offer water, but wine as a TYPE of his blood.'*"' " Ambrose declares, 'Make this ascribed oblation reasonable and acceptable, which is the figure of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.' t t " Having adduced the preceding quotations from the Fathers, the number of whieh might be extended con iderably, ufficient
Oper., tom. Id., p. ~44. t Ignat. ad Trail. Eplst., sect, viiI. lJrere&, lib. Iv., cap. xxx'v. Opera., lib. tv .• p. 297. I E110 b. Oper. lib. db., cop. L, p, SSO . ., Cyril 01) r . Cat. x:xU., Sect. Jit •• Itteren. Opera. ad. dovtn. tt Ambro .. Opera., tom. Il., II a l'll. hb lv" p.6.
• Chrysost.

*- Ieeneus ad.
I Tutul.

127

POPERY

DELINEATED.

has been given to show that transubstantiation was not a doctrine of the early Church." In concluding this chapter, we will refer very briefly to the rise, progress, and establishment of this sense-less doctrine. That the ancient Fathers did not believe this transubstantiated nonsense, we have in a few short extracts proved. But then it is certain that they often used expressions which were easily accommodated to favour the dogma in after times. Although they were as far from receiving the doctrine as ever a Protestant was; yet, by their surcharged rhetoric, they doubtless paved the way for the over-indulged imaginings of subsequent writers. The Fathers of the first five or six centuries, frequently wrote, and in strong terms, on the change that took place in the consecrated bread, but it was a moral change to which they referred, the bread and wine being separated from a common to a sacred use. " 'So far as I can understand Gregory, whose language perfectly accords with that of Cyril and Irenreus, and the ancient author of the Homily in Jerome, he seems to have acknowledged no change in the bread and wine by virtue of consecration, save such a change as that whichis wrought in a layman when, by viritue of consecration, he becomes a priest. Now, the only change in the layman, as indeed Gregory most carefully informs us, is a MORAL change. Therefore, the only change in the bread and wine, to which this change in the layman is expressly compared, must clearly be a MORAL change also. No person, who held the doctrine of a PHYSICAL change in the elements, could possibly compare that PHYSICAL change to a variety of other changes everyone of which is purely MORAL. Hence it is evident that the primitive Church acknowledged only a MORAL change in the elements; and, hence, nothing can be more nugatory than the conduct of the Roman controversialists, who perpetually quote the Fathers as speaking of a PHYSICAL change, when they most indubitably speak only of a moral change.' " '* "The doctrine of tran ubstantiation seems to have originated in the here y of Eutychos, who believed that in Chri t there was but one nature-namely, that of the incarnate word; and that the humllll nature was changed into the 8ubk I., h Po Iv., PI'- 70 72.

POPERY DELINEATED.

stance of the divine nature. This heresy was refuted by Theodoret and Pope Galasius in the fifth century, and by Ephrem of Antioch in the sixth." It was easy to step from this heresy to that of transubstantiation. That the doctrine was not received in the beginning of the eight century is clear from the decree of "The seventh general council, held in Constantinople in the year 754, which maintained that Christ • chose no other type or shape under heaven by which to reo present his incarnation but the sacrament, which he delivered to his ministers for a type and effectual commemoration, commanding the substance of bread to be offered, which did not in any way resemble the form of maA,that no occasionmight be given for bringing in idola't'ry.''' But that it was rapidly spreading in this century is fully established by the following extract from the decrees of "the second council of Nice, held in 787, which ordered that the sacrament is not the image of Christ's body and blood, but properly his body and blood." This was an important step towards its ultimate and universal establishment, and was" introduced to support imageworship." Nothing decisive, however, had taken place, as to the" manner in which the body and blood of Christ were present in the sacrament;" so that, in the ninth century, a warm contest was carried on. But they don't seem as yet to have had an idea of the soul and divinity of Christ being present, it was only his body and blood. It was in the ninth century, that a treatise was put forth by Pasehasius, a benedictine monk, in favour of the latter view, and which was refuted by Bertram and Scotus, at the request of Charles the Bald. Several others also entered the lists against the monk. "Scotus maintained uniformly that the bread and wine were the signs and syil'" bols of the absent body and blood of the Saviour." The Archbishop of Mentz, in the year 847, speaks as follows:" • Some persons, of late, not entertaining a sound opinion respecting the sacrament of the body and blood of our Lord, have actually ventured to declare that this is the identical body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; the identical body, to wit, which was born of the Virgin Mary, in which Chri t suffered on the cross, lind in which he rose from the dead. This error we have opposed with all our might. ,.* A very natural
• italian. Maur. Eplet. ad. Berlbald.,
XX

h.

129

POPERY DELINEATED. question rose out of this doctrine in this century-namely, What became of the body and blood of Christ which was eaten in the sacrament? Were they subject to the same natural laws as common food? Some asserted that they were not under the same laws, as they pass into our flesh and substance without any evacuation. Others affirmed to the contrary :-that part of the body and blood of Christ, at least, would share the fate of other food. The soul and divinity of their God will doubtless escape! This is the doctrine of STERCORIANISM. During the tenth century, according to Mosheim, the contests concerning the eucharist were" happily reduced to silence." In the midst of this silence, however, the heresy gathered ground, and continued to "advance until the doctrine became an article of faith." In the eleventh century it may be said to have been the opinion of the Church, although in a crude and undecided form as to the nature and manner of Christ's presence. This may be considered as clear from the fact, that Berenger, Archbishop of Anp;iers, was condemned for heresy by several councils, because he openly opposed transubstantiation. But as an opinion, it was not universal, nor did those who received it understand it. It was advanced to something like maturity in the thirteenth century, by Pope Innocent III. But it seems to be considered, even by Romanists themselves, as the decree of the Pope, rather than the council.* " It is certain," says Du PiD, "that these canons were not made by the council, but by Innocent IlL, who presented them to the council ready drawn up, and ordered them to be read; and that the prelates did not enter into any debate upon them, but that their silence was taken for an approbation." 'Ve may therefore conclude, that it was a disputed doctrine even in the thirteenth century, and among the prelates themselves. The authorities of Rome seem to have considered the silen:t.assent of the Latern council insufficient; inasmuch as it was again brought forward and determined by a conclave of bishops in Rome, thirty-six years afterwards. As a matter of faith, therefore, it was not finally and authoritatively established till the year 1551, by the council of Trent. " Breerly, whose opinion was of great credit with the Romanists in Eng• Connell of Lateran, held 12H>, at which there were present. 412 bLtbop , about lOabbots and prior. b Id. a large number of deput! .

130

POPERY

DELINEATED.

land, says, 'complete transubstantiation' (that is, both for form lindmatter) , 'was not determined until the last council of Trent, in the year 1560: " Thus we have seen, that it took at least five hundred years to persuade the world to renounce their reason lind their senses. This doctrine has been the cause of more martyrdoms than all the rest of the foolery they teach. The great point in question was, transubstantiation. Because men would not disbelieve their senses, their joints were dislocated by the rack, and their bodiesburnt to ashes. "Finally, 'The direct tendency of the doctrine of transubstantiation is to forward a design which is too obvious to be mistaken, and which seems to be inherent in all the main principles of the Popish Church-the exaltation of the priesthood. It is easy to anticipate with what veneration those must be regarded, * whom it is believed God employs as the instruments of accomplishing,whenever they choose,one of the most awful and stupendons miracles. We do not say that we have in this the real origin of the dogma; but no one can deny that such a dogma is calculated to become an engine of tremendous power in the hands of an ambitious order of men. And can the fact be concealedthat such it has actually been? Nay, it admits of no question, as a matter of history, that the dogma has been prostituted to worse than the purposes of ambition, and of worldly power; that it has been a tool in the hands of the grasping and avaricious; and that the very mystery of the Incarnation, and the very Passion of the Redeemer, have been bought and sold for money. " It has been said that Christianity needs some snch dogma as this to form a cope-stone of glory to the system, and to connect and to unify us with God. It is this dogma which wonderously renews that intercourse between the Creator and his creatures, which had been broken up by sin, and which incorporates us with God. And it may be granted, that, upon the supposition, Roman Catholics do indeed incO'Iporate themselves with God, and that they do accomplish a union with God, but
One of tbe new priests ordain d by f.t Francis de 8.uc ,often aw hi uardian angel. On commg to the d or of the churc ! P ed t when asked wby he did be replt ~ Ingenuously, that he l\i ccu tomed to see hi guardianaD 1 walk befor hun, but at that moment thlsI)rin of heaven had It( d add. IJV,t qf res ,.t to hi' hor ct. d had IIi.... 1. .1Ii< .' "-Prj t • W_.ana fam/l.s, Part II•• p•• 6.
• U t

131

POPERY

DELINEATED.

it is of a grOSil and material kind. It is not a harmony between the views and affections of their minds, and the will and the heart of Christ. Such a union we do not desire; and the very idea we hold to be not only absurd, but awfully blasphemous. But there is a glorious spiritual union between Christ in heaven and his people on earth, compared with which the mere animal incOTporation of Roman Catholics is ineffably disgusting. There is a union of affectionand will-an ardent love to Christ on the one hand, and a delightful sense of his love to us on the other-an intimate and endearing fellowship with him in the exercise of religious affectionsby us, and in the communications of the tokens and expressions of love by him! There is such a union and fellowship which is not only permitted, but which it is the very desire of Christ to establish. • Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I WILL COME INTO HIM, Al'D SUP WITH HIM, AND HE WITH
.ME.' "

12

POP.ERY.ELINEATED. D

CHAP. VI.-CONFESSION.

aURICULAR CONF.EsSION.-The word auricular, refers to the ear-inhaling or receiving sound. And the confession of sin, in the Romish Church, is called auricular confession, because it is whispered in the Priest's ear. " By confession they mean, not a confession to God nor to an injured person, nor confession to the Church in cases of public offence or scandal; but private confession to a priest. The penitent is bound to confess all his sins, especially mortal sins, as they are called, as far as ho can remember them, together with all the circumstances connected therewith." This confession is then a necessary part of repentance, and indispensable to pardon and salvation. But on this subject as well as others, we shall allow their own authorities to speak. The following is an extract from the decrees of the Council of Lateran : -" That every man and woman, after they come to years of discretion, should privately confess their sins to their own priest, at least once a year, and endeavour faithfully to perform the penance enjoined on them; and after this they should come to the sacrament at least at Easter, unless the Priest, for some reasonable cause, judges it fit for them to abstain at that time. And whoever does not perform this is to be excommunicated from the Church; and if he die, he is not to be allowed Christian burial."* The following canons are from the decrees of the Council of Trent:" Canon 6. Whosoever shall deny that sacramental confession was instituted by divine command, or that it is necessary to salvation; or shall affirm that the practice of secretly confessing to the Priest alone, as it has been ever observed from the beginning by the Catholic Church, and is still observed, is foreign to the institution and command of Christ, and is a human inTention; ot him be accursed.
• Cone. Labb, tom. xt., PIU'8I., Con Lat.lv., .1,,,,",1, nJ. pp.

lr'

17:1.

POPERY

DELINEATED.

" Oanon 7. Whoever shall affirm that, in order to obtain forgiveness of sins in the sacrament of penance, it is not by divine commandnecessary to confessall and every mortal sin which occurs to the memory after due and diligent premeditation-including secret o.tfences, and those which have been committed against the two last precepts of the decalogue, and those circumstances which change the species of sin; but that such confessionis only useful for the instruction and consolation of the penitent, and was formerly observed merely as a canonical satisfaction imposed upon him; or shall affirm that those who labour to confess all their sins wish to leave nothing to be pardoned by the divine mercy; or, finally, that it is not lawful to confess venial sins; let him be accursed. "Canon 8. Whoever shall affirmthat the confession of every sin, according to the custom of the Church, is impossible, and merely a human tradition, which the pious should reject; or that all Christians of both sexes are not bound to observe the same once a year, according to the constitution of the great Council of Lateran; and, therefore, that the faithful in Christ are to be persuaded not to confess in Lent; let him be accursed."* " From the Catechism of the Council of Trent, we take the following :-' Mortal sins, as we have already said, although buried in the darkest secrecy, and also sins of desire only, such as are forbidden by the ninth and tenth commandments, are all and each of them to be made matter of confession.'... ' With the bare enumeration of our mortal sins we should not be satisfied; that enumeration we should accompany with the relation of such circumstancesas considerably aggravate or extenuate their malice: ' Some circumstancesare such as of themselves to constitute mortal guilt; on no accountor occasionwhatever, therefore, are such circumstances to be omitted. Has anyone imbrued his hands in the blood of his fellow-man? he must state whether his victim was a layman or an ecclesiastic. Has he had criminal intercourse with anyone 1 he must state whether the female was married or unmarried, a relative, or a person consecrated to God by vow. The e are circumstances which alter the species of the sins; the first is called' adultery;' the second' simple fornieation ;' tlie third 'incest,' and the fourth 'sacrilege.' Again, Theft is numbered in the catalogue of sins, but if a person has

134

POPERY

DELINEATED.

stolen a p;uinea,his sin is less grievous than if he had stolen one or two hundred guineas, or a considerable sum; and if the stolen money were sacred, the sin would be still aggravated. To time and place the same observation equally applies; but the instances in which these circumstancesalter the complexion of an act are so familiar, and are enumerated by so many writers. as to supersede the necessity of a lengthened detail. Circumstancessuch as these are, therefore, to be mentioned; but those which do not considerably aggravate may be lawfully omitted.' After censuring those who justify or extenuate their sins, the Catechism declares: 'Still more pernicious is the conduct of those who, yielding to a foolish bashfulness, cannot induce themselves to confesstheir sins. Such persons are to be encouraged by exhortation, and to be reminded that there is no reason whatever why they should yield to suchfalse delicacy; that to no one can it appear surprising if persons fall into .qin, the common malady of the human race, and the natwral appendage of human infirmity.'* If this quotation be not an apology for the commissionof sin, and also for the repetition thereof, it will be difficult to say what an apology for sin is." " But you tremble! you dare not tell this terrible God your weaknesses and your backslidings. Well, well! tell them. to your father ; a father has surely a right to know the secrets of his child, for he is an indulgent parent who wishes to know them only that he may absolve them. He is a sinner like yourself, and has therefore no right to be severe. Come, my child, fear not to speak out. What you have not dared to 1vhisper in your mother's ears, INTRUST TO ME; who will ever know it? " Then it is, in the midst of sighs, from the heaving, palpitating breast, the fatal word rises to the lips; it has escaped her, and she hides her face. Oh! he who heard it has gained a great advantage, and will maintain it. God grant he may not abuse it ! Yet it is said, mind you, not to the 1/'oQd,the black oak of the old confessional, but to a man of flesh and blood. " And this man now knows of this woman more than even her husband. in their long intercour e by day and by night; more than her mother, who imagines that she can read her
• Catech. of the
UD

of Trent, pp. 'l17, 'll .283,2

t.

135

POPERY

DELINEATED.

whole heart, because she has nursed her so often naked on her lap in the days of her infaney.?" But few among Protestants have any thing like a correct idea of the extreme filthiness of the Popish confessional. I am persuaded that it is totally unknown to most of those who go over to Romanism, especially females. They are attracted by the embellishments of Popery, but to its deep iniquity they are strangers. " And this young priest, who infers from what you have taught him, that the world is in the same frightful state of demoralization-="who comes to the confessional with all this disgusting information, his imagination crowded with monstrous cases-you intrust him, 0 imprudent man, (or what shall I call you 1) with the care of your child, who has never left her mother, who knows nothing-has nothing to say, whose greatest crime is, that she has badly learned her catechism, or wounded a butterfly. " I shudder at the cross-questioning she will have to undergo-at all that she will learn from the fellow's conscientious brutality. But in vain he questions her-she knows nothing, she says nothing. He scolds her, and she weeps. Her tears will soon dry up, but she will con overevery word he has said for a long while to come."t But we must not anticipate. To understand the system, we must make other quotations. The following extracts are taken from the" Garden of the Soul."
" INSTRUCTIONS AND DEVOTlONS FOR CONFESSION.

" In order to prepare yourself to make a good confession, endeavour, in the first place, to recommend the matter earnestly to God; and, for some days beforehand, frequently and fervently beg his Divine grace and assistance, and this more especially, if you have for a long time lived in a habit of sin. in which case it is most proper to prepare yourself by a spiritual retreat of some days, during which time you may seriously enter into yourself, and perform the ten meditations which we have transcribed above from St Francis de Sales, or such like devotions, by which you may be suffioiently disposed for so great a work, which otherwise, it is to be feared, must be ill done, by being done too hastily .
• Prfests, Women, &0. I'ut ll., p. 47. ; Ibid, p. 64.

136

POPERY

DELINEATED.

"Examine your conscience with care and diligence, yet without too much anxiety and scrupulosity. Consult the table of sins to help your memory; and reflect in particular on the evil inclinations you are most subject to, on the places and companies you have been in, on your usual employments, on the duties of your calling, and how you havs discharged them, &c., and in every sin, whether of commission or omission, strive to call to your remembrance the number of times you have been guilty. " When you have duly examined your conscience,do not think this is all you have to do in order to be rightly prepared for confession. The greatest part of the work remains still to be done; and that is, to take proper time and care to procure a hearty sorrow and detestation of all your sins, by which you have offended so good a Goa, with a full determination, with the grace of God, to avoid the like sins for the future, and to lly the occasionsthat usually bring you to sin, and to take proper measures to begin a new life. " In order to obtain this hearty sorrow for your sins, and this firm purpose of amendment, you must carefully beg it of God, whose gift it is; and you must make use of such prayers, considerations, and meditations as may be most proper to move you to it. Particularly reflect on the four last things, on the enormity of sin, on the goodness of God and his benefits to you, on the death and passion of Christ, &c., and when you have obtained this hearty sorrow and resolution, then you may hope that you are sufficiently prepared for confession,and not till then. " If you have any thing upon your conscience,which you have a particular difficultyof confessing,ceasenot with prayers and tears to importune your heavenly father to assist you in this regard, till he gives you the grace to overcome that difficulty; and be sure never to go to confessionwith a design of telling a lie to the Holy Ghost. Ah! what a comfort it will be to you to ease your conscience of its load, and what a rack and torture sacrilegiously to conceal it ! " Let your confession be humble, without seeking excuses for your sins, or flinging the fault on others; let it be entire as to the kind and number of your sins, and such circumstances as quite change the nature of your sins, or notoriously ag137

l'Ol'ERY

DELINEATED,

gravate it. Be modest in your expressions, and take care not to name any third person.?" With these instructions, used for a right purpose, we should not have much fault to find. It is their design we deprecate; and which renders some parts of them absurd. "Telling a lie to the Holy Ghost!" And who is the Holy Ghost, to whom they would tell the lie, but the ghostly priest before whom they kneel '€ If these instructions were given for the purpose of humbling ourselves before Almighty God, they might be used with some benefit. But what is the purpose for which they are recommended 1 Why, that every female should, " with prayers and tears, importune her heavenly Father," that he would enable her to overcome and trample upon her natural modesty-called by Romanists, false delicacywhich HE has planted in her, as the guardian of her virtue, and the glory of her sex. To enable her, without a blush, to tell to her priest those thoughts and feelings which she would have kept for ever from her own mother. For this they are to pray, and importune God! And lest the penitent should not have confessed with sufficient accuracy and minuteness all their sins and circumstances, their ghostly father is furnished with a string of questions for the purpose of wringing from jhem all that is in their hearts. The following are from the list on the Ten Commandments :" HONOUR THY FATHER AND THY MOTHER."

" Have you been wanting in your duty to your parents, by not loving them, or not showing them due respect, or by disobeying them; and was it in any matter of moment? Or have you been disobedient to any other lawful superiors? How often? " Have you desired your parents' death, or cursed them, or given them injurious language, or lifted up your hand against them, or threatened them, or provoked them to swear, or otherwise to offend God, or caused them any considerable trouble or uneasiness? How often? " Have you stolen from your parents, or otherwise wronged them; or squandered away tbelr substance? How often? " Have you neglected to succour your parents, in their necessities, either corporal or spiritual?
• Garden or Ihe Soul, pp, 200, 201,

138

POPERY

DELINEATED.

" If God has blessed you with children, have you been negligent in procuring that they should be speedily baptized, or that they should be timely instructed in their prayers, and the Christian doctrines? Or have you been wanting in giving them early impressions of the fear and love of God; or in taking care of their discharging their duty with regard to the sacraments? " Have you neglected to correct them; or been excessive in your correction ? " Have you neglected to remove from them the occasions of sin, such as wicked companions, bad books, romances, &c., or suffered them to lie in the same bed with one another, with danger of their chastity? " Have you flattered them in their passions, or indulged them in their evil inclinations? " Have you given them bad example? How often, and in what kind 1"
" THOU SHALT NOT KILL."

" Have you desired anyone's death through hatred or malice, or for your temporal interest? How often? Have you revenged yourself of anyone by word or action; or desired revenge, or taken pleasure in the thoughts of it ? How often? " Have you provoked, challenged, or struck others; or been guilty of quarrelling or fighting with them? How often? And what mischief have you done them? " Have you borne malice to others, or refused to be reconciled to them? For how long a time? And what sort of evil had you in your heart against them? " Have you procured, or thought to procure, a miscarriage; or given any counsel, aid, or assistance thereunto? How often 1 "Have you done any thing to shorten your own or any other's life, or to hasten death; or rashly exposed yourself or others to danger ? How often? " Have you desired your own death, through passion or impatience, or entertained any thoughts of making away with yourself, or attempted or designed any such thing? How often? " Have you neglected to give alms according to your condition or ability, or to reclaim sinners when it lay in your power? How often? 139

POPERY

DELINEATED.

" Have you been guilty of any spiritual murder, by drawing others into mortal sin? Or have you been accessary to the sins of others, by counselor command, or any other way ~ How often, and what sins? " Have you given scandal, or occasionof sin to others, by lewd or irreligious discourse; by drunkenness or swearing; by immodesty of dress or behaviour, &c.1 Where note, that the circumstance of scandal is generally found in all sins that are known to others, by reason of the force of ill example, which encourages others to sin. " Have you committed any thing that you judged or doubted to be a mortal sin, though perhaps it was not so 1 How often? Or have you exposed yourself to the evident danger of mortal sin 1 How often, and of what sin 1"" However innocent in themselves some of the foregoing questions may be considered, what business has any man to take upon himself to ask them? If he be justified on prudential grounds, and it be admitted that the result will be beneficial, is he justified in enforcing obedience,on pain of damnation? That the above system of scrutiny is abundantly fitted to fish out all the secrets of a family, cannot be denied. Into the Seventh Commandment-their ,sixth-I dare not follow them; beginning with, "Have you been guilty of fornication or adultery," &c. "Their publication, by Bishop Chaloner, gives fearful indication what a cage of unclean thoughts his heart must have been, when such sentiments were indited and circulated among a people professing to be the followers of Christ, and the members of a pure and holy Church. Nevertheless, the obscure pages of Dr Chaloner are purity unsullied when compared to those of Peter Dens.t We
• Garden of the Soul, pp. 208, 209. t The Romish priests of Dundee are anxious to have it known that they can 3ay their prayers in Latin. O! who can calculate the benefit derived by their people, from a course so wise and prudent! Paul! Paul! badst thou known the advantage of praying in Latin when before a Jewish or Grecian audience, who would not have tlllckrltood a tc01'd of it. we should never have heard anything about interpreterl, that the Church may r,ee'ive edifying; nor yei about pipe" and harps, and tnmapetl, giving an 'Uncertain loulIa-Ipeakin(l into the air-wing a barbarian--rather lpeak flee 10ord. with mv 'Ulldtrltandill!lJ that by my eoice I might UJlch olh'71 auo, than ten tho'"and wordl in an un1cnOtOIl tongue-II Cor. xlv. 5,7,8,11, 19-and such nonsense. Ah! hadst thou known-but thou <lldst not, and therefore It Is of no use speaking of it. Intellect hall made amesing advances atnce the days of Paul. we have now learntthBt we shall be both 'W'reraod b(tler, the more we hear, and the It II tee und rttaml. Jlut I must _ my fond regret. of Paul'. Ignorance. W11St I want Is, tbat the prJ .. t. of

140

POPERY

DELINEATED.

cannot enter the confessional with him as our guide. The instructions with which he furnishes the priests, treat of subjects which we dare not name. How agonizing must be the feelings of the husband, or father, when hearing those principles of polluting obscenity with which the mind of the priest is replete, for the examination of his wife and daughters in the dark and secret confessional, when the poor, unprotected female, bound under terror, and constrained of necessity to eternal silence, can have no refuge or escape, no husband or father at hand to hear and drag from his den the monster who, under the cloak of religion, can put every feeling of the heart upon the rack, and, in proportion to her delicacy, her sensibility, her reverence for what she unhappily believes to be an ordinance of God, instead of an invention of Satanic guilt and tyranny, can bow her spirit into his power, humble her into the very dust beneath his feet, if she is virtuous; or drag her, if it be possible, and he be so inclined, into the paths of profligate seduction ! No Popish priest can translate cer tain portions of the instructions for the confessional, then look a Roman Catbolic husband or fatber in tbe face, and tell him of the purity and divinity of the auricular service, wben he sees tbe questions wbicb the priest dares to put to bis wife or daughter, but whicb she is compelled to bury within that bosom wbicb has been so cruelly wrung and tortured during tbe diabolical investigation. Let any parent become acquainted with the unpronouncable abominations of Dens' Theology on this topic, and he would with pleasure exchange the horrors of the confessional for the persecutions of heresy, and prefer tbe stake for his wife or daughter to the racks of that moral inquisition to which she is tbere compelled to submit. No mother who regards her offspring with a parent's
Dundee-efor that they can say their prayers in Latin,
them-would give a plain English translation brothers of their congregation confessione circa negationem
U

all ~'"DOW who have heard of the following, from lJens' interrognndi Bunt conjugati in

Theology, tom. vii, pp. 149,150, and allow it to be read by the husbands and
:_U An aliquando debiti ? R. Affirmative: presertim mulieres, que ex ignorantia vel prz pudore peceatum iJ;tud quandoque reticent: verum nOD ex ab ubrnptc, Std p~denter est Interrogntio Instttuenda v, g. An eum marito mate stnt, que hUJUSD)()di ri.urum eausa : nwn propter talem occaslonem maritJs debitum ne-garint! quod tJi deliqueese futenutur, caste Interrogar! dcbeDt, an nibil secutuui fuent COl:,· tinentim conjugall contrnrtum, v, g. poUutio," &c. when tlley have tro.nslated the ubove, 1 can gtve them some more from the sable impure fountain, but fifty tiro .. more ob ""J!Oand diJlguting. 141

POPERY

DELINEATED.

love could undertake to prepare her child to answer the infernal catechism which is thrown open to the tyranny, the licentiousness, or the curiosity of the priest in the confessional of Dens'Theology. No husband that was not the betrayer instead of the guardian of his wife, could whisper in her ear what she is compelled to listen to in the dark demonical confessional of Dens' Theology. If that bond of Satanic secrecy which they call the seal, and which is their principle engine for extorting the thoughts of the heart, were to be broken, no female could ever dare to utter to sister, mother, husband, or any human ear, what she has been forced to hear and speak when stretched on the rack of the confessional of Dens' Theology. No man of commonintellect could dive into the secrets of this prison house, could read the iniquity of that confessional, and doubt for a moment the awful state of bondage and horrible subjection into which it must subdue the female mind; and in proportion to the virtue, the delicacy, religious feelings of that mind, so must be the aggravated awe with which it contemplates a power that has burst all the barriers with which heaven has encompassed it, broken into all its inmost thoughts, and which it has blindly learnt to consider as the power of God. "Printed books have been quoted, but," says the Professor of History in the College de France, "no one has brought to light the manuscripts whieh complete the education of the young seminarist during the last two years of his studies; these manuscript books contain things which the boldest have never dared to publish."* The followingquotation will fully provethe immoral tendency of auricular confession:" , The unmeasured immorality of the Spanish clergy appears in the history of sacerdotal and monkish solicitation in that kingdom. These solicitants were Spanish monks and priests, who, abusing the privacy ot sacramental confession, tempted women, married and unmarried, to a violation of chastity, and, in the language of Pope Gregory, administered poison instead of medicine. This kind of solicitation became so prevalent as to demand pontifical interposition. In Spain, the bull of Pope Paul IV. against solicitants was promulgated, in which the 142

POPERY DELINEATED.

following language is used to describe the evil which rendered such interference necessary; 'Whereas certain ecclesiastics,in the kingdom of Spain, and in the cities and dioceses thereof, having the cure of souls, or exercising such cure for others, or otherwise deputed to hear the confessions of penitents, have broken out into such heinous acts of iniquity, as to abuse the sacrament of penance in the very act of hearing the confessions, not fearing to injure the same sacrament, and him who instituted it, our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ, by enticing and provoking, or trying to entice and provoke females to lewd actions, at the very time when they were making their confessions.' When this bull was first introduced into Spain, the inquisitors published It solemn edict in all the churches belonging to the Archbishoprick of Seville, that any person knowing, or having heard of any friar or clergyman having committed the crime of abusing the sacrament of confession, or in any manner having improperly conducted himself during the confession of a female penitent, should make It discovery of what he knew within thirty days to the holy tribunal; and very heavy censures were attached to those who should neglect or despise this injunction. When this edict was first published, such a considerable number of females went to the palace of the inquisitor only in the city of Seville to reveal the conduct of their infamous confessors, that twenty notaries and as many inquisitors were appointed to minute down their several informations against them; but these being found insufficient to receive the depositions of so many witnesses, and the inquisitors being thus overwhelmed, as it were, with the .pressure of such affairs, thirty days more were allowed for taking the accusations; and this lapse of time also proving inadequate to the intended purpose, a similar period was granted, not only for a third, but a fourth time. The ladies of rank, character, and noble families, had It difficult part to act on this occasion, as theirdiecoveries could not be made of any particular time and place. On one side, religious fear of incurring the threatened censures goaded their consciences so much as to compel them to make the required accusations; on the other side, It regard to their husbands, to whom they justly feared to give offence, by affording them any motives for suspecting their private conduct, induced them to keep at home. To obviate these difficulties, they had re143

POPERY DELINEATED.

course to the measure of covering their faces with a veil, according to the fashion of Spain, and thus went to the inquiaitorsin the most secret manner they could adopt. Yery few, however, escaped the vigilance of their husbands, who, on being informed of the discoveries and accusations made by their wives, were filled with suspicions. Notwithstanding this accumulation of proof against the confessors, produced to the inquisitors, this holy tribunal, contrary to the expectations of everyone, put an end to the business, by ordering that all crimes of this nature, proved by lawful evidence, should from henceforth be consigned to perpetual silence and oblivion.' .. The above disgusting account of the impiety of the holy Fathers in the Spanish dominions, may be taken for a fair specimen of the piety of other countries. It was equally true of Portugal, and very little, if any better, in England, France, and Germany. That things have not much changed in Popish countries, the following extract from the first letter sent by the Rev. Roderic Rider to Bishop French, dated Dublin 27th Dec., 1845, will afford ample proof, "Xow, regarding your practice of aunculmr confession, I shall merely state facts, which I know by eleven years' experience. All your theologians admit that it is not of Divine institution, or in other words, that it was invented by man. That is one fact. The second is, that I know it to be conducive to the most debasing system of debauchery and licentiousness. I know that questions are asked and answered in the confessional of a character revolting to a pure and virtuous female. * * This is putting the case in the most favourable light. Were it lawful for me, or edifying to the public, to publish what I know, I could give time, and place, and date, for facts that would rouse the Roman Catholics of this country from their present degradation, and make them join heart and soul with the Roman Catholics of Germany, and the United States of America, to shake off for ever the ignominious yoke of papal tyranny , but, as I have to do with the doctrine of your church, and not with the morals of her ministers, I shall leave them in oblivion. I do not blame either the priests or the penitents, but I blame the system; it is unscriptural in theory, and immoral in its tendency. ,. Hence tho general outcry against tho immorality of priests. I could not sit for one-half hour in the house of an intelligent

*

*

*

*

1'4

POPERY

DELINEATED.

intelligent Roman Catholic, that the conduct of Father Tim, Father Tom, Father Mick, would not be brought on the tapis. Some late exposure, some new tour du lit gauchement arrangee would be the subject. While, on the other hand, if you enter into conversationwith these holy Fathers, their conversation will be about their bishop and his private concerns; but every good Catholic knows that to be calumny. He knowsthat St Paul tells every bishop to be the husband of one wife, and that wife is the Church, a very respectable old lady, of W1lblemished character, whom the bishop calls his holy mother. So that she is his wife and mother at the same time; but the Pope gives a dispensation. Now these maligners would wishto insinuate that this pious old lady is somehow,too, immaterial; but that is calumny. "Be that as it may, one thing is certain, that the outcry against the clergy is universal-and I believe that three-fourths of the complamts have their origin in the confessional. The priest has a species of access to females which no other man can have; he is held in a certain degree of respect in which no other man is held; he is believed to have the power of forgiving whatever sins he may commit,'" which no other man has. All these privileges are dangerous in the hands of a man who may be inclined to avail himself of them. The scandal that follow, the disgrace of a whole family, the respect entertained for the priest, and sometimes the attachment of the victim to the culprit, are powerful preventatives against exposure. If the victim move in humble life, she is generally shipped off to America, or married to som~se'rvant or needy relat·ive, who is always ready at hand. I knew three poor girls who were shipped off last-season by one man under such circumstances. The people are beginning to open their eyes, yet they do not know the one-tenth of what passes, but they see enough: They see the description of servants that some of their priests keep; the intimacies they form with pious old maids of equivocalcharacter-the dissipated manners which they betray, and the rakish tours they take occasionally,and they would be blind as bats not to see these. I admit there are a few of them who have escaped the general contagion, but they are few indeed; they form the exception and not the rule." "I defy you
*It 18VOXlconvenIent K Ie have the power of forglvl.Dg

lou ""'''

'/11'.

f~

POPERY

DELINEATED.

or any other man to deny or disprove one iota of what I have advanced." " The ministers of the Virgin were seen in public playing at games of chance, which they seasoned with mockery and blasphemy. They fought in the churches; disguised as soldiers, they descendedby night the Cathedral hill, and roaming through the streets, sword in hand, and in liquor, surprised, wounded. and sometimes even killed the worthy citizens; they debauched married women, seduced young girls, changed their residences into houses of ill-fame, and heartlessly turned out their young children to beg their bread.":" We will 11ow consider the argument on which they rest this monstt'ous abomination, and by which they justify this fragrant and .filthy evil. And, as usual, they find it clearly laid down in the sacred
Scri ptures,

" The principal passage, and that on which they chiefly rely, is the following :-' Confessyour faults one to another, and pray one for another.' (James v. 16.) The plain import of this passage undoubtedly is, that all Christians should mutually confess their faults to one another." But that this supports Popish confession, we deny-for "(1.) It does not say, 'Confess your faults to the elders,' but' to one anothG.' (2.) Therefore,' It requires the priest to confess to the people, as much as the people to the priest.' (3.) In it there is no mention made of absolution by a priest, or by any other individual. For these reasons auricular confessionto a priest derives no support from it." Then, again, James requires them to "pray one for another," that they may be healed or forgiven-a practice which, I fear, has long been out of date in the Popish ,Church. " This is a. good general direction to Christians who endeavour to maintain among themselves the communion of saints. This social confession tends much to humble the soul, and to make it watchful. ltVe naturally wish that onr friends in general, and our religious friends in particular, should think well of us; and when we confess to them offenceswhich, without this confession, they could never have known, we feel humbled, are kept from self-applause, and induced to watch unto prayer, that we may not increase our offencesbefore God, or be obliged an)'
.. D'Aubi,ne'

146

Reform.tion, Tol.iv., I'. ali2.

POPERY

DELINEATED.

more to undergo the painful humiliation of acknowledgingour weakness, fickleness, or infidelity to onr religious brethren. "* .. The confession of the Jews, on the occasionof John the Baptist's preaching, though occasionallyquotedfor the purpose, does not establish the practice. Their confessionwas widely different from that practised by the Church of Rome. It was an acknowledgment of sins, not to John, but to God; it was not a partioulas: but a general confession, which was frequent in the Old Testament, and similar to that which the High Priest made on the day of 'atonement of all the iniquities of the children of Israel;' it was not required by the Baptist, but one voluntarily made by themselves; in all these circumstances, therefore, it differs widely from the auricular confessiou inculcated by the Popish hierarchy. In a word, the Romanists cannot produce one text of Scripture wherein auricular sacramental confession of sins to a priest is recommended,either by our Lord or his Apostles; or wherein it does appear that it was practised by any Christian, either of the clergy or laity, in any instance, or one text in which it is so much as mentioned. Therefore, to impose private confession, as a necessary condition of repentance, on the Christian world, under pain of damnation, is a most unwarrantable assumption of priestly influence and spiritual authority." While the Scriptures $ay nothing in favour of auricular confession; they say much against it. " According to the sacred writings, we find that the confession which the penitent sinner makes to God alone has the promise of forgiveness annexed to it, which no priest on earth has power to render void. 'I acknowledged my sins unto THEE, and mine iniquity have I not hid; I said I will confess my transgressions unto THE LORD; and THOU forgavest the iniquity of my sin.' (Psalm xxxii, 5.) Solomon, in his supplication for the people, at the dedication of the temple, follows the example of his father David :-:-' Yet if they bethink themselves in the land whither they are carried captive, and tnrn and pray unto thee in the land of their captivity, saying, We have sinned, we bave done amiss, and have dealt wickedly; if they return to thee with all their heart and with all their oul in the land of their captivity, whither they have car• Dr Clarke on Jaml!ll~. 160

147

POPERY DELINEATED.

ried them captives, and pray toward their land, which thou gavest unto their fathers, and toward the city which thou hast chosen, and toward the house which I have built for thy name: then hear thou from the heavens, even from thy dwelling place, their prayer and their supplications, and maintain their cause, and forgive thy people which have sinned against thee." (2 Chron, vi. 37-39.) The publican cried, • God be merciful to me a sinner,' and went down to his house justified. St John assures us, • If we confessour sins, HE is faithful and just to forgive us our sins.''' (1 John i. 9.) &c.&c. The strength, however, of the Rornanistson this point, as well as several others, does not rest on the Scriptures so much as on the antiquity of the thing. That a species of confessionwas practised in the primitive Church, we have no wish to deny; but it was in the earliest days, a public confessionimposed on persons who had been guilty of a public scandal. .Private confessionalso to a discreet minister, in order to obtain direction and comfort, was recommended; and especially when the former practice fell into disuetude, But then, it was only recommended-not enjoined; And it was to obtain counsel and encouragement-not absolution. These are refinements of modern times. And it is with these refinements that we have to do-not with the existence or lawfulness of the thing itself. Everything is lawful that is helpful to piety .• What we object to is, that auricular confession should be imperative--it .must be done at least once a year, for no person can get to heaven without it-and that the penitents are obliged to answer every question the priest has a mind to put to them, however obscene and improper. Then, in reference to the antiquity of it :"First, Private confession in all cases as a command of after / God, was never thought of until nine hundred yeQ;TS Christ: nor was it decided as such till the Council of Lateran in 1215, which was the same Synod that mooted transubstantiation, and justified the deposition of princes, in case they were heretical, or did not extirpate heretics." It was>not until the Council of Trent met in 1545, that private confession to a priest was decreed to be an ordinance of Christ, and absolutely necessary to salvation. So that it was never established as a thing essential to the eternal welfare of the penitent, until modern times. ftI Second, It cannot be proved by any testimony of antiquity If 148

POPERY

DELINEATED.

that private confession to a priest was viewed any further than as a prudential and useful regulation." "Thirdly, The Fathers taught a doctrine quite contrary to that held by the papists. 'What have I to do with men,' says Augustine, 'that they should hear my confession, as though they could heal my disease?' Chrysostom says, 'It is not necessary that thou shouldst confess in the presence of witnesses; let the iniquity of thy offences be made in thy thoughts; let this judgment be made without a witness; let God only see thee confessing. Therefore I entreat and beseech you, that you would continually make your confession to God; for I do not bring thee to the theatre of thy fellow-servants, neither do I constrain thee to discover thy sins to men. Unclasp thy conscience before God, and show thy wounds to him, and from him ask a medicine.''' Again the same Father says, "Confess thy sins to God the Lord, thy real Judge; tell thy sin, not with thy tongue, but in thy conscience and in thy heart." Let the reader compare these quotations with the canons of the curse-loving Council of Trent, as given at the commencement of this chapter, and he will see that Augustine and Chrysostom come under the anathemas of the said council, as well as ourselves. Then, again, the doctrine of at~ricula". confession is loaded with so many dijjiculties, that it can only Jill with perple:x:ity the pious and sinpere; so many things are considered necesJlary to render it valid. We name a few of them :" There are no certain distinctions declared between mortal and venial sins; and no catalogue of the one and of the other has been authoritatively published, except that they usually reckon seven as being deadly sins; but even then, there are many devices by which they may be removed from the list of mortal to that of venial sin." " There is also no definite rule given concerning the examination of conscience. It is difficult to tell when it is done sufficiently; and yet, if it be not sufficient, then the sins which are forgotten through carelessness and infirmity, and are not lIluitably called to mind, are not pardoned." So that all the previous confessions, of whatever nature, are null and void. And as it is impossible for a person to know whether he has remembered every thing he ought to have told,it is impossible
149

POPERY DELINEATED.

that he should ever know whether all his sins are forgiven. "There are some confessions which are imperfect, but ualid ; some invalid on account of their imperfection ; some perfect and yet invalid. Hence arise scruples beyond the power of remedy. " There are also what are called reserved cases, which an ordinary priest cannot pardon. Some are reserved for the bishop, some for the archbishop, and some for the Pope. Yet any priest can absolvefrom these, provided. the penitent be a' the point of death. Reserved cases are such as the followingnamely, heresy, simony, assault on an ecclesiastic, robbery of a church, attempts to tax the clergy, and generally all offences against that privileged order." But how is it, that an ordinary priest can pardon these crimes at one time and not at another? He evidently has the power, because he can exercise it in an emergency. Is it because his superiors will not allow him to use it? This suggests another question. Does the priest receive authority to pardon sin from God, or his bishop? And this suggests another, and another, and another. "There are difficulties in the confessionof things in which the offender had associates. If he confess so as to accuse another, he commits sin; ifhe do not, in many cases he cannot reveal those peculiar circumstances which may alter the nature of the offence. Some may tell him that he-may conceal such till a more fit opportunity; others advise him to omit them altogether; and others recommend him to obtain another COIlfessor, Then a scruple arises, whether he may do this without leave; and if leave be denied him, whether he may do it on his own responsibility. Other questions arise respecting the iteration of his first confession; for if the first be considered invalid, it must be repeated. In this case, however, the penitent must be certain that his former confession was invalid; for, if it were, he cannot be absolved unless he renew it; an-dif valid, then he must beware not to eonfess the same thing twice, and be twice forgiven, for that would be unlawful." Is it likely that a God of wisdom would have ordained such endless fooleries for tbe perplexity of his peoples' minds? But "these are but the beginning of scruples! For, suppose the penitent hath done his duty, examined himself strictly, repented thoroughly, confessed fully, nnd is formally absolved . 160

POPERY

DELINEATED.

yet this may avail nothing, because of some invalidity in the ordination of the priest, either on account of crime, or irregularity, or palpable deficiency in the ordination, or succession of the priest; or he may have no jurisdiction, which should be carefully inquired into, &c., &c. Bnt we might as well attempt to number the sands of the sea, as to specify the variety of questionable cases which would inevitably occur in the practical operation of the theology of Rome."

In conclusion, we shall refer to the
SIONAL.

SECRECY

of the

CONPES,

" On this point, the Catechism of the Council of Trent declares, , Secrecy should be strictly observed, as well by penitent as priest; and, hence, because in such circumstances secrecy must be insecure, no one can, on any account, confess by messenger or letter.' Again,' but as all are anxious that their sins should be buried in eternal secrecy, the faithful are to be admonished, that there is no reason 'whatever to apprehend that what is made known in confession, will ever be revealed by any priest, or that by it the penitent can, at any time, be brought into danger or difficulty of any sort. AU laws, human and divine, guard the inviolability of the seal of confession, and against its sacrilegious infraction the Church denounces her heaviest chastisements. 'Let the priest: says the great Council of Lateran, 'take especial care, neither by word, nor sign, nor by any other means whatever, to betray, in the least degree, the sacred trust confided to him by the sinner.'''* The secrecy of the confessional, all will at once feel to be a matter of vast importance; for there are few who would confess their sins, if they thought they would be revealed. On this subject, we intend to proveF'irst.~ That the Romish Church trains her priesthood to LYING and PERJTJ.RY. And, second, that there is no secrecy in the confessional at all, when it will suit the priest's purposes to devulge, or will be of service to the Church. On the former of these, hear what Peter Dens teaches in his theology, published with the approbation of the Most Reverend Lord and Father in God, Lord Daniel 'Murray, archbishop of Dublin, and primate of Ireland. This book is gene• Catechism of the Council.t Trent, 1'1'.ll8O,282.

161

POPERY DELINEATED.

rally used in Roman Catholic theological schools, and, among others, Maynooth. " WEat is the seal of sacramental confession? "An8. It is the obligation or duty of concealing those things which are Iearned from sacramental confession. " Can a case be given in which it is lawful to break the sacramental seal? "An8. It cannot; although the life or safety of a man depended thereon, or even the destruction* ofthe commonwealth; nor can the supreme Pontiff give dispensation in this; so that, on that aecount, this secret of the seal is more binding than the obligation of an oath, a vow, a natural secret, &c., and that by the positive will of God. "What answer, then, ought a confessor give, when questioned concerning truth, which he knows from sacramental confession only? "A. HE OUGHT TO ANSWER THAT HE DOES NOT KNOW IT; AND, IF IT BE NECESSARY, TO CONFIRM THE SAME WITH AN OATH. t "Objec. It is in no case lawful to tell a lie; but that confessor would be guilty of a lie, because he knows the truth; therefore, &c. "An8. I deny the minor.f because such a confessor is interrogated as a man, and answers as a man; but now he does not know that truth. as a man, though he .knows it as God, says St Thomas; and that is the spontaneous or natural meaning of the answer; for when he is interrogated, or when he answers ontside confession, he is considered as a man. " What if a confessor were directly asked whether he knows it throngh sacramental confession? "A. In that case he ought to give no answer, so Steyart and Sylvius, but reject the question as impious; OJ:: he eould even say absolutely, not relatively to the question, 'I know nothing,' because the word I restricts to his human knowIedge."] And in reference to the second, we are prepared to prove

* We beg the reader to mark the strength of this Ianguage, and bear it in mlnd. t Here, then, both lying and perjury arc taught. That Is, that the priest would be gnU,. of a lie, in saying that he <lou ~""'" what he hal heard in confession. I This Is a specimen 01 Jesuitical Juggle, and will be found in Dens' ThecIOlIia tom. -et., pp. 211'-219.

*

no'

152

POPERY

DELINEATED.

that there is no secrecy in the confessional at all when the purposes of the priest or the good of the Church stand in the way. Mark well the following extracts :" But if anyone should disclose his sins to a confessor with the intention of mocking him, or of drawing him'into an alliance with him in the execution of a bad intention? " A. The seal does not result therefrom, because the confession is not sacramental. Thus, as Dominick Soto relates, it has been decided at Rome, in a case in which some one went to a confessor with the intention of drawing him into a criminal conspiracy against the Pope.* " In fine, all things are reduced indirectly to the seal, by the revealing of which the sacrament would be rendered odious

according to the manners of the country and the changes of the times; and thus Steyart observes from Wiggers, that some things are at one time opposed to the seal, whicl. at another time are NOT considered as such. t
" Does a confessor, relating the sins which he has heard in confession, act contrary to the seal? " A. If a sinner or person can by no means 'be discovered, not even in general, nor any prejudice to himself (priest) happen therefrom, he does not act contrary to the seal, because the seal has reference to the penitent or sinner. " Wherefore, the doctors providently advise that we should abstain from those narrations, when not moved by reasons of utility, on account of the scandal, were people to suppose that the confessor recollected the sins of each individual; and on account of the remote danger and the suspicions of others. Medina tells us that a confessor had thus discovered on an adultrees, by first saying that his first penitent had confessed an adultery, and afterwards imprudently naming the person who had been his first penitent. Wherefore, even in asking advice, it is better to state the ease simply, without declaring that it has occurred to him in confession. " What persons contract the obligations of the sacramental seal ?
III But we have been told that it could not be broken to save a mau', lift. not even the commonweal/h. Surely, If it can be broken for tho sake of the Pope, it rna,. for tbe sake of • whole c"""/rv. t We have bad one proof tbo,t the seal may be broken, namely, in favour of the Pope, and here we baveproof that It maybe broken any time, when it blnot likely to render od'o,", tb. eaor.unent of confeesion. /Jut reU<l 153

0,..

POPERY

DELINEATED.

"A. All those who have got their knowledge from confession, mediately or immediately, lawfully or unlawfully. " In this manner interpreters in the confession are bound by the seal, and those who. sitting about the confessional, accidently hear anything. But they commit sin who voluntary listen to hear. In like manner, they are bound by the seal, to sohom.the confessor has revealed. WITHOUT the license of the penitent. "Can a confessor, with license of the penitent, disclose what he has heard in that penitent's confession? "A. This license can be given in a two-fold way-1st, So as, by that license, he may give the confessor, at the same time, another human extra-sacramental mode of knowing it, in order that the confessor may then know it even as a man. Suppose if the penitent were to say, What I have confessedto you I tell you without confession; and in this case nothing prevents the confessor from disclosing (provided there be no scandal), because he does not use the knowledge of the seal, but another sort of knowledge, namely, human; and thus the seal is not touched. "Obj. Bad priests could thus abuse the seal by saying they had liberty. " St Thomas answers, it is incumbent on them to prove they have received the license, but a confessor is believed when he swears he has obtained license from the penitent. 'If " 2d, That license can be so given as that the thing 1vhich is revealed by the confessor to another, may pass with and under the sacramentai seal, sothat even he to whomthe knowledge passes may be bound by the seal, &c. •, Is it lawful for a confessor to avail himself of that knowledge which he has acquired solely from the eacramentel confession of another? "A. Although it is always unlawful to break the seal, however it is acquired, whether it is contrary to the reverence of the seal, to do anything, or to omit anything. on account of that knowledge, which the confessor could otherwise not have done? To which it is answered, It is sometimes contrary to the seal and sometimes NOT •
• And what is there that a U bad priest" won't swear? to talk about proving I AmrtiM;" proorbere, II_rn8 'I What nonsense then

151

I'OPERY DEUNEATED.

" When is it contrary to the seal to make use of the knowledge of confession? "A, When it is attended with danqer, lest anything be revealed, directly or indirectly, respecting the confession of a known person. Nay, although no such danger appears, and although it be not known that the eonfessor avails bimself of the knowledge of confession, yet, if it might turn out to be a real or apprehended grievance to the penitent or his accomplice, it would be acting contrary to the seal, inasmuch as confession would thus be rendered. odious: for instance, if a confessor should, from the sole knowledge of confession, deny a penitent or his accomplice a testimonium of morals. " When is it lawful for the confessor to make use of the knowledge acquired in confession ? "A. ""Vhen the sinner is by no means discovered; also, when no grievance is occasioned to him or to another; in fine, WHEN NOTHING INTERVENj;;S TO RENDER THE CONPESSION
ODlOUS."t

And now I think we have fulfilled the task we undertook; namely, first, to prove that Popish priests were trained to lying and perjury; and second, that in the confessional there is no secrecy at all; or only what may be termed a prudential secrecy. It is true, Peter Dens tells us, that the seal cannot be broken, even if it were to save the life of a man, or the commonwealth from destruction; but we have also seen that it mig~t be broken to save the Pope from a conspiracy-perhaps a pretended one. Nay, we have proved it clearly and abundantly, that the only barrier is, the danger of scandal-lest confession be rendered odious. And what danger is there of it becoming odious among the priests themselves? Indeed, the holy Father, whosewritings we have quoted, has obligingly provided for this mutual tale-telling, by binding all to whom it may be told with the seal, And so he, to whom it passes, may of course pass it on, by the same license, to a fourth, with and under this sacramental figment. Dens has succeeded in entirely demolishing the seal-he has broken it to pieces. There is absolutely nothing but the fancy of the priest, and his fancy has to do with it sometimes, there is no doubt, to prevent them telling to each other every thing they hear.
t Den.' Theologia, tom. vi. pp.220, 222, 221, 232, 2:l5, 2:i8. 155

POPERY

DELINEATED.

"Sufficient has been advanced to prove that the practice of confession, as it obtains in the Church of Rome, has, in innumerable cases, been the source of immense evil to the individuals making such confession,by the re-action of the details of sinful indulgence on their imagination and passions; to the confessor himself, by the facts and circumstances disclosed,and to the general habit of thinking on the subject, by which the official exercise of priestly functions in this way, 'has had the effect of tranquillizing the conscience on most unscriptural principles; and the minds of men have been set at rest, not because of the right application of Christian truth, but by the external administration of the rites and observances which the pretended sacrament of penance imposes. We might observe, farther, that the political influence obtained by the knowledge of confession in high and exalted stations, has often been employed for the most iniquitous purposes, and has rendered the possession of this power a prerogative of dangerous operation to the civil interests of society. The history of Jesuitism has furnished abundant illustrations of the truth of this remark.??
• Fletcher's Lectures, &0., p, 176.

166

POPERY

DELINEATED.

CHAP. VII.-CELIBACY. The following is the statement of the doct1'ine of Oelibacy, as inculcated by the Oouncil of Trent ;" Whoever shall affirm that persons in holy orders, or regulars, who have made a solemn profession of chastity, may contract marriage, and that the contract is valid, notwithstanding any ecclesiastical law or vow; and that, to maintain the contrary, is nothing less than to condemn marriage; and that all persons may marry who feel, that, though they should make a vow of chastity, they have not the gift thereof; let him be accursed. For God does not deny his gifts to those who ask aright, neither does he suffer us to be tempted above what we are able." " Whoever shall affirm that the conjugal state is to be preferred to a life of virginity or celibacy, and that it is not better and more conducive to happiness to remain in virginity, or celibacy, than to be married; let him be accursed.":" The Roman Catechism expresses itself all follows:" The words, , increase and multiply: which were uttered by .Almighty God, do not impose on every individual an obligation to marry; they declare the object of the institution of marriage; and now that the human race is widely diffused, not only is there no law rendering marriage obligatory, but, on the contrary, virginity is highly exalted, and strongly recommended, in Scripture, as superior to marriage, as a state of greater perfection and holiness.t't We will now refer to a few of tIM arguments by which the Romamists support this doctrine. First, They deduce it from Scripture. "And Jesus answering, said unto them, the children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: but they which shall be accountedworthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in mar,. CODcH. Trid.,..ess. xxtv. Cateehism of the Connci: of Treni57 328.

POPERY DELINEATED.

riage: neither can they die any more; for they are equal nnto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection." (Luke xx. 34-36.) " The plain meaning is, that marriage is the condition of our present mode of existence; but not of a future life. According to the Roman Catholic interpretation, we might argue, -' Animal life is sustained by aliment: not so the angelic life; therefore to abstain from food, as far as possible, is the best way to make us like angels.' Our Lord's intention was to confute the Sadducees, whose doctrine struck at the root of all religion; and to reprobate the gross conceptions of the fut ure life then current amongthe Jews." So far from this text affording any support to the doctrine of celibacy, we should consider it of just the opposite tendency. Our Saviour not only stated a fact, but a fact in accordance with the appointment of God. And they lie, and know not the truth, who say, that" virginity is highly exalted, and strongly recommended in Scripture, as superior to marriage." It will show the unsubstantial nature of their doctrine, when we say, that this pas age is made more use of than any other in vindicating the practice of celibacy. They employ the same illogical mode of interpretation, to justify their sanguinary and bloody measures against Protestants. The following Scriptural expressions-the connection of which the reader will easily call to mind-are made great use of by Romanists :" Oompel them to come in.;" -that is, into the Church: not by powerful arguments, but by powerful blows. "I OIln not come to send;peace upon earth, but a sword ;"-for the purpose of extirpating heretics. "It is better that one member perish," -that one heretic, 01' 0. thousand, be burned-" than that the whole body,"-the Church-" be lost." "Here are two swords ;"-the spiritual and temporal. Tt is a pity that Peter did Dotwear them both. However, they contrive to use them both when they dare. "And God made two great lights ;"-the greater light the Pope, the lesser light the Emperor I! " The following is quoted in favour of celibacy :-' But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying. save they to whom it is given. For there are someeunuchs, which were so born from their mothers' womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs,
158

POPERY

DELINEATED.

which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heavens' sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." (Matt. xix. 11, 12.) These words are connected with Pharisaical subtilty, as recorded in the 3d verse :-" The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" To which our Saviour replied in the following verses, the substance of which is given in the 9th :-" And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, xcept it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committ th adultery; ond whoso marrieth her which i put aWIIYdoth commit adult 'ry." Then his disciples said unto him, " If the cus oJ th m n be so with his wife, it is not good to marry"-that is, unless h(>olin put her away whenever she displeases him: to which our Lord answered in versesllth and 12th, as given above. "All m n cannot receive this saying ;" (v. Tl th.) What saying 1 That just uttered by his disciples-" it is not good to marry." But why cannot all receive it 1 Because the gift of continency is not theirs: and this is impliedlin the close of verse 11th, " save they to whom it is given." To whom it is given we are told in the 12th verse :-" For there are some eunuchs," &C. " EU'YIIUchs the "kingdom of heaven's sake are not those who for practice celibacy under the idea of attaining higher purity and merit, but those who, for the advancement of the Gospel, voluntarily live single in order to ~ve up themselves uninterruptedly to establish and extend it; and may also comprehend those who, in times of great persecution and danger, choose rather to remain unmarried than expose families to the sufferings which they expected to be called to endure, or to leave them friendless by their own martyrdom. Our Lord, however, adds, " He that is able to receive ir, let him-receive it," that is, let no one receive it except he who is able or qualified to live in this state without sin. So far, therefore, was our Lord, as the Papists pretend. from discouraging marriage, or representing celibacy as a state of greater honour than marriage, that he commands it only in such a case of necessity as should arise out of the promotion of' the kingdom of heaven' in the world. In only a. few persons, and at particular times, could such a. case arise, in which public usefulness would be more promoted by celibacy. Ordinarily, men are more useful, both as ministers and other officers in the church, when married; 159

POPERY

DELINEATED.

but when the Gospel was to be preached by itinerating apostles and their coadjutors, when they had no certain dwellingplace, and when they were persecuted from one city to another, 'as to some public characters in the Church, family duties and those they owed to their officemight be iJ;lcoIl)patible;and it was then their praise voluntarily to give up the honourable relations of husband and parent, in the way of sacrifice, for the glory of Christ and the interests of religion. Yet even these are admonished that they are not to receive the saying unless they are able to receive it, not without a sufficient call of duty, confirmed'to them by the communication of special and sufficient grace."* Now, in reference to our Saviour's words, there are three things worthy of being noted :-" First, the well-defined restriction, , All are not able to receive it;' if any man is able to receive it, if to any this ability has been given, let such receive it-plainly pointing to a peculiarity of original temperament, which whosoever possessed, might act upon it without peril or presumption." It is evident that this should be left to a man's own judgment and discretion-he should know his own temperament and act accordingly. So thought Leo 1. He required the age of forty in monks, before they were consecrated. Pius V. recommendedtwenty-five; which was confirmed by the third Council of Carthage. Synods of a more recent date have allowed vowsof virginity to be taken as early as fourteen in males; and twelve,In females. The Council of Trent recognises sixteen years as the age before which the vow should not be taken. Every body must know, however, that this is much too soon. The following is a monastic rule, and has obtained generally in the Romish Church :-" Who vows deliberately? Girls and bOYS, before they can judge, may be persuaded to vow; sometimes also they may be compelled." The result of such a rule is, that " thousands from infancy, or before the age of puberty, are, by the fanaticism of their parents, devoted to celibacy, and exposed to the pursuits of a criminal life in after days." The second thing to be noted is the motive: "For the sake of the kingdom of heaven." " But the ascetics, instead of seeking to promote the kingdom of heaven, or pure rel i8

160

Watson's Exposition,

p,

271,

POPERY DELINEATED.

gion, by remaining in the midst of the mass as its salt and light, to preserve and guide, enclosed themselves in religious houses, and were secluded from society at large, Christ went about doin~ good, consorting with publicans and sinners; but the ascetics, minding their own things, left the Church and the world to wander in error and crime. Thii-dly. The Redeemer gives no countenance whatever to the principle that marriage is a pollution, and celibacy a holy state of . proximity to God. If such a notion were embraced in our Lord's declaration, here was the place to make it known." They also cite the seventh chapter of St Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians, as authorizing celibacy. We consider the key to this chapter, or to those parts of it which the Romanists claim in support of this doctrine, to be the beginning of verse 32, .. But I would have you without carefulness." The facts are these :-The times were perilous to Christians; they were in constant danger of banishment or martyrdom; they expected almost daily a spoiling of their goods: in such circumstances, the Apostle wisely advised them to abstain from marriage, such a course being calculated to save them from much anxiety and distress. But they were to follow this advice only on the condition of keeping from sin. " But, if they cannot contain, let them marry; for it is better to marry' than burn." The Apostle's advice is on the same principle as that which our Saviour gave, when he told his disciples to pray that their flight might not be in the winter, inasmuch as it would greatly expedite their escape .from the threatened calamity, if it took place in the summer. And even then, those were accounted comparatively happy who were not" with child," or who did not .. give suck." The Apostle, in like manner, refers to the temporary and special reason which might recommend celibacy: "I suppose this is good for the present distress," for a man, if unmarried, "not to seek a wife:" for he would have them" without carefulness." Besides, Paul was not advising ministers not to marry, but the people; he would have all who were single to remain so; being "good for the present distress." So that this chapter might be quoted in favour of universal celibacy, as well as partial; and would afford greater support to the former than the latter • .. The following has been quoted in favour of celibacy. .. 161

POPERY

DELINEATED.

',These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the first fruits unto God and the Lamb. And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault. before the throne of God'-(Rev. xiv, 4, 5.) Christians, without any regard to their being single or married, are called by 8t James, (i. 18); 'a first fruit' unto God; and in the Apocalypse, they are designated the 'faithful' as distinguished from the 'false.' The scarlet clad woman, shameless, cruel, and arrogant, and the in veterate enemy of the saints, is an adulteress in the ecclesiastical and symbolical sense of the word; and it is not the profligacy so much as the idolatry that is intended by the prophetic style. The co-relative term, 'virgins,' the 'true and faithful,' 'the followers of the Lamb,' are those who possessed purity of faith and innocency of manners. Or, if by the term 'virgins' is meant, the virgins of the Church, or the celebates, then this interpretation excludes from the privileged chair several of the Apostles, and many of the holiest men and women of every age. Besides, the morals of the professed, whether priests, nuns, or monks, do not correspond~ith the virgins named, among whom reigned, in all ages of their existence, shameless vices, or a pitiful and loathsome pra-. vity of heart, or entire uselessness." The following quotation from one of their own theologians, Bailly, will serve to confirm what we have advanced. " You inquire whether clergymen in sacred orders are bound to observeperpetual continency, by the divine or apostolical law? It is answered, with many theologians, against certain others, that the celibacy annexed to sacred orders was neither instituted nor commanded by Ghrist, or by the Apostles at his command. Nothing is found in Scriptu1'e or tradition, by which it can be proved that perpetual continency was imposed on ministers by Christ, or by the Apostles at his command. On the other hand, the Church permitted, for many ages, to the Greek priests the society of wives whom they had taken before ordination, and still permits, as is evident from what we have before said; but the Church is unab,le to dispense with a law imposed by Christ, or bythe Apostles at the command of Christ." But notwithstanding BaiI.~yhaa .tJips spoken, he contrives, in what follows the
162 ....•

POPERY DELINEATED.

foregoing extract, to invest the doctrine with apostolicauthority I because it was instituted by the hierarchy of the Church, as an ecclesiastical law, and which in the view of the Romanist is nothing less than divine. Second. It is said, in addition to Scripture proofs, that the cares of a married life interfere with the duties of the clergy, To this we may answer, in the words of a Romish priest, deeply sensible of the iniquity of the system, " Do not the cares of a viciouslife, the anxieties of stolen love, the contrivances of adulterous intercourse, the pains, the jealousies, tho remorso attached to a conduct in perfect contradiction with a public and solemn profession of superior virtue; do not these cares, these bitter feelings, interfere with the duties of the priesthood 1 I have seen the most promising men of my university obtain country vicarages, with characters unimpeached, and hearts overflowing with usefulness. A virtuous wife would have confirmed and strengthened their purposes; but they were to live a life of angels in celibacy. They were, however, men, and their duties connected them with beings of no higher description. Young women knelt before them in all the intimacy and openness of confession. A solitary home made them go abroad insearch of social converse. Love, long resisted, seized them at length like madness. Two I knew who died insane; hundreds might be found who avoided that fate by a life of settled systematic vice."* Deeds of this kind early crept into the Church. We find " Cyprian, in the third century, inveighed against the nuns on account of their shameless licentiousness; and this was not an incidental or local abuse, for it had spread itself on all sides, and had become, notwithstanding all remonstrances, the common usage of the ceenobite ascetics, and even of some of the anchorites. Not only did the aged monks avail themselves of thooffices,and enjoy the society of youthful women in their cloisters, but the young did the same in defiance of the unavoidable scandal of such conduct. Juvenile nuns also entertained their paramours under various pretexts." "What a sight is it, says Chrysostom, 'to enter the cell of a solitary monk, and to see the apartment hung about with female gear, shoes, girdles, reticules,
• Practical and Internal B. wuue, p. 137. Evidences against Catbolicism, &0., by tbe Rev. 1. 163 .

POPERY

DELINEATED.

eaps, bonnets. spindles, combs, and the like, too many to mention! But wbat a jest is it to visit tbe abode of a rich monk, and to look about you! For you find the solitary one surrounded with a bevy of lasses, one might say, just like the leader of a company ef singing and dancing girls; what can be more disgraceful! And, iu fact, tbe monk is all the day long vexed and busied with petty affairs proper to a woman. Not merely is be occupied with worldly matters contrary to the apostolic precept, but even with feminine cares; and these ladies being very luxurious in their babits, as well as imperious in tbeir tempers, tbe good man was liable to be sent on fifty errands-to the silversmith's to inquire if my lady's mirror was finished-if her vase were ready-if her scent-cruet had been returned; and from the silversmith's to the perfumer's, and thence to the linen-draper's, and thence to the upholsterer's -and at each place he bas twenty particulars to remember. Then, add to all these cares the jars and scoldings that are apt to resound in a house full of pampered women! Paul says, , Be ye not the servants of men ;' shall we not then cease to be the slaves of vromen, and this to tbe common injury of all? Christ, who would have us behave ourselves as his valiant soldiers, assuredly has not, for this purpose, clad us in the spiritual armour, that we should take upon ourselves the officeof waiting, like menials or worthless girls, or that we should busy oursslvel with their spinnings and sewings, or spend tbe live-long day by their side, wbile at work, imbuing our minds with effeminate trifles.' " What Cbrysostom here advances, is no proof of the absence of cares, but it is a proof that enforcedcelibacy is worse tban folly. We present two or three arguments against the celibacy of the Romish. cle~·gy. "(1.) Tbis state is not supported by the Divine law. Many Romanists allow this. Therefore, as such a requisition is unauthorized by the word of God, it is presumptuous to enforce it on the clergy. It answers no purpose to say, that the intention is to promote greater sanctity, for he who made man knows what is best for him; he bas vouchsafed his Holy Spirit to eanctify, and the fruit of the Spirit, as love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, will produce that which will benefit mankind and bonour God. An artificial and compulsive sanctity will do more harm than good, and 164

POPERY DELIKEATED.

instead of purifying, will only tend to corrupt and debase man. " (2.) Clerical celibacy is contral'y to the Divine law. It is at variance with the very existence of the human race. It is opposed to the original institution of marriage, which is founded on the principle that it was not good for man to be alone. It is adverse to the example of the most pious men from Adam to Christ. Our Redeemer chose married men for his ministers. He sanctified marriage by his presence and approbation. The apostles describe a bishop 01' pastor ofa flockas married, and not only point out his personal duties arising therefrom, but the character which his wife and children should sustain, as well as the model of his ecclesiastical government, and the order which the head of a family exercises in his house among his wife and children. In short, the prohibition of marriage to the clergy is considered part of heathenism, a heresy in the Church, as well as a mark of anti-christian pruvity, It is at variance with the institution of'God, which evidently designed that every male and female should be united in this holy estate; and is contrary to nature, which has produced everywhere men and women in about an equal proportion. The married state is the best, and the exceptions to it are so few, that they cannot be supposed to interfere with the general rule." (3.) It is contrary to many plain passages of Scripture. We will content ourselves with two or three. " Mm'riage is honourable in ALL, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." Heb, x iii. 4. " Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every ?nan have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." 1 Cor. vii. 2, 7, 8, 9. And St Paul thus writes of the officers of the Church:" A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach: one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the Church of 165

POPERY

DELINEATED.

God?) Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. Let the deacons be the husbands of one. wife, ruling their children and their own houses well." 1 Tim. iii. 2, 4,5, 11, 12. " If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having-faithful children, not accused of riot, or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre." Titus i. 6, 7. From the above Scriptures we infer, that celibacy should not be imposed on any clergyman. Marriage is left to the voluntary choice of all. Those who have not the special gift, should be left to act as they see fit. Each is to judge for himself. (4.) The forced" celibacy of the clergy is heretical, and is a mark of an apostate church. This is proved from the following passage of holy Scripture :-' Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; FORBIDDING TO MARRY, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them who believe and know the truth.''' 1 Tim. iv. 1-3. On" forbidding to marry," in the above passage, Bishop Newton, in his Dissertations on the Prophecies, says-" This is a farther character of the promoters of this apostasy. The same hypocritical liars who should promote the worship of demons, should also prohibit lawful marriage. The monks were the first who brought a single life into repute; they were the :firstalso 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 principal share in pro.moting 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 snccessors and descendants, the monks, and priests, and bishops of the Church of Rome? 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 the prohibition of marriage, 166

POPERY DELINEA~ED.

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." " Clement of Alexandria, alluding to the heretics of his day, says, 'There are some who publicly call matrimony fornication, and maintain that it is a tradition of the devil.'" Theodoret enumerates several classes of heretics, who concurred in condemning matrimony :-" They observe celibacy," says be, " calling marr-iage whoredom, and pronouncing legitimate union diabolical." It is true, those heretics condemned it in all cases, which the Romanists do not; only in monks, nuns, and the clergy: but then, in these three cases, the hurch declared it unlawful, which is a manifest proof of heresy and apostacy, Lastly, " The celibacy of the clergy has produced great licentiousness of mannej's from its commencement to thepresen' day." The celibacy of the Romish Church is the offspring of heathenism, and, as might be expected, the priests of both people are about equally degraded and unclean. It began to show itself in the church at a very early period: and the fruits also. Cyprian flourished in the third century. In his reply to Pomponius, he describes the wickedness of their conduct. Among females who had taken the vow, great disorders ensued. He" inveighs severely against them in his epistles, and even recommends, in opposition to the Popish doctrine, that it is better to marry than continuesuch scandalous deeds." The persons recommended by Cyprian to enter into the marriage state, were such as had taken upon themselves the vow of perpetual chastity. "With these many of the single clergy lived, dwelling and even sleeping together, mutually agreeing to have no conjugal intercourse. Such a marriage they considered as that ofthe soul, and not of the body. Many of the bishops strongly opposed this conduct; bnt a long time elapsed before it was wholly abolished." From Chrysostom, we learn, " that, while a few were virtuous and sincere, although fanatical and extravagant, there prevailed among others the worst kind of immorality. They were either shamefully vicious, or possessed depraved hearts. He says, ' Alas, my soul! well may I exclaim, and repeat the lamentable cry with the prophet! A.las,my soull our virginity has fallen into contempt: theveilia rent by impudent hands, that parted it off from matrimony, the J.61

POPERY DELINEATED.

holy of holies is trodden under foot, and its grave and tremendous sanctities have become profane and thrown open to all ; and that which was once had in reverence, as far more excellent than matrimony, is now sunk so low, as that one should rather call the married blessed, than those who profess it. Nor is it the enemy that has effected all this, but the virgin. them lVl8.'* uch is tho confession of one of the warmest adrnir rs of the ascetic life." cv ral canons have b en enact d by councils ngainst these profanities. The ouncilof Angers. . D. 453; Orleans, A. D. 54]; leville, . D. 590; halons, A.D. 650; and \1y tbo ynod of Menta, .D. 812. to tbo following effect :-" Priest were prohibited retaining in their houses any woman of whom tbe least suspicion might be entertained-as the icene fathers had decreed-s-namely, a mother, an aunt, or a sisler, because it was found that, at the instigation of the devil. sin was committed even uiit]» them, or with their waiting maids. By a council beld in tbe same city, A.D. 8, priests were prohibited lodging in tbe same house with any woman whatsoever; it having been discovered, as the prelates acknowledged, tbat, in consequence of such associa ion, " cesr had been committed. By an epistle frOIDBoniface, the apostle of Germany, as he bas been styled, to Pope Zachary, it appears that the lives of the French clergy were prof igate to the last degree. Incest, forn ication, adultery, and concubinage were.common among them; some kept four, five, or more concubines." The following is an extract of a letter from U dalric, Bishop of Augusta, to Nicholas 1., concerning Gregory the Great"'That be, by his decree, deprived priests of their wives; when, shortly after, he commanded tbat some fish should be caught from the fish-ponds, tho f bel'S, inslea of fish, found the heads of six thou and infants that had been drowned in the ponds. When Gregory ascertained that the children thus killed were born from the concealed fornications and udulterieaof the priests, he forthwith recalled his decree, and purged the sin with worthy fruits of repentance, extolling the apostolic command, • It is better to marry than to burn,' adding from himself, • It is better to marry than to be the occasion of death.' " .. Bernard, wbo died A.D. 1153, utters the following complaiut in his sermon to the clergy on conversion :-' If, accord• Chry60S. Oper a,, tom. i. p. 209.

168

POPERY

DELINEATED,

ing to the prophecy of Ezekiel, we could look behind the partition that we might see the horrible thing in the house of tho Lord, perhaps the foulest abominations would appear on tho inside of the partitlon. Nay, besides fornications, adulteries, and incests, there are not wanting among some the most shameful, ignominious conduct. Would that those thing. 11.ldchare not convenient had never been committed to such an extent as to induce the Apostle to write thus concerning them (Rom. i. 2 ); neither that it was n dful for u. to d elnre, nor that tho least rod n 0 wer t b given to our d lnrnti n, thut nny lu t .0 abomin bl llS this had at any tim 0 upi ,(I th lulucl r man I Ala I th n my of mnn h. d 'fJl'd th !Jody of tb hurch with the oxecrubl usb 8 of tbe Sodomites ; and inc!' d the most filthy and ubomin ble crimes h ve d Ill d SOlD I of it very ministers also, :Many of these offenders, not ind ied all, but many, it is certain, cannot be concealed on account of their multitude; nor, by reason of their impudence, do they court concealment; and many are seen to have employed this licentiousness for an occasion to the flesh, abstaining from the nuptial remedy, and bence using this liberty of theirs for perpetrating every crime."?" "The University of Oxford, at the command of the King. drew up an account of the abuses that needed reformation, in forty-six articles, to be laid before the Council of Constance, A,D. 1414. The thirty-eighth states, 'that the carnal and debauched lives of the clergy in our days, and their public fornications, which are never punished except by a small fine in private, set an evil example before others: it would, therefore, be a holy thing, and contribute to tbe reformation of the Church, if priests of every rank and order, who were public fornicators, were obliged to abstain from celebrating mass for a. lim ited time: "t " The following picture of the Romish clergy in Scotland ill eq ally startling :-' Inferior benefices were put up to sale, or bestowed on the illiterate and unworthy minions oithe courtiers, on dice-players, strolling bards, and the bastards of bishops.'t 'The lives of the clergy, exempted from secular jurisdiction, and corrupted by wealth and idleness, were become a scandal
~ Bernard, Opera, tom. Iv., cap. xx., p- no. t Henry's Hil'itoryof Great. Brttaiu, voL x., p. 20. lM'Crie'. Life of Knox, p 110.

169

I'OI'EIlT

DI:LI _

nrD.

ooua, religwo.s

of you h than hebe yean Eight of us, all nea.rly of

• IdmJ, polL

170

J'O

DELlMUTED.

U

r

in.

er of life.
111

I had

POPERY

DELINEATED.

loved him when both our minds were pure-I loved him wheh Catholicism had driven us both from the path of virtue-I still love, and will love, his memory. and hope that God's mercy has pardoned his life of sin, without imputing it to the abettors of the barbarous laws which occasioned his spiritual ruin. " 'Such, more or less, has been the fate of my early friends, whose minds and hearts were much above the common standard of the Spanish clergy. What, then, need I say of the vulgar crowd of priests, who, coming as the Spanish phrase has it, from coarse swaddling clothes, and raised by ordination to a rank of life for which tbey had not been prepared, mingle vice and superstition, grossness of feeling and pride of office,in their character? I have known the best among them -I have heard their confessions-I have heard the confessions of persons of both sexes who fell under the influence of their suggestions and example-s-and I do declare that nothing can be more dangerous to youthful virtue than their company. How many souls would be saved from crime, but for the vain display of pretended superior virtue which Rome demands of her clergy!' ,,* The following extracts are from "Confessions of a French Catholic Priest." After giving an interesting account of the virtuous character of the students generally, he says-" The account of the corruption of the clergy begins when they are out of the seminary. Young men are sent into a parish in the quality of curates or vicars. At the commencementthey fulfil their duties with care, and, for a time, remain faithful to their vows. Many have told me this after their fall. By and bye they open astonished eyes. Restored to freedom, after ten or twelve years thraldom in a college, they becomedifferent men, and gradually forget their vows, • O!' said a young priest, with tears in his eyes, after having four or five years discharged the duties of his station, • God only knows what I have suffered during this time. If I have fallen, it was not without fighting. Had I been allowed to choose a wife, as such is the law of God, who destines man to marriage, whatever our rules teach to the contrary, I should have remained virtuous-I should have been the happiest man in the world-I should have been a good and holy priest; while now I am-O ! I am
• White's Practical and Internal Evidence against Catholicism, PI' 132·137.

l72

POPERY

DELINEATED.

ashamed of myself: This is the sad history of their fall ; for, let us be just, what can becomeof a young priest of twentyfi ve years of age, confined in the lonely wilderness of a country parish-in a village where he has only the society of his sacristan and his servant, because all his parishioners, being coarse peasants, especially in the south and in the west, scarcely knowing how to read, are unable to afford him any comfort in his solitude. . . . . Ilis ministry also places him in many circumstances with ignorant Joung women,into whoso most secret thoughts he is obliged to enter, and his virtu is shaken. And Can it be otherwise, wh n tho cl ric has thoso intimate associations with females which the Papucy r quir It would be unreasonable to expect more from human nuturo than it is able to do. Such, however, is the situation of tho Catholic priest. "I do not say this to veil or excuse the crime, the natural result of the institution; but I think I am bound to state tho fact as it is. Sometimes the resistance is firm, and the struggle long; but at length this martyr of fanaticism, this victim of his system, and of his superiors, abandons his vow through despair, shuts his eyes, and throws himself into the slough of passion. This is the end of almost all the priests. In the beginning their conscience bitterly reproaches them. Again, they try to be faithful; they flutter, and fall; reform again, go on, and fall again; and at length, to finish this horrid struggle, they remain in vice. Let us add to this catastrophe, the temptations against their faith and doctrines, which end with many in complete atheism, into which they fall by the excess of degradation, temptations to atheism in those who reason, from the impossibility of reconciling their faith with reason. "The resolution being taken of enjoying life, as they say, after having been so long deprived of it, the only question is to enjoy it saJely and secretly-namely, without dishonour. Dishonour, in a French priest, is more intolerable than death; and a priest whose excesses are known, loses his reputation; therefore he neglects nothing to hide carefully both them and his victims from observation. Inconceivable mystery of the human species! This obligation of keeping a profound se. cret, is the best reason which he puts for" ard to seduce them; other Frenchmen, by their vanity, boast of their bcm'nesfor-

8'

173

1'OPERY DELINEATED.

tunes.: but the priest cannot make that boast, because he would he laughed at. His hypocrisy and care of his fame prevail over his national vanity. In this manner, through their dark ministry, they have immense power upon the minds of women; for they attack only those whose disposition they have long studied in confession. The reader can have some just idea of this power from the following fact, knowing, as I did, the individual when it became. public :-A priest, in a parish not far from mine, laid his snare for a young married woman, who had the reputation of piety, because she attended mass every morning. He, through his diabolical arguments, triumphed over her scruples. She went to him in the vestry almost every morning before the bell rang to call the people to mass. He confessed and absolved her, and she received the communionat the altar. The good people said, admiring her daily practice, 'How pious is this young wife, she partakes of the sacrament every day; she is doubtless a saint !' "There are no means which their cunning does not invent to meet with victims. If the husband is jealous and suspicious, his wife, upon the advice of the curate, will feign to be sick; and as it is the duty of the priest to visit often -every day if possible-his sick parishioners, he will remain alone with her to speak upon spiritual subjects in appearance, or to confess her. "Our laws forbid us keeping a maid servant who is not of a certain age. This age varies according to the whim of the bishop, who is the supremo director of every thing. On this plan the rule would be useful if properly executed; but owing to priestly artifice, there is no real law, and it does not prevent priests from keeping young and beautiful servants with whom they li'ueas with a wife. If, however, her youth violate too strongly the Episcopal rule, the priest applies directly to the bishop, to whom he will say, that his servant is, 'perhaps, a little young; but on account of her faithfulness and other good qualities, it would be difficult for him to find another who suits so well. 'How old is she?' says his lordship, flattered by this mark of submission. 'My lord, between thirty and forty,' answers the priest, making her older by ten or fifteen years than she really is; and the bishop, who has not the proof to the contrary, and who requires not the record of her birth, replies, ' It is a little young; but, however, on

174

:\'OPERY

DE1.INEAT~1J1

account of her good qualities, I give you a dispensation on account of age: take care of scandal, and remember that a woman drove Adam out of Paradise.' The priest boasts of such a dispensaticn, and avoids being accused to the bishop by his spies. " Consequently this half ecclesiastical couple will be careful of scandal. To avoid the suspicion of living too friendly, the better to keep up appearances, they will feign ill-will toward each other. Sometimes the vicar, when he has some of his parishioners at his house, will pretend to be angry with his servant, and threaten to dismiss her: his good, hort-sighted peasants try to calm his countetfeited anger, to soften him, and to pray him to keep her. Good people I " The age law does not apply to curates who have at homo their mothers, sisters, cousins, or nieces; consequently they are at liberty to hire young servants. Moreover, a priest is always stationed as far as possible from the place of his birth. He is quite unknown as well as his family, in the parish; many times he wiII take with him a young girl who is his relation only by Adam, and whom he presents under the title of cousin or niece; None inquire the relationship of the curate and his pretended cousin. If, however, there happen proof of too intimate understanding, he will send bel' under some jesuitical pretext to a distant city for a time, or he will try the use of medicine. A physician said to a priest, 'Sir, I have already twice prescribed for your servant maid, but beware, I wiII not do it a third time.' 'Other priests commit greater and more horrible crimes, and renew the monstrosities of the cities of theplain, as they are spoken of in the Bible. On one occasion, I confessed some young lads of my catechism,from eleven to fifteen years old. Each of them acknowledged abominable crimes. I inquired, trembling. I observed that no crime could deter a priest from its commission, if necessary to obliterate the trace of others. A Paris journal gave lately a striking proof of this. A priest of the diocese of Dijon, department of the Cotedor, De la Collonge by name, after a long life of debauchery with a young sempstress whom he had seduced, smothered her one night, cut her body into pieces, and hid them in holes in his house. This is not a history of old times, but of the year 1836. Some twenty years ago, the whole of France resounded with the before unheard of crime of Contresotto, a monstel' priest with a 176

POPERY DELU'EATED.

human visage; and that of Mingrot, wbo, being unable to seduce a female, first killed her, and baving violated her dead body, cut it into pieces and di persed tbe fragments." After alluding in g neral terms to the licentiousne s of Cardinals, Archbishops, and Bi hop, be Hays, .. I could give account of other prelate, but I have made it rul to speak only of wh t I know and bavo n, Th r for I dv rt only to th Arehbi hop of Pari, who cut so d plorabl Ii re in tho t c un i], alled th marilla, wbi h d troy d th thrun f harl 8 ., by dint f it. folli • H h all th dupli -ity lid hypocrisy of 0. C t councillor. nder tho v i1 of pi ty nd virtu ho con 'ula d p corruption. 0 f r d he 0 in hi J uitie, 1 art, tbat mallY a Parisian who may ad thi boplr, will probably judg m slanderer : it is, however, tru , that I have by accident b en personally acquainted with one of his mi tres e. It i al 0 truo tbat his highne ha many other in the convent of the Carmelite , in the Street t Jaques, his erag1io. When several years ago the mob in Paris, in one of those awful in urrections ISO fr quent, passed over hi palace and pillaged it, many gown. which were not tbe least like a prie t's cassock, were found in his cabinet. His confidants publi hed tbat tbey were those of his sisters, who, by the way, never went to his palace."* .. I remember a saying of a regular abbot of a monastry in Italy, who talking with me about women, said, 'that it was tter to have noue than any;' and having demanded of him what ho meant by th se words, 'Because,' said he, 'wlien a perlon il I ot tied to one, lie -may make use of many.' This you will say wa a fine piece of morality; and to give this prelate his due, his practice w Tery conformable to hi· doctrine. lIe nt rtained above a re of women with the revenues of bis abbey ; bo bud many country hou ,whi h he turned into as JDllJlY brothel-bou e for him If and his friends, where he splendidly entertained them; nnd tho exce sive xpen e be was at in t)] 0 rlae of pleasure, procured him tbe surname of L ·beral. But he was not of the same humour towards bis poor farmers, wbo laboured bard to make tbe best of his incomes, und to till his ground, for he was to them an insatiable exactor and oppressor, insomuch that they could scarcely get out of him some part of the money which was of right due to them. These poor
176 • Confessions of a French Catholic Priest, pp. 1.."6-142.

POI'X&Y DELI.!rEA.TED.

POPERY

DELINEATED.

told him, that since it was not lawful for him to take any cognizance of the affairs of monks, he was willing so far to honour ~hem, as to make themselves the judges of their brethren; and so ordered him, with his wenches, at that very instant, to be carried in the same posture to St Michael in the Wood, a monastery of the same order, about a canon-shot distance from the city. It was about one of the clock in the morning when all this goodly train arrived there. The serjeants knocked with that violence at the gates of the monastery, and made such a hallowing and shouting, that the abbot himself was fain to rise and to go, accompanied by all his monks, to the great gate, where he met with a sight he had little dreamed of. He at first would not acknowledge the old abbot for his brother, upon pretext, forsooth, he was in his night-gown, without the habit of his order, and refused to receive him into the monastery; but the serjeants told him, that if he was so resolved, they had no more to do but to carry him back again to the archbishop, who would not fail to send for his habit, and send him back the next day at high noon in his prelate's habit, and accompanied with is doxies, as now he was. The abbot perceiving that nothing could be gained this way but a double reproach and confusion, commanded his friars to go and unloose him, and so admitted him into the monastery, and let the women go. The penance imposed upon this abbot for the affront ana scandal he had given, was this-to abide fifteen days in the monastery without stirring abroad, which was the more easy for him to submit to, because the noise of his gallant story being spread through the whole city, he could not well any sooner, without great shame and confusion, have appeared in the streets. The general, who might easily have deposed him from his charge of abbot, was of opinion, that for so light a fault as this, it was not worth the pains to> proceed to so rigid a censure; and thus by a spirit of charity, which would not permit us to do that to another which we would not have others do to us, especially when we find ourselves in the same circumstances, contented himself to make him exchange his abbey for some time, and entertained him at his own monastery of Mount Olivet • .. I have given you a true and faithful relation of this history, as having been an eye-witness of part of it myself, because it happened during the time that I was in the monastery of St 178

POPERY

DELINEATED.

Michael in the Wood. This accident gave me occasion of making a very pleasantdisco very; for, upon the serjeants entering into the monastery, a young religious being, extremely affrighted, and apprehending lest they might make a narrow search into his chambers, where for three weeks' time he had kept a young lass, came directly to me, and without much considering to whom he addressed himself, desired me, for the love of God, to hide his mistress in one of the most private chambers of my apartment until the storm was over; but, notwithstanding the extreme earnostn ss wherewith he solicited my consent, I did not think it :fit to expose my own credit, to save hi. ; and knowing withal how dangerous it is to give a down-right refusal to an Italian, and more especially to a monk, I, in the mildest way I could, wished him to address himself to the apothecary of the abbey, who was a young man of his own country, and was not so scrupulous on that point as I was, The religious following my counsel, found the apothecary very ready to comply with his desire, and, without making any difficulty, took her from him, and shut her up in one of the large presses of his shop, where she continued the rest of that night and the day following in deadly fears. The young monk came to me the next morning to excuse himself, and, as it is likely, being troubled that he had given me the occasion, by the diseovery he had made to me, to believe that the rest of his brethren were better than he, he took the freedom to discover to me several things, which till then I was ignorant of, though I 'had now already continued six: months amongst them: he told me, that most of his brethren had their wenches, whom they kept in their chambers, and that they Eot them in from abroad from tisne to time, where they kept them, some a week, others a fortnight, or month, according to the bargain they had made with them, and the ability of their purse: the abbot himself was not ignorant of it; but prevalent custom had reduced things to that pass amongst them, that he was fain to wink at all, and content himself with the presents they made him from time to time for so doing. The most convenient time they had to get their wenches into the abbey, was about the beginning of the night; who, being come to a place, according to the appointment, and precisely at such an hour, the monks, who had sent for them, brought the cowl and frocks, and so dressed them in their own habit ; which done, these good friars entered
179

POPERY

DELINEATED.

all without de. tinction into the monastery in greater nu-mber than they were gone out." 'if " A contemporary, Llorente, relates, (vol.iii. chap. 28, art. 2, ed. 1817), that when he was secretary of the Inquisition, a capuchin friar was cited before the tribunal, accused of having seduced nearly an entire community of Beguines, whom he directed. To each of them he said, when they came to confession, that he had received a singular favour from God: 'Our Lord has designed a show himself to me in the holy wafer, and said to me, almost all the souls whom you direct have found favour in my sight, particularly such a one-naming the person to whom he was speaking-she is already so perfect that she has conquered all her passions, except sensuality, which torments her very much. That is wby, in order to recompense so much virtue, and that she may serve me tranquilly, I charge you with a dispensation for her, provided she make use of your minist,ry ; she must not mention this circumstance even to her confessor; it would be quite useless, since with such a dispensation she cannot sin.' Out of seventeen Beguines who composedthe community, thirteen received the dispensation, and for some time nothing transpired; but one of them having fallen sick, and being in fear of death, confessedevery thing, alleging that she had never believed in the dispensation, but had nevertheless profited by it. Had the scoundrel simply pleaded guilty, he would have got off with some slight punishment, as the Inquisition, says Llorente, always showed grea.t indulgence for crimes of this description; but, although he confessed the fact, he contended that he had done right, having the authority of Jesus Christ. 'What,' said they, 'is it likely that our Lord bas appeared to you to dispense you from observing a coinmandment of the decalogueI' 'Did he not,' said the friar, • dispense Abraham from the fifth commandment, by ordering him to slay his son; and the Hebrews from the seventh, by commanding them to rob the Egyptians~' 'But these,' replied the inquisitors, 'were mysteries favourable to religion,' , And what can be more favourable to religion,' added the impudent scoundrel, 'than to tranquillize thirteen souls, by conducting them with the divine essence to perfect union I' I remember

180

* Frauds

of Monks, pp. 318·322.

POPERYDELINEATED. having remarked to him, says father, that this singular virtue and pretty women, and not in ugly?, He answered coolly, Llorente, • But how happens it was found in the thirteen young the four others who were old or • The Holy Ghost breathes on

whomsoever he pleases?" '"
These unclean details might be multiplied to almost any length; but the above are sufficient to show the tendency of celibacy. It is such frult as every reasonable man would expect from such a plant, and it is not only natural but plentiful. Protestants, indeed, in Protestant countries, are apt to think that the priests residing among them, are chaste and holy men; and it must be admitted that their sins are not so open llS in Popish countries; but, if we are to believe their own pri ts, their misdeeds are not less frequent. .. Secrecy is their fort. Their own people, who are privy to their sins, hesitate to expose them in the eye of Protestants. If they would, they dare not, as it would ensure to them the hatred and revenge of the clergy." .. They have peculiar means of privacy, by the:confcssional, the convenience of their own houses, which are adapted to such circumstances, the secrecy which their people are bound to observe, and by their opportunities of concealing, removing, or confining their accomplices, &c.;" all conspire to the hiding of crime, and by which Protestants are kept in ignorance of'the amount of iniquity committed in those secret dens. Then the increase ofnunneriesthose hot beds of licentiousness-in our country, will increase their opportunities of crime. NUNNERY!! ~ HATEFUL NAME! ! ! The homes of virginity are they-the safeguards of maidenly purity? Nay! but the eeats of ignorance, cruelty, and crime. And these foul spots are again polluting my native land I They are a curse to any country; and, Britain, THEy'LL PROVEA CURSETO THEE. And how can these crimes be prevented? They cannot be prevented but by abrogating the unnatural and unscripturallaw of celibacy. But the priests themselves oppose'ft, with very few exceptions. And how can the contrary be expected, when almost universally they are unconverted men; they prefer, and will prefer, a law which allows them to roam at large in the wood. and cut 11 twig at pleasure. But what was the end proposed in enforcing clerical celibacy?
• Prlesl's, Women. and Families, p. 59,

181

!'Ell Y

Dl:LI

TED.

toh Th ill one

182

eaea-' I oon.tantly
183

.J'OPUY

DELe

nil.

t Dens'

fIdem. _ Idem. ....

con. xJlii.

" 10m. Yii. 30. , 3,

i'OPERY

DELINEATED.

xxi. 27. Now every sin, be it ever so small, certainly de-" fileth the soul. Hence our Saviour assures us, ' that we are to give an account for every idle word.' Matt. xii, 36. " In the Douay Catechism, the following exposition of purgatory is taught ;, Q. Whither go such as die in mortal sin 1 , A. To hell to all eternity. , Q. Whither go such as die in venial sin, or not having fully satisfied for the punishment due to their mortal sins 1 , A. To purgatory, till they have made full satisfaction for them, and then to heaven.' " Alexander Natalia, one of the most distinguished casuists of Rome, writing on purgatory, says, , That it does not at all belong to faith. (1.) Concerning the place; whether it be in this world, or upon earth, or in the dark air, where the devils are; or in the hell of the damned, or in some place under-: neath, nearer the earth; that the souls are purged. (2.) Concerning the quality of those sensible pains which the souls held in purgatory undergo; whether it be true or corporeal fire, or whether darkness and sorrow, or any other torment and sorrow inflicted by the justice of God, punishing them after a wonderful and yet true manner. (3.) Concerning the duration of these purgatory pains; how long the souls are detained there. For though Soto thought that no soul continued in purgatory above ten years, yet it is a matter altogether uncertain how mltny years these pains shalllast.'* " Cardinal Bellarmine says, ' The situation of purgatory, in which souls are cleansed, is adjacent to that in which the damned are punished: And again: ' We hold that purgatory, hell, and the abodes of fathers and of children, are subterraneous places.' Dens oracularly declares, that' purgatory is situated under the earth, contiguous to hell.' And Faber, the Romanist polemic, declares, that it ' is situated under the earth, near the centre, on the brink of hell.' .. According to Cardinal Bellarmine, all who do not believe in purgatory will be damned. Hear his language :-" We again positively assert, that purgatory is an article of faith; so much so, that he who does not believe that there is a purgatory, will

186

* Uibson's

Preservative

against Popery, vol. U. po 116.

POPERl"

DELINEATlm.

never arrive at it, but will be tortured with everlasting fire In hell." Now these extracts, which might have been considerably multiplied, clearly maintain.e-c. (1.) That purgatory is a place, not merely a state. (2r) That it is not merely a state of inU1'nal Borrow, but of external ajftiction. (3.) That it contains real fire. Some, however, vary the mode of punishment considerably, as we shall see before we have done. (4.) That none but the pious go there. There are two ways of getting out of purgatory. (1.) By suffering till they pay the very last mite, which is due to the justice of God. (2.) By the interference of the Church. Which is done either by saying masses, selling indulgences, or by the prayers, gifts, &c. of the faithful. We now proceed to prove, that the doctrine of purgat01-Y derives no support from the WQ1'd of God. " The Council of Trent affirms, that it is taught by Scripture and tradition, as well as by councils, and that through the teaching of the Holy Ghost." Taught by tradition it may be, and also inculcated by councils; but that it is taught in the Scriptures, or by the Spirit of God, we deny. And we may well deny it, when the most judicious of their own doctors do so. "Otho Frisingensis, in the year 1146, an old historian and a Roman Catholic bishop, informs us in his Chronicon: 'The doctrine of purgatory was first built upon the credit of those fabulous dialogues attributed to Gregory I., about the year 600: Bishop Fisher also saith : ' Many are tempted now-a-days not to rely much upon indulgences, for this consideration, that the use of them appears to be new, and very lately known among Christians, To which I answer, it was not very certain who was the first author of them ; the doctrine of purgatm-y was a long time unknown; was rarely if at all heard of among the ancients; and to this day the Greeks believe it not. Nor was the belief of either purgatory or indulgences so necessary in the primitive church as it is now; 80 long as men were unconcerned about purgatory, nobody inquired after indulgences.' And other divines of the Church

187

P.OPERY

DELINEATElY.

of Rome were so convinced of this, that they did not hesitate to assert the fact in their writings. " The main prop upon which the advocates of purgatorial punishment rely, is derived from the conduct of Judas Maccabeus, after his victory over Gorgias, the governor of Idumea. Having put the enemy to flight, he is reported to have visited the field of battle, in order to superintend the burial of those who had fallen in the fight." . The following is the account, beginning at the 39th verse :-" And upon the day following', as the use had been, Judas and his company came to take up the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen in their fathers' graves. Now under the coats of everyone that was slain they found things consecrated to the idols of the Jamnites, which is forhidden the Jews by the law. Then every man saw that this was the cause wherefore they were slain. All men therefore, praising the Lord, the righteous Judge, who had opened the things that were hid, betook themselves unto prayer, and besought him that the sin committed might wholly be put out of remembrance. Besides, that noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forsomueh as they saw before their eyes the things that came to pass for the sins of those that were Blain. And when he had made a gathering throughout the company to the sum of two thousand drachms of silver, he sent it to Jerusalem to offer :l sin offering, doing therein very well and honestly, in that he was mindful of the resurrection: for if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead. And also in that he perceived that there was great favour laid up for those that died godly, it wall an holy and good thought. Whereupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin." (2 Mac. xii. 39-45.) Now, in reference to this extract, supposing we were to admit that the doctrine of purgatory were clearly and fully embodied therein, it would amount to just nothing at all ; because we deny the authority of the book from which it is taken. We have already proved* that neither the Jews nor the early Christians admitted them to be of Divine authority. The very book in which the above passage is found com188

* See page 45, 46, 47.

POPERY DELINEATED.

mends self-murde"-speaks with strong approbation of suicide. This fact has only to be named to convince all right-thinking men that the Holy Spirit of God had nothing to do with its dictation. The following is the text :"Now when the multitude would have taken the tower, and violently broken into the outer door, and bade that TIreshould be brought to burn it, he being ready to be taken on every side, fell upon his swo"d, choosing rather to die manfully than to come into the hands of the wicked, to be abused otherwise than beseemed his noble birth: but missing his stroke through haste, the multitude also rushing within the doors, he ran boldly up to the wall, and cast ltimBelf down manfully among the thickest of them," (2 Mac. xiv. 41-43.) I would fearlessly ask any man, Protestant or Romanist, if such a passage were written under the inspiration of the Spirit of God? We may well, therefore, reject the whole book; and, in doing so, we are not alone; for popes, cardinals, doctors, and councils, have denied their divine authority. Then, as to the foregoing narration itself, we deny that the doctrine of purgatory is involved in it, which the following considerations prove :(1.) They died in mortal sin; for, according to the doctrines of the Romish Church, idolatry is mortal sin, and all who die in mortal sin go direct to hell; then nothing can avail them-prayers, alms, and even masses, will be in vain; so that the holy and good thought of Judas Maccabeus was useless. But it is likely he was not so well versed in these matters as the Popish clergy. (2.) The law of Moses commanded idolatry to be punished with death, without any sacrificial expiation. And if sacrifice were denied them when living, how could it avail them when dead? (3.) That part of the quotation which speaks of the act of J udas-being a. "holy and good thought," is merely the gloss of the historian, and not the words of Judas; and who the historian W!LS nobody knows. It is II great proof of the weakness of their cause to rest it upon such questionable authority. (4.) The Romanists, to make it appear more favourable to themselves, have added, in the Donny version of the Bible, the words, "for the sins of the dead." These words are not in the original. This is an important fact. Those declaimers 189

POPERY

DELINEA

TED.

of corruption, themselves corrupt! But what was the object of Judas, then, in this collection ? . We answer-a very proper one. (1.) It was to turn away the wrath of God from the li'ving, not the dead: that no future punishment might fall upon them, because of the sins of their companions in arms. Instances of this kind will readily recur to the reader's mind. The case of Achan is in point: the account is given us in the seventh chapter of Joshua. Achan had sinned in the case of the" Babylonish garment," the" two hundred shekels of silber," and the" wedge of gold." The consequence was, that because of his sin, thirty-six men fell before the men of Ai. And it was to prevent a similar calamity that Judas made the above collection, &c. Then (2.) the course which Judas took was in exact accordance with the law of God* in the case of murder, when the shedder of blood could not be discovered. Sacrifices were to be offered to turn away the wrath of God from the nation. It was on this account, also, that Judas and his men prayed that the sin of their companions might not be remembered. And, in accordance with all this, he exhorted his followers not to repeat the offence. Alas, for purgatory! If the conduct of Judas and his little army be its· main support, it may be said of it, as it is of the earth-it hangeth upon nothing. The following passage from our Lord's sermon on the Mount is also quoted in support of purgatory-" Agree with thine adversary quickly, whilst thou art in the way with him, lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily I say unto thee, thou shalt by no means come out thence till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing." Matt. v.25-26. "According to papal interpretation, the farthings are , venial sins; the payment is ' human satisfaction; and the p1'ison is 'purgatory.' To suchlamentable straits are the supporters of this doctrine reduced, that almost every text of Scripture which contains the word 'fire,' or that speaks of, or even alludes to any kind of 'prison; is seized upon with the utmost avidity, for the sake of upholding their visionary views. "The plain meaning of the precept is readily determined by the context to apply solely to this life. It simply enjoins that if there be
• Deut. xxi. 1·10; Lev. iv. 13-14.

190

POPERY

DELINEATED.

any differencebetween a man and his neighbour, it is the duty and interest of each to do all in his power to promote immediate reconciliation and peace, and not needlessly suffer an appeal to be made to the judge, where the loser may meet with paiuful, though just severity. Now, what can this have to do with purgatory 1 " But take another view, and consider the spiritual application of the injunction. It may be paraphrased to the effect that man is a sinner; that God has a controversy with him; that the present life only is the accepted, the proper time for reconciliation ; that he is in vited to return to God through Christ; that if he neglect the invitation and die in his sins, he has only to expect the righteous sentence of his judge, and that doom from which he will not escape •until he has paid the uttermost farthing.' This is a method of expressing continuity or eternity. * . "Suppose, for a moment, that a man could pay the uttermost farthing, in such case he would liquidate the debt, and his venial sins would stand in no need of that remission or forgiveness for which the papist contends. Where payment is made pardon is not required. Besides, if no one who enters purgatory is to come out 'until he has paid the uttermost farthing,' of what avail are prayers and masses for the sufferer while there? Yet we are told that by these means the dead are daily supposed to come forth discharged from all payments to
• U

If the word 'until· is always to oe understood as terminating at a certain

period, how will the Romantst, who constantly insists on the perpetual virginity of the mother of our Lord, get over the saying of 8t Ma.tthew 0. 25, 'And he knew her not till she had brought forth her first born Son ?' According to the Papistical interpretation of the word in the above passage, the Virgin Mary had children after the birth of our Saviour, which is known to be universally denied by the Romish Church. The note, however, upon Matt. L 25, in the Douay Bible, shall supply a comment on the text under review, and also exhibit a spectmen of Romtsn consistency of interpretation. "' Till she had brought/orih her first born Sim, From these words Helvidius, and other heretics, most impiously inferred that the blessed Virgin Mary _had other chf ldren besides Christ. But St Jerome shows, by divers examples, that this expression of the Evangelist was a manner of speaking usual among the Hebrews, to denote by the word 'U1Iii' only what is done, without any regard to the future. Thus it is said, l.'JUJt Noah sen; f<rrlh a raven, whith went forth and did not return TILL tne tcater, were drUG 'Up on the earth-fGen viii. 6, 7)-tbat is, did not return anymore. Also God says, I am1'ILL you grow old. (Isaiah xtvt. 4.) 'who dares Infer that God should then cease to be ? Also in 1 lIae. v. 54, Theg went 'Up W Afount Zion wilhjoyalld gladnel8, and qfferctl noloeausts, because Wit 01leo/them tOtu ,lain TILLthey had returned iT. peace-that is, not one was slain before or ofter they had returned. God saith to his divine SOn, Sit tlwu on mg right haud TeLL make thy enemies thy footstool. ball he sit no longer after I

his enemies are subdued? Yea, and for all eternity.' Let them employ the same mode of Interpretation 10 Mati. v, 26, and what becomes or Iheir purgutory I
OJ

POPERY

DELINEATED.

be made by themselves. To be sure, it is not said by the Romish Church, when the debt is to be paid; but it is said in the text, by whom it is to be paid: 'till thou,' that is, the sinner himself, not his frlends and relatives: 'till THOU hast paid the uttermost farthing :' so that all the masses and prayers in Christendom, are superfluous and nugatory. "In the interpretation which has been given above, it will be found that we are borne out by the authority of the Fathers, and even by the Romanists themselves. " Thus 8t Ambrose remarks, that the reconciliation must take place' while we are in this body: * " , He is never released from prison,' says Jerome, < who does not pay the last farthing before the end of life.' t " The comment of Chrysostom runs thus :-' Agree with thine adversary whiles thou art in the way with him-that is, in this life; for, when the way is finished, there is no longer time for repentance. Beware lest the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge to the avenging powers, and thou be cast into prison-that is, into outer darkness, being condemned, not only for thy deeds, but even for thy thoughts. Let us implore the all-merciful God, that we be not delivered up to the devils.' t "Agustine has the following exhortation:-' Induced, therefore, by these salutary reflections, beloved brethren, let us agree with our adversary while we are in the way with him-that is, let us conform to the Word of God while yet we are in this life; for afterwards, when we shall have departed hence, there will be neither room. for cont1-ition nor satisfaction. Nothing will then remain, but the judge, the officer, and the prison." " Thus also Bede :-' Until thou payest is put for infinity, just as in another place, 'Until I place thine enemies,' &c. 11 "Maldonatus :-' The way is the time of this life, the prison is hell. He will never come out, because those who are in hell never pay.' ** " Alexander also :-' It does not mean that we shall come out afterwards, but that we shall never come out. Because when the condemned suffer infinite punishments for any mor• Ambro8.lib, ix. CbrY808.D'om. lxxxii., I Bed a Jlb v., p. 12. •• 1

*

9

t Hteron. Comment. in Mare. iii., tom. 5. p- 805, tom. JOJ p.824. ,. Augustin,.Hom. v., tom. x. •• Maldonat, Comment., p. 121.

POPERY DELINEATED,

tal sin, they never thoroughly discharge them. Those of whom this is said will never come out of the prison of hell. * Some, however, understand the adversary differently. At a conference which took place in the city of Berne during the reformation in Switzerland, the foliowing argument was advanced by a Parisian doctor in support of the Papacy:" Christians," said he, "are enjoined to obey the devil; for it is said, submit to thine adversary-(Matt. v, 25)-now, our adversary is the devil. How much more, then, should we submit to the Church !" Loud bursts of laughter greeted this remarkable syllogism.t "No foundation for the doctrine of purgatory can therofore be discovered in this passage; for (1.) To the person who is in danger of being thrust into prison, it is said, ' Tnou shalt by NO MEANS come out till THOU hast paid the uttermost farthing.' This is an expression which admits of no commutation of punishment. The sinner must pay the whole debt in his own person. (2.) As the crime here spoken of is uncharitableness, and therefore a mortal sin, it cannot be said with any consistency that purgatory is the prison; because, according to their teaching, mortal sins send persons to hell. Maldonat, the jesuit, also acknowledges that 'purgatory cannot be proved from Matthew v. 25, as the prison there spoken of is hell. and not purgatory.' " Matthew xii. 32, is also quoted in support of this doctrine; where our Lord declares that " blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiveu, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." Hence the papist infers that some sins are forgiven in the world to come; and, consequently, that there must be a purgatory. Two or three very brief arguments will show the futility of their conclusion. (1.)" The text simply means that the sin in question shall never be forgiven. St Mark himself says that it ' hath never forgivenes$' -(Mark iii. 29)and St Luke, that' it shall not beforgiven:" (Luke xii, 10.) (2.) Their conclusion from this passage is contrary to the doctrine they teach-namely, that purgatory is not a place where sins are forgiven, but where sinners are punished for sins already forgiven; for they exp ssly teach that none go there but those whose sins are already remitted. By what process of reasoning,
~ Alex. nist., lib" Ix., p. 385,

t

D' Aubiinc'.

Refonnatioll,

Tol. Iv. p. 387.

193

POPDY DELnnUTED.

POPERY DELINEATED.

death, however sudden. But then, there is the priest's absolution wanting in the case of a sudden death. A fig for the priest's absolution I-the wild laughter of a maniac would be equally effectual.: Then, again, how does purgatory agree with the following glorious truth :-" There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (Rom. viii. 1.) This gives the lie to this doctrine of the Popish faith. Take another :-" Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth,"-nay, it's the popish priest; "Who is he that condemneth 1" The popish priest. " It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us." (Rom. viii. 33, 34.) True: but all this is of no avail, unless it be supplemented by purgatory. Take another :-" For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." (Heb. x. 14.) Another :-" But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was laid upon him; AND WITH IDS STRIl'ES WE ARE HEALED." (Isa.liii.5.) Yet another :-" For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not oj yourseloes: it is the gijt oj God: Not oj works, lest any man should boast." (Eph. ii, 8, 9.) One more :-" And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, 'Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest jrom their labours; and their works do follow them." (Rev. xiv. 13.) And all these. agree with 2d Cor. v. 8:- We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord." Unless they can prove that the Lord is in purgatory, they are fairly nonpluss'd, And is it possible that they can believe that Paul had "rather" be in purgatory than on earth, working for his Lord 1 The doctrine is shamefully dishonourable to God the Holy Ghost, inasmuch as the fire of purgatory is declared to be cleansing, sanctifying, and purifyin~. To the above, we may add the following from Fisher, Bishop of Rochester :-" He that pleases, let him read the commentaries of the old Greeks, and, as I suppose, he shall find none, or very rare mention of purgatory, But neither 196

POPERY

DELINEATED.

did the Latins at one time, but by little and little, conceive the truth of this thing." And again :-" For some while it was unknown; it was but lately known to the Catholic Church. Then it was believed by some by little and little, partly from Scripture, partly from revelations." Indeed, in the twelfth century many doubted its existence. " How many masses would serve to fetch a soul out of purgatory S" said a cardinal to his chaplain: to which he hi~self replied, " just as many as it wouldtake of mow-balls to heat an oven." "After this life there is no purgation," said Gregory Nazianzen. Before concluding, we will refer to a few of the absurdities and evil consequences of this doctrine. "The doctrine itself received its chief support from apparitions and false miracles. 8t Bernard writes that a certain saint, praying for a deceased sister, saw her thrice in a vision. The first time she was clothed in black, standing without the church; on the second appearance she was attired in a brown garment, just within the threshold; when he saw her the third time she was dressed in white, and standing before the altar with other saints; whence the good man inferred that purgatorial cleansing is gradual. The priests and friars have made great use of the apparition of St Jerome after death to Eusebius, commanding him to lay his sack on the corpses of three dead men, that they, rialng from the dead, might confesspurgatory, which formerly they denied. This story is found in an epistle attributed to St Cyril; but what is fatal to this asseortionis, that Jerome outlived Cyril, and wrote his life. In the Speculum Exemplorum it is said that a certain priest, in an exstacy, saw the soul of Constantinus Turritanus in the eaves of his house, tormented with frosts wnd cold rains, and that afterward he saw him climbing up to heaven on a shining pillar. A certain monk saw some souls roasted upon spits like pigs, and devils basting them with boiling lard; and shortly after they were carried to a cool place. Bishop Theobald, while standing on a piece of ice, heard the cries of a miserable soul, which informed him, that under the ice he was tormented; and that, if the Bishop causedthirty masses to be said for him in thirty days, s e shouldobtain deliverance. St Odilioheard the devil complain that tho souls of' dead men were daily snatched out of his bands by the alms and pra.yers of the liv0

197

POPEJlY

DELINEATED

.. Romanism of ltalJ'. bJ' ir Co E. Smith. Bart.

198

POPERY

D.ELDiEAT.ED.

souls, which a. tempe t seemed to toss in all directions. The unhappy spirits, unable in one part to bear the violent heat, leaped into the shivering cold, which again drove them into the scorching flame , which cannot be extinguished. A numberless multitude of deformed souls were in this manner whirled bout nd torm nted, without intenni sion, in the extremes of alternate heat and cold. This, according to th ngelir onductor wh pilot d Dritholm, i th pla of h • ti om nt fur h d f l' onf ion n,l ndm nt till th hour of deuth, All th • , how ,r, 11 t th 1 t.t Y • tlmitt to h VI n ; "hil m flY, throu h lUI, i it .11" 1 nil p' I lIy tb '011, ill lib·r t tI V /I fQT th g n t l jud mont . .. Enu w a warrior und r t ph n, in of sn I fill. Rc olvcd to UI kc r paration in St P tr1 k's pur atory for b enormity of hi life Enus visit d Ireland. Th n of od, if old chronicle ma.y be credited, appeared to the saint when he preached the go pel to the b" ti l Iri h, and instructed th missionary to construct a. purgatory at Lough Derg; and promised the plenary remis ion of sin to all who should remain a day and a night in this laboratory of atonement. Fortified by the holy communion, and sprinkled with holy water, the fearless soldier entered the gloomy cave. e< Protected by invoking the Son of God, Enus beheld the punishment of the wretched purgatorians. The groans of the sufferers soon began to stun his ears. 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; while flaming serpent pierced others with burning stings. Toad of amazing Ize and terror endeavoured, with ugly beaks, to extract the heart. of many. .10nstro deform worm, breathing fire from their mouths, devoured some with in atiable voracity. ome bung in sulpbureous flames, with chains through their feet, leg , hands, arm., and heads, or with iron hooks, in a. atate of ignition, tbrough their eyes, nose, ja.w , and breasts. Some were roasted on spits, fryed in pans, or boiled in furnaces. any were hurled headlong int-o a fetid, tumbling, roaring river; and if any raised their heads a.bove the surface, devils, running along the stream, sunk them again into the cold element. A sul199

.u

POPERY

DELINEATED.

phureous well, emitting flame and stench, threw ,men, like sparkling scintillations, into the air, and again received them falling into its burning mouth. "Thurcal's adventure is also related by Paris. Julian, who officiatedas guide on the occasion, left the body of Thurcal sleeping in bed, and took only the soul as the companion of his journey to the nether world. He wisely, however, 'breathed life into the soulless body, lest, in the spirit's absence, it should appear dead. Having settled these necessary preliminary arrangements, the two spiritual travellers departed, at night, from England to purgatory. The two disembodied companions soon winged their aerial way to the middle of the world, towards the east, and entered a spacious fabric of wonderful structure. This edifice was the general rendezvous of departed souls, and was built by Jesus the Son of God, at the intercessions of Lady Mary, his mother. The palace, of course, had a respectable architect. " Many souls in this depot of spirits, and many beyond the north wall, were marked with spots indicating their venial sins. The Apostle Paul sat in the palace at the end of the north wall, the devil and his guards sat without the wall, opposite the Apostle. A balance was affixed to the wall, between the Apostle and the devil, in which Paul and Satan, with precision and care, weighed the souls-the former at two weights which were bright and golden; and the latter two, which, as might be expected, were dark and smoky. When the beam inclined to Beelzebub, the guards threw the souls, wailing and cursing, into a :flaming gulf, which, of course, was . hell. This unceremonious treatment of sinners afforded fine fun to the devils, whose duty on the occasion was attended with loud peals of infernal laughter. When the beam inclined to Paul, the Apostle introduced the soul through the eastern gate to purgatory, to make compensation for his venial crimes. "Purgatory, according to our subterranean traveller, consists of a vast valley between two walls, the northern and southern. The entrance into this ancient domain is occupied with purgatorian fire, cauldrons filled with gleaming pitch, blazing sulphur, and other fiery materials, to boil or roast the souls for the expiation of their sins. These furnaces also exhaled a stench which was not very pleasing to the olfactory
200

POPERY DELINEATED.

nerves, and which caused even the disembodied souls, that on earth had wallowed in filthy grati:fications, to cough, hiccup, and sneeze. Having enjoyed the warm bath, the souls, for the sake of variety, were introduced into the cold one. The unhappy exempli:fied the variations of Popery, and passed into a frosty pool, which skirted the eastern extremity of the valley. The water of this pool was icy, salt, and shivering. The spirits, according to their crimes, were immersed in this lake to the knees, the middle, or the neck. Removed from this shivering situation, the sufferer had to undergo another trial. A bridge, studded with sharp nails, and thorns, with their points turned upwards, had to be crossed. The souls walked barefooted on this rough road; and, endeavouring to ease their feet, leaned on their hands, and afterwards rolled, with the whole body, on the perforating pikes, till, pierced and bloody, they worked their painful, tedious way over the thorny path. Passing this de:filewas often the labour of many years. But this last difficulty being surmounted, the spirits, forgetful of their pain, escaped to heaven, called the Mount of Joy. " Perpetua's vision may, for the sake of variety, be added to the Tartarian travels of Drithelm, Enus, and Thurcal. This holy martyr had a brother called Dinocrates, who died of an ulcer in the face, in the seventh year of his age. His sister, in a vision of the night, saw the boy, after his death, going out of a dark thirsty place, with a dirty face, a pale colour, and the ulcer of which he died remaining in his visage. The smoky, thirsty enclosure in which he was con:fined contained a pond full of water, which, however, being inaccessible, only tantalized the thirsty child. "Perpetult knew this prison to be purgatory, and her prayers and tears day and night for his deliverance were attended with their usual success. She soon had the pleasure of seeing her brother clean, dressed, and joyful. The malady which had dis:figured his face was healed-he had obtained access to the Tartarian pool, and, from a golden cup, swallowed copious potations, and then played like a child throngh the plain. Perpetua awakening, understood that the youth was released from punishment. All this is very clear and satisfactory. The vision presents a graphic description of purgatory as a place of dirt, paleness, disease, heat, thirst, smoke, and tantalising water; and, at the same time, opens a pleasing pros201

POPERY DELINEATED.

pect of heaven as a country of cleanness, dress, health, watercups, joy, and, at least with respect to boys, of fun and frolic. " Some fishermen, it seems, during the time of a violent heat, found in the water a mass of coldest ice. This the fishermen having presented to Bishop Theobald, a naked, shivering, frozen ghost, which suffered the Hames of purgatory in this congelation, revealed, in loud outcry from its icy tenement, and begged the aid of Theobald's prayers. The bishop's intercessions soon thawed the congealment, and liberated the ice-imprisoned spirit. " Platina, in his life of Benedict, presents a view of purga· tory in the eleventh century. His posthumous infallibility, Pope Benedict, appeared to a traveller, decorated with the beautiful ears and tail of an ass, and dignified with the graceful countenance and limbs of a bear. The traveller, whoever he was, took the liberty of asking the cause 'of the unholy transformation. 'My deformity after death; replied his holiness, ' is the reward of my pollution in life: . The pontiff, according to the historian, is doomed to be dragged till the day of judgment through thorns and filth in regions exhaling stench, and sulphur, and fire." " , Since many persons; says Bellarmine, ' will not believe what they have never seen, it has pleased Almighty God sometimes to raise his servants from the dead, and to send them to announce to the living what they have really beheld. A pious father of a family, in Northumberland, died, after a long illness, in the early part of one night, but, to the great terror of those who watched by the body, came to life again at the dawn of the following day. All but his faithful and affectionate wife fled at the sight of him, and to her he communicated, in the most soothing terms, the peculiar circumstancesof his case; that he had indeed been dead, but was permitted to live again upon earth, though by no means in the same manner as before. In short, he sold all his property, divided the produce equally between his wife, his children, and the poor, and then retired to the Abbey of Melrose. He there lived in such a state of unexampled mortification, as made it quite evident, eveu if he had not said a word on the subject, that he had seen things, whatever was the nature of them, which no one else had been permitted to behold. ' One,' said the old man, 'whose aspect
202

POPERY

DELINEATED.

was as of light, and his garment glistening, conducted me to a valley of great depth and width, but of immeasurable length; one side of which was dreadful beyond expression for its burning heat, and the other as horrible for its no less intolerable cold. Both were filled with souls of men, which seemed to be tossed, as by the fury of a tempest, from one side to the other; for, being quite unable to endure the heat on the right hand, the miserable wretches kept throwing themselves to the opposite side into the equal torment of cold, and thence back again into the raging flames. This, thought I to myself, must be hell: but my guide answered to my thought, that it wa. not so. This valley, says he, is the place of torment for the souls of those who, after delaying to confess and expiate their sin., have at length, in articulo mortis, had recourse to penance, and so have died; these, at the day of judgment, will be admitted into the kingdom of heaven, by reason of their confession and penance, late as it was; but, meanwhile, many of them may be assisted and liberated before that day, by the prayers, alms, and fastings of the living, particularly by the sacrifice of the mass.' " One more instance is given by the Cardinal, as a proof of the possible duration of the pains of purgatory, even to the day of judgment. He quotes from the Life of 8t Ludgardis, written by the same author as that of St Christina. 'About this time, Pope Innocent IlL, after having held the Lateran council, departed out of this life, and shortly-afterwards appeared to Ludgardis. She, as soon as she beheld him, encircled with a vast flame, demanded who he was; and, on his answering that he was Pope Innocent, exclaimed with a groan, , What can this be? how is it that the common father of us all is thus tormented l' 'The reasons of my suffering thus; he answered, ' are three in number; and they would have consigned me to eternal punishments had I not, through the intercession of the most pious mother of God, to whom I founded a. monastery, repented, when in extremis. As it is, though I am spared eternal suffering, yet I shall be tortured in the most horrible manner to the day of judgment; and that I am now permitted to come and pray for your suffrages is a boon which the mother of mercy has obtained for me from her Son.' With these words he disappeared. Ludgardis not only communicated to her holy sisters the sad necessity to which the
203

T 'DJ:I.DnI~ n:Do

POPERY DELINEATED. turn it to money. Now the poor country people being extremely simple and ignorant, and the persons employed to receive their charity being very subtile and crafty, make them believe what they please themselves, and abuse them extremely. I overheard once a poor country woman, who gave some hemp to some of these crafty collectors, saying, ' she was very sorry she could not give them enough to make a great shift of ;' but one of the quest men told her that they would take care to make a little shift of it, for some small soul in purgatory. They turned their heads and laughed at the simplicity of this poor woman; but not one of them had the charity to inform her better." * Purgatory was called by Bishop Latimer, "pick-purse"-and he adds, " I dare boldly say, there hath been no emperor that hath gotten more by taxes and tallages, of them that were alive, than these the very and right begotten sons of the world, got by dead men's tributes and gifts." t The evil consequences of this purgatorial chimera, are neither few nor small. It is a blasphemous disparagement of the free grace of ~d; it denies the fnIness of Christ's satisfaction; it Iessens the horrid nature of sin; it advances human works; it makes people less careful about preparing for death, and makes good men afraid to die. 0 POPERY! Thou combination of superstition and fraud! thou foster parent. of ignorance and fanatiCism! thou personification of cunning and cruelty ! Thou master-piece of Satan's workmanship! MY SOUL ABHORS THEE!! I tUNt from thee with UNUTTERABLEOATHING!! L and, with a thankful heart, contemplate the undying fruits of the GLORIOUS REFORMATION!! I The blessings it has conferred upon Great Britain, and through Great Britain upon the world, are numberless. And its best-its richest gift, is the BIBLE. It has taught us how guilty sinners may be reconciled to God; it has made the way to heaven plain; and guided millions to the skies. And, this book is mine-MINE, responds my heart! and thanks God for the" unspeakable gift." And in it I read, that, " to be absent from the body, is to bepresent with the Lord ;" therefore, truly, "Ble,scd OIT'e the dead that die in the Lord, from henceforth; yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow
.. Prauds of Monks, pp.214-216.

t Latimer'. Sennous, vol,

i.

206

POPERY

DELINEATED.

them." But, if their be a purgatory, why then farewell the hope that maketh not ashamed! Farewell calm assurance of God's love! Farewell joyful anticipation of our last moments ! Farewell all foretaste of heavenlyblessedness! Farewell that influence which has lighted up the chamber of death with the glow of paradise I Earewellall the raptures and triumphs of piety !" But, if purgatory be a lie-a pick-purseWhy, then,
.. Tho ohambor whero tho good man m ta his fat., 18 prlvUeg'd boyond III common walk or vlrtuouillfc, quite tulhtv.l01 U".VfN."

\,I'

201

POPERY DELINEATED.

CHAP. lX.-SUPREMACY

OF THE POPE.

IN entering upon the subject of the POPE'SSUPREMACY, is it necessary to state, that this is a point on which it is difficult to ascertain the real sentiments of the Romish Church. "Members of the Church of Rome are remarkably confused in their creed respecting it, though a subject on which unanimity is of the utmost importance. The nature and extent of the prerogative is yet controverted, and no question has caused so many disputes as this, even among Romanists." And it must be admitted that "this disagreement of doctors, councils, synods, bishops, and pontiffs, respecting the supremacy, is presumptive evidence against it. If a man sue for a piece ofland when neither himself nor his advocates can tell where it lies, how it is bounded, and from whom it was conveyed to him, his title must rest on a very slender foundation." Yet this is the position of the Romanists. " They cannot decide with any accuracy on either the nature or extent of the Pope's supremacy. It has baffled all their infallible modes of deciding controversies. Scripture is silent on this doctrine-tradition leaves it uncertain-z-councils contradict each other--divines are continually wrangling-and the most serious members of their communion are in a state of painful hesitation and anxiety." And, strange to say, this is true of that Church, which is continually boasting of her unity, the certainty of her doctrines, and which maintains that controversies should be decided, and that these advantages are peculiar to herself; nevertheless, even the Romish Ohurch allows controversies of considerable importance to remain unsettled. It is difficult to be accounted for, that this Church should be infallible on a multitude of minor matters, and yet, on a subject of such vast importance, their infallibility should have forsaken them. Yet so it is. " In consequence of this uncertainty and di versity of opinion, the Pope and his partisans, in modern times, have studiously
208

POPERY

DELINEATED.

avoided any decisive course which might involve controversy. Hence the anathematizing Council of Trent, which was not backward to decide upon disputed topics, waived this. The Legates of the Pontiff were enjoined to advertise the Council, that" they should not, on any cause whatsoever, dispute respecting the Pope's authority. The influence of the Pontiff and Council was not sufficient to decide on another subject. The Council having incidentally enacted, that a prince should be excommunicated, and deprived of the dominion of that city or place where he might permit a duel to be fought, the prelates of France, in the Convention of Orders, A.D.j1695, declared such decree, as well as others, as an infringement on the king's authority. 'If The opinions, therefore, concerning the authority of the Pope are very contradictory, and are likely so to continue." All that we can do, then, is to refer you to some of the opinions held, and, as far as necessary, attempt a refutation. " Some RO'1nanistsasc-ribeto the Pope an absolute, universal, and boundless authority over all persons, and in all matters, both spiritual and temporal, conferred upon him by Divine right; so that all are obliged, in conscience. to believe whatsoever he doth authoritatively dictate, and to obey whatsoever he commands," And this is-if any can be said to be-the opinion of the Church. According to this :-" If princes or magistrates refuse obedience to the will of the Pope, he may excommunicate, depose, and extirpate them. If he require subjects to hold no communion with their sovereign, to renounce all allegiance, abandon, oppose, and persecute him, even to death, he must be obeyed, under pain of anathema or damnation. If he forbid whole nations worshipping God, they must submit" And thus the Pope is above God himself, as he can suspend what is due to him at pleasure. 0 monstrous audacity! " Bellarmine, in enumerating the several notions which" have been" entertained on the supremacy, says, • The first opinion is, that the Pope, by divine right, hath supremepower over the whole world, both in ecclesiastical and civil affairs. This is the opinion of Augustinus Triumphus, Alvarus Pela-

o

* Du PIn,

Ecc!. Blst.

209

POPERY

DELINEATED.

gius, Panormitanus, Rostiensis, Silvester, and many others.". Augnstinus Triumphus, referred to by Bellarmine in the preface of a work on ecclesiastical power, which he dedicated to Pope John XXII. observes, "that it is an error not to believe that the Roman Pontiff is pastor of the universal church, the successor of Peter, the lawful vicar of Christ, and that he hath not universal supremacy over temporal and spiritual affairs. Into this error many fall, through ignorance of this power, which is infinite, because 'great is the Lord, and great is his power, and of his greatness there is no end;' for every created intellect is found deficient in his sight:t "The leading theologian of the Papacy, the angelical Doctor, Thomas Aquinas, says, 'In the Pope is the summit of each power: ' When any prince is denounced 'excommunicate on account of apostacy, by his decision his subjects are immediately freed from their subjection, and oath of allegiance to him:t The same divine, on the rule of princes, affirms that the Pope, by divine right, hath spiritual and temporal power, as SUPREME KING OFTHEWORLD; that he can impose so taxes on all Christians, and destroy towns and castles for the preservation of Christianity.§ '.' Ferraris says, 'The Pope is of such dignity and highness, that he is not simply man, but, as it were, God, and the vicar of God. Hence, the Pope is of such supreme and sovereign dignity that, properly speaking, he is not merely constitnted in dignity, but is rather placed on the very summit of dignitics. Hence also, the Pope is Father of Fathers; and he alone can use this name, because he alone can be called 'Father of Fathers,' since he possesses the primacy over all, is truly ureater than all, and the greatest of all. He is called 'MosT HOLY,'(!) Bishop of Bishops, Ordinary of Ordinaries, universal Bishop of the Church, Bishop or Diocesan of the whole world, divine Monarch, Supreme Emperor, and' KING OFKINGS.' Hence the Pope is crowned with a triple crown, as King of Heaven, of Earth, and of Hell. Nay, 'the Pope's excellency and power is not only about
• Bel1arm. Opera, 10m. f.; lib. v, enp. 1., col. 887. t Aug. Tri. de Potest., &c. ; Thom. !JUDI. 'I'beol., PillS ii., qll.I2. arl. 2. f n"rrow'. Trealise, &c., vol, vii. pp. 5-6.

210

PotERY DELINEATED. heavenly, terrestial, and infernal things, but he is also above angels, and is their superior; so that, if it were possible that angels could err from the faith, or entertain sentiments contrary thereto, they could be judged and excommunicated by the Pope. The Pope is, as it were, God on earth, the only prince of the faithful of Christ, the greatest KiJng of all kings, possessing the PLENITUDEpower, of to whom the government of the earthly and heavenly kingdom is entrusted. * Hence, it is not wonderful, if to the Roman Pontiff, as the vicar of him who e is the earth, and its fulness, the world, and all thoy who dwell therein, be attributed supreme authority lind power, not only the spiritual, but also the unsheathed material sword, just cause being assigned for transferring empires, breaking eceptres, and taking away crowns."t Baronius says, that " 'there can be no doubt but that the civil principality is subject to the sacerdotal.' And again: • God hath made the political government subject to the dominion of the spiritual church.' "t "Peter Dens says, 'The Roman Pontiff is called by this name, not only because he has the supreme honour and dignity in the Church, but especially, because he hath the supreme and universal authority, power, and jurisdiction over all bishops and the universal Church.' Again: • The Pope hath the plenitude of power, so that his power extends itself to all who are in the Church, and to all things which pertain to the government of the Church. Hence it follows, that all the faithful, also bishops and patriarchs, are bound to obey the Roman Pontiff; he is, moreover, to be obeyed in all those things which concern the Christian religion, as well in faith and morals, in rites, .ecclesiastical discipline, &c. The Pope hath also, not .only a directive, but also a coactive, power over all the faithful.' "§ " Some Romanists ascribe to the Pope," in opposition to the foregoing authorities, "very limited pOUlel's,especially in temporal or civil affairs. " Bishop Milner says, • It is not, then, the faith of this Church, that the Pope has any civil or temporal supremacy,
• Let the reader compare this abominable blasphemy with the marks of Antichrist, as stated in 2 Thess. Ii, 4. t Ferrurts, Btbltceb. Prompt., TOrb. Papa, art. Ii. sect. 1-29. ~ Baronil Annal Eccles. tom. t, § J) ..... Theel. tom. ii. No. 00-114.

:.11

POPERY

DELINEATED

by virtue of which he can depose princes, or give or take away the property of other persons out of his own domain; for even the incarnate Son of God, from whom he derives the supremacy which he possesses, did not claim, here upon earth, any right of the above-mentioned kind; on the contrary, he positively declared that his kingdom is not of this world. Hence, the (Roman) Catholics of both our islands have, without impeachment even from Rome, denied upon oath that the Pope hus any civil jurisdiction, power, sup riority, or preininence, directly Qr indirectly, within this realm. (Great .Britain.) But it is 'Undeniable that different Popes, in former "titS, have pronounced &entencdof dellosition against certain co'lltcffilJO)'UI7/ princes, and great numbers of theologians have held (though not as a matter of faith) that they had a right to do so.' .,* And has the Pope of Rome ever denie(l his right to do so? NEYER. And what is the authority of Bi hop Milner, or all the bishops in Great Britain and Ireland, compared with those we have given on the other side? But further :-" Bishop nay observes that, • The Pope is the supreme head and pastor of the Church under Christ, the spiritual father and teacher of all Christians, with full power to feed and govern the whole flock; therefore, he is the supreme judge and lawziver in all things relating to religion, whether as to faith, manners, or discipline. And all the members of the Church are obliged to pay the greatest respect, veneration, and obedience to his decrees and orders in all things belonging to religion.' "t This extract from Bishop Hay, virtually nullifies the foregoing from Bishop Milner. The reader will observe, that Bishop Hay gives the Pope supreme authority over the whole Chureh ; but says not a word about the civil authority claimed by former Popes. And if, as Bishop Hay observes, " All the members of the Church are obliged to obey the de Teesof the Pope in all things," that he may consider for the advantage of religion, what becomes of the oaths referred to by Bishop Milner? They would be but as the new hemp in the hands of Sampson. " From the ' declaration of the Catholic bishops, the Vicars Apostolic, and their coadjutors in Great Britain,' we give the
t Sincere Chriotian Instructed,

*

212

End of Conb'oYersy, Letter Ixt., pp. 397.398. voL L, p. 183.

�OrERY DELISE~TED.

following on allegiance to the king and obedience to the Pope ; -' They acknowledge in the Sovereign, and in the constitnted government of these realms, a supreme civil and temporal authority, which is entirely distinct from, and totally independent of, the spiritual and ecclesiastical authority of the Pope and of the Catholic Church. They declare that neither the Pope nor any other prelate. or ecclesiastical person of the Roman Catholic Church ha , in virtue of his spiritual and le iastical haraeter, any right, dir tly or indir ctly, to ny ivil or t mporal juri· di -tion, power, superiority, or 1'f min n ,or authority within this roalm ; nor has liny rigbt til int rfi r • di tly r in li -tlr, in the civil government of th Unit d Kingdom, Of ny l' thereof; nor to oppose in any mann r tho p rforman of th civil duties which are due to his :Maje ty, his h ir, nd UCl' - sors, from all or any of his Maje ty' subjects; nor to enfor the performance of any spiritual or ecclesiastical duty, by any civil or temporal means. They hold themselves bound in conscience to obey the civil government of this realm, in all things of 0. temporal and civil nature, notwithstanding any dispensation or order to the contrary had or to be had from the Pope, or any authority of the Church of Rome. Hence, we declare, that by rendering obedience in spiritual matters to the Pope, Catholics do not withhold any portion of their allegiance to their king, and that their allegiance is entire and undivided; the civil powe~ of the State, and the spiritual authority of the Catholic Church being absolutely tdistinct, and being never intended by their divine Author to interfere or clash with each other . .. The following are the opinions of the universities of the Sorbonne, of Louvain, Douay, Alcala, and alamanca, on the temporal power of the Pope, which were furnished to the English Roman Catholics at their request;" • (l.):That the Pope or cardinals, or any body of men, or any individual of the Church of Rome, has not nor have any civil authority, power, or jurisdiction, or pre-eminence whatsoever within the realm of England. ,,' (2.) That the Pope or cardiaals, or any body of men, or any individual of the Church of Rome, cannot absolve or dispense with his 1Iajesty's subjects from their oath of allegiance, upon an y pretext whatever . .. '(3.) That there is no principle in the tenet of the CaH

213

POPERY DELINEATED.

tholic faith by which the Catholics are justified in not keeping faith with heretics, or other persons differing from them in religious opinions, in any transactions, either of a public or a private nature.' " It is gratifying to find such liberal and Christian sentiments expre ed and avowed; nevertheless, they a.re at variance with the 'tandard doctrine' of the Ohurch of Rome, a, defined 1>1) her highe't eoolesiaetioal. auth070ily ; and they have not received tll.6 'anetion of the suprem« power, nor have the opposing doctrines been DI AVOWED, They are only the sentiment of modern Roman Catholic', adapted for circulation in a Protestant country; and are so modified as to leave out of sight the most forbidding parts of the supremacy, yet are so expressed as to retain its fundamental principle, which may be asserted at a future time, when circumstances may render it necessary or safe," That the above "sentiments" are at variance with the standard doctrine of the Church of Rome," any person may convince himself of, by reading the famous, or rather infamous, "BULLA ClENlE DOMINI, given at Rome, at St Peter's, in the year of our Lord's incarnation, one thousand 8ix hundred and ten:" and which has been sanctioned as recently as 1832. 'Whatever may be the professions of the bishops of the Romish Church, as to the present rights of the Papacy, it is easy to prove, that am absolute and universal power, in things temporal and spiritual, has been flaimed by sueceuive Popes for manyagu. This will appear from their most solemn declarations. and most notorious practices. "Gregory II., A.D., 730, excommunicated the Emperor Leo lsauru • because he was opposed to the worship of images. The Italians were ab olved nom their oath of allegiance to him. Baronius saith, that' he effectually caused both Romens and Italians to recede from obedience to the Emperor, and left to posterity a worthy example, that heretical princes should not be suffered to reign in the Church of Christ, if, being warned, they were found pertinacious in error.'" This is tbe highest source to wbillh this extravagant doctrine can be traced.

'" Barenfi Annal. Eccl es., tom. vi., pp. 107. 108.

214

POPERY

DELINEATED.

"Hildebrand, or Gregory YII., deposed Henry IV., in the year 1075, and repeated the excommunication in 1080. "The following is his language : ' For the dignity and defence of God's 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, some time Emperor, ., and I absolve all Christians, subject to tho empire, from that o th,' &0. "In 108 , Urban II. inculcat d the d po iti n of mp r r . Pope Pa al n., A.D., 1 9 , d priv d II Ilry 1 " nd ,it t.I hi nimi to per cut him, informing til m, tbat tb y uld not offer a more acceptable sacrifice to God. "Innocent IlL, A.D. 1212, ufflnned, 'that th pontif al authority so much exceeded tho roy III power al th sun doth th moon. He applied to the former the words of the Proph t Jeremiah ;-' See, I have set thee over the nations, and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down,' &c. This pope deposed the Emperor Otho IV." I have a list before me of forty-two Popes, who have not only claimed the right of deposing sovereigns, and absolving their subjects from their oaths of allegiance, but have acted upon it. They exercised this infamous power not less than si:x:ty-three times, upon, not fewer than fifty potentates. Several Popes have had the power of excommunicating two sovereigns. Boniface IX. exercised his authority over fou»: --one emperor and three kings. Innocent III. fulminated his anathemas against seven-two emperors and five kings. Among the sovereigns excommunicated by some of the above Popes, are six that have sat on the British throne; namely, Henry II., John, Richard, Edward, Henry VIII., and Elizabeth. " Paul II!., in 1535, and again in 153 , excommunicated, cursed, deposed, and damned Henry VIII. of England, and all who adhere to, favour, or obey him; absolved his subjects from all oaths of allegiance; commanded them all, under pain of similar excommunication, not to obey him, or any magistrate or officer under him; nor to acknowledge the King, or any of his judge. or officers, as their superior, &c. "Pius V., in the year 1570, in his bull against Elizabeth, entitled, 'The damnation and excommunication of Elisabeth,
2lfj

FOPERY

DELINEATED.

Queen of England, and her adherents, with an addition of other punishments, declares: 'He who reigneth on High, to whom is given all power in heaven and in earth, committed one holy, catholic, and apostolic church (out of which there is no salvation) to one alone upon earth, namely, to Peter, the prince of the apostles, and to Peter's successor, the Bishop of Rome, to be governed in fulness of power. Him alone he made prince over all people and ali kingdoms, to pluck up, destroy, scatter, consume, plant, and build.' 'We do, out of the fulness of our apostolic power, declare the aforesaid Elizabeth, being a heretic and a favourer of heretics, and her adherents in the matters aforesaid, to have incurred the sentence of anathema, and to be cut off from the unity of the body of Christ.' 'And, moreover, we do declare her to be deprived of her pretended title to the kingdom aforesaid, and of all dominion, dignity, and privilege whatsoever.' 'And, also, the nobility, subjects, and people of the said kingdom, and all others which have in any sort sworn to her, to be forever absolved.from any such oath, and all manner of duty, dominion, allegiance, and obedience; as we also do, by the authority of these presents absolve them, and deprive the same Elizabeth of her pretended title to' the kingdom, and all other things above said. And we do command and interdict all and every the noblemen, subjects, people, and others aforesaid, that they presume not to obey her, or her monitions, mandates, and laws. And those who shall act contrary, we involve in the same sentence of anathema.' " Thus the inHated puppy raved; but the brave Elizabeth laughed him to scorn. ,-..... But what becomes of the asseverations of Bishops Milner and Hay; and of the universities of the Sorbonne, Louvain, Douay, and Alcala, as given above, when placed beside the solemn assertions of between forty and fifty Popes, who believed their right to be divine? Those doctors say" That the Pope, &c., cannot absolve or dispense with his Majesty's subjects from their oath of allegiance upon any pretext whatever;" no, thank God, they cannot! The Protestants of Great Britain will take care of that. But this cautious form of expre _ lion is far from denying their right to do it. And is it pOIsible that any Protestant believes, that if the mitred monk of Rome had the power in Britain which the clrcumstance of
216

POPERY

DELINEA.TED.

by-gone days gave to his predecessors, that he would not claim the same right again? Such persons may rest assured that they are of those who "believe a lie." Is not their church infallible? Is .it not one of her glories, that sbe can neither err nor change? Is it likely, then, that the power claimed by the forty or fifty Popes would be denied? Suspended, it may be, as in England, where they cannot exercise it, but DENIED NEVER. In fact, the doctrine of the supreme and universal power of the Pope in all. a.tJairs, and over alt persons, has been the sentiment of al! Ponti.f!s for 800 years. It has never been denied by any Pope, at least, sinco the year 1080. All Pontiffs since that time have either declared openly in favour of it, or have tacitly consented to it; so that the doctrine may be safely charged upon all." For if any of them disapproved of such a tenet, they were bound to renounce communion with those who held it, or, at least, to check and discountenance it. But, on the contrary, they have suffered it to be maintained in their presenoe t they have patronized those who upheld it; and have frowned on such as have shown opposition to it." And don't be surprised that this doctrine can boast no higher antiquity than 800 or 1000 years. It is doubtless apostolical for all. that, although the early bishops of Rome were strangely ignorant of it. We couldgive you ampleproofofthis; but the following extract from the illustrious Bishop Otho, of Frisinghen, who flourished in 1184, may suffice. Concerning the early Bishops of Rome, he writes as follows:-"1 read and read again the records of the Roman Kings and Emperors, and I nowhere find that any of them before this was excommunicated or deprived of his kingdom by the Roman Pontiff." The fact is, that in early times, the Bishops of Rome had too much piety to entertain such arrogant sentiments. And while the Emperors retained any considerable authority in Italy, the Popes did not pretend to exercise such supreme power as they afterwards assumed. vVe have seen what Bishop Milner, and other vicars apostolic, have said on this subject, as it bears on Great Britain.. We will now show that ali Romanists are bound, in consistency ttrith their principles, to hold this opinion concem' ng the univt:rsal power of the Pont\ff; for the most celebrated councils have asserted it. viz., the IV. Lateran, under Innocent IlL, that of Lyons
217

POPERY

DELL>IEATED.

under Innocent IV., and the V. Lateran under Leo X. If, then, this doctrine has been asserted by three general councils, how can that man be a true son of the mother and mistress of all churches, who disavows it? And, however much English Papists may protest against it, " for the greater glory of the Lord," it is, and must be, a doctrine of their church, unless they will give up their infallibility. For they maintain that they cannot err in doctrine; and we have just seen that it has been established by three councils as well as Popes, and not denied by the Council of Trent. Then it must be a doctrine of the church. Hear what Mr Charles Butler says :-" The Roman Catholics believe the doctrines of their church to be unchangeable, and that it is a tenet of their creed, that what their faith ever has been, such it was from the beginning, such it now is, and such it ever will be."'if And after all that can be said, there is hardly a doctrine of the Romish Church that rests on a firmer basis-as to eouncils and Popes-than the one in question. "If, then, the Church of Rome has taught by her most accredited authorities the dogma in question, and if it be equally true that her doctrines are immutable. then is the inference plain, that the objectionable principle is retained, although, for prudential reasons, or want of power, she does not practise it." It is on this point that Protestants are universally at fault. It is from this that we are in the greatest danger. Weare continually hearing that Popery has changed; that we have nothing to fear now from such extreme views; they are much better than they were in the dark ages, &c. &c. 'When we speak thus, we forget that she claims the honour of infallibility, so that she cannot err, consequently, ;;:annot change. She is, and must be, therefore, according to their boast, unchanged and wnchangeable. Remember, in this we have not to do with facts, but principles. A thousand facts declare her mutability; and yet, aa to principles, she maintains "that what they have ever been, such they were from the beginning, such they now are, and such they ever will be." Then is it true that Paul III. excommunicated, cursed, deposed, and damned Henry VIII. of England 1 Is it true that Pius V. damned and excommunicated Queen Elizabeth of England?
218
Book of Rom. Vath. Church, p. 9.

POPERY DEL1NE~TED.

Is it true, then, that Popery is unchanged and anchangeable ? Romanists boast that it is true. Then, it is also true, that if they had the power they once had, they would to-morrow excommunicate, curse, depose, and damn Victoria herself. " If the Church of Rome do not now claim the right of deposing princes, and absolving subjects from their allegiance to them, how could Pope Gregory XVI., in the year 1832, in his Encyclical Letter, declare-' Ever bearing in mind that' the universal Church SUFFERS FROll: EVERY NOV t.T¥,' a8 well the admonition of Pope t Agatho, that, ' from what hat b n regularly defined, notlting can be taken away, no innovation introduced there, no addition mud ; but th t it InUIt b prserved untouched as to words and meaning;' it is no Ie•• absurd than injuriou8 to her that anything, by way of re toration or regeneration, should be forced upon her 0.8 n cessary for her soundness or increase, as if she could be thought obno,viOtt' to decay, or to obscurities, or any other such inconvenience." It cannot bedenied,however,but that there is, among Papists, a diversity of opinion on this subject. We have seen what the bishops, &c., of England have said. And it is well known that the French Church has never honoured its holy mother, as the old lady thought she deserved. " The Faculty of Divinity at Paris, in their declaration in 1631, maintain that the Pope has no power over the temporalities of the King, and cannot depose bishops against the rules of the canons-that he is not above a general council, and that he is not infallible unless he have the concurrent consent of the whole Church."" The French divin~s hold, " that, in spirituals, the Pope is subject, in doctrine and discipline, to the Church and a general council representing her. • They affirm, that a general council may, without, and even against, the Pope's consent, reform the Church-that the Pope may be deposed by the Church, or a general council, for heresy or schism."f The Faculty of Divinity in Paris said, " that it is not the doctrine of the Faculty that the Pope is above a general council." But Bellarmine says, "The Pope is, simply and absolutely, above the universal Church. This proposition is almost an article of faith." And, on the contrary, Cardinal Lorraine, himself
lO\ Du Pin's Eceleg. Htst., cent, xvil., p.149. t Dook of the Rom. Catb. Churcb, pp. 123·124.

219

POPERY DELINEATED.

a Frenchman, says, that all who hold the opinion of Bellarmine on this particular, are in France" branded as heretics." And again, Bellarmine says, "This opinion," namely, the opinion of Cardinal Lorraine and the French Church, "closely borders upon heresy." Thus this united, infallible Church contend: "In the first Synod of Pisa, in 1409, it was declared, • that councils may reform the Church sufficiently,both in head and members.' Accordingly, the Councilsat in judgment upon two Popes, Gregory XII. and Benedict XIII., who were contending for the Papacy, deposed them both, and elected Alexander V." The Councils of Constance and Basil uttered the same sentiments, and acted on the same principles. But we must not take the views of either the English or French divines, or both, as the standard doctrine of the Romish Church. " The doctrine contested is that which is taught in their creeds and catechisms-which their ecclesiasticalbodies, as general councils, have authoritatively defined-which their Popes have published as a standing law or rule of jurisdiction-which their subordinate synodsor councils have received -which the general tenor of their discipline and practice hold forth for general observance-which their principal theological schoolsembrace, applaud, and teach-which their chief theologians maintain-which their clergy, by solemn professions and engagements, are bound to recognise, retain, and inculcate-which all the true followersof Rome profess-and which no man can disclaim withont being a heretic, or an enemy to the Apostolic See. Such is the doctrine, and the only one, on the supremacy, which we ascribe to the Qhu-rchof Rome, and systematically oppose. ' " The views of the Papacy are defined by the Council of Florence, and Eugenins IV., to be as follows:-' The apostolical chair and the Roman Pontiff hold a primacy over the whole world; and that the Roman Pontiff is the successorof St Peter, the prince of the apostles, the true vicar of Christ, and the head of the Chnrch; and that he is the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him in Peter full power is committed, by our Lord Jesus Christ, to feed, direct, and to govern the universal Church, according as it is contained in the acts of general councils,and in the holy canons.'* Charles
220 • Cone. Labb., tom. Xii., Cone. Plorent., ..,8S. x., col. 164.

POPERY

DELINEATED.

Butler, Esq., speaking on the decree of this council, says, This is the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, on the authority of the Pope, and beyond it no Roman Catholic is required to believe.' "* The same was also maintained by Benedict XIV. and Leo X., at the head of the Council of Lateran. "The Council of Trent, also, without hesitation, affirms that the supreme power in the Church was delivered to the Popes." On this subject we only add further, the oath of fealty, which every archbishop, bishop, and all, who receive any dignity from the Pope, are under the necessity of taking. It is as follows:'" I, N., elect of the church of N., from henceforward will be faithful and obedient to St Peter, the Apostle, and to tho Holy Roman Church, and to our Lord, the Lord N., Pope N., and to his successors canonically entering. I will neither advise, consent, nor do any thing that they may lose life or member, or that their persons may be seized, or hands any wise laid upon them, or any injuries offered to them under any pretence whatsoever. The council with which they shall intrust me by themselves, their messengers, or letters, I will not knowingly reveal to any to their prejudice. I will help them to keep and defend the Roman Papacy, and the ,.egalities of St Peter, saving my order, against all men. The legate of the apostolic see, going and coming, I will honourably treat and help in his necessities. The rights, honours, privileges, and authority of the Holy Roman Church, of our Lord the Pope, and his aforesaid successors,I will endeavour to preserve, defend, increase, and advance. I will not be in any council, action, or treaty, in whichshall be plotted against our said Lord, and the said Roman Church, any thing to the hurt or prejudice of their persons, right, honour, state or power; and if I shall know any such thing to be treated or agitated by any whatsoever, I will hinder it to my power, and, as soon as I can, will signify it to our said Lord, or to some other by whom it may come to his knowledge. The rules of the holy fathers, the apostolic decrees, ordinances or disposals, reservations, provisions, and mandates, I will observe with all my might, and cause to be observed by others. Heret~c',
• Book of Rom. Oath. Ohurch, p, ng

POPERY

DELINEATED.

uhismatics, and rebels to our said Lord, 0'/' his aforesaid successors, I will, to my power, persecute and oppose. I will come to a council when I am called, unless I am hindered by a canonical impediment. 1 will by myself in person visit the threshold of the apostles every three years, and give an account to our Lord and his foresaid successors of all my pastoral office, and of all things anywise belonging to the state of my church, to the discipline of my clergy and people; and lastly, to the salvation of souls committed to my trust; and I will in like manner humbly receive and diligently execute the apostolic commands, And if I be detained by & lawful impediment, I will perform all the things aforesaid by a certain messenger hereto especially empowered, a member of my chapter, or some other in ecclesiastical dignity, or else having a parsonage, or, in default of these, by a priest of the diocess, or, in default of one of the clergy (of the diocess), by some other secular or regular priest of approved integrity and religion, fully instructed in all things above mentioned. And such impediments I will make out by lawful proofs, to be transmitted by the aforesaid messengers to the cardinal proponent of the holy Roman Church in the congregation of the sacred council. The possessions belonging to my table, I will neither sell, nor give away, nor mortgage, nor grant anew in fee, nor anywise alienate, no, not even with the consent of the ·chapte!"of my church, without consulting the Roman Pontiff; and if I should make any alienation, I will thereby incur the penalties contained in a certain constitution put forth about this matter. So help me God, and these holy gospelsof God." ~ " This instrument we produce as one of the criteria by which we may form a fair and impartial judgment of the principles of Roman Catholics, being a document of their own, and expressed in their own words. The regalities of Bt Peter may be made to contract or dilate to any dimensiO'/ls whichcircumstances and policy may command. There is an addition made to the end of this oath, in reference to the subjects ofthe British government, which is as follows: ' I will observe the foregoing oath in proportion to my conviction that it contains nothing adverse to my fidelity to the King of Great Britain and
• Barrow'. Work •• vol. vii., p, 46,

POPERY

DELINEATED.

his successors.' This oath of temporal and spiritual vassalage i. binding upon the whole ruling order in the ecclesiasticalmonarchy of Rome." "To the Pontiff, as sovereign monarch of the universal Church, appertain regalia Petri, 'royalties of Peter,' or ' royal prerogatives: as they are called in the Episcopal oath; such as the following :-to be superior to the whole Church and to its representatives, a general council; to call general councilsat his pleasure, all bishops being obliged to attend his summons; to preside in general synods, so as to propose matter for discussion; to promote, obstruct, or overrule the debates; to confirm or invalidate their decisions; to define points of doctrin ; to decide controversies authoritatively, so that none may eontest or dissent from his judgment; to enact, establish, abrogate, suspend, or dispense with ecclesiastical Inws or canons; to summon and commission soldiers by crusade to fight against infidels, or persecute heretics, &c., &c. That the Pope has claimed and exercised such prerogatives, is manifest from experieuce, and declared in the canon law." We have thus examined the doctrine of the Pope's supremacy, as far as our limits will allow. The point we have endeavoured to establish, is that which may be considered the holding of the Romish Church on the subject. Those who wish to see it thoroughly investigated, may read with profit Barrow's Treatise on the Pope's Supremacy, and especially Elliott's Delineation of Romanism. The doom of Popery is sealed. Her ruin is certain. "That gorgeous and magnificent temple, in which the mother of harlots, the great whore of Babylon, has erected her altar, and where she receives the fulsome adorations of her thousands of besotted worshippers; which is cemented by the blood of martyrs, and which resounds with the groans, and is watered with the tesrsof an oppressed and enslaved people; shall be shaken with the hand of a mightier than Samson, the edifice shall fall and bury in its ruin, every thing that offends, every thing that is opposed to the gospel of Christ, amid the grateful acclamations of an enraptured and emancipated throng." "So he carried me away in the Spirit into the wildernesss; and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked
223

POPERY.DELINEATED.

with gold, and precious stones, and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication; and upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY,
JlABYLON THE GREAT, OF THE EARTH. THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIO~S

And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, whichreigneth over the kings of the earth. And after these things I saw another angel come downfrom heaven,having great power: and the earth was lightened with his glory. And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all." (Rev. xvii, 3, 4, 5, 18; xviii. 1, 2, 21.)
.. ROME SHALL PBRJSH

PERHm ! ! write that word In thp blood that she hath spilt ! ! haled and abhorred;

Deep in

RUiN

as in

aOJLT

!"

FINIS.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful